Hixie, All,
April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the
Server-Sent Events spec [SSE-LC].
Since that LC was published, I noted 1 set of comments and 1 new bug:
* CfC: server-sent-events; 15-Apr-2011; Ian Clelland
Hixie, All,
April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the Web
Workers spec [WW-LC].
Since that LC was published, I noted 2 set of comments and 2 new bugs:
* Adrian Bateman; 9-Mar-2011
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0877.html
* Travis
?
Original Message
Subject:Re: [webstorage] Moving Web Storage back to Last Call WD
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:19:51 +0900
From: ext Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
CC: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalm...@gmail.com
Well, I guess the good news is that (at the time of this writing), there
aren't 355 bugs ;).
All - Inputs and proposals for these bugs are encouraged!
On Apr/28/2011 2:33 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
What is the plan to address the following Web
/webapps/wiki/Submission
(RSN, I will move the two previous test suite submissions in Mercurial
to the new structure).
-Art Barstow
Original Message
Subject:CfC: WebApps testing process; deadline April 20
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:02:16 -0400
From: Arthur Barstow
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with the way it
is written. Although the conformance requirements are fairly clear, the
Hi Rafael,
On Apr/22/2011 8:35 PM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Myself and a few other chromium folks have been working on a design
for a formalized separation between View and Model in the browser,
with needs of web applications being the primary motivator.
Our ideas are implemented as an
On Apr/26/2011 7:40 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies
.
-Thanks, AB
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0306.html
Original Message
Subject:Re: [widgets] Dig Sig spec
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:19:44 +0200
From: ext Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com
To: Arthur Barstow art.bars
Thanks for the update Richard.
Is this spec ready for LCWD publication? If not, what remains to be done
before it is LC-ready?
Also, I would appreciate any implementation data you can share so we can
update [1]
-Thanks, AB
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation
On
-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:22:35 -0500
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
Marcos would like to publish a new Last Call Working Draft of the Widget
Packaging and Configuration spec and this is a Call
.
Thanks,
Adrian.
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:22 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I agree the need for clear test suite status is implied and should be
explicit. I've added a new requirement for this to [1]. As to how this
requirement is addressed, perhaps we should adopt/re-use some existing
good
On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is
I agree the need for clear test suite status is implied and should be
explicit. I've added a new requirement for this to [1]. As to how this
requirement is addressed, perhaps we should adopt/re-use some existing
good practice; otherwise perhaps we can use a Status/Readme file in each
Original Message
Subject: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events; deadline
April 21
Resent-Date:Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:36:09 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:34:08 -0500
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
On Apr/14/2011 6:39 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of
Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please
I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Submission
The public-webapps-testsu...@w3.org list is now operational:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/
Please use this list for WebApps' testing discussions.
To subscribe to this list, send a subscribe e-mail to:
public-webapps-testsuite-requ...@w3.org
For discussions
Hi Arun, Jonas - what is the status/plan for the File API spec?
What remains to be done before the spec is LC ready?
(Tracker shows 0 bugs and WebApps does not have a Bugzilla component for
this spec).
-Thanks, AB
On Apr/11/2011 11:20 AM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 4/11/11 9:38 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Arun, Jonas - what is the status/plan for the File API spec?
What remains to be done before the spec is LC ready?
Art:
A few things need to be done:
1. There continue to be a few spec. nits
The Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new
Working Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
If one agrees with this proposal, it: a) indicates support for
publishing a new WD; and b)
Jonas created a list of IndexedDB features that are not included in the
first version of the spec. Those features are documented in the
following wiki page:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/IndexedDatabaseFeatures
Comments on this document are welcome.
-Art Barstow
On Apr/6/2011 6:33 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
| Within each test one may have a number of asserts.
I don't agree.
SRP applies to functions and also unit tests. Limiting test functions
to one assertion keeps them
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of the
WebSockets API:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
Among the reasons to publish a new WD are: the last publication of this
spec in w3.org/TR/ was over one year ago, recent discussions on this
spec's LC readiness [1]
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
I'm not sure we need to explicitly designate test suite maintainers.
I'd be okay with not having specific maintainers, but then we need to
figure out some good process for
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect
Process
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:45:02 -0700
From: ext Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
To: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
CC: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
On 3/31/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
4. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Harness
This is a Call for Consensus to publish new Working Drafts of Eric's two
File API specs (last published about 6 months ago):
1. File API: Writer
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html
2. File API: Directories and System:
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-dir-sys.html
[ I don't know why this e-mail dated 31-March-2011 just showed up in my
Inbox today ... ]
On Mar/31/2011 9:25 AM, ext Sylvain GREZE wrote:
Hello there,
I write this email to let you know about our surprise when we saw that
the Web SQL Database is no longer part of the html5 specification.
think that could help with making faster progress?
-Michael
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Michael, All,
On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
I have in mind several
Yes I agree, as has been said before on this list, that comments are
always welcome and let's all please make sure those comments are
consistent with the principles to which I referred.
-Art Barstow
On Apr/1/2011 12:21 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Arthur
On Apr/1/2011 3:39 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote:
If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't
show up in a spec as simply do what SQLite does, but as a complete
spec of SQLite's behavior.
FYI, the Web SQL Database NOTE says:
[[
Hi All,
During the 2011 TPAC meeting, I agreed to an action (action-611) to work
with Chaals and WebApps' Team Contacts to define the group's testing
processes.
To that end, I created the following documents:
1. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing - some high level goals,
and links
On Mar/31/2011 10:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Mar 31, 2011, at 14:04 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
1. What is the level of uptake of testharness.js within the HTML WG and other WGs? If any of these
groups provide usage information, what are the URIs? Do any WGs make testharness.js's
use
This is painful to read. WebSQL development died because SQLite, the most
widely-deployed database software in the world, was too good? That sounds like
a catastrophic failure of the W3C process.
--
Glenn Maynard
Hear.
I am starting to think that Mozilla will step up and provide an
, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a new Working Draft of Hallvord's
Clipboard API and Events spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them to
public-webapps by April 5
Hi All - I see that Hixie already submitted comments and I encourage
others, especially those that have participated in the implementation of
the Web Sockets API, to also submit comments.
All comments should be submitted to h...@ietf.org by April 15 at the latest.
If anyone in WebApps wants
Hi All,
Louis-rémi's thread [1] on AppCache led to discussions about other
storage related APIs including DataCache, Google Gears, IDB and the File
* APIs.
Are there are any good resources that describe the various storage APIs
(from the app developer's perspective) and compare their main
Earlier today the W3C announced an Identity in the Browser Workshop
May 24-25 in Mountain View CA US. The deadline for Position Papers is
April 22:
Identity in the Browser
24-25 May 2011
Mountain View, CA, USA
Hosted by the Mozilla Foundation
http://www.w3.org/2011/identity-ws/
As the
Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period of
a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec.
On Mar/17/2011 7:21 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
(accidentally hit reply instead of reply all, so sending again)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Phillips,
The W3C staff is trying to determine which WGs will meet f2f during the
Oct 31 - Nov 4 TPAC meeting week in Santa Clara, CA US.
The general format for the week is the same as TPAC 2011:
[[
Schedule for the week:
Group Meetings: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday
Plenary Day: Wednesday
://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/#status-of-this-document
If anyone objects to this, please speak up by March 20 at the latest.
-AB
On Mar/3/2011 8:25 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi All,
WebApps' Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving spec was last updated
by Nikunj in January 2010. Since then, my
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft
of Progress Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 1
June 2011 at the latest:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft
of Server-sent Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-eventsource-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21
April 2011 at the latest:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft
of Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21
April 2011 at the latest:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
Ian, Leigh, Dimitri, All,
On March 11, the agenda of the so-called Hypertext Coordination Group
[HCG] will include XBL [XBL] to continue related discussions they had
during their Feb 11 call [Feb-11-Mins]. I wasn't present at that call
but based on those meeting minutes and what Leigh said
terminate W4 as previously
outlined.
At this point, all dedicated workers owned by 'D' would be terminated
leaving no orphans.
___
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:31 AM
Marcos would like to publish a new Last Call Working Draft of the Widget
Packaging and Configuration spec and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC)
to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
The changes since the last publication (26-October-2010) are summarized
in the spec:
[ Just WebApps ]
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the Media Annotations WG.
If anyone in WebApps wants to propose an official WG response, please do
so ASAP, in reply to this email so the WebApps WG can discuss it.
-Thanks, AB
On Mar/8/2011
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the HTML5 Web Messaging spec based on the following version of
the spec (copied from ED version 1.77):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/publish/LCWD-webmessaging-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
list.
-Art Barstow
[DS] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0687.html
[AvK]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0722.html
On Feb/23/2011 11:20 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued
that harm implementations without having their ok
# [21:21] Hixie so whether it's in LC or REC or ED doesn't make any
difference to me or the implementors as far as i can tell :-)
# [21:21] ArtB Hixie - ok; good to hear!
]]
-AB
On Feb/28/2011 3:09 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All
Hi All,
WebApps' Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving spec was last updated
by Nikunj in January 2010. Since then, my attempt to determine the level
of interest in this spec via the tread below (archived at [1]) received
no real traction.
As such, this is a Call for Consensus to formally
On Mar/2/2011 7:07 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The deadline for comments is March 9.
The deadline for comments is March 7.
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the Server-sent Events spec based on the following version of
the spec (copied from ED version 1.161):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/publish/LCWD-eventsource-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the Web Workers spec based on the following version of the spec
(copied from ED version 1.276):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/publish/LCWD-workers-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to
Hixie, All,
Is the HTML5 Web Messaging spec ready for Last Call Working Draft?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
If not, what must be done before it is ready for LC and what is the time
frame to complete the work?
Bugzilla [1] reports one bug for this component without a Resolution and
On Feb/24/2011 8:50 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Given the information below, I think it would be useful to move this
spec to a test-ready state. That is, publish it as a Last Call
FYI, the Web Performance WG [WebPerf] intends to add Visibility API,
Yield and Continue, requestAnimationFrame to their Charter when it is
renewed/updated (in the next month or two):
See their recent meeting minutes for some details:
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-webperf-minutes.html#item01
Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding re-publishing the Web Workers spec [ED] as a new Last Call
Working Draft ...
Bugzilla shows one open bug [Bugs]:
11818 - As documented in the Creating workers section, a worker *must* be
an external script.
http://www.w3.org
Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding re-publishing the Server-sent Events spec [ED] as a new Last
Call Working Draft ...
1. 11835 - EventSource must support cross-domain requests (ala CORS)
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11835
This will be supported
Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued to work
on the DOM Core spec and they propose publishing a new Working Draft of
the spec:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of DOM
Core.
On Feb/22/2011 4:40 PM, ext Mike Taylor wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.html
I get a 404.
The above is missing and x and should be:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.xhtml
On Feb/17/2011 5:04 AM, ext James Graham wrote:
On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
(I see that Art documented most of this in
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements but thought
this ought to be confirmed on the list)
Is there some way to make put this
Anne, PLH, All,
Given we already have RECs for DOM Level {2,3} Core, the proposed name
does seem a little bit odd, but if the naming convention going forward
for other DOM specs will be level-less e.g. DOM {Range, Parsing}, then
the proposal would be consistent with these later specs so it
Anne would like to move the Progress Events spec to Last Call Working
Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
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:
Hixie, All,
Regarding re-publishing the Server-sent Events spec [ED] as a new Last
Call Working Draft ...
The latest ED does not explicitly identify any issues.
Bugzilla shows two open bugs for this spec [Bugs]:
1. 11835 - EventSource must support cross-domain requests (ala CORS)
Hixie, All,
Regarding re-publishing the Web Storage spec [ED] as a new Last Call
Working Draft ...
Bugzilla shows no open bugs for this spec [Bugs] and the latest ED
includes the following:
[[
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#issues
The use of the storage mutex to avoid race conditions
Hixie, All,
Regarding re-publishing the Web Workers spec [ED] as a new Last Call
Working Draft ...
Bugzilla shows one open bug [Bugs]:
11818 - As documented in the Creating workers section, a worker
*must* be an external script.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11818
What
The Web Storage ED is actually: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
On Feb/3/2011 2:15 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 2/3/11 8:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Feb/1/2011 1:30 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I have updated the Wigets PC spec for publication as a LC.
This new draft specifies the defaultlocale attribute
Is support for this proposed attribute
On Feb/1/2011 1:30 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I have updated the Wigets PC spec for publication as a LC.
This new draft specifies the defaultlocale attribute
Is support for this proposed attribute going to be added to the Widget
object? (I don't see it mentioned in latest ED of the Widget
Hi Marcos,
On Jan/31/2011 2:18 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 1/31/11 7:52 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Andrey - on January 26, Marcos proposed changing the c14n algorithm in
[1] and [2] and notified the group in [3] that he updated the Editor's
Draft [ED] to reflect his proposal. He included
Andrey - on January 26, Marcos proposed changing the c14n algorithm in
[1] and [2] and notified the group in [3] that he updated the Editor's
Draft [ED] to reflect his proposal. He included rationale in [1].
Marcos - in what way(s) does your proposal break the signer and
validator conformance
[ Bcc: set to: public-fo...@w3.org ; please set Reply-To: to just
public-webapps@w3.org ]
XBL Fans,
In case you missed it, about a week ago, Anne van Kesteren wrote a nice
blog about some of the recent activities with XBL including pointers to
some related work by Dimitri Glazkov (e.g. Use
It appears the Editor Drafts of the December 2009 Last Call Working
Drafts of Sever-sent Events, Web Workers and Web Storage, have changed
enough such that their next publication is a new Working Draft (not a
Candidate Recommendation). As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC)
to publish new
Hixie recently mentioned to me the following paper from UC Berkeley that
includes some analysis of the Web Storage [webstorage] and HTML5 Web
Messaging [webmessaging] specs.
The Abstract:
[[
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~sch/w2sp2010ena.pdf
Several new browser primitives have been pro- posed
On Jan/12/2011 5:55 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Axel Rauschmayera...@rauschma.de wrote:
Why do we get these? Could we have opt-in and not send them to the mailing list
(at least the majority of them which seems to contain nonsense)?
You can just have your
Hi Hallvord, All,
During last November's TPAC meeting, we briefly discussed [1] the
Clipboard Operations spec [2] (last published by the Web API WG in 2006
[3]). The general consensus then, was that it would be abandoned given
there was no active editor and some related functionality is being
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Doug Schepersschep...@w3.org wrote:
But we are looking for more than someone to just push TR copies, we want
someone who (like Ian) understands the issues, and knows how to help drive
progress through consensus and technical expertise, and who can dedicate
[Issues] http://www.whatwg.org/issues/
[Bugzilla] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/query.cgi?format=advanced
On Nov/29/2010 4:21 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian - regarding the following specs that ended LC on June 30, do you
have some type of comment
Re event-source spec, a few weeks ago I: reviewed the Bug list, reviewed
e-mails submitted to public-webapps re the Dec 2009 LC and compared the
LC version with the latest ED. I did not review WHATWG Issues for this
spec [Issues] because I didn't know it existed.
= Bugzilla: 4 bugs filed: 3
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured clone
algorithm rather than strings. And yet there
Peter - as Nathan alludes, there have been threads related to web
application embedding on this list. WebApps has a Widget Embedding
deliverable in its charter and currently, work on this item has not started.
Earlier today I created a document for this subject and it includes
links to
for Workers/Storage/Event-source that HTML5
Editor workload is the block and ask for volunteers (Web Applications Working
Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/597
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2010-11-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update
Earlier this week, the Web Fonts WG published a LCWD of WOFF File
Format 1.0 and Chris Lilley suggested WebApps review this spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-WOFF-20101116/
This LC has a normative reference to CORS and and a normative
requirement for the spec's UAs re CORS:
[[
Hi Manu,
Thanks for the heads-up on the RDFa API plan.
WebApps does not have regularly scheduled calls so your RfC was a good
way for you to ask WG members and the WebApps community at large for
comments.
If anyone has comments and/or questions regarding the following LC:
RDFa Core 1.1:
Below is the draft agenda for the 18 November 2010 Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
Anne has addressed all of the open Actions and Issue for Progress Events
[AI]. As such, he proposes it be published as a Last Call Working Draft
and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the
On Nov/11/2010 11:52 AM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
While I look forward to the minutes from the WebApps meeting,
The minutes from File* discussion are:
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item16
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item17
-AB
I have a non resolvable conflict on November 11 so there will be no
widgets call that day.
A higher priority item is completing the round-trip comment loop from
the I18N WG's comment on the September 7 Widget Interface LCWD:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-apis-20100907/
On Nov/6/2010 6:09 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this
is Call for Consensus to do.
I support this in principle.
OK.
I can't commit to providing the draft,
though. A few months ago I
/2008/webapps/track/actions/593
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2010-11-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update your settings at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings
...@nokia.com
ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications
Working Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/598
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2010-11-08
/2008/webapps/track/actions/606
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2010-11-08
Applications Working Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/600
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2010-11-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update your settings at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings
in the
Abtract or Intro that PC widgets != UI controls [on Arthur Barstow
- due 2010-11-08].
ArtB ACTION: caceres notify PF WG when the PC Conformance
Checker is published [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#action02]
trackbot Created ACTION-594 - Notify PF
Hi All,
I now consider the agenda for WebApps' meeting on Tuesday November 2 as
confirmed and the agenda items for that day have not changed for a few
weeks:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2010#Tuesday.2C_November_2
On Monday November 1, the widgets group will meet with WAI's
Hi Keeane, Jeremy, All,
Thanks for starting this thread Keean.
I agree with Jeremy that a API on top of IndexedDB, WebSQLDB, etc. would
be interesting (e.g. performance data).
It's also not clear to me (ATM) that such an API should necessarily be
put on WebApps' standards track. As always,
Below is the draft agenda for the October 21 Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened or
canceled meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions
before the
1001 - 1100 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
