Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:19:49 +0300, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. Opera supports publication of these drafts. cheers chaals See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 0313.html
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
On Oct 23, 2009, at 14:19 , Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. +1 from these quarters. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
Fine for all except WebDatabase. I notice that its present ED is virtually the same as its FPWD (modulo a new section on data sensitivity). There is no movement on any of the thorny issues - locking granularity, relational model and SQL dialect. I am not sure what benefit is to be achieved from republishing essentially the same draft as a new WD. It does have the opportunity to mislead general public in thinking that progress is being made in the spec, when that is not the case. As Ian says in the IRC log, no one agrees on the WebDatabase spec any way so does it help to publish (essentially the same text as) a new WD? Nikunj On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html I support publication of new Working Drafts for all of these. Regards, Maciej
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Fine for all except WebDatabase. I notice that its present ED is virtually the same as its FPWD (modulo a new section on data sensitivity). There is no movement on any of the thorny issues - locking granularity, relational model and SQL dialect. I am not sure what benefit is to be achieved from republishing essentially the same draft as a new WD. It does have the opportunity to mislead general public in thinking that progress is being made in the spec, when that is not the case. As Ian says in the IRC log, no one agrees on the WebDatabase spec any way so does it help to publish (essentially the same text as) a new WD? I think it's advantageous to publish the freshest versions we have as Working Drafts in advance of the publication moratorium. I don't see the advantage to leaving an older copy in the TR/ namespace, even if the changes are relatively small. Regards, Maciej Nikunj On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
I also support publishing a new WD on all of these. 2009/10/23 Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Fine for all except WebDatabase. I notice that its present ED is virtually the same as its FPWD (modulo a new section on data sensitivity). There is no movement on any of the thorny issues - locking granularity, relational model and SQL dialect. I am not sure what benefit is to be achieved from republishing essentially the same draft as a new WD. It does have the opportunity to mislead general public in thinking that progress is being made in the spec, when that is not the case. As Ian says in the IRC log, no one agrees on the WebDatabase spec any way so does it help to publish (essentially the same text as) a new WD? I think it's advantageous to publish the freshest versions we have as Working Drafts in advance of the publication moratorium. I don't see the advantage to leaving an older copy in the TR/ namespace, even if the changes are relatively small. Regards, Maciej Nikunj On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new Working Drafts of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is October 26. See [1] for the rationale for this short review period and the current plans for Last Call Working Draft publication of 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html I support publication of new Working Drafts for all of these. Same here. I continue to think that the web database isn't a good approach, but I don't think that should prevent publishing an updated draft. We have done a lot of discussion at mozilla on the subject of what we want a database interface to look like, including with other interested parties as well as web authors. We should have something more concrete shortly. I also continue to miss actual developer demand for server sent events. Seems like it doesn't add a lot of sugar over simply using XMLHttpRequest and progress events. But again, I'm fine with publishing a new WD. / Jonas
Re: CfC: to publish new WDs of Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets API, Storage, Workers}; deadline 26 October
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:30 AM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Fine for all except WebDatabase. I notice that its present ED is virtually the same as its FPWD (modulo a new section on data sensitivity). There is no movement on any of the thorny issues - locking granularity, relational model and SQL dialect. I am not sure what benefit is to be achieved from republishing essentially the same draft as a new WD. It does have the opportunity to mislead general public in thinking that progress is being made in the spec, when that is not the case. As Ian says in the IRC log, no one agrees on the WebDatabase spec any way so does it help to publish (essentially the same text as) a new WD? The fact that a spec has open issues is not sufficient to block a WD from being published nor is the fact that there is not consensus on the entire contents of the document. I think the Process Document is clear on these points. A potential benefit of a new publication in /TR/ is wider review. I think this is particularly important before the TPAC meeting given about 1/3 of the registrants are not WG members and hence are unlikely to follow the changes in the Editor's Drafts. I think the recent publication of WebSimpleDB API shows this general area is still changing. Furthermore, I think a key point in the heads- up email that preceded this CfC ([1]) - that Web Database will not be ready for Last Call when the other specs are - does acknowledge that spec's contents does not have consensus in the WG. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 0313.html
