[IndexedDB] Processing 16-May-2013 LC comments

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

Since the May 16 LCWD of IDB [LC2] ends June 7, I am wondering who is 
going to process the LC comments.


Here is the list of IDB e-mails and bugs I have logged since the LC was 
published:


* Files on IndexedDB ; 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0810.html 
; 30-May-2013; pira...@gmail.com


* Bug 22130 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22130 ; 
Modification for IDBObjectStore's clear and delete method ; 21-May-2013 
; Kyaw Tun


* IDBRequest.onerror for DataCloneError and DataError ; 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0741.html 
; 20-May-2013 ; Kyaw Tun 


* request feedback on IDBKeyRange.inList([]) enhancement ; 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0738.html 
; 17-May-2013 ; Ben Kelly 


* Inform script of corruption recovery ; 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0742.html 
; thread started 11-Feb-2013 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0354.html


Joshua, Eliot, Jonas - who is going to track LC#2 comments?

(For reference, the comment tracking document for the first LC is 
[LC1-Comments] and the IDB feature list is [IDB-features].)


-Thanks, AB

[LC2] 
[LC1-Comments] 


[IDB-Features] 

Re: [IndexedDB] Processing 16-May-2013 LC comments

[Arthur Barstow]

On 5/30/13 3:02 PM, ext Eliot Graff wrote:


I am on vacation this week and my time’s pretty scarce documenting our 
next release. However, if people help me not miss important data, I 
can create (next week) and maintain a list similar to the one I did 
for LC1.




Excellent.

FYI, I went ahead and created a new document based on the old one and 
seeded it with bug 22130 
.


-AB

[ime-api] Followups from April f2f discussions

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Mike, All,

During WebApps' April 25 discussion about IME API ([Minutes]), Mike 
agreed to a couple of actions for the ime-api spec:


* ACTION-690 - Ask the IME Editors to remove Canvas examples (e.g. 
images) [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2013-05-02].


* ACTION-691 - Smith to take back PFWG feedback to the IME API editor 
(Kochi) and propose we excise the mentions of DOM-based editor use-case 
in the use-case document, and the specific mentions of  in the 
actual spec [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2013-05-02].


It appears 690 has been addressed but I'm not entirely sure of 691. 
Regardless, please update Tracker accordingly 
.


Also, did the group decide to not support a webpage creating their own 
IME, at least not for v1?


Lastly, I would appreciate it, if the Editors would please update the 
latest ED [ED] so it has a proper ToC, References, and such.


-Thanks, AB

[Mins] 
[ED] 

[html-templates] Seeking pre-LC comments for HTML Templates; deadline June 10

[Arthur Barstow]

Rafael and Dimitri indicated HTML Templates [ED] is feature complete and 
thus is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft.


As WebApps has done with other specs that have advanced toward being 
feature complete, this is a one week pre-LC comment period that will be 
followed by a CfC for LCWD if/when any objections are resolved.


If you have any comments, concerns, etc. about this spec vis-à-vis it 
being "LC ready", please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org (with a 
[html-templates] Subject prefix) by June 10.


The bugs for this spec can be found by searching for "template" in 
[Bugs]. Rafael, Dimitri - what is the plan/recommendation for this 
spec's open bugs?


-Thanks, AB

[ED] 


[Bugs] 

Re: [editing] Editing spec is no longer online

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/6/13 9:08 AM, ext Johannes Wilm wrote:

This used to work some days ago:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.htm


Is there a copy anywhere else?


 ?

CfC: LCWD of HTML Templates; deadline June 18

[Arthur Barstow]

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the 
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it does 
not yet use the LC template):


<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html>

This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" for this LCWD. Note the Process 
Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD:


[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant 
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) 
in the Working Draft;


* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant 
dependencies with other groups;


* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these 
dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement 
is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the 
technical report to later maturity levels.

]]

The proposed review period for this LC is 4 weeks and the Chairs will 
ask at least the HTML WG to review the LC. If there are other WGs or 
groups we should ask for review, please provide their name(s).


If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to 
public-webapps@w3.org by June 18 at the latest. Positive response is 
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement 
with the proposal.


-Thanks, AB


 Original Message 
Subject: 	[html-templates] Seeking pre-LC comments for HTML Templates; 
deadline June 10

Resent-Date:Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:32:59 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:32:29 -0400
From:   ext Arthur Barstow 
To: public-webapps 



Rafael and Dimitri indicated HTML Templates [ED] is feature complete and
thus is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft.

As WebApps has done with other specs that have advanced toward being
feature complete, this is a one week pre-LC comment period that will be
followed by a CfC for LCWD if/when any objections are resolved.

If you have any comments, concerns, etc. about this spec vis-à-vis it
being "LC ready", please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org (with a
[html-templates] Subject prefix) by June 10.

The bugs for this spec can be found by searching for "template" in
[Bugs]. Rafael, Dimitri - what is the plan/recommendation for this
spec's open bugs?

-Thanks, AB

[ED]
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html>
[Bugs] <http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-WebComponents>

Re: CfC: LCWD of HTML Templates; deadline June 18

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/11/13 11:59 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it does not
yet use the LC template):

<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html>

There's an open bug on integrating this into HTML proper which will
clearly happen.


Which bug is that, and what do you mean by "HTML proper"?

-Thanks, AB


Why do we need to continue with this draft?


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: [IndexedDB] request feedback on IDBKeyRange.inList([]) enhancement

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Ben - your comment is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was 
included in the LC's comment tracking document [1].


In [2], Joshua proposed this comment be addressed/resolved as a feature 
request and as such, it was added to the IDB feature request list [3].


For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 

[2] 


[3] 


On 5/17/13 5:37 PM, ext Ben Kelly wrote:

Hello all,

Recently I've been working on a mobile application that makes heavy use of 
IndexedDB.  In particular, there are times when this app must query a 
potentially large, non-consecutive list of keys.  Currently (to my knowledge) 
the IndexedDB API requires that this be done via separate get() calls.  Due to 
some performance issues I investigated enhancing the IndexedDB API to allow the 
list of keys to be queried in a single request.  The resulting changes seem to 
show significant performance improvement on the mozilla mobile platform.

I would like to get your feedback and input on this API change.

The enhancement essentially adds an inList() function to IDBKeyRange.  Similar 
to the other factory methods on IDBKeyRange, this returns an object which can 
be used to query a matching set of keys.  The inList() function takes an array 
of keys to match against.  In practice it would look like the following:

   var keyRange = IDBKeyRange.inList(['key-1', 'key-2', 'key-3']);
   var request = index.openCursor(keyRange);

Duplicate keys in the list are ignored.  The order of the results would be 
controlled by the normal cursor ordering mechanisms.

I've written a rough proof-of-concept for the mozilla platform here:

   https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=872741

I realize there has been some discussion of this topic in the past.  In 
particular, Ben Turner referred me to:

   https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16595
   
https://docs.google.com/a/mozilla.com/document/d/1vvC5tFZCZ9T8Cwd2DteUvw5WlU4YJa2NajdkHn6fu-I/edit

 From these links it sounds like there has been a lack of interest, but no 
strong objection.  Since there appears to be some legitimate benefit from the 
API enhancement I thought I would send it out to the list for feedback.  I have 
to admit I'm new to the standardization process, though.  I apologize for the 
noise if this is essentially a non-starter.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.  Thank you!

Ben Kelly

Re: Files on IndexedDB

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi - your comment is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was 
included in the LC's comment tracking document [1].


In [2], Joshua proposed this comment be addressed/resolved as a feature 
request and as such, it was added to the IDB feature request list [3].


For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 
 

[2] 


[3] 


On 5/30/13 5:24 AM, ext pira...@gmail.com wrote:


According to IndexedDB specification, File and Blob and FileList 
objects should be allowed to be stored inside IndexedDB doing a 
shallow copy. On Mozilla this is possible, although File and Blob 
objects are stored nativelly on a special place on the hard disk. 
Chrome is working on it at this moment. Problem is, seems they are 
being duplicated and a copy is stored instead of a reference to the 
original File. I think is not the correct way to do it... or at least 
not always.


File and FileList objects are only available from Input tags (at this 
moment you can't be able to create them by hand, and also can't be 
downloaded, only Blob objects), so they exists on the user hard disk, 
so it's not necesary to make a duplicate and waste space. It would 
make sense to store a copy inside IndexedDB when you want to store it, 
but if you want to store only some metadata for the File object (for 
example a hash of the file, or a flag for "already viewed" chapters on 
a local hard disk stored serie) making a copy is useless.


Also, although is being currently discused, FileList objects are 
suposed to be "live" objects showing the current status of a directory 
each time is readed (both added, updated and removed File objects), 
and File objects should work the same, working mainly as references to 
the hard disk status that would not be the actual one if they are 
stored duplicates on the database (they will show the status when the 
File / FileList was stored), and specially when the IndexedDB is 
accessed between reloads.


On the other hand, Blob objects can be created and downloaded, so it 
makes sense to store duplicates of data that's currently on RAM and 
would disappear after a page reload, in the same way you save your 
work before closing an application.


So my proposition is about to allow the File and FileList objects 
being stored as actual references to the original hard disk File and 
FileList objects instead of data duplicates, and only store really 
inside IndexedDB data from Blob objects. This way would allow to store 
references to opened File and FileList objects between reloads of the 
page without requiring to the user to re-select them and process them 
again as new, while allowing to store data (also File objects) inside 
IndexedDB in the form of Blob objects.

Re: [IndexedDB] Inform script of corruption recovery

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi - your comment is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was 
included in the LC's comment tracking document [1].


In [2], Joshua proposed this comment be addressed/resolved as a feature 
request and as such, it was added to the IDB feature request list [3].


For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 
 

[2] 


[3] 


On 5/19/13 11:14 PM, ext Kyaw Tun wrote:
It will be good, if we can provide data priority per database and/or 
per object store.


Web app already assume Indexeddb data is temporary, recovery process 
are in place at the beginning after database is successfully open. So 
silently drop all data and set version to 0 is good way to go. I think 
detail reason are not necessary.


After opening, database should not corrupt. But quota exceed error do 
happen. It is very difficult and messy to handle that issue.


If these corruption happen, data are lost according to their priority 
will be good enough for most situation. It is easy for both sides 
(developer and browser implementation).


Kyaw

Re: [IndexedDB] IDBRequest.onerror for DataCloneError and DataError

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi - your comment is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was 
included in the LC's comment tracking document [1].


In [2], Joshua proposed this comment be addressed/resolved as a feature 
request and as such, it was added to the IDB feature request list [3].


For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 
 

[2] 


[3] 


On 5/19/13 9:37 PM, ext Kyaw Tun wrote:
Sorry for reposting again for 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0422.html Perhaps 
I am not well explain enough.


In put and add method of object store and index, DataCloneError and
DataError are immediately throw before executing IDBRequest. It seems good
that exception are throw immediately, but in practical use case, these
exception are in async workflow (inside transaction callback). Exception
break the async workflow, (of course, it depending on usage design 
pattern).


DataCloneError and DataError are preventable in most situation. But 
sometimes tricky. We even want database to handle these errors like 
database constraint. The logic will be much simpler if DataCloneError 
and DataError cause to invoke IDBRequest.onerror rather than exception.

Re: Files on IndexedDB

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/11/13 7:56 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:

Hi Art,

Actually, the response in [2] says that we should clarify in the spec
that files, blobs and filelists are stored "by value" rather than "by
reference". This is not a normative change since the spec already
defines this behavior. However the behavior is defined somewhat
indirectly which means that it'd make sense to clarify it explicitly.


Hi Jonas - ok. Would you or one of the other Editors please propose text 
to address this comment so piranna can review it (or check in fix and 
then provide the URL of the changeset)?


-Thanks, Art




/ Jonas

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

Hi - your comment is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was included in
the LC's comment tracking document [1].

In [2], Joshua proposed this comment be addressed/resolved as a feature
request and as such, it was added to the IDB feature request list [3].

For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this
resolution is acceptable or not.

-Thanks, ArtB

[1]
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/default/Comments-16-May-2013-LCWD.html>
[2]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0817.html>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/IndexedDatabaseFeatures>



On 5/30/13 5:24 AM, ext pira...@gmail.com wrote:


According to IndexedDB specification, File and Blob and FileList objects
should be allowed to be stored inside IndexedDB doing a shallow copy. On
Mozilla this is possible, although File and Blob objects are stored
nativelly on a special place on the hard disk. Chrome is working on it at
this moment. Problem is, seems they are being duplicated and a copy is
stored instead of a reference to the original File. I think is not the
correct way to do it... or at least not always.

File and FileList objects are only available from Input tags (at this
moment you can't be able to create them by hand, and also can't be
downloaded, only Blob objects), so they exists on the user hard disk, so
it's not necesary to make a duplicate and waste space. It would make sense
to store a copy inside IndexedDB when you want to store it, but if you want
to store only some metadata for the File object (for example a hash of the
file, or a flag for "already viewed" chapters on a local hard disk stored
serie) making a copy is useless.

Also, although is being currently discused, FileList objects are suposed
to be "live" objects showing the current status of a directory each time is
readed (both added, updated and removed File objects), and File objects
should work the same, working mainly as references to the hard disk status
that would not be the actual one if they are stored duplicates on the
database (they will show the status when the File / FileList was stored),
and specially when the IndexedDB is accessed between reloads.

On the other hand, Blob objects can be created and downloaded, so it makes
sense to store duplicates of data that's currently on RAM and would
disappear after a page reload, in the same way you save your work before
closing an application.

So my proposition is about to allow the File and FileList objects being
stored as actual references to the original hard disk File and FileList
objects instead of data duplicates, and only store really inside IndexedDB
data from Blob objects. This way would allow to store references to opened
File and FileList objects between reloads of the page without requiring to
the user to re-select them and process them again as new, while allowing to
store data (also File objects) inside IndexedDB in the form of Blob objects.

Re: [Bug 22130] Modification for IDBObjectStore's clear and delete method

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi - your bug is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was included in 
the LC's comment tracking document [1].


In [2], Joshua proposed this bug be addressed as "Resolved/Later" and 
the bug has been closed as such.


For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 
 

[2] 


[3] 

On 6/11/13 2:13 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22130

Joshua Bell  changed:

What|Removed |Added

  Status|NEW |RESOLVED
  CC||jsb...@google.com
  Resolution|--- |LATER

--- Comment #2 from Joshua Bell  ---
Not for the "V1" spec, so marking RESOLVED / LATER

Re: [Bug 22130] Modification for IDBObjectStore's clear and delete method

[Arthur Barstow]

FYI, Kyaw replied to me privately with "Yes, I agree" re my question if 
the group's resolution for this bug was acceptable.


Thanks Kyaw for review and timely response.

-Regards, ArtB

On 6/11/13 9:46 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi - your bug is considered a "Last Call comment" and it was included 
in the LC's comment tracking document [1].


In [2], Joshua proposed this bug be addressed as "Resolved/Later" and 
the bug has been closed as such.


For the purposes of tracking your comment, please indicate if this 
resolution is acceptable or not.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/default/Comments-16-May-2013-LCWD.html> 

[2] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0817.html>

[3] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/IndexedDatabaseFeatures>

On 6/11/13 2:13 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22130

Joshua Bell  changed:

What|Removed |Added
 


  Status|NEW |RESOLVED
  CC| |jsb...@google.com
  Resolution|--- |LATER

--- Comment #2 from Joshua Bell  ---
Not for the "V1" spec, so marking RESOLVED / LATER

CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of Indexed Database; deadline June 20

[Arthur Barstow]

The comment period for the May 16 LCWD of Indexed DB [LC] ended June 7 
and the comments and bugs for this LC are tracked in [Comments]. All of 
the commenters agreed with the resolutions proposed by the spec's 
Editors. Only one change was made to the spec as a result of the LC 
review and that change is considered non-normative [Change]. As such, 
this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation (CR) 
of this spec using the following Editor's Draft (which includes [Change]):




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 
.


I propose the following CR Exit Criteria (which is identical to the 
Pointer Events CR criteria 
):


[[
During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends 
, 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.

]]

Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence 
will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for 
comments is June 20 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps @ 
w3.org.


-Thanks, AB

[LC] 
[Comments] 


[Change] 

[file-api] What's left before LCWD?

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Arun,

Now that bug 21833 is closed, I am wondering what else must be done 
before File API is ready for LCWD?


I noticed there are three open [Bugs]. Which of these are blocking LC?

Also, I couldn't tell if one of the open bugs is for the `blob URL 
lifetime` issue you mentioned during our April f2f meeting [Mins]. What 
is the status of that issue?


-Thanks, ArtB

[Bugs] 
[Mins] 


On 6/7/13 2:24 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21833

Arun  changed:

What|Removed |Added

  Status|NEW |RESOLVED
  Resolution|--- |FIXED

Re: CfC: LCWD of HTML Templates; deadline June 18

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/14/13 9:02 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

On 11/06/2013 17:59 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Arthur Barstow 
 wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of 
the
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it 
does not

yet use the LC template):

<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html> 



There's an open bug on integrating this into HTML proper which will
clearly happen. Why do we need to continue with this draft?


I agree with Anne. And since this group considered the feature stable 
enough to go to LC I went ahead and imported  into HTML.


You can see the changes here:


https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/2502feb541063a3834f1ef07e2a23d0824d96914 



https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/daaf6bc1e76365b6678a14b47954bcf9c5db54c6 




The result is live at:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/templating.html


Thanks Robin and Anne.

I moved HTML Templates to WebApps' "Specs No Longer Active" table [1].

AFAIC (can't speak for Chaals'), I consider this CfC canceled.

-AB

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Specs_NO_Longer_Active>.

Re: CfC: LCWD of HTML Templates; deadline June 18

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/14/13 9:22 AM, ext pira...@gmail.com wrote:


When this would be spected to be implemented on browsers?



Well, I think that's a bit of a loaded question and some could argue 
 provides 
a sufficient specification for implementation.



Any knows of at least partial implementation except the mdv polyfill?



I don't have any data beyond . If 
others have some additional implementation info, please speak up.


Rafael, Dimitri, Toni - I think it would be helpful if the ED mentioned 
work on that version of the spec has stopped and all future work will be 
done in HTML5 (and also, perhaps, remove all of the other text?).


-AB

[gamepad] Re: spec status (redux)

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/19/13 2:37 PM, ext Alan Kligman wrote:

Hey all,

This is mostly a follow-on to Ted's email from last month 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0478.html). 
There are still some issues that would be great to clarify in the spec:

1. Analog+digital buttons (as with the PS3 controller), need to be reported 
such that upstream code can determine that the axis and button refer to the 
same physical input.
   * There are a few ways to do this, but we should decide on one and define it 
in the spec
   * It would be nice to describe it in this version of the spec, since it 
could break backward compatibility if changed later


Is this covered by bug 21388 
?




2. Clarify liveness of gamepad object
   * Ted and Scott started a discussion, but I don't think the spec has been 
updated yet: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21434
   * This could break backward compatibility if it's changed later, so it would 
be nice to clarify this in the spec

3. Expose axis, button metadata (if available)
   * Report things like button names, if we have them
   * Require (instead of suggest) that the id property contains USB 
vendor/product numbers, so that we can reliably map controllers in application 
code


?



I think 1 and 2 are important to resolve soon so that we avoid breaking 
application code using the gamepad API.

Thoughts?
A

[webcomponents] Minutes from 21 June 2013 f2f meeting

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

The minutes from the June 21 Web Components meeting [Agenda] are 
available at the following and copied below:




Thanks to Dimitri for organizing and chairing the meeting and to Alex 
for scribing the meeting!


-AB

[Agenda] 

   [1]W3C

  [1] http://www.w3.org/

   - DRAFT -

  WebApps' Web Components f2f Meeting

21 Jun 2013

   [2]Agenda

  [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/WebComponentsJune2013Meeting

   See also: [3]IRC log

  [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-webapps-irc

Attendees

   Present
  Edward_OConnor, Ryosuke_Niwa, Bear_Travis, Divya_Manian,
  Alex_Komoroske, David_Baron, Priyank_Singhal,
  Steve_Orvell, Daniel_Freedman, Dimitri_Glazkov,
  Elliott_Sprehn, Scott_Miles, Tab_Atkins

   Regrets
   Chair
  Dimitri

   Scribe
  Alex

Contents

 * [4]Topics
 1. [5]Quick Overview of Shadow DOM concepts
 * [6]Summary of Action Items
 __

ScribeNick: jkomoros

ScribeNick: jkomoros

Scribe: Alex

Chair: Dimitri_Glazkov

Meeting: Styling Issues in Shadow DOM and CSS

Quick Overview of Shadow DOM concepts

i think we need cofffee

   DG: Hoping that the main focus of this meeting will be
   primarily arounds CSS + Shadow DOM
   ... we had one original idea, but developers trying to use it
   gave feedback that it wasn't exactly the right "knobs"
   ... there are people here who are "Browser Vendors", and there
   are people who are the "web developers"
   ... a bunch of folks in the latter group here are from Polymer,
   Daniel Buchner (who should join at some point) represents
   x-tags
   ... and then spec folks, fantasai and tabatkins
   ... who aren't here yet.

   dbaron: Blake Kaplan and William Chen (?) have been working on
   Shadow DOM at Mozilla
   ... and I've been talking with them

   [by the way, we all took a coffee break]

   [break over]

   DG: The general idea of Shadow DOM is that you have an ability
   to create trees, like before, but connected for rendering
   purposes, render in place of nodes in document

wasn't there explainer somewhere?

   DG: this existed in many different systems before. It allows
   composability (one tree vs multiple)

is
   [7]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/e
   xplainer/index.html still up to date?

  [7] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/explainer/index.html

   DG: if I can replace the rendering of a node, what happens to
   its children?

rniwa: or, also:
   [8]http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow-dom/

  [8] http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow-dom/

   DG: the general overview gets trickier and trickier, but we
   have converged on a solution in today's Shadow DOM spec

   [dglazkov draws a diagram on the board]

Also see:
   [9]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/e
   xplainer/

  [9] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/explainer/

   scribe: every node that has children, you can associate (off to
   the right) with a shadowRoot: a DocumentFragment with extra
   stuff in it

rniwa: this loads for me:
   [10]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/
   explainer/index.html

 [10] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/explainer/index.html

   scribe: extra stuff is effectively a subclass of
   DocumentFragment. Things like getElementByID, querySelector.
   Stuff that has migrated into Document mainly anyway

   dbaron: So those just query what's in the Shadow DOM?

slightlyoff: oh oops, yeah. i guess it doesn't have an
   ordinary index.html > / rewrite :/

   DG: think of the line connecting ShadowRoot is not a normal
   connection--it's a separate tree
   ... insertion points can be any elements inside the tree.
   They're called 
   ... we use a rhombus for insertion points
   ...  name comes from XBL2
   ... you can have more than 1 content
   ... content can have a select attribute, which takes a narrow
   subset of CSS selctors
   ... that match against children of the parent node.
   ... currently limited to ID, tagname, attributes, and class
   ... no combinators.
   ... that's the conceptual model. But actually a node can have
   MULTIPLE shadow roots
   ... the method on the ndoe is "createShadowRoot"
   ... there's an ordering.
   ... Sometimes the element already has a shadowtree (like
   InputElement or TextArea)
   ... they're basically the same as how the native implementation
   might be done
   ... it's actually a stack of trees. new ones go on top of old
   ones; the newest one is the visible one. The ones underneath
   don't render
   ... there's a concept of older and younger shadow tree
   ... y

Re: [webcomponents]: Shadow DOM + CSS = <3 Meeting Summary

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/24/13 9:39 PM, ext L. David Baron wrote:

On Monday 2013-06-24 15:18 -0700, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:

You can find all of this (and more!)
in the minutes (http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-webapps-minutes.html).

That set of minutes isn't complete, because it was generated in the
middle of the meeting rather than at the end.  The complete log is
at:

http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-webapps-irc.txt
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-webapps-irc.html


Thanks for reporting this bug David. Yves fixed the problem so the 
minutes should now be complete:


  

-AB

Re: [webcomponents] Minutes from 21 June 2013 f2f meeting

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/24/13 9:44 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi All,

The minutes from the June 21 Web Components meeting [Agenda] are 
available at the following and copied below:


<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-webapps-minutes.html>


The minutes were not complete when I announced them yesterday but that 
issue has been fixed and the complete minutes are copied below.


-AB

   [1]W3C

  [1] http://www.w3.org/

   - DRAFT -

  WebApps' Web Components f2f Meeting

21 Jun 2013

   [2]Agenda

  [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/WebComponentsJune2013Meeting

   See also: [3]IRC log

  [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-webapps-irc

Attendees

   Present
  Edward_OConnor, Ryosuke_Niwa, Bear_Travis, Divya_Manian,
  Alex_Komoroske, David_Baron, Priyank_Singhal,
  Steve_Orvell, Daniel_Freedman, Dimitri_Glazkov,
  Elliott_Sprehn, Scott_Miles, Tab_Atkins

   Regrets

   Chair
  Dimitri

   Scribe
  Alex

Contents

 * [4]Topics
 1. [5]Quick Overview of Shadow DOM concepts
 * [6]Summary of Action Items
 __

ScribeNick: jkomoros

ScribeNick: jkomoros

Scribe: Alex

Chair: Dimitri_Glazkov

Meeting: Styling Issues in Shadow DOM and CSS

Quick Overview of Shadow DOM concepts

i think we need cofffee

   DG: Hoping that the main focus of this meeting will be
   primarily arounds CSS + Shadow DOM
   ... we had one original idea, but developers trying to use it
   gave feedback that it wasn't exactly the right "knobs"
   ... there are people here who are "Browser Vendors", and there
   are people who are the "web developers"
   ... a bunch of folks in the latter group here are from Polymer,
   Daniel Buchner (who should join at some point) represents
   x-tags
   ... and then spec folks, fantasai and tabatkins
   ... who aren't here yet.

   dbaron: Blake Kaplan and William Chen (?) have been working on
   Shadow DOM at Mozilla
   ... and I've been talking with them

   [by the way, we all took a coffee break]

   [break over]

   DG: The general idea of Shadow DOM is that you have an ability
   to create trees, like before, but connected for rendering
   purposes, render in place of nodes in document

wasn't there explainer somewhere?

   DG: this existed in many different systems before. It allows
   composability (one tree vs multiple)

is
   [7]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/e
   xplainer/index.html still up to date?

  [7] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/explainer/index.html

   DG: if I can replace the rendering of a node, what happens to
   its children?

rniwa: or, also:
   [8]http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow-dom/

  [8] http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow-dom/

   DG: the general overview gets trickier and trickier, but we
   have converged on a solution in today's Shadow DOM spec

   [dglazkov draws a diagram on the board]

Also see:
   [9]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/e
   xplainer/

  [9] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/explainer/

   scribe: every node that has children, you can associate (off to
   the right) with a shadowRoot: a DocumentFragment with extra
   stuff in it

rniwa: this loads for me:
   [10]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/
   explainer/index.html

 [10] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/57f8cfc4a7dc/explainer/index.html

   scribe: extra stuff is effectively a subclass of
   DocumentFragment. Things like getElementByID, querySelector.
   Stuff that has migrated into Document mainly anyway

   dbaron: So those just query what's in the Shadow DOM?

slightlyoff: oh oops, yeah. i guess it doesn't have an
   ordinary index.html > / rewrite :/

   DG: think of the line connecting ShadowRoot is not a normal
   connection--it's a separate tree
   ... insertion points can be any elements inside the tree.
   They're called 
   ... we use a rhombus for insertion points
   ...  name comes from XBL2
   ... you can have more than 1 content
   ... content can have a select attribute, which takes a narrow
   subset of CSS selctors
   ... that match against children of the parent node.
   ... currently limited to ID, tagname, attributes, and class
   ... no combinators.
   ... that's the conceptual model. But actually a node can have
   MULTIPLE shadow roots
   ... the method on the ndoe is "createShadowRoot"
   ... there's an ordering.
   ... Sometimes the element already has a shadowtree (like
   InputElement or TextArea)
   ... they're basically the same as how the native implementation
   might be done
   ... it's actually a stack of trees. new ones go on top of old
   one

Re: [PE] Interop Status Update

[Arthur Barstow]

On 6/27/13 1:05 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:

Hi,

I updated the Interop status of Progress Events:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/ProgressEvents

Firefox nightly 25.0a1 released on June 26 has passed all the tests. Thanks
to Mozilla folks.


Yes definitely, and thanks to you too Jungkee for continuing this task!


Now we are getting close to CR-exit


Based on your updated data, it appears we have meet the CR exit criteria 
since every test now has at least two implementations that pass it. As 
such, it seems like we can start a CfC to publish a Proposed 
Recommendation.


Chaals, All - do you agree?


having two identical
ongoing issues in Blink.

FYI, I have not tested the WebKit nightly build yet. It would be appreciated
if someone shares the result.

To Microsoft team,
Do you have any dev update in IE10 which brings any changes in the test
result?


It would indeed be good if we had more Passes. Can anyone from Opera 
indicate if the non-Passes for Presto will be fixed or not (and if so, 
when a public version will be available)?


-ArtB



Thanks and regards,


Jungkee


Jungkee Song
Samsung Electronics

CfC: publish WD of Push API; deadline July 23

[Arthur Barstow]

The Push API Editors would like to publish a new WD of the Push API spec 
and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following ED as the 
basis:




Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new 
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the _contents_ of 
the WD.


If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply 
to this e-mail by July 23 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC 
is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean 
agreement with the proposal.


-Thanks, AB

 Original Message 
Subject:[PUSH API] Request for CFC on publication of new WD
Resent-Date:Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:02:06 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:01:38 +
From:   ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L 
To: public-webapps@w3.org 



Hi Webapps,

Eduardo and I have uploaded a new ED of the Push API at 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html 
.


This incorporates a variety of changes based upon comments received 
since the last ED. See 
https://github.com/telefonicaid/WebAPISpecs/commits/develop/Push for 
details on these changes:


·Correct issues with Pubrules Checker

·moving push notification steps to system messages section

·escaping character

·Push server *may* skip version notifications …

·if none, registrations() returns 0 length array …

·Complete example code …

·Replace references to web intents with "push service extension" …

·editorial correction

·renaming appToken to pushRegistrationId

·splitting pushEndpoint into pushEndpoint and appToken

·adding links to promises algorithms

·fixing Promise-related descriptions

·fix example 1 to use Promise

·addressing Jonas' concern about transfering actual content in notific… …

·removing serverProtocols

·changing version to unsigned long long and clarifying when it is null… …

·changing from DOMRequest to Promise

·Add bit about semantics of push notification delivery guarantees

We would like to request a CFC for publication of a new WD based upon 
this ED.


Thanks,

Bryan Sullivan

Re: [webappsec + webapps] CORS to PR plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 7/16/13 3:47 PM, ext Brad Hill wrote:
CORS advanced to Candidate Recommendation this January, and I believe 
it is time we consider advancing it to Proposed Recommendation.  In 
the absence of an editor, I have been collecting bug reports sent to 
the public-webappsec list, and now have a proposed draft incorporating 
these fixes I would like to run by both WGs.


The proposed draft can be found at:

http://webappsec-test.info/~bhill2/pub/CORS/index.html 



A diff-marked version is available at:

http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FCR-cors-20130129%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwebappsec-test.info%2F~bhill2%2Fpub%2FCORS%2Findex.html 



Thanks very much for doing this work Brad!


If these changes are acceptable to the WGs,


The changes seem reasonable to me.

I believe the only remaining steps are to prepare an implementation 
report and update the test suite to cover the 204 and 308 status 
codes.   I'll let us discuss these for a bit here before beginning a 
formal call for consensus.


Sounds GTM.

-ArtB

RfC: LCWD of CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 3; deadline August 22

[Arthur Barstow]

WebApps - the CSS WG asked WebApps to review their 27 July LCWD of CSS 
Cascading and Inheritance Level 3:


  

Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback.

If anyone in WebApps wants to propose an official WG response, please do 
so ASAP, in reply to this e-mail so the WG can discuss it.


Comments should be sent to www-style @ w3.org, with a subject prefix of 
[css-cascade], by August 22.


-Thanks, AB

> From Bert Bos ...

Hello chairs,

The CSS WG decided to issue a last call for "CSS Cascading and
Inheritance Level 3"

  Latest WD:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-cascade/
  Editors' draft:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-cascade-3/
  Abstract:
This CSS module describes how to collate style rules and assign
values to all properties on all elements. By way of cascading and
inheritance, values are propagated for all properties on all
elements. CSS is a language for describing the rendering of
structured documents (such as HTML and XML) on screen, on paper, in
speech, etc.
  Changes since last WD:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-cascade/#changes

[screen-orientation] Comments from Marcos

[Arthur Barstow]

FYI, Marcos provided some comments on the latest Screen Orientation API 
ED in .


Marcos - thanks for this. Is your expectation that followups on your 
review are made in GH or WebApps' list? (My preference is the list, 
unless there is some specific `Web Architecture` / TAG issue.)


-AB

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

[Arthur Barstow]

On 7/29/13 4:15 PM, ext Yves Lafon wrote:

Hi,
In the PR [1], the text referencing WebIDL is not using one of the 
three conformance clauses defined in WebIDL [2].


Could
"This specification uses [WebIDL] to specify application programming 
interfaces." be clarified using one of the proposed wordings from WebIDL?

(likely 'Conforming IDL Fragments' per reading of the spec).


Hi Yves - it's unfortunate that spec wasn't more clear on its WebIDL 
conformance but, yes, my recollection is that the implementors of that 
spec focused on conformance to the IDL fragments (and not the other 
conformance classes).


-AB



Thanks,

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-widgets-apis-20120522/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#conformance

Re: IndexedDB: Thoughts on implementing IndexedDB

[Arthur Barstow]

On 7/30/13 4:37 AM, ext pira...@gmail.com wrote:

Finally, is there a good test suite? I can't seem to find anything in the
way of regression tests. I'll perhaps publish my own, if not.


+1, I've developed my own In-Memory implementation as a polyfill to
ignore a bug on Chrome regarding to files storage and I'm also
thinking about develop one for Node.js, and this would be really
useful. I believe there are some tests on W3C GitHub account, but
didn't have time to check them myself.


Some IDB tests have been submitted 
 
and [1] contains some information about the review status of these 
submissions.


([2] contains general information about WebApps' testing effort.)

-AB

[1] 


[2] 

CfC: publish new WD of IME API; deadline August 12

[Arthur Barstow]

Below, Takayoshi proposes WebApps publish a new WD of IME API and this 
is a Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED as the basis for 
the WD:




Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new 
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the _contents_ of 
the WD.


If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply 
to this e-mail by August 12 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC 
is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean 
agreement with the proposal.


Takayoshi - assuming this CfC passes, when you prepare the WD version, I 
think it would be useful if you added your `changes since last 
publication` data as a non-normative appendix. (F.ex. as Joshua did 
recently for the IDB CR 
.)


-Thanks, AB


 Original Message 
Subject:Update of the IME API spec
Resent-Date:Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:42:08 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Fri, 2 Aug 2013 17:41:17 +0900
From:   ext Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁) 
To: public-webapps 



Hi all,

It's been a while since the last update for the IME API spec in April.
I would like to push this version to publish a new working draft.

Here's the current cut of editor's draft:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/Overview.html
(and log https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/log)

Any comments are welcome.

Here are highlights of the changes since the last working draft (20130404):

* Example/use cases/best practices
- Removed Javascript IME use-case
- Removed example1 (drawing composition text in )
- Added example code for drawing composition text.
- Added an explanation of InputMethodContext's scope in best practices 
section.


* API
- Added target attribute proposed by Microsoft [1]
- Renamed getInputContext() to .inputMethodContext per comment from James Su
[2]
- Marked composition and target attributes as nullable.
- Clarified that context is associated with one editable or focusable 
element.

- Clarified the scope of setCaretRectangle()'s coordinates.
- Removed confusing 'enabled' property and open() method in favor of
usual focus control and inputmode attribute.
- Changed composition interface. the 'text' property was changed to plain
DOMString from Node, the 'caret' property was divided into the
'selectionStart' and the 'selectionEnd' properties. Added the 'segments'
property to represent the position of segmentation of composition text.

[1] Microsoft proposal:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/proposals/IMEProposal.html
[2] Comment from James Su
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0361.html

Thanks in advance,
--
Takayoshi Kochi

Re: [webappsec + webapps] CORS to PR plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 8/5/13 7:48 PM, ext Brad Hill wrote:
I'd like to issue this as a formal Call for Consensus at this point. 
 If you have any objections to CORS advancing to Proposed 
Recommendation, please reply to public-webapp...@w3.org 
.  Affirmative response are also 
encouraged, and silence will be taken as assent.


The proposed draft is available at:

http://webappsec-test.info/~bhill2/pub/CORS/index.html 



This CfC will end and be ratified by the WebAppSec WG on Tuesday, 
August 13, 2013.


Brad - what is the status of the `implementation report` you mentioned 
earlier:


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Brad Hill > wrote:


If these changes are acceptable to the WGs, I believe the only
remaining steps are to prepare an implementation report and update
the test suite to cover the 204 and 308 status codes.   I'll let
us discuss these for a bit here before beginning a formal call for
consensus.



I don't understand what is meant in the draft PR by "There is no 
preliminary implementation report.".


-Thanks, Art

CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline August 23

[Arthur Barstow]

Arun proposed (see below) WebApps publish a Last Call Working Draft of 
File API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following 
ED as the basis:




This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" for this LCWD. Note the Process 
Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD:


[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant 
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) 
in the Working Draft;


* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant 
dependencies with other groups;


* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these 
dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement 
is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the 
technical report to later maturity levels.

]]

The proposed review period for this LC is 4 weeks.

There are two open [Bugs] for this spec.

If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to 
public-webapps@w3.org by August 23 at the latest. Positive response is 
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement 
with the proposal.


-Thanks, AB

[Bugs] 


 Original Message 
Subject:File* Specifications | Status and some Promises
Resent-Date:Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:50:25 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:49:38 -0400
From:   ext Arun Ranganathan 
To: Web Applications Working Group WG 



Greetings WG,

There are three moving proposals in the File* arena, and I thought I'd catpure 
what these are and what the status of these are.

1. The File API, currently updated as editor's draft at 
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/

Review strongly encouraged :)  Notable fixes are:

i. A File constructor has been added, which has been a longstanding request.
ii. A new static method on URL called URL.createAndRevoke has been added that 
gets defaults right, and does away with autoRevoke, which nobody implemented 
for URL.createObjectURL.
iii. A Blob URL Store and a Revocation List, useful for URL Fetch (see 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17765).

This draft should be ready for LC and should be considered the File API v1.

2. Re-writing File APi to be Promises based, which should be considered a v2.  
The biggest departure from the current state of technology here would really be 
that we can have Promises right off the Blob itself, which is zeitgeist 
thinking about these things (and admittedly makes life easier than an 
XHR-inspired FileReader, which will be made legacy).  The best stab at a 
strawperson was this one by Jonas:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0727.html

But Stream itself temporarily lives here without too much implementation 
backbone: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm

I think we *should* have a Promises-based File API off of Blob, but I'm not 
totally sure about the Stream API as it is currently written; I'm amenable to 
editing the File API v2 portion, modulo our proposal for Stream.

3. Then there's the FileSystem API, currently discussed here: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0379.html

This was the upshot of discussions on this listserv, as well as internally at 
Mozilla.  I'm amenable to editing this, which is separate but related to 1. and 
2.

-- A*

Re: FileSystem API

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,


On 8/19/13 7:44 PM, ext Eric U wrote:

OK, I just finished making my way through the public-script-coord
thread [I'm not on that list, but someone pointed me to it].  I have
no official objections to you editing a spec based on Jonas's
proposal, but I do have a couple of questions:

1) Why is this on public-script-coord instead of public-webapps?


I think Jonas' reply on this question covers the rationale. (I 
[incorrectly] assumed everyone in WebApps is subscribed to p-s-c so I'll 
try to clarify our lists' usage when people join the group.)



2) Is any vendor other than Mozilla actually interested in this
proposal?  When it was brought up on public-webapps, and at the
WebApps F2F, it dropped with a resounding thud.

Given the standardization failure of the Chrome FileSystem API, this
could be a massive waste of time.  Or it could just be a way for
Mozilla to document its filesystem API, since we've already got
documentation of the Chrome API, but then you don't need to drag
public-script-coord into that.


These are good questions and points. I don't feel real strongly here re 
our next steps other than I think we should try to get consensus on a 
high-level plan to help set expectations accordingly.


It seems we have a few options, some are not necessarily mutually 
exclusive ...


1. Leave Eric's specs in WD state

2. Move Eric's specs to LC->CR (feature set should probably be 
restricted/limited to what is already implemented in Chrome); block in 
CR until there are two or more implementations


3. Move Eric's specs to WG Notes and stop work (as was done with Web SQL 
Database)


4. Merge the two proposals

5. Formally start work on Mozilla proposal knowing there is some overlap 
with Eric's specs


6. Other options?

It appears the current proposal/plan is #1 plus #5 which is effectively 
the `Darwinism` plan. Is this correct?


-ArtB

[announce] Test the Web Forward: Shenzhen China 9 November 2013

[Arthur Barstow]

If you are going to Shenzhen in November for TPAC, please note there is 
a Test the Web Forward event on Saturday November 9:


[[


 Now that we've wrapped up the Shanghai event, we've kicked off the
 planning for our next event. Because we love China so much, we're
 heading back! This time we'll be in Shenzhen and for the first time,
 Test the Web Forward will be part of of the W3C's annual TPAC
 conference [3]. If you're a W3C working group member planning to be at
 TPAC and you'd like to come and offer your expertise on your favorite
 spec, please let us know! Contact Rebecca Hauck at rha...@adobe.com.
 If you're unable to attend TPAC but would like suggest specs or areas
 that need tests, we'd also love your input. You can contact Rebecca
 directly or if you'd like to start a group discussion, please use our
 new TestTWF event planning mailing list - see more info on this new
 list below.

[3] 
]]

WebApps will meet in Shenzhen November 11-12 
.


Please note some people may need a visa to enter China 
.


-AB

Re: Supporting Portrait-First and Landscape-First devices in HTML5 Device Orientation

[Arthur Barstow]

On 8/30/13 5:24 PM, ext Dhruv Chadha wrote:

As a next steps, who is responsible for updating the current device orientation 
specification?
FYI, this Geolocation WG ED says Google's and Andrei Popescu and Steve 
Block are the Editors of "DeviceOrientation Event Specification":


  

-AB

RfC: LCWD of File API; deadline October 24

[Arthur Barstow]

[ Bcc public-sysapps ; comments from SysApps are welcome ]

This is a Request for Comments for the 12 September 2013 Last Call 
Working Draft of File API:




The comment deadline is October 24 and all comments should be sent to 
the public-webapps@w3.org list with a subject: prefix of "[FileAPI]".


The spec's bug list is [Bugs] and the few `approved` tests we have can 
be run in a browser at [Tests].


-Thanks, ArtB

[Bugs] 
[Tests] 

RfC: LCWD of Web Notifications; deadline October 24

[Arthur Barstow]

WebApps - the Web Notification WG asked WebApps to review their 
September 12 LCWD of Web Notifications:


  

Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback.

If anyone in WebApps wants to propose an official WG response, please do 
so ASAP, in reply to this e-mail so the WG can discuss it.


Comments should be sent to public-web-notification @ w3.org by October 24.

-Thanks, AB

Reminder: TTWF-Shenzhen Nov 9, F2F Meeting Nov 11-12, TP Meeting Nov 13

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All - three threads about TPAC 2013 and WebApps' November 11-12 in 
Shenzhen.


1. WebApps meeting November 11-12:

* You Must register for the meeting 



* WebApps meeting page 
. Input on the 
agenda is of course welcome (but feel free to directly edit this page). 
I have  been thinking about setting aside some portion of Tuesday Nov 12 
for test case writing so any comments on that idea are welcome (perhaps 
all of Tuesday afternoon).


* WebApps' registration list 



2. Test the Web Forward November 9.

TTWF is hosting an event in Shenzhen on Saturday November 9. 
Registration for this event isn't open yet and I will forward that 
information when it is available.


Rebecca and the TTWF group welcome WebApps members to attend, especially 
those that can help `newbies` write tests. I believe James Graham is 
going to help with the event so I thank James in advance for his 
continued efforts! If other WebApp'ers can help, please let me know.


3. Technical Plenary meeting on Wednesday November 13.

The agenda for the Technical Plenary meeting is still a WIP but is 
roughly divided into two parts: fixed/predetermined agenda in the 
morning and unconference style parallel breakout sessions in the afternoon:


* AM Fixed Agenda 
 - if you 
have any feedback on the morning's predetermined agenda, send it to 
member-tpac-plann...@w3.org (and cc www-arch...@w3.org if you want 
Public visibility).


* PM Parallel Session - proposals for these sessions are put in the 
"Session Ideas" wiki 
. 
If you have a proposal, add it directly to this wiki document. My 
expectation is that meeting participants will be able to propose 
sessions at the meeting.


-Thanks, AB


 Original Message 
Subject:Registration for TPAC 2013 is Open
Resent-Date:Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:55:08 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:54:34 +0400
From:   ext Charles McCathie Nevile 
Organization:   Yandex
To: public-webapps WG 



Hi folks, (forwarded...)

Webapps is planning to meet at TPAC.

Registration for TPAC2013 is now open:

 TPAC 2013
 11-15 November
 Shenzhen, China
 http://www.w3.org/2013/11/TPAC/

(that page includes information about visas, and getting an invitation -
which many people will need in order to get a visa).

1) Register:
   https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2013/

   NOTE: Many people are required to have a visa for entry into China.
   Please see the registration form for information about securing an
   invitation letter from Beihang University for a Chinese visa to
attend
   TPAC 2013.

2) Make your hotel reservation:
   http://www.w3.org/2013/11/TPAC/#Accommodation

   NOTE: The TPAC 2013 organizers have secured a special guest room
rate
   at the Shenzhen Wuzhou Guest House (the venue). The special rate
   expires 10 October 2013.

If you have any questions, please contact Angel Li .

--
On registration and registration fees
--

There is a daily registration fee. The per person, per day fee is:

* 60 USD if registration and payment completed by 18 October 2013;
* 120 USD otherwise.

As in the past, registration is a two-step process:

1) completing a registration form:
   https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2013/

2) using a payment system. We are using a new payment system for TPAC 2013.
   Upon registration you will receive an email with payment
instructions.

   NOTE: The payment system will be available shortly; you may still
   register right away and you will be notified automatically once the
   payment system becomes available.

For more information about registration fees (including who is not
required to pay registration fees) and the payment system, see
  http://www.w3.org/2013/11/TPAC/#Registration

--
Camp-style Plenary Day
--

We plan to organize the plenary day camp-style, as we did last year.
We encourage you to propose breakout sessions in our wiki:
  http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2013/SessionIdeas

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

Re: Reminder: TTWF-Shenzhen Nov 9, F2F Meeting Nov 11-12, TP Meeting Nov 13

[Arthur Barstow]

On 9/17/13 6:25 AM, ext James Graham wrote:

On 13/09/13 14:29, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi All - three threads about TPAC 2013 and WebApps' November 11-12 in
Shenzhen.

1. WebApps meeting November 11-12:

* You Must register for the meeting
<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2013/>

* WebApps meeting page
<http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/November2013Meeting>. Input on the
agenda is of course welcome (but feel free to directly edit this page).
I have  been thinking about setting aside some portion of Tuesday Nov 12
for test case writing so any comments on that idea are welcome (perhaps
all of Tuesday afternoon).


FWIW I think the most productive use of this "testing" time would be 
to spend some time getting the group up to speed on how testcase 
review works and then trying to clear some of the review backlog. The 
members of the WG are exactly the people who are best placed to review 
test submissions, but at the moment this is not happening and it is 
causing problems. Of course I will be happy if people want to spend 
the time writing tests rather than reviewing them.


This is a great idea James!

I updated the agenda accordingly 
<http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/November2013Meeting#Agenda_Tuesday_November_12> 
and we can fine tune it later.


-Thanks, AB

Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests

[Arthur Barstow]

[ Bcc public-webapps ]

Hi All,

Last month, Cameron submitted over 125 test files for Web IDL (Thanks 
very much Cameron!). The tests are in [PR-271] with a http mirror at 
[Mirror-271].


Travis, Philippe, Dom and I agreed to review many of the tests but we 
still have one set of test files - [Set-5] ~25 test files - for which we 
have no committed reviewer.


If you can commit to reviewing at least some part of [Set-5], please let 
me know. (We also of course welcome review of all of the other tests.) 
We are planning to complete the review of PR-271 by the end of September.


Although we expect all review feedback to be submitted as comments to 
PR-271, we are using [Tracking-271] to track our review progress.


-Thanks, AB

[PR-271] 
[Mirror-271] 


[Set-5] 
[Tracking-271] 

Has WebApps' work on streams-api ended? [Was: [streams-api] WebIDL bug]

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Feras, All,

So, what is the plan for WebApps' streams-api spec?

(I noticed the ED hasn't been updated in seven months 
.)


-Thanks, AB


On 9/18/13 10:01 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

Le mercredi 18 septembre 2013 à 09:53 -0400, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux  wrote:

While parsing en-masse some of the IDLs in JavaScript APIs out there, I
stumbled upon an incorrect IDL in
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm#error-uris_for_streams

This specification is obsolete. Nobody should implement it or use it
for anything other than historical perspective.

Good to know, thanks.


  Someone should clearly
indicate that in the draft.

It would also be useful that this be shown in the related TR draft:
http://www.w3.org/TR/streams-api/
as well as in http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus

Dom

[admin] Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions

[Arthur Barstow]

[ Bcc public-{webapps, webevents, pointer-events} ]

Hi All - below is an important reminder from Wendy regarding "policies 
and good practice to ensure that we can meet W3C's Patent Policy, with 
the goal of assuring that W3C recommendations can be implemented 
Royalty-Free". If you are a spec Editor or spec contributor, please read 
Wendy's e-mail.


If you have any questions now, and/or there are any related 
questions/scenarios/issues/etc. in the future, please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

 Original Message 
Subject:Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions
Resent-Date:Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:40:14 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:40:05 -0400
From:   ext Wendy Seltzer 
Organization:   W3C
To: cha...@w3.org , W3C Team 



Hi W3C Working Group Chairs and Team Contacts,

As your Working Groups explore different ways to engage contributors and
the public in specification development, we wanted to remind you of
policies and good practice to ensure that we can meet W3C's Patent
Policy, with the goal of assuring that W3C recommendations can be
implemented Royalty-Free. This policy applies, for example, to pull
requests on github and comments received through social media.

As we say in the Patent Policy FAQ:
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq#non-participants
"How should Working Groups handle contributions from non-participants
(e.g., meeting guests or on public lists)?

 A W3C Working Group frequently finds itself in the position of
 receiving reviews and input from other parties who are not
 participants in the Working Group, including:

Another W3C Working Group;
A meeting guest, including an observer during the Technical Plenary
 Week;
The general public on a mailing list.

 All Participants in a given Working Group have made a commitment to
 the W3C Patent Policy (in particular, the provisions regarding
 licensing obligations), but only for the Recommendations of that
 particular Working Group. In general, other parties have not made the
 same commitment for those same deliverables, although they MAY make
 this commitment if they wish. Similarly, W3C may request that they
 make such a commitment (see instructions for licensing commitments
 from non-W3C Members). This means that the Working Group should
 consider very carefully any contribution from a non-Participant before
 including it in a document intended to become a W3C Recommendation.

 To help manage expectations of meeting guests, attendees of joint
 Working Group meetings, and mailing list subscribers, it is useful to
 remind them when appropriate of the goals of the W3C Patent Policy.

 When a contribution is being considered for actual inclusion in a
 document intended to become a Recommendation, the Chair should ask the
 Contributor to disclose any essential claims, and if there are any,
 the terms under which those claims would be licensed. Lack of a
 response to this request is a red flag.

 In cases where disclosure reveals possible incompatible licensing, the
 Working Group should either steer away from the Contribution, or
 attempt to secure W3C Royalty-Free licensing terms. W3C prefers to
 avoid PAGs where possible."


Please let us know if you have questions.
--Wendy
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wselt...@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/+1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

Re: Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/1/13 8:46 AM, ext David Bruant wrote:

Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
 wrote:

Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::

Regarding:  Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

I would like to request  that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
specification active again. The Web SQL Database Specification enables
developers to build web-based applications that can store, retrieve,
manipulate and query against data on the client machine. This 
technology is
similar to SQLite, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, etc. Web SQL 
combined with
Manifest enable developers to build web-based applications that work 
while

offline.

The Web SQL Database specification was on the W3C Recommendation 
track, but
the specification was stopped because Mozilla and Microsoft did not 
want to
implement a specification that lacked proper SQL definition. I know 
there is
a need for both a NoSQL and SQL solution. The two specifications 
(Web SQL

Database and Indexed Database API) that exist to date are acceptable..
However, as stated above, the problem is the lack of definition for 
SQL.
Since lack of definition is the issue, I would like to recommend a 
remedy.
I know SQL experts and great documentation writers who I would 
gladly hire
to further define the Web SQL Database specification and fill in the 
missing
SQL definition. Is this something that would be possible to help 
revive the

specification and get the remaining vendors on board?

The minimum requirements for bringing back WebSQL, or any other
SQL-based web spec is IMHO:

1. A specification for the SQL dialect being proposed.
2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations
being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of
it, and not a superset of it.
3. The two independent implementations need to have roughly the same
performance characteristics. I.e. it's not ok for an implementation to
generate correct results, but do it so slowly that it's in practice
unusable.
I'd like to add another requirement which is having a significant 
advantage over IndexedDB. If web devs want SQL, they can have it on 
top of IndexedDB in the form of an open source library (I'm willing to 
be it already exists). They don't need to wait for a standard to 
emerge, nor for browsers to consistently implement it.


If they really want a spec, they can create a W3C community group (or 
a Github repo). We don't need browsers to do all the work for us!



Michael - I don't see consensus to re-visit WebApps' decision to stop 
working on Web SQL Database.


Like David, I also was thinking that a W3C Community Group could be a 
way for you to do related work.


-Regards, AB

[admin] Spec status and plans ...

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

During WebApps' f2f meetings, we typically review each spec in 
[PubStatus] to determine if the specs' data is accurate, as well as to 
identify any general issues about each spec. I think this has been 
useful to help get us "on the same page" as well as to help set 
expectations such as providing accurate information for each spec's "Plans".


Since the registrant list for the November 11-12 meeting is relatively 
low and several spec Editors are not registered, I am going to use 
e-mail to `simulate` this review. I'll send separate e-mails for the 
specs and group them if/when it makes sense (f.ex. Web Components). A 
few specs have a relatively clear status (f.ex. File API is now in LC, 
CORS is on track for PR, Web IDL tests are being reviewed) so I will not 
request information for those specs.


Although WebApps does not enforce the so-called "heartbeat" publication 
of Working Drafts, if your spec has not been published recently (say in 
2013), it probably should be published, especially if the spec has 
changed, is now feature complete, is getting implemented, etc.


Editors - I would appreciate it if you would please reply to your spec's 
specific request for status and plans and I apologize in advance if that 
data is already clear or `well known`.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[websockets] Seeking Interop & Test Suite status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Kris, Adrian, Ken,

If any of the testing-related data for the Web Sockets spec in 
[PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, please provide a short update re plans for CR interop testing 
(Draft implementation report is 
).


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[DOM-Parsing] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Travis,

If any of the data for DOM Parsing and Serialization in [PubStatus] is 
not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - FPWD 
published 20-Sep-2012 - please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[streams-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Feras,

If any of the data for the Streams API spec in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, please see the following thread and let us know your plan for this 
spec 
.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[webmessaging] Seeking Interop & Test Suite status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Alex, Kris, Adrian,

If any of the testing-related data for the Web Messaging spec in 
[PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, please provide a short update re plans for CR interop testing 
(Draft implementation report is 
).


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[D3E] Seeking status and plan

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Travis and Gary,

If any of the data for D3E in [PubStatus] is not accurate, please 
provide corrections.


Also, please provide a short update re the plan and time-frame to 
publish a new LCWD. [Hint: it would be really nice to get a new LCWD of 
D3E published as soon as possible ;-)]


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[pointerlock] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Vincent,

If any of the data for the Pointer Lock spec in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 29-May-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc. please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[selectors-api2] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Lachlan,

If any of the data for the Selectors API v2 spec in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 28-June-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[ime-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Takayoshi and Kenji,

If any of the data for the IME spec in [PubStatus] is not accurate, 
please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec, or the 
spec's status with respect to being feature complete, implementation 
status, etc. please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[uievents] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Gary, Travis,

If any of the data for the UI Events spec in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 25-July-2013 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[progress-events] Seeking Interop & Test Suite status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Jungkee,

If any of the testing-related data for Progress Events in [PubStatus] is 
not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, I would appreciate it, if you would please provide a short update 
re the status and plan for CR Implementation Report 
.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[fullscreen] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Tantek,

If any of the data for Fullscreen in [PubStatus] is not accurate, please 
provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 6-July-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[quota-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Kinuko,

If any of the data for the Quota Management API spec in [PubStatus] is 
not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 03-July-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[push-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Bryan, Eduardo,

If any of the data for the Push API spec in [PubStatus] is not accurate, 
please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec, the 
spec's status with respect to being feature complete, implementation 
status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[screen-orientation] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Mounir,

If any of the data for the Screen Orientation API in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 06-Dec-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[eventsource] Seeking Interop & Test Suite status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Tina,

If any of the test-related data for the Server-Sent Events spec in 
[PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, I would appreciate it, if you would please provide a short update 
re the status and plans for the CR Implementation Report 
.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[webcomponents] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Dimitri,

If any of the data for the four Web Components documents (including the 
`Explainer`) in [PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, for each of these documents, please provide a short summary re 
your plans for the spec, f.ex. the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[IndexedDB] Seeking Interop & Test Suite status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Jonas, Joshua, Eliot and Alex,

If any of the test-related data for Indexed Database API in [PubStatus] 
is not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, what is the plan - f.ex. Who is going to do What and by When - 
for: 1) reviewing test submissions; 2) completing the test suite; and 3) 
doing interop testing?


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[workers] Seeking Interop & Test Suite status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Simon, Odin,

If any of the testing-related data for the Web Workers spec in 
[PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, please provide a short update re plans for CR interop testing.

As I understand it, several workers tests have been reviewed and 
approved [Tests] but there might be some gaps so any info you have re 
the gaps would be helpful.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 
[Tests] 

[file-{writer,system}-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Eric,

If any of the data for your two File APIs in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for these specs 
(last published 17-Apr-2012), or the specs' status with respect to being 
feature complete, please let us know.


All - besides Chrome, if there are other implementations of these specs, 
please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[gamepad] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Ted, Scott,

If any of the data for the Gamepad spec in [PubStatus] is not accurate, 
please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last 
published 29-May-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being 
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[clipboard-apis] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Hallvord,

If any of the data for Clipboard APIs and Events in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec, the 
spec's status with respect to being feature complete, implementation 
status, please let us know.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

[xhr] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Hallvord, Julian and Jungkee,

If any of the data for the XHR spec in [PubStatus] is not accurate,
please provide corrections.

I am also interested in the status and plans for both the version of XHR
that is supposed to move to LC->CR-REC in 2013 and the XHR-Bleeding-Edge
version.

-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

Re: [webcomponents] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

Thanks for the update Dimitri!

On 10/2/13 1:58 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
* HTML Imports (http://www.w3.org/TR/html-imports/) is getting close 
to the next WD. Hajime Morrita has been working on that spec, and I 
would like to put him down as the primary editor.


That's fine with me. Thanks Hajime and please update the ED (and 
PubStatus) accordingly.


At some point, we need to look at these specs and consider whether 
they should remain independent normative dcuments or be incorporated 
into existing ones like HTML or DOM. For example, HTML Imports is 
mostly a monkeypatch for HTML spec. But this discussion hasn't started 
yet.


OK, thanks for the heads-up. (I added a note about this to the "Plans" 
data for HTML Imports.)


-AB

Reminder of WebApps' off-list topic policy [Was: ...]

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/2/13 12:51 PM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

If any of the data for Fullscreen in [PubStatus] is not accurate, please
provide corrections.

Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last
published 6-July-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being feature
complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.

[PubStatus] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus>

I wrote all the text in http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ on which
http://www.w3.org/TR/fullscreen/ appears to be based (although
woefully out of date). Given the W3C's explicit stance on forking, I
think would be hypocritical for your group to continue publishing this
fork.


Hi Anne,

I appreciate you technical input on WebApps' specs and I would like that 
to continue. I would also be delighted if/when you and the W3C work out 
a mutually agreeable copyright policy for Working Group specs.


WebApps' charter has a clear set of deliverables and a clear document 
license for these specs. Until there is consensus within the group to 
stop work on a spec or the charter is changed (e.g. to a different set 
of deliverables, different document license, etc.), the expectation is 
the group will continue to work on XHR, Fullscreen, and every other spec 
in our charter using W3C Document License.


WebApps also has an "off-topic policy" [Off-Topic] I think you violate 
when you continue to discuss W3C's document license on WebApps' mail 
list. Please respect this policy and move all discussions related to W3C 
document license to the Revising W3C Process Community Group [w3process].


-Thanks, ArtB

[Off-topic] 
<http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode#Off-Topic_Discussion_Policy>

[w3process] <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/>

[admin] DOM4 is now a deliverable of the HTMLWG

[Arthur Barstow]

FYI, as Philippe announced a few days ago, the HTMLWG's new charter [1] 
includes DOM4:


[[


The new charter includes:

 * An Dual License experiment for some specifications:
http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html#documentlicense
 * The addition of the DOM4 specification
]]

Re the rationale for moving this spec to HTMLWG, the following 
(unfortunately, Member-only) information was provided to Members:


[[


The Director made one additional change to this charter as a result of
discussion: to move the DOM4 specification from the charter of the Web
Applications Working Group to the HTML Working Group.  The decision is
the result of several considerations:

 * The DOM4 specification has not been updated by the Web Applications
   Working Group since December 2012.
 * The HTML5 specification has a strong dependency on DOM4, so to
   complete HTML5 on time, we need DOM4 to advance.
 * At the June AC Meeting [2] we sought input on which specifications
   could usefully move to the HTML Working Group as part of
   this experiment. As a result of conversations, it became clear
   that DOM4 was the primary candidate.
 * The Chairs of both the HTML Working Group and the Web Applications
   Working Group have indicated that they support this move.
]]

Philippe, Robin, Yves - please clarify if the dual license will apply to 
the HTMLWG's DOM4 spec and the plan for the spec's Editor(s). My 
expectation is that www-dom will continue to be used for DOM4 so please 
confirm that too.


-Thanks, AB

[1] 

[admin] Oct 28 is deadline to start a CfC to publish before TPAC 2013

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Editors, All,

Since the W3C will not publish any documents during TPAC week, if you 
want to publish a document before TPAC, October 28 is the last day to 
start a CfC to publish.


Please note, however, a lot of groups typically publish right before 
TPAC, so if you want to publish before TPAC, I highly recommend the CfC 
be started before October 28 (preferably much earlier).


-Thanks, AB

Re: [quota-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/2/13 9:37 PM, ext Kinuko Yasuda wrote:
I'm planning to update the FPWD to use some new syntax like Promises, 
and Mozilla is showing agreement and interest to implement the new 
draft per discussion on public-webapps 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0368.html).


The new draft can be found on my github, and am planning to update the 
WD on w3c site before TPAC.

https://github.com/kinu/quota-api/blob/master/draft.md


Thanks for the update Kinuko.

When you say "update the WD on w3c site", do you mean update [ED] or do 
you mean you would like to publish a new Working Draft as a Technical 
Report (TR) i.e. update [WD]? If the later, please note October 28 is 
the deadline to start a CfC to publish a new WD (as a TR).


-Thanks, ArtB

[ED] 
[WD] 



-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] 

Re: [selectors-api2] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/2/13 3:18 PM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:

On 2013-10-02 18:31, Arthur Barstow wrote:

If any of the data for the Selectors API v2 spec in [PubStatus] is not
accurate, please provide corrections.

Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - last
published 28-June-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to being
feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


Thanks for the update Lachlan.


The features from selectors API 2 are being integrated into DOM, with
some design changes from the last selectors api spec.  I don't forsee
any future edits to the selectors api 2 specification itself.  If you
like, we can re-publish it as a NOTE,


That integration seems like a reasonable idea to me and if WebApps is 
going to stop work on Selectors API 2, then I would continue our group's 
precedence to publish a WG Note to help signal work on the spec has 
stopped. As such, unless I hear otherwise from you, I'll start a related 
CfC.



and get a draft of DOM that
includes selectors api features published.


I'm not sure what you mean re "draft of DOM" here. Do you mean 
integrating the selectors API into WebApps' DOM4 [ED]; or do you mean 
the HTMLWG should start working towards a TR publication of DOM4 that 
includes the selectors API; or something else?


-Thanks, ArtB

[ED] <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>

Re: [pointerlock] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/3/13 12:14 PM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote:
Pointer Lock is no longer blocked on mozilla security review. Firefox 
stable now implements behavior similar to Chrome when not in full 
screen. I will be updating the spec and closing 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19297 soon.


Thanks for the update Vincent (I updated PubStatus accordingly).


I will update the specification to include the constraints now 
implemented in Firefox and Chrome, but will leave wording allowing 
user agents to have additional constraints as appropriate for future 
contexts.


I will also clarify the spec by adding reference to 
onpointerlockchange and onpointerlock error, and specifying that 
pointer lock should not be exited upon a transition in window state 
between fullscreen, maximized or restored.


At that point I would like to publish another working draft of the 
specification, possibly a Last Call Working Draft.


OK, please let me know when the ED is updated and then we can discuss 
the WD vs. LCWD question.


(See the following re the Purpose and Entrance Criteria for LCWD 
.)


-Thanks, ArtB

Re: Testing Pointer Lock

[Arthur Barstow]

Thanks Tobie.

Vincent - I recommend you forward your original message directly to 
public-test-in...@w3.org (FYI, the Web-driver folks also use W3C's 
#testing channel).


I don't think any of WebApps' tests currently use Web-driver so there 
could be a bit of learning curve here but it's likely other specs will 
have similar requirements (f.ex. gamepad, screen orientation, fullscreen?) .


-AB

On 10/3/13 9:18 PM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:50:21 +0100, Vincent Scheib mailto:sch...@google.com)>
wrote:

Pointer lock is tricky to automate tests for. Consider some examples:
- Upon lock, no pointer should be visible.

That might be tested using a reftest[1].

- A user gesture is required to lock when not in fullscreen.

That might be tested using a WebDriver test (we haven't agreed on a way to 
write or run those yet).


- Transitioning to fullscreen and pointer lock then exiting fullscreen
should maintain pointer lock. (User gesture required to enter fullscreen)

This might also be feasible using WebDriver.

- While locked, moving the mouse indefinitely in any direction must
continue to provide non zero movementX/Y values.

That could be automated using WebDriver.

I'm considering starting some pointer lock tests with testharness.js. The
only solution I see is to provide instructions in many tests
for manual actions and observations.

If there's interest on your side to explore the WebDriver-based option, I'm 
happy to start a discussion on how those tests should be written in the 
relevant channel (public-test-in...@w3.org), but that really depends on what 
your main goal with this effort is (move the spec along the REC track, or 
improve interop) and what your timeline's like. If you want to ship the spec 
quickly, going the manual route with testharness.js is probably your best 
option. You'll always be able to revisit later (you could even do both in 
parallel).

--tobie
---
[1]: http://testthewebforward.org/docs/reftests.html
  

CfC: publish Selectors API Level 2 as WG Note; deadline October 11

[Arthur Barstow]

As discussed previously (e.g. [1]), this is a Call for Consensus to:

1. Publish Selectors API Level 2 as WG Note

2. Stop work on that spec with an understanding this spec's features 
will be included in the HTMLWG's version of DOM4


If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to 
public-webapps@w3.org by October 11 at the latest. Positive response is 
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement 
with the proposal.


-Thanks, AB

[1] 

[custom-elements] Seeking pre-LC comments for HTML Templates; deadline June 1

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

Dimitri indicated Custom Elements [ED] is feature complete and thus is 
ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft.


As WebApps has done with other specs that have advanced toward being 
feature complete, this is a `shortish` pre-LC comment period that will 
be followed by a CfC for LCWD if/when any objections are resolved.


If you have any comments, concerns, etc. about this spec being "LC 
ready", please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org (with a 
[custom-elements] Subject prefix) by October 13. Note the purpose and 
entrance criteria for LCWD is formally defined in 
.


The bugs for this spec can be found by searching for "custom" in [Bugs]. 
Dimitri - please clarify the plan/recommendation for this spec's open 
bugs (I just counted about 12).


-Thanks, AB

[ED] 


[Bugs] 

Re: [custom-elements] Seeking pre-LC comments for HTML Templates; deadline October 13

[Arthur Barstow]

Deadline is October 13 (original Subject: had a copypasta bug).

On 10/4/13 7:53 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi All,

Dimitri indicated Custom Elements [ED] is feature complete and thus is 
ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft.


As WebApps has done with other specs that have advanced toward being 
feature complete, this is a `shortish` pre-LC comment period that will 
be followed by a CfC for LCWD if/when any objections are resolved.


If you have any comments, concerns, etc. about this spec being "LC 
ready", please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org (with a 
[custom-elements] Subject prefix) by October 13. Note the purpose and 
entrance criteria for LCWD is formally defined in 
<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call>.


The bugs for this spec can be found by searching for "custom" in 
[Bugs]. Dimitri - please clarify the plan/recommendation for this 
spec's open bugs (I just counted about 12).


-Thanks, AB

[ED] 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/custom/index.html>

[Bugs] <http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-WebComponents>

Re: [custom-elements] Seeking pre-LC comments for Custom Elements; deadline October 13

[Arthur Barstow]

And this is for _Custom Elements_ !

On 10/4/13 8:03 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Deadline is October 13 (original Subject: had a copypasta bug).

On 10/4/13 7:53 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi All,

Dimitri indicated Custom Elements [ED] is feature complete and thus 
is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft.


As WebApps has done with other specs that have advanced toward being 
feature complete, this is a `shortish` pre-LC comment period that 
will be followed by a CfC for LCWD if/when any objections are resolved.


If you have any comments, concerns, etc. about this spec being "LC 
ready", please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org (with a 
[custom-elements] Subject prefix) by October 13. Note the purpose and 
entrance criteria for LCWD is formally defined in 
<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call>.


The bugs for this spec can be found by searching for "custom" in 
[Bugs]. Dimitri - please clarify the plan/recommendation for this 
spec's open bugs (I just counted about 12).


-Thanks, AB

[ED] 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/custom/index.html>

[Bugs] <http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-WebComponents>

[admin] Recommended way to mark bugs as `next level`? [Was: Re: [custom-elements] Seeking pre-LC comments for Custom Elements; deadline Oct 13

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/4/13 8:12 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
A better view of bugs is here: 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/showdependencytree.cgi?id=14968&hide_resolved=1 



The only remaining bug is to coordinate with Math and SVG working 
groups to make sure that they don't step on our dashes:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23256

Everything else is in the Level 2 pile. If there's a better way to 
mark these up, let me know.


That's a good question. I don't recall WebApps agreeing on a specific 
mechanism for tagging bugs for the next level/version.


One option is to set Severity to Enhancement and/or the Priority to one 
of the lower levels. Another option is to use the Whiteboard field.


(I kinda' like using Severity/Enhancement because it is visible in a 
component's default list view but I don't have a strong preference.)


Mike, All - do you have a recommendation for Dimitri (and the rest of 
WebApps)?


-Thanks, ArtB

Re: [ime-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/9/13 2:02 AM, ext Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁) wrote:

The status of IME API in the PubStatus page is correct.

I will make some modification to Editor's draft soon, taking some of 
what Microsoft proposed [1],

and some clarification about event delivery.


Thanks for the update Takayoshi.


If possible, I hope we can get live feedback on the TPAC session.


Sounds good.

-ArtB

Re: [streams-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/10/13 6:26 AM, ext Aymeric Vitte wrote:
I think the plan should be more here now: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0049.html


There are indeed at least two specs here:

[1] Feras' <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm>

[2] Takeshi's 
<http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/tyoshino/stream/blob/master/streams.html>


Among the Qs I have here are ...

* What is the implementation status of these specs?

* Would it make sense or be useful to merge or layer the specs, or 
should we only work on one of these specs?


* Who favors WebApps stopping work on [1] and starting work on [2]?

* Would anyone object to WebApps stopped working on [1]? If yes, are you 
willing to help lead the effort to move Feras' spec forward?


* Takeshi - I noticed you are not a member of WebApps. Are you willing 
to work on [2] within the context of WebApps?


-Thanks, AB




Regards

Aymeric

Le 02/10/2013 18:32, Arthur Barstow a écrit :

Hi Feras,

If any of the data for the Streams API spec in [PubStatus] is not 
accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, please see the following thread and let us know your plan for 
this spec 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0599.html>.


-Thanks, ArtB

[PubStatus] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus>

Re: [streams-api] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/11/13 8:05 AM, ext Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Feras Moussa 
mailto:feras.mou...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Apologies for the delay, I had broken one of my mail rules and
didn't see this initially.

Asymeric is correct - there have been a few threads and revisions.
A more up-to-date version is the one Asymeric linked -

http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/tyoshino/stream/blob/master/streams.html
The above version incorporates both promises and streams and is a
more refined version of Streams.

From other threads on Stream, it became apparent that there were a
few pieces of the current Streams API ED that were designed around
older paradigms and needed refining to be better aligned with
current APIs.  I think it does not make sense to have two
different specs, and instead have a combined one that we move
forward.

I can work with Takeshi on getting his version incorporated into
the Streams ED, which we can then move forward with.


I'm happy to.


OK, thanks Feras and Takeshi. Re PubStatus, I added Taekshi as an Editor 
and update the Plan to reflect the impending integration.


I think it would be helpful if Feras' spec was updated as soon as 
possible to clearly state the intent to integrate Takeshi's spec.


-Thanks, Art

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

[Arthur Barstow]

On 7/31/13 10:05 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:

Thanks, indeed the CR->PR transition was made with a test suite that was
linked to this WebIDL reference, and not the other one.

That said, if you have tests and better, a report for a stricter
conformance to WebIDL, it would be good to highlight them.


No need. Let just go to REC and be done please ^_^


Marcos, Yves - what specific things must be done to move widgets-apis to 
REC?


-Thanks, AB

CfC: publish LCWD of Custom Elements; deadline October 21

[Arthur Barstow]

Dimitri and I did not notice any concerns to the request for pre-LC 
comments for Custom Elements [pre-LC] so this is a CfC to publish a LCWD 
of this spec using the following ED as the basis:




This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" for this LCWD. Note the Process 
Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD:


[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant 
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) 
in the Working Draft;


* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant 
dependencies with other groups;


* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these 
dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement 
is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the 
technical report to later maturity levels.

]]

Currently, there are 10 open bugs for this spec and they have all been 
marked as Resolved/Later [Bugs].


The proposed review period for this LC is 4 weeks. If anyone thinks the 
review period should be longer, please speak up.


If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to 
public-webapps@w3.org by October 21 at the latest. Positive response is 
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement 
with the proposal.


Assuming this CfC passes, if there are any specific groups (e.g. HTMLWG, 
TAG, I18N, WAI, Privacy IG, Security IG, etc.) we should ask to review 
the LCWD, please let me know.


-Thanks, AB

[pre-LC] 


[Bugs] 

Re: [gamepad] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/10/13 2:12 PM, ext Ted Mielczarek wrote:

Thanks for the nudge! My work on the spec (and the Firefox
implementation) fell by the wayside for many months, but I found some
time to work on my implementation recently. We (Mozilla) are shipping a
very-close-to-spec implementation in Nightly builds, and it's available
behind a preference in our current release (Firefox 24).

I'd actually like to ship our implementation in release soon, I just
have a few minor implementation bugs (with significant impact) to fix as
well as one possible breaking spec change[1]. With those in order I'd be
pretty happy to ship. We'd be shipping unprefixed, as is our new policy.

It's my understanding that Google has been shipping a prefixed
implementation that's also pretty close to the spec for some time now,
but that Scott suffers from the same "Gamepad is not really my full-time
job" problem that I do. He'd be more equipped to talk about this than I
am, certainly.

In terms of feature-completeness I think the spec is basically done.
Aside from that one breaking change I'd like to make I don't think
there's anything else we want to address right now that couldn't be done
in a future release of the spec. We've wanted to keep the scope small
from the beginning and I think we did okay. It definitely needs some
more work (mostly polishing of the text, fixing the existing bugs), but
we could certainly get out a new WD with the most recent text.


Thanks for this update Ted. Scott - please let us know if you have any 
additional status to share.


Since 21388 is now Resolved/Fixed, based on what you say above it seems 
like the next step should be to have a 1-week "pre-LC call for 
comments". Then, assuming no major issues are raised, I would start a 
CfC to publish a LCWD.


However, I noticed 4 open bugs [Bugs]. What is the plan for these (f.ex. 
are they deferred to the next version)?


One reason groups publish a LCWD is to use it as a signal that broader 
review of the spec is desired, and in this case, perhaps we can ask 
Marcos to help us reach out to the developer community he mentioned in 
[Dev].


-Thanks, ArtB

[Dev] 





-Ted

1. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21388

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of File API; deadline October 24

[Arthur Barstow]

 Original Message 
Subject:RfC: LCWD of File API; deadline October 24
Resent-Date:Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:54:21 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:39:55 -0400
From:   ext Arthur Barstow 
Reply-To:   public-webapps 
To: public-webapps 



[ Bcc public-sysapps ; comments from SysApps are welcome ]

This is a Request for Comments for the 12 September 2013 Last Call
Working Draft of File API:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-FileAPI-20130912/>

The comment deadline is October 24 and all comments should be sent to
the public-webapps@w3.org list with a subject: prefix of "[FileAPI]".

The spec's bug list is [Bugs] and the few `approved` tests we have can
be run in a browser at [Tests].

-Thanks, ArtB

[Bugs] <http://tinyurl.com/Bugs-FileAPI>
[Tests] <http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/FileAPI/>

[admin] Director's considerations when evaluating normative references

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

TL;DR: the process for evaluating normative references during Technical 
Reports transitions is now defined in 
.


One of the parts of the Technical Reports advancement process is an 
evaluation of a spec's normative references. This evaluation is done 
during transitions such as moving from Last Call Working Draft to 
Candidate Recommendation. The evaluation process previously used 
"maturity" of a reference as the primary evaluation criteria (f.ex. to 
advance to Recommendation, all normative refs had to be at least at the 
Proposed Recommendation maturity level).


Philippe and Ralph Swick created a new document to describe the 
evaluation process. Although the maturity of references is still a 
consideration, it isn't the only factor. Here's a snippet of the high 
level goals:


[[


This document explains considerations the Director takes into account 
when evaluating normative references from W3C documents at transitions 
on theW3C Recommendation track 
. These 
considerations may be used by the Working Group while evaluating the 
risk associated with specific design choices during the group's 
deliberations. The Director may refer to this document when a transition 
request is being decided.


At a high level, when a W3C specification has normative references to 
other documents the Director considers 3 factors: stability, schedule 
and licensing. Any of the factors described in this document are fodder 
for Director consideration. No single factor is decisive. Different 
cases will involve different combinations of these factors. The Director 
may consider other factors not listed in this document as well; e.g. the 
likelihood that W3C may wish to submit the Recommendation to ISO and the 
PAS criteria for normative references.

]]

I encourage everyone, especially the Editors, to read this document. It 
includes a relatively long list of questions that could be considered a 
bit "daunting". However, I want to highlight something Ralph says below 
-> "the W3C Director stresses that the document should not be 
interpreted as a checklist of pass/fail criteria".


I think this document provides good clarifications regarding important 
aspects of the evaluation process and provides useful guidelines (in the 
form of questions) for the group to consider as a spec `matures`.


If you have any general comments, concerns, etc. regarding this 
document, please send them to the public-w3process list. If your 
comments are specific to this group (f.ex. "so, what does this mean for 
WebApps") then I think this list would be fine for comments.


-Thanks, AB

On 10/18/13 1:37 PM, ext Ralph Swick wrote:

Philippe and I have worked with Tim to create a document describing
considerations the Director takes into account when evaluating normative
references in Recommendation Track documents.

  https://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references

As you read this you will see that the maturity level of a document that
is normatively referenced is only one of many factors.  The factors
described in this document can be interpreted as guidelines to advise a
Working Group as it is developing a specification.   Tim stresses that
the document should not be interpreted as a checklist of pass/fail criteria.

We hope this document proves helpful to Working Groups throughout the
specification development process.

-Ralph and Philippe
 with Tim Berners-Lee, Director

CfC: publish LCWD of Pointer Lock; deadline October 28

[Arthur Barstow]

This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of Pointer Lock, 
using the following ED as the basis:


  

This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" for this LCWD. Note the Process 
Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD:


[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant 
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) 
in the Working Draft;


* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant 
dependencies with other groups;


* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these 
dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement 
is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the 
technical report to later maturity levels.

]]

Currently, there are no open [Bugs] for this spec.

If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to 
public-webapps@w3.org by October 28 at the latest. Positive response is 
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement 
with the proposal.


The proposed review period for this LC is 4 weeks.

Assuming this CfC passes, if there are any specific groups (e.g. HTMLWG, 
TAG, I18N, WAI, Privacy IG, Security IG, etc.) we should ask to review 
the LCWD, please let me know.


-Thanks, AB

[Bugs] 

CfC: publish new WD of UI Events; deadline October 30

[Arthur Barstow]

Travis and Gary would like to publish a new WD of UI Events and this is 
a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following ED as the basis:


  

Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new 
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contentsof the WD.


If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply 
to this e-mail by October 30 at the latest. Positive response to this 
CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean 
agreement with the proposal.


-Thanks, ArtB

CfC: publish new WD of DOM Events Level 3

[Arthur Barstow]

The people working on DOM Events Level 3 would like to publish a new WD 
of DOM Events Level 3 (aka D3E) and this is a Call for Consensus to do 
so, using the following ED as the basis:




Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new 
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contentsof the WD.


If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply 
to this e-mail by October 30 at the latest. Positive response to this 
CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean 
agreement with the proposal.


-Thanks, ArtB

RfC: LCWD of Custom Elements; deadline November 21

[Arthur Barstow]

This is a Request for Comments for the Last Call Working Draft of Custom 
Elements:




If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by 
November 21 using a Subject: header of "[custom-elements]"


-Thanks, AB

Re: [screen-orientation] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/2/13 12:31 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi Mounir,

If any of the data for the Screen Orientation API in [PubStatus] is 
not accurate, please provide corrections.


Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - 
last published 06-Dec-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to 
being feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know.


Marcos - Mounir just indicated in [IRC] that you submitted a Screen 
Orientation bug in GH. Can you please add that to W3C Bugzilla for this 
spec? Also, I think it would be helpful if you expanded on what you 
think needs to be spec'ed re [23072] (the only open bug for this spec).


All - besides FireFoxOS and FF on Android, are there any other 
implementations of this spec?


-Thanks, ArtB

[IRC] <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20131025>
[23072] <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23072>

[admin] RfC: Updates of the Technical Reports process; deadline November 27

[Arthur Barstow]

[Bcc public-pointer-events ]

Hi All,

The Advisory Board spent the last two years discussing updates to the 
Technical Reports process f.ex. to make it less heavy-weight [AB]. The 
results are in the following Draft document that is proposed to replace 
Chapter 7 of the (current) Process Document [PD]:


  [Draft] 

If you have any comments on [Draft], please send them to 
public-w3process @ w3.org (archive [Archive]) by November 27. Bugs for 
this document are kept in [Bugs].


FYI, a related discussion is scheduled for the Technical Plenary meeting 
on November 13 (see [TP]).


(I haven't read [Draft] but plan to do so before [TP].)

-AB

[AB] 


[PD] 
[Archive] 
[Bugs] 
[TP] 

[admin] RfC: Updates of the Technical Reports process; deadline November 27

[Arthur Barstow]

[Bcc public-pointer-events ]

Hi All,

The Advisory Board spent the last two years discussing updates to the 
Technical Reports process f.ex. to make it less heavy-weight [AB]. The 
results are in the following Draft document that is proposed to replace 
Chapter 7 of the (current) Process Document [PD]:


  [Draft]  

If you have any comments on [Draft], please send them to 
public-w3process @ w3.org (archive [Archive]) by November 27. Bugs for 
this document are kept in [Bugs].


FYI, a related discussion is scheduled for the Technical Plenary meeting 
on November 13 (see [TP]).


(I haven't read [Draft] but plan to do so before [TP].)

-AB

[AB] 


[PD] 
[Archive] 
[Bugs] 
[TP] 

Re: [screen-orientation] Seeking status and plans

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/26/13 9:03 AM, ext Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote:


Yes, Tizen and IE11 implements it



Thanks Kenneth.

Marcos - is the following what Mounir means re screen-orientation issues 
you raised:


<https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/07/OrientationLock.md>

Please create Bugzilla bugs for these issues (if applicable).

-Thanks, ArtB



Kenneth

On Oct 25, 2013 5:30 AM, "Arthur Barstow" <mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote:


On 10/2/13 12:31 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi Mounir,

If any of the data for the Screen Orientation API in
[PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide corrections.

Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the
spec - last published 06-Dec-2012 - or the spec's status with
respect to being feature complete, implementation status,
etc., please let us know.


Marcos - Mounir just indicated in [IRC] that you submitted a
Screen Orientation bug in GH. Can you please add that to W3C
Bugzilla for this spec? Also, I think it would be helpful if you
expanded on what you think needs to be spec'ed re [23072] (the
only open bug for this spec).

All - besides FireFoxOS and FF on Android, are there any other
implementations of this spec?

-Thanks, ArtB

[IRC] <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20131025>
[23072] <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23072>

CfC: publish WD of Streams API; deadline Nov 3

[Arthur Barstow]

Feras and Takeshi have begun merging their Streams proposal and this is 
a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of Streams API using the 
updated ED as the basis:




Please note the Editors may update the ED before the TR is published 
(but they do not intend to make major changes during the CfC).


Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new 
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.


If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply 
to this e-mail by November 3 at the latest. Positive response to this 
CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean 
agreement with the proposal.


-Thanks, ArtB

CfC: publish new WD of Quota Management API; deadline November 3

[Arthur Barstow]

Kinuko has made substantive changes [1] to the Quota Management API 
since the FPWD was published. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to 
publish a new Working Draft using the ED as the basis:


  

Agreement to this CfC: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and 
b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.


If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply 
to this e-mail by November 3 at the latest. Positive response to this 
CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean 
agreement with the proposal.


-Thanks, ArtB

[1] 

[push-api]: Push API Patent Advisory Group (PAG) Recommends Continuing work on Push API Spec

[Arthur Barstow]

The Push API Patent Advisory Group published their `report` and it 
recommends WebApps continue to work on the spec 
.


On 10/30/13 12:53 PM, ext Coralie Mercier wrote:

The Push API Patent Advisory Group (PAG) [1] has published a report
recommending that W3C continue work on the Push API Specification:
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/push-api-pag-report.html

The PAG concludes that the disclosed patents do not read on the Push API
Specification, assessed as of its 15 August 2013 Working Draft, and hence
recommends that work on the Push API Specification be continued without
PAG-related change.

The PAG concludes that the initial concern has been resolved, enabling the
Working Group to continue. More detail is available in the PAG report and
PAG home page [2].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2013/03/push-pag-charter.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/papag/

[coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?

[Arthur Barstow]

[ My apologies in advance for cross-posting but I think it's needed for 
this coordination topic. ]


Hi All,

Last June, the Chairs of WebApps and SysApps agreed to allocate a time 
slot @ TPAC Shenzhen for a joint meeting from 16:00-17:00 on Monday 
November 11 [1].


The one topic currently identified for that slot is the Manifest spec.

Marcos - would you please summarize the overall `state` of the Manifest 
spec (f.ex. the status, next steps, blockers, and such)? I would also 
like to know if you think there are some related issues that could 
potentially benefit from some meeting time, or if we can use the list 
server instead.


All - are there any other topics to discuss?

(I'm trying to get a sense if this meeting should be canceled or perhaps 
reduced to 30 mins.)


-Thanks, AB

[1] 
 

Re: [FileAPI]

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi,

For the purposes of tracking your comments for the September 12 File API 
Last Call Working Draft, please let us know if Arun's reply is 
satisfactory or not. In the absence of a reply from you by November 7, 
we will assume Arun's reply is OK with you.


-Thanks, ArtB

On 10/23/13 6:04 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:

Hi there!


On Oct 23, 2013, at 12:32 PM, psweatte wrote:


7.2 Interface File:
-add creationDate property


Thanks for your feedback.  *Most* filesystems don't really have a creation time.  
While Windows does, Unix-style OS return the *change time" or last modified 
time.  Since we want fidelity with OS filesystems wherever possible, I'm not sure 
this is a viable property to add.



-add size property

This already exists via the inheritance relationship with Blob.



-If the last modification date and time are not known, the attribute must 
return an empty string


Currently the spec says to return the current date and time.  It's a Date not a 
String.



8.3. Event Handler Attributes


I think the current set of event handler attributes is sufficient, especially 
given the backdrop of event models in general not being the best way to 
asynchronously access large data sets such as File and Blob.



-add onNotfounderror event handler
-add onReaderror event handler
-add onSecurityerror event handler
-add onHTTPerror event handler
-add onSelectfrombrowse event handler