Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
    Michiel Bijl
    @MichielBijl
    -.-
    Michael[tm] Smith
    @sideshowbarker
    @yoavweiss I don’t actually buy the claim that they can’t participate without a CLA, and anyway I believe that’s not actually the reason they want to take the work elsewhere
    I wish I could take the claims at face value but unfortunately I have reason to believe they shouldn’t be taken at face value
    but I don’t want to generate further churn about it
    people are gonna do what they’re gonna do
    I think it was a mistake for me to weigh in on the discussion around this at all
    so I will try to avoid inserting myself into it further
    but overall I think there is already very strong momentum in the WICG with a bunch of great new work coming in that is in fact clearly original and not divisive
    and I would really hope to not see the ongoing forking drama spread into the WICG and poison the other good work that well all are in agreement about in princple
    Michiel Bijl
    @MichielBijl
    I had hoped for more enthusiasm for the TPAC thing.
    Only two people have replied to Jonathan's thread (including me).
    Ade Bateman
    @adrianba
    We're happy to have MSFT people discuss stuff at TPAC
    I'm a little worried about encouraging people to travel to Portugal for a 2 hour meeting
    So for us it will be based on who is there
    But we'll likely have a good set of people
    Chris Wilson
    @cwilso
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'll BE there, and happy to meet; just not sure how productive "WICG" is to meet as a group.
    incubators unite?
    Ade Bateman
    @adrianba
    That would be concerning.... ;o)
    Chris Wilson
    @cwilso
    Incubators untie?
    about the idea for doing a Hardware Security API of some kind
    please consider posting a follow-up there if you also want to give them some encouragement to try taking the idea to the WICG
    (instead of them creating a completely new separate WG for it)
    I confess I don’t really understand at all what kind of API they are imagining and how it would be different from the FIDO-related stuff
    but WICG would be a good place to get the ideas discussed enough for somebody to hopefully take a shot are writing up an actual spec
    or really I don’t at this point even understand what new problem it is that they are aiming to solve
    it’s not clear to me that they themselves know
    Michael[tm] Smith
    @sideshowbarker
    @yoavweiss @marcoscaceres @cwilso
    Marcos Cáceres
    @marcoscaceres
    @sideshowbarker, that seems outside the WICG TBH
    Michael[tm] Smith
    @sideshowbarker
    @marcoscaceres well I think by creating a whole new CG for it they’ve ensured that the odds of it actually resulting in anything useful are marginal
    which is maybe not such a bad thing, given that it’s not clear at all what they actually want to do or whether it’s a good idea
    For any brand-new ideas that any third parties want to actually get implemented in the Web runtime, in browser engines, it seems like the WICG is the place to take the ideas, since reps from all browser projects are already participating in the WICG and supporting it in principle
    and by third-parties I mean anybody who’s not themselves part of browser project, because in that case they know enough to decide whether they should start a whole new CG, like the Web Bluetooth CG, or if it’s better to take it to the WICG or the WHATWG
    Chris Wilson
    @cwilso
    Yeesh, dunno how I missed this whole thread the first time. I'll claim Google I/O-related focus issues. :)
    @sideshowbarker I agree that this is probably far less than optimal - because a main problem with the HWSWG proposal was its disconnection from the browsers and other WGs doing things in this space. Your statement "For any brand-new ideas that any third parties want to actually get implemented in the Web runtime, in browser engines, it seems like the WICG is the place to take the ideas, since reps from all browser projects are already participating in the WICG and supporting it in principle" is spot-on.
    The Bluetooth CG predates the WICG - otherwise, we would have worked on it in WICG.
    The WICG isn't intended to replace every other CG for incubations - it's okay to create a different one, if there's a reason to - but given what the hwsec effort's weaknesses are (imo), yeah, I kinda feel they're playing to their weaknesses not their strengths.
    Michael[tm] Smith
    @sideshowbarker
    @cwilso yeah and I guess I should not lose any sleep over yet another thing going off into a corner where people just spin their wheels and nothing ever comes of it
    and I should be grateful it was successfully prevented from becoming yet another useless WG at least
    Peter Rushforth
    @prushforth
    Hi WICG admin people... I am writing a blog post, and I had the idea that I would ask for comments in the WICG forum. Is there an API that is easy to use that could put that conversation in the comments section of the post, too?
    I see there is an API. Nevermind I will try to figure it out. Cheers.
    Tab Atkins Jr.
    @tabatkins
    @marcoscaceres @cwilso Yo, CSSWG resolved to migrate Scroll Anchoring from wicg to csswg. What do I need to do? https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017May/0055.html
    Marcos Cáceres
    @marcoscaceres
    @tabatkins you need to fill out one of these: https://wicg.github.io/admin/intent-to-migrate.html
    and mail it to the CSS WG. Then you (or whoever owns that) can transfer the repo over the CSS WG (or w3c space)
    Glad to clarify anything from the above.
    @tabatkins, you above might also mean whoever is leading the Scroll Anchoring work.
    Marcos Cáceres
    @marcoscaceres
    @tabatkins let's continue discussion here WICG/ScrollAnchoring#10
    Tab Atkins Jr.
    @tabatkins
    @marcoscaceres This form appears to be meant for people migrating things to the WICG. The "Proposal" section talks explicitly about this (referring to you having a 'basic proposal' hopefully in a GH repo), and many of the other sections are a pretty basic "early evaluation" sort of thing.
    I also, uh, already explained all of this to the CSSWG, and we have an official group resolution to take it on as a CSSWG product (detailed at my previous link). Unsure why I need to repeat this for the CSSWG to see again.
    amar
    @amar_gitlab
    Please help with documentation for Gitter IRC. Can't run any help commands. For e.g. would like to change my nickname.