Hi folks,
It would appear that the Selectors API is done. The spec seems to have
interoperable implementations according to a test suite (that is in the
process of being blessed), and it would seem that other implementors are
happy with the test suite even if they have bugs in their current versions.
Since the call for consensus to produce a Candidate Recommendation
following the Last Call and resolution of comments received, there has
been one substantive change to the document - removing [Null] and
[Undefined] extended attributes from IDL, added note about handling null
and undefined. It seems that there is general agreement that this change
does not materially impact the specification in practice, and we can
therefore request Proposed Recommendation.
(In parallel with this call for consensus is one that confirms we have a
valid test suite - doing these together will streamline things if it turns
out that the answer to both questions is yes)
This is a call for consensus on the question:
Noting that removing [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes from IDL
is not a significant change in practice, considering that the test suite
provide by John Resig on 2009-02-19 is a valid test suite, and believing
that we can demonstrate that the specification can be implemented
interoperably, the group should request Proposed Recommendation status for
the Selectors API spec, based on the Editor's draft version 1.97[1] (i.e.
with any necessary editorial changes but no substantive changes).
[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.97&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
Silence will be taken as assent, but for this question to carry there must
be significant explicit agreement. Please provide responses to this thread
by the end of Sunday, 15 January.
Cheers
Chaals (as chair)
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
