LGTM3 On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 7:25 AM Mike Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> LGTM2 > On 1/17/24 10:24 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 9:13:56 AM UTC+1 Nonoka Muraki wrote: > >> spec PR was merged.(https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9933) >> >> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:41:31 AM UTC+9 Mike Taylor wrote: >> >>> Thanks Rakina - right now the biggest blocker is the unlanded spec PR. >>> Things should move pretty quickly once that's resolved. >>> On 1/10/24 11:15 PM, Rakina Zata Amni wrote: >>> >>> > Hoping that the design doc can become an GH explainer with the usual >>> format, as the design doc doesn't answer questions in the strucutre we like >>> to see >>> >>> Can you clarify which part isn't answered yet in the explainer >>> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md> >>> ? >>> >>> From the list in your link: >>> >>> - The user-facing problem which needs to be solved; >>> - Covered by this section >>> >>> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#background> >>> . >>> - The proposed approach to solving the problem; >>> - Covered by this section >>> >>> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#proposal> >>> . >>> - The way the proposed solution may be used in practice to address >>> the intended use cases, via example code; >>> - Pretty much covered by this section >>> >>> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#proposal> >>> although >>> there's no actual code example. We will add the code example >>> (basically >>> just an event listener using the close event) >>> - Any other venues (such as mailing list, pull requests or issue >>> threads external to the location of the explainer) where the reader may >>> catch up on discussions regarding the proposed feature or features; >>> - The issue <https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1766> is linked >>> from the explainer. >>> - The alternatives which have already been considered and why they >>> were not chosen; >>> - Covered by this section >>> >>> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#alternatives-considered> >>> . >>> - Accessibility, security and privacy implications which have been >>> considered as part of the design process. >>> - Security & Privacy is covered by this sectio >>> >>> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#tag-security--privacy-questionnaire-answers>n, >>> and there is no accessibility implication introduced by the new event. >>> >>> >>> Please let us know if there are any parts that need further >>> clarification. >>> >>> (BTW just to update the thread, the TAG review >>> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/923> has been >>> requested last month) >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 1:49 AM Alex Russell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 to Yoav's excitement about this. Thank you for pushing it forward. >>>> >>>> On TAG review, we're living in hope that the newly-expanded TAG will >>>> have more bandwidth and focus for reviews, but as Mike says, we're >>>> increasingly timing out. Filing for review at I2P time is always the >>>> pro-move, and I it's a bad look for us to be leaving it to late regardless. >>>> >>>> Hoping that the design doc can become an GH explainer with the usual >>>> format, as the design doc doesn't answer questions in the strucutre we like >>>> to see: >>>> >>>> https://w3ctag.org/explainers/ >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:46:20 AM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gentle reminder to request approvals for the other review gates in >>>>> chromestatus, thanks. >>>>> On 12/1/23 1:05 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/30/23 10:56 PM, Fergal Daly wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:23:12 PM UTC+9 Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 12:31, Nonoka Muraki <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> TAG review >>>>> >>>>> Not needed because This is a small feature where we just dispatch a >>>>> new event. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately that's not a criteria for skipping a TAG review. Can you >>>>> file one? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm concerned by this because every TAG review I've seen in the last >>>>> couple of years has taken months to get a response. If our own privacy >>>>> review is positive and we have agreement with other vendors would we block >>>>> on the TAG review? >>>>> >>>>> In practice, we don't block on TAG reviews, but we like to give them a >>>>> chance to review or comment within a reasonable time period (typically a >>>>> week or two). >>>>> >>>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/28299184-c2d1-4000-be13-f7489a5a242b%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/28299184-c2d1-4000-be13-f7489a5a242b%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw-htxqRRYZEeCM1akkyXPMRMLCobcL_W%3D72BTRnKHJfLg%40mail.gmail.com.
