RE: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

[Boris Zbarsky]

> The other feedback we received, seems to have been agreed on by the
> iplementers & WG but not documented in the spec.

Did I miss some sort of agreement on the last call comment in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0087.html 
and 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0089.html 
from back in October?


Just in case this fell through the cracks, I filed 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20582


-Boris

Re: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

[Arthur Barstow]

On 1/4/13 4:35 PM, ext Israel Hilerio wrote:

We don't see the need to go back to LC.  Most of the feedback was editorial.  The 
other feedback we received, seems to have been agreed on by the iplementers & 
WG but not documented in the spec.  We believe that addressing the bugs till the 
end of July is reasonable to move forward to CR.


Until we have a specific proposal and a clear list of differences (i.e. 
a diff and optionally a short summary of each change), we don't have 
enough information to make a decision re LCWD vs. CR.



In December Eliot and I put together a plan to address the LC comments and 
catalog the bugs that came after the LC deadline. We're already have addressed 
many of them.  Unfortunately, the holidays slowed us down a bit.  We'll put 
something together and send it to the WG if that makes sense.

Would that work?


Yes, that seems like a reasonable plan to me.

-Thanks, AB

RE: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

[Israel Hilerio]

On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>On 12/10/12 5:12 PM, ext Joshua Bell wrote:
>> Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an 
>> editor has bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution 
>> of the issues and implementations are already sufficiently 
>> interoperable so that adoption is not being hindered by the state of 
>> the spec, but should still be corrected in this version before moving 
>> forward.
>
>Joshua, Jonas, Adrian, All,
>
>If we go ahead with LCWD #2 for v1, which [Bugs] do you consider showstoppers 
>for LC #2?
>
>Does anyone object to a v1 plan of LC#2 as the next publication (after the 
>showstopper bugs
>have been fixed)? (Of course we will have a CfC for any publication proposals 
>so I'm just looking 
>for immediate feedback).
>
>Joshua, Adrian - can you (or someone from your company) help with IDB editing 
>(at a minimum 
>to address the showstopper bugs)?
>
>-Thanks, AB

Art,

My apologies for the silence!

We don't see the need to go back to LC.  Most of the feedback was editorial.  
The other feedback we received, seems to have been agreed on by the iplementers 
& WG but not documented in the spec.  We believe that addressing the bugs till 
the end of July is reasonable to move forward to CR.

In December Eliot and I put together a plan to address the LC comments and 
catalog the bugs that came after the LC deadline. We're already have addressed 
many of them.  Unfortunately, the holidays slowed us down a bit.  We'll put 
something together and send it to the WG if that makes sense.

Would that work?

Israel

Re: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

[Arthur Barstow]

On 12/10/12 5:12 PM, ext Joshua Bell wrote:
Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an 
editor has bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution 
of the issues and implementations are already sufficiently 
interoperable so that adoption is not being hindered by the state of 
the spec, but should still be corrected in this version before moving 
forward.


Joshua, Jonas, Adrian, All,

If we go ahead with LCWD #2 for v1, which [Bugs] do you consider 
showstoppers for LC #2?


Does anyone object to a v1 plan of LC#2 as the next publication (after 
the showstopper bugs have been fixed)? (Of course we will have a CfC for 
any publication proposals so I'm just looking for immediate feedback).


Joshua, Adrian - can you (or someone from your company) help with IDB 
editing (at a minimum to address the showstopper bugs)?


-Thanks, AB

[Bugs] 






On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote:


It's been a month since we talked  about the next publication
steps for the IDB spec (#Mins). Since then, I am not aware of any
work on the #LC-comments tracking. As such, here is a straw man
proposal to move v1 forward:  ...

* Forget about processing #LC-comments

* Mark all open #Bugsfor v.next

* Start a CfC to publish a new LC based on the latest #ED "as is".
(If Jonas commitsto making some important changes, that would be
fine too but I don't think we want to includeany "feature creep"
or API breaks.)

Re v.Next, I recall Jonas said he was willing to continue to be an
Editor but I am not aware of anED being created. If/when a new ED
is created, we can work toward a FPWD.

Comments?

-Thanks, AB

#Mins 
#Bugs


#ED 
#LC-comments

Re: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

[Joshua Bell]

*crickets*

Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an editor has
bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution of the issues and
implementations are already sufficiently interoperable so that adoption is
not being hindered by the state of the spec, but should still be corrected
in this version before moving forward.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> It's been a month since we talked  about the next publication steps for
> the IDB spec (#Mins). Since then, I am not aware of any work on the
> #LC-comments tracking. As such, here is a straw man proposal to move v1
> forward:  ...
>
> * Forget about processing #LC-comments
>
> * Mark all open #Bugsfor v.next
>
> * Start a CfC to publish a new LC based on the latest #ED "as is". (If
> Jonas commitsto making some important changes, that would be fine too but I
> don't think we want to includeany "feature creep" or API breaks.)
>
> Re v.Next, I recall Jonas said he was willing to continue to be an Editor
> but I am not aware of anED being created. If/when a new ED is created, we
> can work toward a FPWD.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> #Mins 
> 
> >
> #Bugs  WebAppsWG&component=Indexed%**20Database%20API&resolution=--**
> -&list_id=2509
> >
> #ED 
> 
> >
> #LC-comments  IndexedDB%20Disposition%20of%**20Comments.html
> >
>
>
>
>

[IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

[Arthur Barstow]

It's been a month since we talked  about the next publication steps for 
the IDB spec (#Mins). Since then, I am not aware of any work on the 
#LC-comments tracking. As such, here is a straw man proposal to move v1 
forward:  ...


* Forget about processing #LC-comments

* Mark all open #Bugsfor v.next

* Start a CfC to publish a new LC based on the latest #ED "as is". (If 
Jonas commitsto making some important changes, that would be fine too 
but I don't think we want to includeany "feature creep" or API breaks.)


Re v.Next, I recall Jonas said he was willing to continue to be an 
Editor but I am not aware of anED being created. If/when a new ED is 
created, we can work toward a FPWD.


Comments?

-Thanks, AB

#Mins 
#Bugs 


#ED 
#LC-comments