CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is November 13. -Art Barstow [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item04 Original Message Subject: ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications Working Group) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:35:29 +0100 From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker sysbot+trac...@w3.org Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group WG public-webapps@w3.org To: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) art.bars...@nokia.com ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/598 On: Arthur Barstow Due: 2010-11-08
CfC: to publish Web SQL Database as a Working Group Note; deadline November 13
During WebApps's November 1 gathering, participants discussed the Web SQL Database spec: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item09 As we know, this spec is at an impasse as noted in the Status section: [[ http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/#status-of-this-document This specification has reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path. Until another implementor is interested in implementing this spec, the description of the SQL dialect has been left as simply a reference to Sqlite, which isn't acceptable for a standard. Should you be an implementor interested in implementing an independent SQL backend, please contact the editor so that he can write a specification for the dialect, thus allowing this specification to move forward. ]] As such, participants in the discussions suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this is Call for Consensus to do. *Note Well: by publishing a Working Group Note, the group sends a signal to the community that work on this spec has ended* as described in the Process Document: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75 As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is November 13. -Art Barstow Original Message Subject: ACTION-606: Start a CfC to publish Web SQL Database as a Working Group Note (and hence signal the spec is no longer on the REC track) (Web Applications Working Group) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:26:07 +0100 From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker sysbot+trac...@w3.org Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group WG public-webapps@w3.org To: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) art.bars...@nokia.com ACTION-606: Start a CfC to publish Web SQL Database as a Working Group Note (and hence signal the spec is no longer on the REC track) (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/606 On: Arthur Barstow Due: 2010-11-08
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. I'd rather not add another document to the list of documents for which I have to maintain separate W3C headers and footers at this time (especially given that I'm behind on taking the other drafts I'm editing to LC). The text in the spec really belongs in the HTML spec anyway and is already published by the WHATWG in the HTML spec there, and is already getting ample review and maintenance there, so I don't think it's especially pressing to publish it as a separate doc on the TR/ page. (The contents of the doc have already gone through FPWD at the W3C, so there's not even a patent policy reason to do it.) I'm also a bit concerned that every time we publish anything on the TR/ page, we end up littering the Web with obsolete drafts (since the specs are maintained much faster than we publish them). I'd really rather just move away from publishing drafts on the TR/ page at all, if we could update the patent policy accordingly. I frequently get questions in private e-mails from implementors who are looking at obsolete drafts on the TR/ page about issues that have long been solved in the up to date drafts on dev.w3.org or at the WHATWG. If there wasn't such high overhead to publishing on the TR/ page, an alternative would be to publish a new draft there frequently. In fact, the best thing on the short term might be to publish a new REC-level draft there every week or every month or some such (probably the best interval would be whatever the patent policy's exclusion window is), since that would actually make the patent policy work again. (Currently the patent policy at the W3C is almost as useless as at the IETF since when we follow the process properly, we almost never get to REC.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: to publish Web SQL Database as a Working Group Note; deadline November 13
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: [...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this is Call for Consensus to do. I support this in principle. I can't commit to providing the draft, though. A few months ago I turned off this particular spigot in my publishing pipeline (back when I removed the section from the WHATWG complete.html spec) and I don't have the bandwidth to bring it back up to speed at this time. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
I favor publication of Web Messaging. Regards, Maciej On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is November 13. -Art Barstow [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item04 Original Message Subject: ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications Working Group) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:35:29 +0100 From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker sysbot+trac...@w3.org Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group WG public-webapps@w3.org To: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) art.bars...@nokia.com ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/598 On: Arthur Barstow Due: 2010-11-08
