RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

[Anne van Kesteren:]

> 
> I don't really see how this is a helpful contribution. I fully realize
> everything is not as good as it can be (and you know I do), but we have
> limited resources and many problems worth solving. If you know someone
> that can do a better job on CORS or Fullscreen please by all means have
> them do it.

If you saw how it were helpful there would be no need to bring it up, would
there? Use-cases are actually discussed at length on mailing lists; in some 
cases they are even documented on a wiki page. But all this material is often
way too hard to find or gather for folks who aren't regular insiders. So what 
*I* don't see as helpful is the expectation that readers ought to go spelunking 
through months of mailing lists to figure out what a spec is/is not trying 
to solve. 

I'm not suggesting such content should be exhaustive, formal or even normative but 
there is a huge difference between "some of the primary use-cases this spec aims 
to solve are documented in Appendix X" and "nothing else to see here, this is for 
implementation only; if you want to know what this was meant to solve why don't you 
go search the last n years of archives because, well, we have more important problems 
to solve than making sure you really get what this is for". 

From your end I understand how this may sound like overhead since you live in these
mailing lists, write specs for a living and primarily care about the small number
of implementors whose job also includes following these daily conversations.
The result, however, is documents that can be far less useful for everyone else. And,
since even implementors can't follow everything, we also make it more likely some could