Filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23936 to track this LC
comment :-)
-Original Message-
From: Travis Leithead
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:23 AM
To: 'Arthur Barstow'; Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: RE: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing
Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
that 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 requirement
and the changes are
considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the Constructor
APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7].
Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this
is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR using the following
version as the basis:
http
in Section 7 - see [Section-7].
Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this
is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR using the following
version as the basis:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to record
Hi,
I've prepared the PR-ready version of the Progress Events spec:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/progress/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html
Please use this version to review and give further comments during the CfC
period, if any.
Jungkee
-Original Message-
From: Jungkee Song
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of DOM Parsing and
Serialization, using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for this LCWD
Events
using [CR] as the basis.
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to
this e-mail by November 26 at the latest. Positive response is preferred
and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the
proposal.
please do.
chaals
-Thanks, AB
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:00:00 +0800, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of DOM Parsing and
Serialization, using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html
Please do...
cheers
I'll restart the CfC when Travis is ready.
From: ext Travis Leitheadmailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com
Sent: 11/18/2013 2:28 PM
To: Webapps WGmailto:public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: RE: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline November
25
two minor comments
- add semicolons to lines of the example code in the introduction section?
- 2nd paragraph in the conformance section, quote must?
From: Takeshi Yoshino [mailto:tyosh...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:48 PM
two minor comments
- add semicolons to lines of the example code in the introduction section?
This might not be an issue but I agree to add them.
- 2nd paragraph in the conformance section, quote
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:52:20 +0100, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
As for *where* the work is done, I will be working within the context of
the WHATWG to produce this specification. My understanding is that
usually the W3C picks some point in time to fork WHATWG
/hg/quota/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreement to this CfC: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and
b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
this e-mail by November 3 at the latest
: CfC: publish WD of Streams API; deadline Nov 3
Yes, with good results, groups are throwing the ball to others... I
don't know right now all the groups that might need to be involved,
that's the reason of my question.
4 days out without internet connection, usually one email every two
weeks
, but the most important differences in approach
and API can be seen. In particular, the extensive Requirements section details
the problems a streaming API should solve; very few of them are solved by the
draft this CfC was targeted at.
I will be continuing to work on it throughout the week
important differences in approach
and API can be seen. In particular, the extensive Requirements section details
the problems a streaming API should solve; very few of them are solved by the
draft this CfC was targeted at.
I will be continuing to work on it throughout the week, as time permits
disconnect, but I'm fine with waiting for
Domenic's proposal first.
Feras, Takeshi - for the sake of clarity, are you proposing this CfC
be stopped? [FWIW, I don't feel strongly either way, although I
suspect one could argue that getting some additional exposure and
comments could be helpful
Hi Aymeric,
On 10/29/13 7:22 AM, ext Aymeric Vitte wrote:
Who is coordinating each group that should get involved?
I thought you agreed to do that ;).
MediaStream for example should be based on the Stream interface and
all related streams proposals.
More seriously though, this is good to
Yes, with good results, groups are throwing the ball to others... I
don't know right now all the groups that might need to be involved,
that's the reason of my question.
4 days out without internet connection, usually one email every two
weeks on the subject and suddendly tons of emails,
...@gmail.com
To: art.bars...@nokia.com
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: publish WD of Streams API; deadline Nov 3
Yes, with good results, groups are throwing the ball to others... I
don't know right now all the groups that might need to be involved,
that's the reason of my question.
4
WD of Streams API using the
updated ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
Please note the Editors may update the ED before the TR is published
(but they do not intend to make major changes during the CfC).
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates
proposal first.
Feras, Takeshi - for the sake of clarity, are you proposing this CfC be
stopped? [FWIW, I don't feel strongly either way, although I suspect one
could argue that getting some additional exposure and comments could be
helpful.]
Domenic - Mike Smith mentioned you have worked
A few comments inline below -
From: tyosh...@google.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:23:26 +0900
To: d...@deanlandolt.com
CC: art.bars...@nokia.com; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Defining generic Stream than considering only bytes (Re: CfC:
publish WD
Yes, having the InputStream and OutputStream interfaces would be great, and the
“Stream” class could inherit from both. The important thing is that an external
API can return either a readable or a writable stream, depending on what make
sense for it.
Since JavaScript does not provide a way
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, François REMY
francois.remy@outlook.com wrote:
Since JavaScript does not provide a way to check if an object implements
an interface, there should probably exist a way to check that from the API,
like:
Basically it should be sufficient if each API can
and this
is a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of Streams API using the
updated ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
Please note the Editors may update the ED before the TR is published
(but they do not intend to make major changes during the CfC
-labs.com
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: publish WD of Streams API; deadline Nov 3
Along with WebSockets as Aymeric mentioned...WebRTC DataChannels are
also missing.
And I think Aymeric's point about MediaStream is important too...but
there is very strong push-back from within
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:05:22 +1100
From: rob...@mob-labs.com
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: publish WD of Streams API; deadline Nov 3
Along with WebSockets as Aymeric mentioned...WebRTC DataChannels are
also missing.
And I think Aymeric's point about MediaStream
| If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
| to this e-mail by November 3 at the latest.
While adding streams to the platform seems a good idea to me, I've a few
concern with this proposal.
My biggest concerns are articulated over two issues:
- Streams should
the Editors may update the ED before the TR is published (but
they do not intend to make major changes during the CfC).
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD;
and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments
Hi François
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:16 AM, François REMY
francois.remy@outlook.com wrote:
- Streams should exist in at least two fashions: InputStream and
OutputStream. Both of them serve different purposes and, while some stream
may actually be both, this remains an exceptional
Hi Dean,
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
I really like this general concepts of this proposal, but I'm confused by
what seems like an unnecessary limiting assumption: why assume all streams
are byte streams? This is a mistake node recently made in
/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
Please note the Editors may update the ED before the TR is published
(but they do not intend to make major changes during the CfC).
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support
Kinuko has made substantive changes [1] to the Quota Management API
since the FPWD was published. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to
publish a new Working Draft using the ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/quota/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreement to this CfC: a) indicates
(but they do not intend to make major changes during the CfC).
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e
not necessarily indicate support of the contentsof the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by October 30 at the latest. Positive response to this
CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean
agreement with the proposal
support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contentsof the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by October 30 at the latest. Positive response to this
CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of Pointer Lock,
using the following ED as the basis:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/tip/index.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note
Dimitri and I did not notice any concerns to the request for pre-LC
comments for Custom Elements [pre-LC] so this is a CfC to publish a LCWD
of this spec using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/custom/index.html
This CfC satisfies
As discussed previously (e.g. [1]), this is a Call for Consensus to:
1. Publish Selectors API Level 2 as WG Note
2. Stop work on that spec with an understanding this spec's features
will be included in the HTMLWG's version of DOM4
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please
Hi Editors, All,
Since the W3C will not publish any documents during TPAC week, if you
want to publish a document before TPAC, October 28 is the last day to
start a CfC to publish.
Please note, however, a lot of groups typically publish right before
TPAC, so if you want to publish before
for Consensus to do so, using the following ED as the
basis:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to
request advancement for this LCWD. Note the Process Document states the
following regarding the significance/meaning
Arun proposed (see below) WebApps publish a Last Call Working Draft of
File API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following
ED as the basis:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request
) does not necessarily indicate support of the _contents_ of
the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by July 23 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC
is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean
agreement
delivery guarantees
We would like to request a CFC for publication of a new WD based upon this
ED.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo
The most usual scenario I can foresee is an application server sending the
notifications to the web app instance(s). In any case nothing precludes that
a server-less webapp acts as an app server and sends notification to the Push
Server for delivery to other instances of the webapp.
Good
... ...
* changing from DOMRequest to Promise
* Add bit about semantics of push notification delivery guarantees
We would like to request a CFC for publication of a new WD based upon this ED.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
We would like to request a CFC for publication of a new WD based upon this
ED.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
--
Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix.
– Linus Tordvals, creador del
Hi Rafael,
sorry for the delay in responding, I've been interrupted by a bay
delivery :)
On 14/06/2013 18:45 , Rafael Weinstein wrote:
I know that HTML Templates will still cause similar confusion, but
at least template has an actual english definition which is fitting
for the current
Hi,
On 19/06/2013 04:05 , Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Note that this doesn't cover monkey-patches other specs:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html#node-clone-additions
I believe that's covered. If you look at the last paragraph in:
On 11/06/2013 17:59 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it does not
yet use the LC
The result is live at:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/templating.html
Thanks Robin and Anne.
I moved HTML Templates to WebApps' Specs No Longer Active table [1].
AFAIC (can't speak for Chaals'), I consider this CfC canceled.
-AB
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus
Thanks Robin and Anne.
I moved HTML Templates to WebApps' Specs No Longer Active table [1].
AFAIC (can't speak for Chaals'), I consider this CfC canceled.
-AB
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/**webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Specs_**
NO_Longer_Activehttp://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus
On 6/14/13 9:22 AM, ext pira...@gmail.com wrote:
When this would be spected to be implemented on browsers?
Well, I think that's a bit of a loaded question and some could argue
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/templating.html provides
a sufficient specification for
When this would be spected to be implemented on browsers?
Well, I think that's a bit of a loaded question and some could argue
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/templating.html provides a
sufficient specification for implementation.
I've only read the polyfill docs and seems very
and that change is considered non-normative [Change]. As such,
this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation (CR)
of this spec using the following Editor's Draft (which includes [Change]):
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it does
not yet use the LC template):
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it does not
yet use the LC template):
On 6/11/13 11:59 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
HTML Templates spec using the following document as the basis (it does not
yet use the LC
I updated the Disposition of comments to reflect this.
Thank you,
Eliot
-Original Message-
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:14 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Is the spec ready to start a CfC for Last
Hi Marcos - since this CfC passed, please prepare a WG Note of this spec
for publication on June 4 and notify me (off list) when it is ready.
-Thanks, AB
On 5/16/13 7:40 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
It appears there is no longer sufficient interest to move the Widget
Updates
This call passes, and a manifest spec has been added to
www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus
cheers
Chaals
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:28:58 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
Hi,
at the face to face meeting we agreed to take back the work on a
manifest
ahead.
cheers
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
public-webapps@w3.org by May 23 at the latest. Positive response is
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal.
-Thanks, AB
Original Message
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:28:58 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
Hi,
at the face to face meeting we agreed to take back the work on a
manifest specification for apps, based on the current manifest draft
from sysapps [1] that was developed from the proposal [2]
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:19:53 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
Hi folks,
Dmitry started talking to people about getting together in the Bay Area
to talk through components, and ended up with a number of people
interested. Although we are past the deadline for a
This CfC has completed with support for shelving the Web Intents Addendum, Pick
Media Intent, and Pick Contacts Intent specifications.
Based on the CfC mail discussion (and DAP teleconference) we have also agreed
to publish Web Intents as a W3C WG Note to complete work (for now).
As with all
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Angelina Fabbro
angelinafab...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume meeting notes will be posted to the list for those who can't
attend? A lot of good topics there.
Yes!
There's a new ::distributed() pseudo-element function, which
provides a way for a shadow tree to
It appears there is no longer sufficient interest to move the Widget
Updates on the Recommendation track so this is a Call for Consensus to
publish this spec as a WG Note and thus formally stop work on it.
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
public-webapps
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:28:58 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
Hi,
at the face to face meeting we agreed to take back the work on a
manifest specification for apps, based on the current manifest draft
from sysapps [1] that was developed from the proposal [2]
Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:29 AM
To: public-webapps WG
Subject: CfC - working on manifest
Hi,
at the face to face meeting we agreed to take back the work on a manifest
specification for apps
-minutes.html#item04 (I apoogise for
not linking those from the original CfC message).
Maybe I don't recall but is SysApps asking Webapps to take the manifest
aspect?
Yes.
Or is this something Webapps thinks is its right because of the prior
focus on Widgets packaging? I don't recall case
: Re: CfC - working on manifest
On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:39:34 +0400, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L bs3...@att.com
wrote:
Chaals,
Overall, I think we support this proposal but have some questions I
would like to get clarifications on:
Minutes of the discussion, to help jog your memory:
http://www.w3.org
Thanks for the announcement, Chaals!
Since we will only have a day for this Awesome Web Components Party
(even less than a full day, technically), I want to narrow the topic
down a bit to Shadow DOM and CSS interaction. Here's a quick problem
statement.
There are currently several places where
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the _contents_ of
the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by May 11 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC
On 5/8/13 4:00 PM, ext frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to shelve the Web Intents, Web Intents
Addendum, Pick Media Intent, and Pick Contacts Intent specifications (4 specs).
Shelving in this case means that we are not sure the specifications will
advance
On 5/9/13 6:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Boris - would you please indicate if you are OK with the way 21555 has
been fixed/resolved?
I am, yes.
-Boris
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
Indexed Database spec using the following document as the basis (it does
not yet use the LC template):
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record
On Thu, 09 May 2013 13:35:06 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On 5/8/13 4:00 PM, ext frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to shelve the Web Intents, Web
Intents Addendum, Pick Media Intent, and Pick Contacts Intent
specifications (4 specs
(resend to include Web Intents TF list and WebApps list for shelving Web
Intents spec, as well as DAP for all of specs)
---
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to shelve the Web Intents, Web Intents
Addendum, Pick Media Intent, and Pick Contacts Intent specifications (4 specs).
Shelving
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for Consensus
to publish a First Public Working Draft of the UI Events spec using the
following ED as the basis:
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 reflects where the group is on this spec
at the time of publication; it does _not_ necessarily
During WebApps' April 25 meeting, a proposal was made to publish the
Java Bindings for Web IDL spec as a WG Note and thus signal the group
has stopped work on that spec [1]. This is a Call for Consensus
regarding that proposal.
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply
As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft of the UI Events spec
using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/d4e/raw-file/tip/source_respec.htm
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record
As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft of the Custom Elements
spec using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/custom/index.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft of the HTML Imports
spec using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/imports/index.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the _contents_ of
the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by May 4 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is
preferred
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of Input Editor
Method (IME) API, using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/Overview.html
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:39:46 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of Input Editor
Method (IME) API, using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/Overview.html
Agreement
to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the _contents_ of
the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by March 26 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC
is preferred
support of the _contents_ of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
this e-mail by March 26 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is
preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with
the proposal.
-Thanks, AB
like the hard-coded section
numbers should probably be removed, and sub-sections added in the
few places where they are missing.
Hi Gary - yeah, Hallvord told me about that before I started the CfC.
(I prolly shoulda' asked Hallvord to make the doc `PubReady` before
starting the CfC
this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by March 26 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC
is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean
agreement with the proposal.
-Thanks, AB
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex
I am a big fan.
:DG
On 18/03/2013 15:54 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
I am a big fan.
Yeah, I kinda like the idea as well.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
.
cheers
Odin defined the new testing process for GH in [Proposal] and this will
replace most, if not all, of the testing processes already agreed
[Testing]. (Some things like using testharness.js will remain the same.)
Assuming this CfC passes:
* [Proposal] will likely be updated as we gain
, of the testing processes already agreed
[Testing]. (Some things like using testharness.js will remain the same.)
Assuming this CfC passes:
* [Proposal] will likely be updated as we gain experience with GH and
may be replaced by more general information like
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests
]
as the basis.
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to
this e-mail by March 6 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and
encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal.
(Separately, I will start a CfC to publish a FPWD of a new version of
Web
Hi all,
Le 27/01/2013 03:23, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Feras would like to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of
Streams API and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so, using
the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
This CfC
Feras would like to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of
Streams API and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so, using the
following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
Rafael and the other Editors of the HTML Templates spec would like to
publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of HTML Templates and this
is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so, using the following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html
201 - 300 of 995 matches
Mail list logo
