Re: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > Ian, if there is anything I can do to help with Web Storage, please let > me know. The main thing we need, I think, is a test suite. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?
Hi Art, Ian On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > All - based on Hixie's Web Storage bug processing today, at the moment, > there are no open bugs for this spec. As such, I will start (separately) a > CfC to publish a new LCWD of Web Storage. > > Those working on the widget specs know the Widget Interface spec has a > normative reference for Web Storage and in order for the Widget Interface > spec to advance to PR (see [1]), Web Storage should be in the Last Call > state. This is great to hear, Art. Ian, if there is anything I can do to help with Web Storage, please let me know. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?
All - based on Hixie's Web Storage bug processing today, at the moment, there are no open bugs for this spec. As such, I will start (separately) a CfC to publish a new LCWD of Web Storage. Those working on the widget specs know the Widget Interface spec has a normative reference for Web Storage and in order for the Widget Interface spec to advance to PR (see [1]), Web Storage should be in the Last Call state. -Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0712.html On Apr/28/2011 2:33 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs: 1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user attacks http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272 3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place wherever you want. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090 My plan is to address them in the order of they appear on this bug list: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=ian%40hixie.ch&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Last+Changed&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
Re: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?
Well, I guess the good news is that (at the time of this writing), there aren't 355 bugs ;). All - Inputs and proposals for these bugs are encouraged! On Apr/28/2011 2:33 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs: 1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user attacks http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272 3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place wherever you want. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090 My plan is to address them in the order of they appear on this bug list: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=ian%40hixie.ch&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Last+Changed&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= In recent weeks I've been focusing on multitrack video and video conferencing, but I have now returned to just going through feedback. A precise ETA depends mostly on how many interrupts I get dealing with politics in the HTML WG.
Re: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs: > > 1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match > implementation behavior > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 > > 2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user attacks > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272 > > 3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place > wherever you want. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090 My plan is to address them in the order of they appear on this bug list: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=ian%40hixie.ch&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Last+Changed&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= In recent weeks I've been focusing on multitrack video and video conferencing, but I have now returned to just going through feedback. A precise ETA depends mostly on how many interrupts I get dealing with politics in the HTML WG. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?
All, What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs: 1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user attacks http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272 3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place wherever you want. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090 Which of these must be addressed before the WG considers the spec LC-ready? Original Message Subject:Re: [webstorage] Moving Web Storage back to Last Call WD Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:19:51 +0900 From: ext Michael[tm] Smith To: Ian Hickson CC: Arthur Barstow , Tab Atkins Jr. , public-webapps Ian Hickson, 2011-02-14 10:13 +: On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > What high priority work must be done such that this spec is ready to be > re-published as a new Last Call Working draft? Tab, do you know of anything that is blocking redoing an LC? (Personally I'm fine with it going to REC yesterday, so...) > Bugzilla shows no open bugs for this spec I just now raised a new one: spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
