Hi Ronny - to formally participate in the Web Applications WG, your
company must first join the W3C and information about that process can
be found in [1].
Re W3C widgets, I consider the v1 specs functionally complete with the
exception of the Widget Update specs. See [2] for the status of
:14:30 +
Resent-From:public-script-co...@w3.org
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:14:00 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
Reply-To: public-script-coord public-script-co...@w3.org
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org, public-script-coord
public-script-co...@w3.org
On 8/10/11 6:02 PM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's
necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding
the DOM 2 View specification.
Instead, PLH and I support Anne's original proposal to simply update
the status
Hi Paddy,
If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g.
browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer
comply with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?
If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL
extension?
features be spec'ed separately, please indicate your willingness
and availability to contribute as an editor vis-à-vis the editor
requirements above.
-ArtB
On 8/4/11 2:24 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne would like to publish a new WD
Hi Philippe,
Thanks for notifying us of ENISA's work.
I generally agree W3C specs should be as consistent as possible and
practical. If there is a need for WebApps WG to coordinate with some
other group, please be more specific about the issue.
FYI, the Geolocation API is specified by the
Philippe - if there any specific issues for WebApps' specs [PubStatus],
please start a new thread on public-webapps with an appropriate subject.
-ArtB
[PubStatus] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus
On 8/3/11 1:49 PM, ext Philippe De Ryck wrote:
The following comment contains
Given Hixie's recent set of bug fixes, the Server-sent Events spec now
has zero bugs. As such, it appears this spec is ready to proceed on the
Recommendation track and this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new
LCWD of this spec using the following ED as the basis:
Anne, Ms2ger, All,
Anne and others proposed in [Proposal] the DOM 2 View Recommendation
[D2V] be rescinded. The rescinding process is defined in the Process
Document [Rescind]. However, Ian Jacobs just indicated in IRC
[#webapps] it has never actually been used.
One process requirement for
On August 9, WebApps published LCWD #2 of the Progress Events spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110809/
The comment deadline is September 1. Please send all comments to:
public-webapps@w3.org
-AB
On 8/5/11 8:50 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example
On 8/2/11 12:08 PM, ext gk...@gurpreetkaur.org wrote:
My Suggestions for XMLHttpRequest Document Page...
1) W3C Editor's Draft (red vertical bar on the left)- Draft is
something when you are putting things together. It's not a final
product. It should be renamed or removed.
You are correct
On 8/2/11 1:09 PM, ext gk...@gurpreetkaur.org wrote:
XMLHttpRequest Document:
ECMAScriptHTTPAPI- ECMASCRIPT takes you to the following..
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
This is a specification for ECMA script.
Yes, that's correct.
Where is the actual
On 7/25/11 5:05 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
From the discussion here, it sounds like there are problems with
WebSockets compression as currently defined.
Yes, this is what I have concluded too (and if we are wrong, I would
appreciate it if someone on the hybi list would please clarify).
The pre-LC comment period for Progress Events resulted in no comments
[1]. As such, Anne proposes a new LC be published and this is a CfC to
do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for
On 7/22/11 11:08 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The WebApps WG published the From-Origin header proposal as FPWD:
http://www.w3.org/TR/from-origin/
The main open issue is whether X-Frame-Options should be replaced by
this header or should absorb its functionality somehow.
Anne - what
On July 21, the Web Performance WG published a Last Call Working Draft
of the Page Visibility spec and WebApps has been asked to review it,
especially its usage of Web IDL:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-page-visibility-20110721/
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual
Regarding the bugs Adrian identified in the e-mail below, here is my
take on the status:
* Resolved: NeedsInfo: 9973, 12180, 13104; WontFix: 12816, 13178
* Moved to another component: 10213
* Open and considered Editorial (thus will not block LC): 12510, 13162,
13180 and 13172 (not in Adrian's
Bug 12917 [1] has been discussed in at least bugzilla as well as e-mail
including this thread started by Adrian (Hixie's follow-up is [2]) and
Adrian's general Web Sockets LC thread [3].
This bug is currently resolved as WontFix and this resolution is
supported by at least Hixie and Jonas.
FYI, Marcos now has sufficient data to meet the CR's exit criteria and
to move this spec to Proposed Recommendation:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/
On 7/19/11 9:46 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ Bcc www-style ]
Marcos is gathering and organizing implementation data
As mentioned in [1], the exit criteria of the view-mode Media Feature
Candidate Recommendation [2] has been met (at least two implementations
pass every test):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/
As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation
(PR)
A reminder to review the Web Socket Protocol v10 spec by July 25:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol/
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the
[ Bcc www-style ]
Marcos is gathering and organizing implementation data for the view-mode
Media Feature Candidate Recommendation [VMMF-CR] with a goal of moving
this spec to Proposed Recommendation:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/
If you have any implementation data
As indicated a year ago [1] and again at the end of last month [2], the
proposal to create a new Web Application Security WG has moved forward
with a formal AC review now underway and ending August 19.
The proposed charter includes making CORS and UMP a joint deliverable
between the WebApps
On July 12 a Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL was published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-WebIDL-20110712/
The deadline for comments is August 23 and all comments should be sent to:
public-script-co...@w3.org
Cameron, Philippe - if you think it is necessary, please fwd this e-mail
to
FYI, this announcement was forwarded to public-widgets-pag and there is
at least one response to that CfPA:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-widgets-pag/
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-widgets-pag/2011JulSep/0001.html
On 7/8/11 4:22 PM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret
Is there a deadline for protocol comments?
Based on the e-mail below, it appears the deadline is July 25. Please
clarify.
Also, for those of us not familiar with IETF process, what is the
relationship between the IETF's LC review and v10's Expires: January
12, 2012?
-Thanks, Art Barstow
Although there are ongoing discussions regarding exceptions, there were
no objections to this CfC. As such, I will request publication of a LC
specification to encourage broader review and comments.
-AB
On 6/30/11 6:46 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
As Cameron indicated in [1], all non
On 7/7/11 6:00 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
We're keen to resolve the remaining issues with the WebSockets API and have a
timetable
to get to Candidate Recommendation. From informal conversations we've had, we
believe
other browser vendors share this goal. I think the current WebSocket API is
On 7/6/11 5:49 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs?
If someone is interested in submitting fixes, they are welcome to contact
me, so that I can work with them to work out how we can get something set
up
Thanks Anne and Dan. I added your comments to bug 13071.
All - in addition to 13071, on July 6, Anne submitted 13155 and 13156
against this spec. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume the group wants to
block LC until all of these bugs are addressed.
As always, patches/fixes for open bugs are
Thanks Björn and Brad for your comments.
I agree early comments from a broad set of stakeholders is important and
I encourage everyone to please send all technical feedback on this spec to:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
On 7/5/11 11:14 PM, ext Hill, Brad wrote:
To the procedural
LC-webstorage-2011July.html.
-Thanks, ArtB
[ED] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webstorage/
[PUB] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webstorage/publish/
[1211-fix] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/Web%20Storage.html
On 6/30/11 3:20 PM, ext Scott Wilson wrote:
On 30 Jun 2011, at 14:55, Arthur Barstow wrote
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
prioritisation of the bug
Hi Hixie,
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
prioritisation
a rough estimate re when you can
address this bug?
All - if anyone is willing to submit a fix for this bug, please send the
fix to the list or add the fix to the bug.
-AB
On 6/24/11 7:33 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All,
Ian responded [1] to the last set of Server-Sent Events comments
Hi Brad, Anne,
As I mentioned in [1], I think there is sufficient support for WebApps
to publish this spec as a FPWD and I will start a Call for Consensus to
more formally determine WebApps' level of support.
A WG may publish a FPWD without consensus on the _contents_ of the spec.
The
As discussed in [1], Anne would like to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion (From-Origin)
and this a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
Below is some information about the W3C's 2011 Technical Plenary and all
Working Group meeting week which is October 31 - November 4 in Santa
Clara California:
http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/#Finalized
The current plan is for WebApps to only meet on Monday October 31. I
created an agenda
On 6/30/11 10:31 PM, ext Daniel Veditz wrote:
On 6/30/11 9:31 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
(Added public-web-security because of the potential for doing
this in CSP instead. Though that would require a slight change
of scope for CSP, which
As Cameron indicated in [1], all non-enhancements bugs for Web IDL are
now resolved and as such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last
Call Working Draft of Web IDL:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to
Given the lack of support for stopping work on Web Storage [1], I'd let
to get consensus on the plan to move it to Last Call Working Draft.
Currently there are two open bugs:
1. Bug 12111: spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not
match implementation behavior. PLH created a
The comment period for the 7-June-2011 LCWD of the Widget Packaging and
XML Configuration spec ended with no comments and as documented in the
spec's Implementation Report [ImplRept], there are 4 implementations
that pass 100% of the test suite. As such, this is Call for Consensus to
publish a
The comment period for the 7-June-2011 LCWD of the Widget Digital
Signature spec ended with no comments and as documented in the spec's
Implementation Report [ImplRept], there are 2 implementations that pass
100% of the test suite's Mandatory feature tests. As such, this is Call
for Consensus
Kris, Sean - in case you were including the W3C re appropriate next
step to advance this proposal, please note the W3C's new Community
Groups and Business Groups proposal has now advanced to the Beta stage:
W3C Community Groups and Business Groups
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/
Beta
for a CfC to
publish a PR.
Comments on this document are welcome.
-AB
On 5/26/11 11:58 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Over the last few days, CfCs were started to publish Last Call Working
Drafts of three of the widget specs: Packaging and Configuration,
Interface and Digital Signature
Richard, Marcos - what is the plan to get Widget Updates spec LC ready
(see [1] for LC requirements)?
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
All - if you have any implementation data for this spec, please let us know.
-Thanks, AB
[1]
Robin - what is the status and plan for the Widget URI spec?
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
All - if you have any implementation data for this spec, please let us know.
-Thanks, AB
On Jun/24/2011 4:50 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Changing it now could confuse the industry even more and will not help, I think.
Agreed, and in the abscence of any new and overwhelmingly compelling new
information, I will object to any name change.
-AB
Hixie, All,
Ian responded [1] to the last set of Server-Sent Events comments I had
noted, and Bugzilla now reports Zarro Boogs [2] for this spec
(11835/Fixed, 11836/WontFix, 12411/Fixed, 12883/WontFix).
As such, this raises the question if the spec is ready for Last Call
Working Draft
On Jun/23/2011 6:45 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:36:07 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
I just checked in the proposal
https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/dom-core/changeset/b9bb17789db9 into DOM
Core but I suspect it needs some refining and reviewing. I
Because of the changes Anne applied to this spec, a new Last Call
Working Draft will be needed so this CfC is _Canceled_:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1247.html
On Jun/17/2011 9:57 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
As noted earlier this month [1], the Progress
Anne's recent changes to the Progress Events spec means a new Last Call
Working Draft must be published and he is not planning any additional
changes.
Please review the latest ED and send all comments to the list by June 30:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
Note the recent changes
On Jun/22/2011 6:28 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Since this relates to the CR of Progress Events I thought I would
bring it up on this list instead of one of the testing mailing lists.
Progress Events depends a lot on other specifications. Basically the
only thing that can be tested is
On Jun/20/2011 6:37 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative;
and the time the LC is published,
unless a bug is a showstopper for LC, let's plan to address those new
bugs during the LC comment period.
-Art Barstow
On Jun/21/2011 12:11 AM, ext Cameron McCormack wrote:
Arthur Barstow:
* June 20 - start a 1-week Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD
[ + PLH ]
Thanks for the update Arun.
I just chatted with PLH in #webapps [1] and he will followup on the URI
list about the registration process question you asked below. He and I
agree with you that the completion of the scheme registration does not
need to block LC.
All open bugs should
Hi All,
Despite Web Storage bug 12111 now having a fix [1], the elephant in the
room [2] for this spec is still the mutex issue encapsulated in the spec:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/Web%20Storage.html#issues
The use of the storage mutex to avoid race conditions is currently
considered by
:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:39:20 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
On June 7 WebApps published LCWDs of 3 widget specs:
1. Widget Packaging XML Configuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-widgets-20110607/
2
: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:51:59 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org, www-dom www-...@w3.org
Followup-To:www-...@w3.org
On May 31, Last Call Working Draft #2 of the DOM 3 Events spec was
published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-DOM
As noted earlier this month [1], the Progress Events spec's Last Call
comment period ended with no comments. As such, Anne proposes the spec
be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies:
The correct URL is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-contacts-api-20110616/
On Jun/15/2011 1:47 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On June 16, the Device API group will publish a Last Call Working
Draft of its Calendar API spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-contacts-api-20110616/
Individuals
On June 16, the Device API group will publish a Last Call Working Draft
of its Calendar API spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-contacts-api-20110616/
Individuals are encouraged to provide individual feedback directly to
DAP via their public list:
public-device-a...@w3.org
If
All - given that addressing 12111 is a low priority for Ian, one way
forward is for someone else to create a concrete proposal.
BTW, I don't think anyone from Opera or Safari has commented on bug
12111 and if that is the case, it would be good to get their comments.
-AB
On Jun/14/2011
On Jun/11/2011 3:57 PM, ext James Robinson wrote:
In my opinion, the only thing left to be done with localStorage is to
write it off as an unfortunate failure, learn our lesson, and move on.
This may not be relevant to the processes you are trying to follow.
Stopping work on Web Storage is
/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0947.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1004.html
Until this is clearer, I will not submit a request to publish this CR.
-AB
On Jun/2/2011 7:27 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The Last Call comment period for the HTML5 Web
On Jun/8/2011 5:24 PM, ext Kenneth Russell wrote:
My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies
the ports argument to postMessage as an array of objects to
transfer, in such a way that we:
- Maintain 100% backward compatibility
- Enhance the ability to pass
On Jun/10/2011 3:05 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5
Hixie - are you willing
On Jun/10/2011 6:14 AM, ext Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 10 juin 2011 à 06:10, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
What are the benefits of having a different scheme?
I'm confused... different to what?
:) http
FYI, some of that info was consolidated in:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme
Adrian - this bug is for the Web Sockets API spec (and not Web Storage),
correct?
On Jun/8/2011 1:21 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12913
Summary: Close() should throw the same exception as send() for
My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5
Hixie - are you willing to change the spec accordingly?
-AB
On Jun/8/2011 7:57 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
There are now 11
On Jun/9/2011 7:09 PM, ext Rich Tibbett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Marcos Caceresmarcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
To fix it, the widget URI spec needs to respond with HTTP responses
when a URI is dereferenced... similar to what blob:// does:
Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if
the participants would please summarize where they think we are on this
issue, e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move
forward, etc.
Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if
There are now 11 comments on Web Storage Bug 12111, the last remaining
bug before moving this spec back to Last Call:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
If anyone has additional comments, please add them to the bug before the
end of this week.
I would like to get
On June 7 WebApps published LCWDs of 3 widget specs:
1. Widget Packaging XML Configuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-widgets-20110607/
2. Widget Interface
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-widgets-apis-20110607/
3. Widget Digital Signature
[ Bcc public-webapps; please reply to public-device-a...@w3.org ]
As noted in the Battery Status Event spec, comments for the spec should
be sent to the DAP WG's mail list:
public-device-a...@w3.org mailto:public-device-a...@w3.org
On Jun/6/2011 1:44 AM, ext Andres Riofrio wrote:
Hello,
I
Given the positive support indicated, one way forward with respect to
WebApps is for Adam to put his spec into WebApps' Mercurial repo and to
continue related discussions on public-webapps.
Note, WebApps cannot publish this spec (in w3.org/TR/) until the spec is
included in the WG's charter.
Hi Arun, Jonas, All,
The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so it
would be good to publish a new Working Draft in w3.org/TR/.
Since Tracker shows 0 bugs for the spec [Tracker] and the ED does not
appear to identify any open issues, does the spec meet the Last Call
Hi Marcos - given this spec is in the Candidate Recommendation state,
before a CfC to publish a new LCWD is started, I think it would be
helpful if you provided a list of the changes you propose and a short
summary for each change. WDYT?
I don't have a strong opinion on where the list of
I support WebApps starting some new work, provided there is broad
support for it and it doesn't block or slow work we already started.
All, especially implementors - what is your level of interest in Adam's
URL API?
Dom - what's your interest here? F.ex., is this API something DAP or
some
Hixie, All - PLH proposed a fix for this bug in comment #5 (use
DOMString instead of any in {get,set}Item).
AFAIU, PLH's proposal matches what has been widely implemented. As such,
it seems like the spec should be updated accordingly.
-AB
On Jun/2/2011 8:31 AM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org
What are the specific change(s) to the Web Messaging spec being proposed:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
-AB
On Jun/2/2011 11:25 AM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Kenneth Russellk...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch
, please speak up.
-AB
[ED] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
On Mar/10/2011 7:33 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
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
On Jun/2/2011 2:51 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 18:38 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All - PLH proposed a fix for this bug in comment #5 (use
DOMString instead of any in {get,set
Dom - WebApps' current charter does not directly include this API and I
don't think the charter includes any deliverables that could directly
rationalize Adam's spec. However, if someone interprets the charter
differently, then please speak up.
Adam - what is the status and plan for the URL
On May 31, Last Call Working Draft #2 of the DOM 3 Events spec was
published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20110531/
If you have any comments on this spec, please send them to the following
mail list by June 28 at the latest:
www-...@w3.org
-Art Barstow
Marcos has updated the Widget Interface spec and he proposes a new Last
Call Working Draft be published. This is Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for
Marcos has updated the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec and he
proposes a new Last Call Working Draft be published. This is Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request
Over the last few days, CfCs were started to publish Last Call Working
Drafts of three of the widget specs: Packaging and Configuration,
Interface and Digital Signature.
By the time the LC comment period ends (June 28), Marcos expects to have
data that at least two independent implementations
Hi All,
The Web IDL spec is a normative dependency for many specs from several
Working Groups. As such, its progression along the Recommendation track
is very important and Cameron has agreed to the following schedule to
publish a Last Call Working Draft by June 30:
* June 20 - start a
Marcos completed the changes he proposed [1] to the Widget Digital
Signature spec. He now proposes a new Last Call Working Draft be
published and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the
The DAP WG is planning to publish a Last Call WD of their Contacts API
on June 8, with a proposed comment deadline of July 6 or 13 (4 or 5 weeks):
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/
Since they intend to ask WebApps to review the LC, please speak up ASAP
(before May 26) if the July 6
Doug's objection [1] to the Feb 24 CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core
[2] has been removed (see [3] Member-only list). As such, Ms2ger would
like to publish a new WD of this spec and this is a Call for Consensus
to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing
Hi Dom,
On May/12/2011 4:41 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le jeudi 24 février 2011 à 16:03 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a
écrit :
As part of a European research project I'm involved in [1], I've
compiled a report on the existing technologies in development (or in
discussion) at
HTML5 Web Messaging:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-webmessaging-20110317/
Original Message
Subject: RfC: LCWDs of Web Workers, Server-sent Events, Progress Events
and HTML5 Web Messaging
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:53:19 -0400
From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
The people working on the DOM 3 Events spec have resolved all the
issues we believe are critical for DOM3 Events vis-à-vis the September
2010 LCWD [LC-2010], and have addressed the issues regarding
discrepancies between D3E and DOM Core [Mins]. As such, they now propose
the WG publish a new
On May/4/2011 12:29 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi,
I just realised that I actually localise my own name in certain
languages
(most particularly to ensure that I get my preferred transliterations
when
I am publishing). But I cannot do that in config.xml. Likewise, I would
like to localise
Hi All,
Pardon the interruption here to digress a bit to look at Rafael's
proposal from the process perspective ...
[Charter] defines WebApps' scope and explicit deliverables. Depending on
how the proposal is viewed, (perhaps) at least part of it could be
rationalized by being related to
;
deadline May 1
Resent-Date:Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:51:20 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 06:49:32 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org, Marcos Caceres
marcoscace...@gmail.com
Reminder: May 1
Hi Tab, All - can you Tab, or someone else, commit to processing the
comments and bugs for the Workers LCWD?
Given Hixie's bug list [1], perhaps we shouldn't wait for him.
-Art
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0385.html
On Apr/28/2011 1:35 PM, ext Arthur
901 - 1000 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
