On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
Hi Art, Robin, Marcos,
Thanks for your comments.
Here is the consolidated answer.
Just to clarify:
I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the
arrival of the comments.
If
, December 03, 2009 1:23 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Arthur Barstow; Robin Berjon; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2
December
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
Hi Art, Robin, Marcos,
Thanks
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us
to willfully violate the process?
Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions.
We have already aligned.
Thanks.
Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were
not all addressed.
I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment
period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate
otherwise, please
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Please list exactly which comment were not addressed.
Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html
You (not sure about Robin, the editor) seem to like some of the
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Please list exactly which comment were not addressed.
Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html
You (not sure about Robin, the editor)
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Since the PAG has started with the earlier draft of WARP and
relation to PAG was an argument for LC#2, we assume that the group
still has time to accommodate the LC#1 comments in the present
version of the specification without the
-company.com
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:50 PM
To: public-webapps
Subject: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
This is a Call
: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:50 PM
To: public-webapps
Subject: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Last Call Working Draft
#2 of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement
On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December 2.
We support publishing this document.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December
2.
We support
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Last Call Working Draft
#2 of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note that as
specified in the Process Document [PD], a
12 matches
Mail list logo
