Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implementation-defined and optional features #10

Closed
jyasskin opened this issue Feb 7, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Implementation-defined and optional features #10

jyasskin opened this issue Feb 7, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
charter

Comments

@jyasskin
Copy link
Contributor

jyasskin commented Feb 7, 2020

The line “Implementation disagreement should not result in implementation-defined behavior or optional features.” shouldn't appear in a charter. It's a good goal for API design, other things equal, but it's not appropriate for a charter to presuppose answers to API design questions. It's especially inappropriate at the incubation phase where

  1. having different implementations test different variations of the same API is likely to help us gather the feedback needed to define the best API, and
  2. the API will be released from this constraint when it moves to a working group that isn't covered by this charter restriction.

Some examples of APIs where this restriction would have been a bad idea:

  • Geolocation, where the design of the permission dialog is implementation-defined, and where that design has improved over time as implementations were allowed to experiment on it.
  • one-time-code where actually filling the code in from SMS is optional.
@hober hober added the charter label Feb 8, 2020
@erik-anderson
Copy link
Member

The spirit of this, as you noted, was to encourage specifying things with enough detail to ensure interoperability. Your concerns are reasonable, though, so I agree that we should remove this text.

hober added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 8, 2020
@hober
Drop sentence per #10.
0a73ce3
@hober
Copy link
Member

hober commented Feb 8, 2020

Sounds good to me. I've dropped this sentence in 0a73ce3, part of PR #5.

@TanviHacks
Copy link
Member

Removing this sentence is also fine by me.

hober added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 11, 2020
@hober
Update charter given feedback in #2, #3, #6, #8, and #10. (#5)
32bd9e8 
* Update mission on home page to match the updated charter language.
* Address a whole bunch of the feedback from issues #2 and #3.
* Improve readability a bit.
* Tweak wording re: WebAppSec per Tanvi's review of #5.
* Chairs need to be able to close Proposals for any number of reasons (e.g. moderation).
* Chairs must announce the removal of Work Items with rational for removal.
* Explicitly reference the Ethical Web Principles from our mission statement.
* Move the list of Work Items closer to the beginning of the Work Items section.
* When migrating work to a WG, the Editors and Chairs will work together to figure out what destination is best.
* Spell out more of the Chairs' responsibilities.
* Linkify 'meetings' in a couple places.
* Drop sentence per #10.
* Spell out how Chairs formally notify the group of things.
* Try to prevent data loss when closing Proposals or removing Work Items.
* Use the non-draft link for the Ethical Web Principles.
* Drop the chair maximum.
* Contributions to Proposals are also under the CLA.
* fix typo
@hober
Copy link
Member

hober commented Feb 11, 2020

Removed in 32bd9e8.

@hober hober closed this as completed Feb 11, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
charter
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@hober @jyasskin @TanviHacks @erik-anderson