Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

[Arun Ranganathan]

On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
> Are there any other open bugs, issues, comments, etc. for File API?
> 


https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=arun%40mozilla.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&list_id=30639

is the current list.  Some came up on 12/15/2013 and are minor.


> Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume the group wants to address the above 
> before a new Technical Report is published and depending on the outcome of 
> these issues, the next publication could be a Last Call Working Draft or a 
> Candidate Recommendation.
> 


I agree with this.

-- A*

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

[Arthur Barstow]

On 12/2/13 3:30 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:

On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:


Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and [23946] 
was filed on November 30.

Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC?

-Thanks, ArtB

[23853] 


Timely implementor feedback will help close this one out.  I will initiate a 
separate email thread about this issue.


[23946] 


I don't believe this issue is accompanied with a strong enough use case, and 
think it likely that it will be marked WONTFIX during the timeframe of the CfC.


Hi Arun, All,

If anyone was wondering if a CR was published, the answer is no.

My tally of new bugs and comments since this CfC started is:

[[
* 24102 ; Specify the targets for events; filed by Ms2ger 15-Dec-2013 ; 



* 24101 ; filed by Ms2ger 15-Dec-2013 ; Missing word in "Return the 
readAsText() method, but continue to process the steps in this 
algorithm" ; 


* File API: closed Blob objects ; AvK 12-Dec-2013 ; 



* File API | lastModified and Date attribute change ; Arun 2-Dec-2013 ; 



* 23946 ; Lift the ban on query parts in “blob:” URIs ; filed by Manuel 
Strehl 30-Nov-2013 ; 


* 23853 REOPENED by Arun on 28-Nov-2013 ; Please clarify the 
interpretation of the WebIDL undefined Date in the File constructor ; 


]]

Are there any other open bugs, issues, comments, etc. for File API?

Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume the group wants to address the 
above before a new Technical Report is published and depending on the 
outcome of these issues, the next publication could be a Last Call 
Working Draft or a Candidate Recommendation.


-Thanks, ArtB

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

[Arun Ranganathan]

On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and [23946] 
> was filed on November 30.
> 
> Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC?
> 
> -Thanks, ArtB
> 
> [23853] 


Timely implementor feedback will help close this one out.  I will initiate a 
separate email thread about this issue.

> [23946] 


I don't believe this issue is accompanied with a strong enough use case, and 
think it likely that it will be marked WONTFIX during the timeframe of the CfC.

-- A*

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

[Arthur Barstow]

Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and 
[23946] was filed on November 30.


Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC?

-Thanks, ArtB

[23853] 
[23946] 


On 11/21/13 1:44 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi All,

Arun completed processing the comments [Comments] for the Last Call 
version of File API [LCWD]. Although the comments resulted in changes 
to the spec (see [Diff]), no new features were added and the changes 
are considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the 
Constructor APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7].


Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and 
this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR  using the 
following version as the basis:


  

This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements 
for Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process 
Document 
.


Note the Status of the Document section and References in the Draft CR 
need some changes.


I propose 3 months as the minimal amount of time before we are ready 
to advance the spec to Propose Recommendation  and I propose we re-use 
the CR exit criteria we used for the IDB CR:


[[
During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends @T+3months, the 
WG will complete its test suite. Before this specification exits 
Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must 
pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. 
The group will also create an Implementation Report.

]]

If anyone has feedback regarding features that could be marked "at 
risk", please speak up during this CfC.


Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence 
will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for 
comments is November 28 and all comments should be sent to 
public-webapps @ w3.org.


-Thanks, ArtB

[Comments] 
[LCWD] 
[Section-7] 

[Diff] 

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:44:29 +0100, Arthur Barstow   
wrote:



Hi All,

Arun completed processing the comments [Comments] for the Last Call  
version of File API [LCWD]. Although the comments resulted in changes to  
the spec (see [Diff]), no new features were added and the changes are  
considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the Constructor  
APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7].


Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this  
is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR  using the following  
version as the basis:


   


Please do.

...

I propose 3 months as the minimal amount of time before we are ready to  
advance the spec to Propose Recommendation  and I propose we re-use the  
CR exit criteria we used for the IDB CR:


[[
During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends @T+3months, the  
WG will complete its test suite. Before this specification exits  
Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must  
pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test.


I suggest s/each/every/ here just to disambiguate a bit more. But I can  
live with these as criteria.


cheers

chaals

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
  cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

Arun completed processing the comments [Comments] for the Last Call 
version of File API [LCWD]. Although the comments resulted in changes to 
the spec (see [Diff]), no new features were added and the changes are 
considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the Constructor 
APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7].


Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this 
is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR  using the following 
version as the basis:


  

This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for 
Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process 
Document 
.


Note the Status of the Document section and References in the Draft CR 
need some changes.


I propose 3 months as the minimal amount of time before we are ready to 
advance the spec to Propose Recommendation  and I propose we re-use the 
CR exit criteria we used for the IDB CR:


[[
During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends @T+3months, the 
WG will complete its test suite. Before this specification exits 
Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must 
pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. 
The group will also create an Implementation Report.

]]

If anyone has feedback regarding features that could be marked "at 
risk", please speak up during this CfC.


Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence 
will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for 
comments is November 28 and all comments should be sent to 
public-webapps @ w3.org.


-Thanks, ArtB

[Comments] 
[LCWD] 
[Section-7] 

[Diff]