Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

2016-08-09 Thread Dylan Barrell 
+1

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Léonie Watson  wrote:

> Quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day tomorrow (Wednesday
> 10th August). Thanks.
>
> Léonie.
>
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
> On 03/08/2016 15:46, Léonie Watson wrote:
>
>> Hello WP,
>>
>> This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working
>> Draft (FPWD) of IndexedDB 2.0 [1].
>>
>> We are still exploring different ways of responding to a CFC. Please
>> choose one of the following methods:
>>
>> 1. Reply by email to this thread (on
>> public-webapps@w3.org).
>>
>> 2. Reply or +1 on Github:
>> https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/84
>>
>> There is no need to use more than one method. The WP chairs will collate
>> the results across all channels.
>>
>> Please respond by end of day on Wednesday 10th August. Positive
>> responses are encouraged, but silence will be taken as consent with the
>> proposal.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team
>> [1]
>> http://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/
>>
>
>


-- 
Download the aXe browser extension for free:

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools
Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US

Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
to it. - Lou Holtz

Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-11 Thread Dylan Barrell 
+1 to publish

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Léonie Watson  wrote:

> Reminder that this CFC closes on Thursday 14th July (end of day). If you
> can take a few minutes to respond through one of the three proposed
> channels, it will help us identify the work mode that suits the WG best.
> Thanks.
>
> Léonie.
>
>
> On 05/07/2016 15:15, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
>
>> This is a call for consensus on the proposition:
>>
>> Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 -
>> https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft.
>>
>> Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses are preferred.
>> In an effort to find a smoother way to assess consensus, there are three
>> possible mechanisms for feedback, and you should pick the one you find
>> most convenient:
>>
>> You can provide a response in this email thread.
>>
>> You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the HTML repo -
>> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/515
>>
>> You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the WebPlatformWG
>> repo - https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/43
>>
>> There is no need to use more than one of these mechanisms, as the chairs
>> will collate the results.
>>
>> If many people use the issues instead of email, we will likely propose a
>> change to the work mode for assessing consensus.
>>
>> There will be a separate thread on the merits of any procedural change -
>> please *only* reply to this thread to support or oppose the FPWD
>> publication.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals, for the chairs
>>
>>
>


-- 
Download the aXe browser extension for free:

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools
Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US

Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
to it. - Lou Holtz

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-14 Thread Dylan Barrell 
abstain

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michiel Bijl  wrote:

> Looks good, +1
>
> —Michiel
>
> On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson  wrote:
>
> Hello WP,
>
> This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer
> Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit
> Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that
> were
> made after the current CR was published in 2013 [2].
>
> Please reply to this CFC no later than 21st June 2016. Positive responses
> are preferred and supporting comments (beyond just +1) are encouraged, but
> silence will be considered as consent.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and Pointer Lock editor.
> [1]
>
> https://w3c.github.io/pointerlock/#extensions-to-the-mouseeventinit-dictiona
> ry
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-pointerlock-20131217/
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Download the aXe browser extension for free:

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools
Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US

Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
to it. - Lou Holtz

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-03 Thread Dylan Barrell 
+1

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:

> +1
>
> --joanie
>
> On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
> > Hello WP,
> >
> > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML
> > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been
> posted to
> > public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG.
> >
> > Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org  no later than end
> of
> > day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence
> > will be considered as assent.
> >
> > The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that
> > make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better
> match
> > for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be found
> in
> > the spec [2].
> >
> > When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per
> > section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be
> made
> > to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, so
> we
> > will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make editorial
> > updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be removed if
> found
> > not to be interoperable.
> >
> > The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify at
> > least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the
> CR
> > and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation.
> >
> > keygen element. [issue 43]
> > label as a reassociatable element [issue 109]
> > Fixing requestAnimationFrame to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues
> > 159/375/422]
> > registerContentHandler [Issue 233]
> > inputmode attribute of the input element [issue 269]
> > autofill of form elements [issue 372]
> > menu, menuitem and context menus. [issue 373]
> > dialog element [issue 427]
> > Text tracks exposing in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461]
> > datetime and datatime-local states of the input element [Issue 462]
> >
> > Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github.
> To
> > mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June
> (ideally by
> > filing an issue and providing a test case).
> >
> > At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating
> the
> > Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for
> > Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so
> > improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes
> > that didn't make it into
> > HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the
> > specification.
> >
> > Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors.
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/
> > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes
> > [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion
> >
> > [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43
> > [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109
> > [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links
> [issue
> > 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233
> > [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269
> > [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372
> > [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373
> > [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427
> > [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461
> > [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Download the aXe browser extension for free:

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools
Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US

Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
to it. - Lou Holtz

Re: Custom elements contentious bits

2015-12-06 Thread Dylan Barrell 
Domenic,

Closed shadow DOM and its impact on test automation and auditing is also a
very important issue.

--Dylan


On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Domenic Denicola  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A bit ago Jan put together an initial draft of the "contentious bits" for
> custom elements, in preparation for our January F2F. Today I went through
> and expanded on the issues he put together, with the result at
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Custom-Elements:-Contentious-Bits.
> It morphed into a kind of agenda for the meeting, containing "Previously
> contentious bits", "Contentious bits", "Other things to work out", and
> "Other issues worth mentioning".
>
> It would be lovely if other vendors could take a look, and fill in
> anything they think is missing, or correct any inaccuracies.
>
> Over all I'm pretty optimistic that we've narrowed this down to a small
> set of issues and will be able to make progress at the F2F.
>
>


-- 
Download FireEyes Free: http://getfireeyes.com/

Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
to it. - Lou Holtz