Re: CfC: publish FPWD of UI Events; deadline May 4

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Arthur Barstow 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: > >

CfC: publish new WD of Introduction to Web Components; deadline May 4

greement 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 pr

CfC: publish FPWD of HTML Imports; deadline May 4

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

CfC: publish FPWD of Custom Elements; deadline May 4

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

CfC: publish FPWD of UI Events; deadline May 4

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 requir

CfC: publish Java bindings for WebIDL as a WG Note; deadline May 4

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

Re: CfC: publish WD of Input Editor Method (IME) API; deadline March 28

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:39:46 +0100, Arthur Barstow 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) ind

CfC: publish WD of Input Editor Method (IME) API; deadline March 28

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 neces

Re: CfC: publish WD of Clipboard API and events; deadline March 26

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-t

Re: CfC: publish WD of Clipboard API and events; deadline March 26

hard-coded section numbers should probably be removed, and sub-s 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, but please rest as

Re: CfC: publish WD of Clipboard API and events; deadline March 26

ecessarily 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 and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with > the proposal. > > -Thanks, AB > >

CfC: publish WD of Clipboard API and events; deadline March 26

ent 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 preferr

Re: CfC: move WebApps' test suites to Github; deadline March 22

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

Re: CfC: move WebApps' test suites to Github; deadline March 22

I am a big fan. :DG<

Re: CfC: move WebApps' test suites to Github; deadline March 22

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 experience with GH

CfC: move WebApps' test suites to Github; deadline March 22

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-te

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Storage; deadline March 6

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

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Streams API; deadline February 2

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/Overvi

CfC: publish FPWD of Streams API; deadline February 2

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 requi

CfC: publish FPWD of HTML Templates; deadline January 31

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/s

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:50:35 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: ... This is just plagiarism. Ian, this accusation against colleagues of yours working in good faith is offensive, and it is untrue. It is therefore inappropriate for this mailing list. I will repeat, since you may have missed it, wh

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > > This is a formal warning. I do not support the chairs in this. I stand by Ms2ger. He has not acted inappropriately and his complaints are valid. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger wrote: On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what process *should* be is off topic here. I find i

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Ms2ger wrote: > > I object to this publication because of this change: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 I agree. That change is offensive. It gives credit to dozens of people who have done basically nothing productive at all, for work that a few of us have spe

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what process *should* be is off topic here. I find it unfortunate that you try to cut off discussions rel

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what process *should* be is off topic here. On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:07:20 +0100, Jungkee Song wrote: On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson S

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 12/02/2012 01:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 12/1/12 3:34 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote: I object to this publication because of this change: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 For a couple of years now, if a spec proposed for publication in TR includes a normative reference that hahas pub

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 12/1/12 3:34 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote: I object to this publication because of this change: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 For a couple of years now, if a spec proposed for publication in TR includes a normative reference that hahas published as a TR, PLH has insisted the referenc

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 12/02/2012 12:07 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson wrote: Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be corresponding publication rules. Art, Charles, Doug, Can you he

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson wrote: > > Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be corresponding publication rules. Art, Charles, Doug, Can you help clarifying which links we have to use? In

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

I need to clarify one point: I don't mind W3C docs making informative references to WHATWG docs. For example, I wouldn't mind a W3C doc making a normative reference to a snapshot of a WHATWG doc that has been republished in the W3C while making an informative reference to its "living" counterpart i

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, James Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >>> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: >>> >> I obje

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: >> >> I object to this publication because of this change: >> >> >> >> http://d

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > >> I object to this publication because of this change: > >> > >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 > >> > >> pushed with a mis

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: >> I object to this publication because of this change: >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 >> >> pushed with a misleading commit message. > > since you don't say what is misleading, an

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

;>> >>>> I think the next step is for the XHR Editors to create a TR version >>>> using the WD template so that everyone can see exactly what is being >>>> proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as >>>> you can so th

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

can see exactly what is being proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

On 2012-11-25 16:19, Ms2ger wrote: > On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec >> using #ED as the basis. > > Same objections as to the XHR WD. >From your XHR objection: > I object unless the draft contains a clear poin

Re: CfC: Selectors API Level 1 Test Suite; deadline November 23

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:48:28 +0400, Arthur Barstow wrote: The RfR for the Selectors API Level 1 test suite passed WebApps' testing group's review (see below), and according to the agreed #Approvalprocess, this now means a group wide review should be done. As such, this is a Cf

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

Please create that version as soon as > you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the > ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. > > (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-fi

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Ms2ger wrote: > On 11/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: >>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM >>> >>> On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Ann

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Hi Lachlan, Given the discussions about spec boilerplate, Status of this Document section, etc., Ithink we need a PubReady TR version of the DOM spec before this CfC can continue.As such, please create a TR version now and reply with the URLso this CfC can proceed with the document WebApps

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

rs to create a TR version using the WD template so that everyone can see exactly what is being proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please

[admin] Consistent Boilerplate and Status sections for EDs [Was: Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2]

sted in creating publication rules for EDs nor am I willing to track the conformance of such rules. In the future, for these few specs where the ED's BP and/or SotD is different than what is required for TR, it would make sense to ask the Editors to create a TR version _before_ the

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 11/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me u

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM > > On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: > > I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be > credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > I don't know what "official" would mean here. I just meant the intent that > is behind my (and Anne's, I believe) advocacy of open licensing for > specifications. Yup. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the WD. Please put your proposed text in a version of the spec we can review and send us the URL of that

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:38:35 +0400, Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the WD. The proposed wording seems accurate enough to meet my "I can live with it" tes

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

y, November 24, 2012 2:44 AM > To: WebApps WG > Subject: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29 > > (12/11/24 1:28), Adam Barth wrote: > >> Now, that being said and seeing as we cannot put Anne as an editor of > the > >> W3C version of the spec (because,

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: > >> > >> The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public > >> domain for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them > >> u

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: >> >> The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain >> for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close >> to no condition, not even credit. > > I can s

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: > > The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain > for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close > to no condition, not even credit. I can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

Le 25/11/2012 20:07, Kyle Huey a écrit : Have you read Adam Barth's contributions to this discussion? Sure, and I personally mostly agree with these points. He has summarized the point well, I think. There is a difference between what the license legally obligates one to do I talked very brie

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 21

#Draft-CR as the basis. Yandex supports publication. cheers This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

ply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I'm unfamiliar with the W3C proces

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

r 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 December 29 at the latest. >>> >&

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

nse to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid, but why would it be ne

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

an will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. > > 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 repl

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

On 11/25/12 10:19 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote: Same objections as to the XHR WD. Are you talking about ? The DOM ED includes the following in the boilerplate: [[ Living Standard: http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ ]] What (else)

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b

CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off >>

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off > >> Anne's work as our own. > > > > As I have pointed out ab

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or > individual > > contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in > the > > context of par

CfC: publish WD of Screen Orientation; deadline November 30

sarily 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 30 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. -

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

> From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or > > individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work > > as author in the contex

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

es and so suppose this is doable. I'm not pushing for this though, as I find this quite obvious. > Perhaps Anne would be willing to suggest some text that he would find > appropriate? +1, or perhaps Anne would like to object to this CfC no matter what? Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off >> Anne's work as our own. > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual > contributio

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual > contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in the > context of participating in the W3C process, ... It seems you are missing the fact th

Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

> I would think that listing Anne as Editor or Former Editor and > listing Anne in an Acknowledgments paragraph should be entirely > consistent with all existing W3C practice. But it's not consistent with that existing W3C practice to get all the text for a spec from a document edited outside the

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

;> >> 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 December 29 at th

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off > Anne's work as our own. > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author

Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote: >>> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? >> >> I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is >> taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its >> own. > >

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, "Adam Barth" wrote: >However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try >to pass off Anne's work as our own. Or better yet, provide a canvas where Anne is able to do his work as part of the WebApps WG. --tobie

Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

>> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? > > I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is > taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its > own. Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

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 D

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps > WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to > other, prior or variant versions. To be clear, in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog "Mer

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

ate support of the contents of the > >> WD. > >> > >> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply > >> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. > >> > >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to > > this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. > > Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written > by me or copied from me seems disingenu

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

ns about this proposal, please reply >> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. >> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence >> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. > > I object unless the draft contains a clear

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

oposal: 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 December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encourag

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:04:54 +0100, Tobie Langel wrote: On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a Call for Consensus to do so ... Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to > this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written by me or copied from me seems disingenuous. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

ml>. > >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 December 29 at the latest.

CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

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 December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed t

[admin] Publishing specs before EoY; CfC start deadline is December 2

Hi Editors, All, If we want to publish a WD or LCWDin #TR before the EoY, given the upcoming publishing blackout dates, the schedule and deadlines are: * December 2 - deadline to start a (1-week) CfC * December 9 - CfC end date * December 11 - deadline for publication request

CfC: Selectors API Level 1 Test Suite; deadline November 23

The RfR for the Selectors API Level 1 test suite passed WebApps' testing group's review (see below), and according to the agreed #Approvalprocess, this now means a group wide review should be done. As such, this is a CfC for this test suite: <http://w3c-test.org/webapps/Selec

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 21

The comment period for the October 23 LCWD of Server-Event Events ended yesterday. Since there were no comments submitted nor new bugs files, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of this spec using #Draft-CR as the basis. This CfC satisfies: a) the group&#

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates; deadline May 2

t; The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other > widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each test > case. > > This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's > decision to request adva

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates; deadline May 2

;t have any actual dissent. This CfC is therefore resolved to have passed, and we will request CR publication for Widget Updates. cheers Chaals The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each test c

Re: CFC Selectors API L1 to CR/PR

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:13:53 +0200, wrote: Hi, Formally, this is a Call for Consensus to move Selectors API to CR (and possibly direct to Proposed Recommendation - see below). Responses are due by Friday 26 October, and while silence will be considered assent, formal approval is preferred.

Re: CFC Selectors API L1 to CR/PR

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:13:53 +0200, wrote: Formally, this is a Call for Consensus to move Selectors API to CR (and possibly direct to Proposed Recommendation - see below). Responses are due by Friday 26 October, and while silence will be considered assent, formal approval is preferred. Pleas

Re: CfC: publish WD - NOT LCWD of File API; deadline October 22

consider this CfC as hereby amended to "publish a new WD - and NOT a LCWD". -Thanks, AB On 10/16/12 9:29 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: All - this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the File API spec <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/>. No

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline October 22

ditionally, Arun notes below bug 19554 ([2] below) is a related >feature request for HTML and he proposes the LC comment period be used >to gather input on that bug. > >This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's >decision to request advance

CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline October 22

eature request for HTML and he proposes the LC comment period be used to gather input on that bug. 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 sign

Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

- Original Message - > On 10/9/12 4:13 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > > >> * File API - Arun can you get this spec ready for LC by October > >> 15? > > > > Yes. > > ATM, File API has 8 open bugs [1]. I've rationalized these do

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

; To: public-weba...@w3c.org; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA > Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12 > > On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: > > The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working > > Draft of their spec

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following spec as the basis <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html>. This CfC sat

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