Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 10:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November 14 at the latest. My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much more suitable name for the

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

08.11.2014, 14:46, "Domenic Denicola" : > From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] >>  That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails. > > I guess I was just inspired by Mike Smith earlier saying something along the > lines of "don't let past practice constr

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

08.11.2014, 14:43, "Domenic Denicola" : > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] >>  OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points >> to Anne's document >>  . > > I think it would be ideal to c

RE: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] > That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails. I guess I was just inspired by Mike Smith earlier saying something along the lines of "don't let past practice constrain your thinking as to what can be done in th

RE: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] > OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points > to Anne's document > . I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. "See Instead" or "Mainta

RE: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

ne van Kesteren Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 7:36 AM To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps; www-...@w3.org Subject: Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14 On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 1:05 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 07.11.2014, 18:28, "Domenic Denicola" : On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:55, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html Should this not in

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 12:57 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 07.11.2014, 17:53, "fantasai" : On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/def

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

07.11.2014, 18:28, "Domenic Denicola" : >>  On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:55, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow >>> wrote: >>>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html >>  Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.w

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

remove it as a deliverable if/when >>>  WebApps' charter is updated) >>  Yes (and no) > > For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are > effectively a "whatever" that we can defer until if/when there is a > charter discussion. A

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

07.11.2014, 17:53, "fantasai" : > On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>  On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow >>> wrote:  [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html >>>  It would be nice if

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:55, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html > > Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/? Or better yet, just be a redir

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/? -- https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.

CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

te of the spec (see [Draft-Note]) If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November > 14 at the latest. My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much more suitable name for the contents of DOM Level 3 Events. But we

CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

During WebApps' October 27 meeting, the participants agreed to stop work on the UI Events spec and to publish it as a WG Note (see [Mins]). As such, this is a formal Call for Consensus (CfC) to: a) Stop work on this spec b) Publish a "gutted" WG Note of the spec; see [Draft-No

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know what you do want.) I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all. Please give me @X and @Y in: @Y. (Do

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know > what you do want.) I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all. > Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't > especiall

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 07.11.2014, 14:41, "Arthur Barstow" : [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when WebApps' charter is updated) Yes (and no) For the purposes

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ I no longer work for Opera Software. The Status of this Document section should probab

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

quot; the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been > done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes) Abstain. cheers > Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see > [CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to

CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

Draft-Note] for the proposed document) c) "gut" the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently with [e.g.]) d) "gut" the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes) Since the CSS WG alrea

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Indexed Database; deadline November 9

If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by November 9 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, AB [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#i

Re: WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note

On 10/27/14 12:06 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: We should have a plan for the bugzilla component (there are some good "future" bugs logged there). Would the bugzilla component stay open? I recommend it be marked "Historical" and closed to new bugs (like we have done for other specs we have stopp

Re: WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: >>When are we going to see the hit testing part of mouse events >>defined? What draft will integrate with the event loop model and >>deal with relative ordering of the events and which happen as part >>of the same task and which as part of a

RE: WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note

>From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Behalf >Of Anne van Kesteren >On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Travis Leithead > wrote: >> We should have a plan for the bugzilla component (there are some good >> "future" bugs logged there). Would the bugzilla component sta

WebApps-ACTION-749: Start a cfc to publish file api lcwd

WebApps-ACTION-749: Start a cfc to publish file api lcwd http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/749 Assigned to: Arthur Barstow

Re: WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: > We should have a plan for the bugzilla component (there are some good > "future" bugs logged there). Would the bugzilla component stay open? Would we > need to move the bugs to D3E otherwise? (We can mark them future, or > something to d

RE: WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note

From: Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+trac...@w3.org] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:26 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a &q

WebApps-ACTION-747: Start a cfc to gut xhr l2 and publish a wg note

WebApps-ACTION-747: Start a cfc to gut xhr l2 and publish a wg note http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/747 Assigned to: Arthur Barstow

WebApps-ACTION-739: Start a cfc to publish a proposed recommendation of idb

WebApps-ACTION-739: Start a cfc to publish a proposed recommendation of idb http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/739 Assigned to: Arthur Barstow

WebApps-ACTION-738: Start a cfc to publish a "gutted" wg note of the fullscreen api

WebApps-ACTION-738: Start a cfc to publish a "gutted" wg note of the fullscreen api http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/738 Assigned to: Arthur Barstow

WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note

WebApps-ACTION-734: Start cfc to publish ui events as a "gutted" wg note http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/734 Assigned to: Arthur Barstow

CfC: publish FPWD of Packaging on the Web; deadline November 3

Jeni and the TAG would like to publish - on behalf of both the TAG and WebApps - a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the "Packaging on the Web" specification and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so using the following ED as the basis: <http://w3ctag.github.io/packagi

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Selection API; deadline Sept 30

On 9/22/14 8:21 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ryosuke proposes WebApps publish a First Public Working Draft of Selection API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so FYI, this FPWD was published . Thanks Ryosuke!

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:34 PM, wrote: >> That said, it is theoretically possible. But that seems to be true for >> *any* normative change of a spec. > > Right. That's why normative changes require returning to Last Call. :( My understanding is that W3C policy is that LC is only required for lar

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

06.10.2014, 09:19, "Jonas Sicking" : > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM,   wrote: >>  So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent >> review, and my quick guess is that the answer is "yes" ;( > > Really? I would have made the opposite conclusion. Changing the event > sour

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM, wrote: > So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent > review, and my quick guess is that the answer is "yes" ;( Really? I would have made the opposite conclusion. Changing the event source makes a very small difference in behavior. I w

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

? > > If we want to publish a new WD, we can start the PSA any time and just > publish RSN. However, if we want to publish a LC, since the original LC > started about three weeks ago, and the spec and issues list have changed > since then, I think we should start a new CfC. Agreed

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't >> seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back >> to WD/LCWD. >> >> Does any implementation actually

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

publish a LC, since the original LC started about three weeks ago, and the spec and issues list have changed since then, I think we should start a new CfC. -AB / Jonas On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

ks"). >> >> So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the >> >> Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version >> >> and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is >> >> published. &

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 10/2/14 7:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old TR/? Yes of course. (And certainly continue to work with Anne, Marcos, etc. on a mutually agreeable way forward for Issue 75.) And speaking of Issue 75: On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

e implements it in another way per how I suggested >>>>>  it should work (using "animation frame tasks"). >>>>  So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the >>>>  Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next v

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the > >> Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version > >> and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is > >> published. > >> > >> Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seem

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

work (using "animation frame tasks"). So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is published. Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seem

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is > what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification: > "Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative > order within that task, see bug 26440.

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

gt; and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is > > published. > > > > Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seems the main options are: > > > > 1. Continue to work on this issue with the goal of getting broader > > consensus on the resolution >

Re: CfC: to using new pub process; deadline October 2

differences between it and a previous version (with a significant change) in a few lines. cheers > Thanks Marcos. > > All - if you have any comments or concerns about Marcos' CfC above, > please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by October 2 at the latest. > Positive response is

CfC: to using new pub process; deadline October 2

.html Thanks Marcos. All - if you have any comments or concerns about Marcos' CfC above, please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by October 2 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, ArtB

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On September 18, 2014 at 6:53:38 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 08:28, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I think it's likely to result in many implementation bugs if we rely > > on this being defined buried inside an algorithm rather than at least > > mentioned a

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

"Second, I'm still very worried that people will interpret screen.orientation.angle=0 as portrait. I don't expect to be able to convince people here to remove the property. However I think it would be good to at least make it clear in the spec that the .angle property can not be used to detect port

CFC to using new pub process, Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On September 25, 2014 at 7:34:33 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote: > WebApps could (assuming we have consensus to do so) offer to be an early > adopter for [1] but I don't think this process issue should block the > publication of the LC. Ok so, let's start getting consensus o

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

sing "animation frame tasks"). > > So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the > Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version > and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is > published. > &g

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

a one-line summary is the Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is published. Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seems the main options are: 1. Continue to work on this issue with the goal of getti

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 9/24/14 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: There is no point in putting anything on /TR/ until the W3C fixes the ability to have documents sync with what is on GH. Otherwise, we will just find ourselves here again in a few months. The stability of the document doesn't have any correlation to i

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

(chair hat still off) 25.09.2014, 12:36, "Anne van Kesteren" : > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM,   wrote: >>  In the absence of any clear rationale, "It might change somehow" is >> effectively "FUD", much as "someone might have IPR" is. So while you are >> technically correct that a technology

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, wrote: > In the absence of any clear rationale, "It might change somehow" is > effectively "FUD", much as "someone might have IPR" is. So while you are > technically correct that a technology and its specification can change, that > is effectively irrelevant.

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

(Chair hat off) 24.09.2014, 18:11, "Marcos Caceres" : > On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) > wrote: >>  On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>>  Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately >>> addressed? >>  I di

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately > > addressed? > > I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot ove

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately > addressed? I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot over defining (even to an approximation) what implementers actually have to do. I said as much on

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Selection API; deadline Sept 30

23.09.2014, 02:23, "Arthur Barstow" : > Ryosuke proposes WebApps publish a First Public Working Draft of > Selection API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the > following Editor's Draft as the basis (draft FPWD is [1]): > >     Please do. chee

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

During this CfC, Jonas submitted some comments to this list starting with the following: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JulSep/0531.html> Jonas - did Mounir's responses adequately address your comments or is there something you propose be done before LCWD i

CfC: publish FPWD of Selection API; deadline Sept 30

Ryosuke proposes WebApps publish a First Public Working Draft of Selection API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following Editor's Draft as the basis (draft FPWD is [1]): <http://w3c.github.io/selection-api/> This CfC satisfies the group's requiremen

CfC: Publishing Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) as a WG Note; deadline Sept 27

Note of this spec; b) "gut" the WG Note of all technical content (as we did recently with [e.g.]) c) "gut" the ED [ED] of all technical content If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by September 27 at the latest. P

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 08:28, Jonas Sicking wrote: > I think it's likely to result in many implementation bugs if we rely > on this being defined buried inside an algorithm rather than at least > mentioned at the definition of the property. I think it's good feedback. I could probably make this m

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> It's somewhat inconsistent that we use the term "natural" to indicate >> "the most natural direction based on hardware", but we use the term >> "primary" when indicating "the most natura

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Sorry, my first comment is a naming bikeshed issue. Feel free to > ignore as it's coming in late, but I hadn't thought of it until just > now. I remember a wise person who once said "never count on me to bikeshed names". I think he was named Jo

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Also, I can't find any normative definition of if orientation.angle > should increase or decrease if the user rotates a device 90 degrees > clockwise? My bad, I see it now. Given how easy this is to get wrong, it might be worth adding this i

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Mounir and Marcos would like to publish a LCWD of The Screen Orientation API > and this is a Call for Consensus to do using the latest ED (not yet in the > LCWD template) as the basis: > > Sorry

CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

cement and the Editors propose these Issues not be addressed for this first version of the spec: <https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/issues> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision to request advancement" for this LCWD. No

CfC: to add Robust Anchoring API to WebApps' charter; deadline June 23

[ Was: Re: [charter] Addressable Ranges? ] Doug proposes WebApps include a Robust Anchoring API in its charter and this is a CfC to do so. The specific proposed addition is below and it includes this API being a joint spec with the proposed Web Annotations WG (draft charter is [1]). If you

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline June 4

proposes this spec be published as a Candidate Recommendation (using the following ED as the basis), and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so: <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html> This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the grou

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On Wed, May 21, 2014, Brian Kardell wrote: > I've been in several discussions on this topic over the past months, a > good example of which is: > > https://twitter.com/tobie/status/457075677851037696 > This is a great point. > In reaction to that, I'm running an experiment to hold such d

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On 5/21/14 10:47 AM, Brian Kardell wrote: I've kind of thought of Web Platform Docs as the developer end of things and w3c specs for implementers and wgs - is it possible to set something up under that banner? Perhaps; I haven't followed WPD so if anyone has data about its actual usage by

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On 5/21/14 11:17 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: I've been in several discussions on this topic over the past months, a good example of which is: https://twitter.com/tobie/status/457075677851037696 In reaction to that, I'm running an experiment to hold such discussions in a manner that may prove

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

Hi Art, all, On 21/05/2014 12:56 , Arthur Barstow wrote: About two years ago I proposed in [1] creating a new list (f.ex. public-webapps-devs) that is targeted toward developers using WebApps' specs. Such a list would be used by developers using the APIs (as opposed to implementers) as well as o

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:27:36 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 5/21/14 7:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Developers seem to complain about us using mailing lists to communicate rather than GitHub or some other centralized platform that is not email. Might be worth checking with them first. Y

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On May 21, 2014 10:29 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: > > On 5/21/14 7:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> Developers seem to complain about us using mailing lists to >> communicate rather than GitHub or some other centralized platform that >> is not email. Might be worth checking with them first. >

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On 5/21/14 7:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Developers seem to complain about us using mailing lists to communicate rather than GitHub or some other centralized platform that is not email. Might be worth checking with them first. Yes, good point Anne. I tweeted this Q with some tags that were

Re: CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > WDYT? Developers seem to complain about us using mailing lists to communicate rather than GitHub or some other centralized platform that is not email. Might be worth checking with them first. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

CfC: to create a new developer's list for WebApps' specs; deadline May 28

Hi All, About two years ago I proposed in [1] creating a new list (f.ex. public-webapps-devs) that is targeted toward developers using WebApps' specs. Such a list would be used by developers using the APIs (as opposed to implementers) as well as other related purposes such as announcing relev

CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline April 25

Travis has now closed the last open bug [1] for DOM Parsing and Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of the spec, using the following ED as the basis: <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html> This CfC satisfies the group's req

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Service Workers; deadline April 18

ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/> > >This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's >decision to request advancement". > >By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to >begin reviewing the document. The FPWD ref

CfC: publish FPWD of Service Workers; deadline April 18

Alex and Jungkee propose WebApps publish a First Public Working Draft of Service Workers and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following Editor's Draft as the basis: <http://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/> This CfC satisfies the group'

CfC: publish WG Notes of File API: Writer and File API: Directories and System; deadline April 9

Per Eric's e-mail earlier today [1], this is a Call for Consensus for WebApps to stop work on the File API Writer and File API: Directories and System specs and to publish a WG Note for these two specs. If this CfC passes, I propose removing the technical content of the Notes (like w

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

very spec in detail (f.ex. tracking a spec's check-ins). As such, I think a CfC for these WDs is useful since it provides a heads-up to members the Editor(s) has made sufficient updates that they would like to publish a new TR. I (personally) don't follow every commit for every spec and t

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[2] for > now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing > LC. > > > > > > > > Any comments would be appreciated. > > > > > > Thanks for the update Jungkee! > > > > > > I think your plan (to publ

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:18 +0100, Marcos Caceres wrote: Hi Art, I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published. Yes, I strongly sup

RE: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an ambient feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems unnecessary. From: Jonas Sicking Sent: M

CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

ood enough for publishing > > > LC. > > > > > > Any comments would be appreciated. > > > > Thanks for the update Jungkee! > > > > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and to > > continue to work toward a LC

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Are there any other open bugs, issues, comments, etc. for File API? > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=arun%40mozilla.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailreporter1=1&emailtype

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28

On 12/2/13 3:30 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote: On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and [23946] was filed on November 30. Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC? -Thanks, ArtB [23853] <https:

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: > [...] I added this serialization step as optional, conditional on the browser > storing an internalSubset. It is somewhat upsetting that in 2013 we still need to discuss why optional features and specifications that promote them are bad.

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

[ s/public-webapps-testsuite/public-webapps/ Uuugh ] On 12/7/13 10:22 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [ + IanJ; Bcc public-w3process since this thread is an instance of issue-71; (see

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

On 12/6/13 2:04 PM, ext James Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote: Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate. The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the LC could be published as a

Re: CfC: publish new WD of Input Method Editor API; deadline December 13

sitive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, ArtB -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source specification, >> given that you know that this is a contentious subject in this WG. >> > > Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate. > The W3C Staff t

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >