On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Nikunj, All,
Charles will respond separately regarding a way forward but I want
to respond to the false accusation below.
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:13 PM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
The WG chair went ahead with the publication of the Web Storage draft
overriding serious objections about it's direction and emphasis.
The record actually shows Nikunj saying:
[[
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/
0145.html
Oracle conditionally supports the publishing this draft as FPWD
provided that the abstract is worded appropriately.
...
Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract:
This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in Web
clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for
accessing structured data.
]]
Ian agreed [1] to make the requested change above (it is included in
the FPWD [2]) and thus addressed the only concern you raised re
publishing the FPWD.
Seeing the way things were, there was no way to stop the publication
[1]. To mitigate the negative effects of publication, Oracle made its
assent conditional. In reality, the chairs should have taken in to
account the prior reluctance to continue with the draft [2] and asked
the author to seek requirements and provide cautionary text in
prominent places in the FPWD.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0143.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0106.html
