Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/7/14 8:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

this is a formal Call for Consensus to:

a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when 
WebApps' charter is updated)


b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed 
document)


c) "gut" the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently 
with [e.g.])


d) "gut" the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been 
done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes)


FYI, the WG Note was published 
.

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Tantek Çelik]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
> On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know
>>> what you do want.)
>>
>> I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all.

I too would prefer just Mozilla.

> Please give me @X and @Y in: @Y. (Doing so offlist is fine
> ;-)).

@X = https://www.mozilla.org/
@Y = Mozilla


 or bug tracker.
>>>
>>> Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be
>>> included.
>>
>> Why would I want feedback on this Note?

Feedback: irc://irc.freenode.net/whatwg

would work for me


> -Thanks, AB

Thanks, -t
(aside: Art, I almost misread ", AB" as ", Advisory Board". I know
that was not your intent, just a heads-up.)

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/8/14 2:07 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:

08.11.2014, 14:43, "Domenic Denicola" :

From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]

  OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points 
to Anne's document
  .

I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. "See Instead" or "Maintained 
Version" or "Replaced By". Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is 
unnecessarily combative.

Agree that it's the wrong framing, and the point is that the current W3C work 
is recognised as being supereseded...


I just updated the Draft WG Note to use "See Instead" 
.


-Thanks, AB

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Domenic Denicola  wrote:
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
>> OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points 
>> to Anne's document
>> .
>
> I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. "See Instead" or 
> "Maintained Version" or "Replaced By". Framing the WHATWG as a source of 
> Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative.

I use a "replaced by" wording on specs I've moved elsewhere; see
 for an example.

~TJ

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[chaals]

08.11.2014, 14:43, "Domenic Denicola" :
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
>>  OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points 
>> to Anne's document
>>  .
>
> I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. "See Instead" or 
> "Maintained Version" or "Replaced By". Framing the WHATWG as a source of 
> Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative.

Agree that it's the wrong framing, and the point is that the current W3C work 
is recognised as being supereseded...

cheers

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

RE: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Domenic Denicola]

From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] 

> OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points 
> to Anne's document 
> .

I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. "See Instead" or 
"Maintained Version" or "Replaced By". Framing the WHATWG as a source of 
Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative.

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/7/14 12:57 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:

07.11.2014, 17:53, "fantasai" :

On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

  On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

  [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

  It would be nice if editor's draft points to 
https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/

  That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or 
not.
  Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?

I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.

  I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate.

It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
currently-maintained draft.

Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are.


OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft 
points to Anne's document 
.

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[chaals]

07.11.2014, 15:05, "Arthur Barstow" :
> On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>  07.11.2014, 14:41, "Arthur Barstow" :
>>>  [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint
>>>
>>>  a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when
>>>  WebApps' charter is updated)
>>  Yes (and no)
>
> For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are
> effectively a "whatever" that we can defer until if/when there is a
> charter discussion. Agreed?

Yeah, definitely.

cheers

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

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[chaals]

07.11.2014, 17:53, "fantasai" :
> On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>  On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow  
>>> wrote:
  [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html
>>>  It would be nice if editor's draft points to 
>>> https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/
>>  That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted 
>> or not.
>>  Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?
>
> I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.
>>  I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the 
>> boilerplate.
>
> It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
> currently-maintained draft.

Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are. So we 
do the world a service by pointing to that, and no service by avoiding it.

And I don't know of a rule that says we cannot do that. It isn't a normative 
reference, it's just a link to useful information.

cheers

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

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[fantasai]

On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/


That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or 
not.
Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?


I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.


I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate.


It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
currently-maintained draft.

~fantasai

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/


That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is 
permitted or not. Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests? I 
suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the 
boilerplate. Would that work for you Anne?



I no longer work for Opera Software.


Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know 
what you do want.)



The Status of this Document section should probably not mention the
mailing list


Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't 
especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is 
especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment 
list. Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD?



or bug tracker.


Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should 
be included.


-Thanks, AB

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know
what you do want.)

I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all.


Please give me @X and @Y in: @Y. (Doing so offlist is 
fine ;-)).




Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't
especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is
especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list.
Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD?


Ooops. I did mean "... is NOT especially harmful".




or bug tracker.

Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be
included.

Why would I want feedback on this Note?


The bugzilla component is for the spec.


(It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?)


I think we already have a precedence for doing this, so yes, this is 
fine with me.


-Thanks, AB

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
> Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know
> what you do want.)

I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all.


> Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't
> especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is
> especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list.
> Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD?
>
>> or bug tracker.
>
> Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be
> included.

Why would I want feedback on this Note?

(It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?)


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:


07.11.2014, 14:41, "Arthur Barstow" :

[ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint

a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when
WebApps' charter is updated)

Yes (and no)


For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are 
effectively a "whatever" that we can defer until if/when there is a 
charter discussion. Agreed?


-Thanks, AB

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
> [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/

I no longer work for Opera Software.

The Status of this Document section should probably not mention the
mailing list or bug tracker.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[chaals]

07.11.2014, 14:41, "Arthur Barstow" :
> [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint
> deliverable for WebApps and CSS ]
>
> Hi Anne, Tantek, WebApps and CSSWG,
>
> During WebApps' October 27 f2f meeting, the attendees had a straw-poll
> regarding stopping work on the Fullscreen spec (a joint deliverable for
> these two WGS) and to publish a WG Note of the spec. Since there were no
> objections raised during the poll (see [Mins]), this is a formal Call
> for Consensus to:
>
> a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when
> WebApps' charter is updated)

Yes (and no)

> b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed
> document)

Yes

> c) "gut" the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently
> with [e.g.])

Yes.

> d) "gut" the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been
> done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes)

Abstain.

cheers

> Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see
> [CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to this
> CfC (although all feedback is welcome.)
>
> If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by
> November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged
> and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the
> absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is
> published.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item09
> [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html
> [ED] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
> [e.g.] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-file-system-api-20140424/
> [CSS-Mins]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html##Fullscreen

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

CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

[ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint 
deliverable for WebApps and CSS ]


Hi Anne, Tantek, WebApps and CSSWG,

During WebApps' October 27 f2f meeting, the attendees had a straw-poll 
regarding stopping work on the Fullscreen spec (a joint deliverable for 
these two WGS) and to publish a WG Note of the spec. Since there were no 
objections raised during the poll (see [Mins]), this is a formal Call 
for Consensus to:


a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when 
WebApps' charter is updated)


b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed 
document)


c) "gut" the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently 
with [e.g.])


d) "gut" the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been 
done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes)


Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see 
[CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to this 
CfC (although all feedback is welcome.)


If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by 
November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged 
and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the 
absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is 
published.


-Thanks, AB

[Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item09
[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html
[ED] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
[e.g.] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-file-system-api-20140424/
[CSS-Mins] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html##Fullscreen