Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:38:51 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote: On Feb 8, 2012, at 13:29 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: thanks to Mike and the Google guys, we have http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/use-cases/Overview.html which explains what an IME API would do and why it would be use

CfC: publish WD of Clipboard API and events; deadline February 16

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of the Clipboard API and events spec using the latest ED as the basis (Hallvord has not yet prepared it for publication in /TR/): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishi

Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

On Feb 8, 2012, at 13:29 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > thanks to Mike and the Google guys, we have > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/use-cases/Overview.html which > explains what an IME API would do and why it would be useful. I believe we > have editors but it doesn't name a

Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

thanks, i was just checking; i'll defer to Addison and the editor of the proposed work to handle the details On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > > @2012-02-08 08:33 -0700: > > will there be liaison/participation with I18N Core WG on this work? > > I've alread

Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

Hi Glenn, > @2012-02-08 08:33 -0700: > will there be liaison/participation with I18N Core WG on this work? I've already given Richard Ishida and Felix Sasaki a heads-up about it. I believe Richard is planning to propose an agenda item for it on the i18n WG call today. But anyway certainly there s

Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

will there be liaison/participation with I18N Core WG on this work? On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > Hi, > > thanks to Mike and the Google guys, we have http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/ > **raw-file/default/use-cases/**Overview.html

CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

Hi, thanks to Mike and the Google guys, we have http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/use-cases/Overview.html which explains what an IME API would do and why it would be useful. I believe we have editors but it doesn't name a test facilitator (don't blame me, Art chose that as th

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

d the case, we need a home for it. (If it turns out that it does have a home and I simply couldn't figure out which one it is, then please consider this CfC as null and void.) We have a draft, I'm pretty sure that I've seen implementer interest, and it's very obvious that t

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

Given the positive responses to this CfC, the Screen Orientation API has now been added to the Additions Agreed section of charter changes wiki <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges>. On 1/30/12 8:26 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: OK, since I was planning to ha

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:09:44 +0100, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren >> wrote: >> >>> I'm fine with publishing this through WebApps. >>> >> >> is there any reason this should be done as part of

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:09:44 +0100, Glenn Adams wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: I'm fine with publishing this through WebApps. is there any reason this should be done as part of CSSOM View? i notice a "to do" listed at [1] as: - CSSOM should have a mecha

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:39 +0100, Arthur Barstow > wrote: > >> On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: >> >>> We have a draft >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**fullscreen/raw-file/tip/**Overview.html

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:39 +0100, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: We have a draft http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html I'm pretty sure that I've seen implementer interest, and it's very obvious that there's a lot of developer intere

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:43:26 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Further explanation from Apple... --- Forwarded message --- ... 2. Speech is an area with IPR -- it's been an active research area for decades; we may have some. Without doing a lot more work I don't know the exte

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On Jan 31, 2012, at 18:07 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: >> We have a draft > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html >> I'm pretty sure that I've seen implementer interest, and it's very obvious >> that there's a lot of developer interes

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: We have a draft http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html I'm pretty sure that I've seen implementer interest, and it's very obvious that there's a lot of developer interest in it. My understanding is that it has an editor. It wo

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

We support this as well. --tobie On 1/31/12 5:51 PM, "Kenneth Rohde Christiansen" wrote: >I support having that as well. Very much needed and requested, and >implemented by, I believe, Gecko and WebKit > >On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > >On 01/31/2012 05:04 PM, Robin Berjon wr

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

I support having that as well. Very much needed and requested, and implemented by, I believe, Gecko and WebKit On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > On 01/31/2012 05:04 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > >> Fullscreen API >> > > Support. > > > -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer N

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

On 01/31/2012 05:04 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: Fullscreen API Support.

CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

CSS WG's plate at some point but it seems to have been dropped. If that is indeed the case, we need a home for it. (If it turns out that it does have a home and I simply couldn't figure out which one it is, then please consider this CfC as null and void.) We have a draft, I'm p

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

I can help if needed, though I have never been an editor before. Kenneth On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On 01/31/2012 03:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Robin agreed to take the lead on testing but I don't see a commitment > > for the Editor role. > > > > If someone c

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

On 01/31/2012 03:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Robin agreed to take the lead on testing but I don't see a commitment > for the Editor role. > > If someone can commit to being an Editor, please speak up. I could try that. -- Mounir

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

Robin agreed to take the lead on testing but I don't see a commitment for the Editor role. If someone can commit to being an Editor, please speak up. On 1/30/12 8:26 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick call for consens

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

Zynga wholeheartedly supports screen orientation locking! Am 30.01.12 14:26 schrieb "Charles McCathieNevile" unter : >OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick > >call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business Wednesday if >you support or object to th

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

We support adding orientation lock to the charter. --tobie

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

On 01/30/2012 02:26 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a > quick call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business > Wednesday if you support or object to this - silence will be taken as > not explicitly supporting it, and

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

I support, but I think it tied into the device adaptions spec, fullscreen and also splash screen support. Kenneth On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick > call for consensus on this. Please reply

CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business Wednesday if you support or object to this - silence will be taken as not explicitly supporting it, and without support it isn't going to get into the draft

Fwd: Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

Further explanation from Apple... --- Forwarded message --- From: "David Singer" To: "Arthur Barstow" Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" , "Doug Schepers" , "Philippe Le Hegaret" , "Charles McCathieNevile" , "Edward O'Conn

Re: CfC: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3

Arthur Barstow: Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. Yes, please. :)

CfC: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3

/ 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 of a LCWD: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:47:45 +0100, Glen Shires wrote: Art, Charles, We are very pleased to see the positive responses to the CfC. Me too. FWIW Opera is happy to have this work done. We think it would ideally be a joint deliverable (despite the fact that we don't like those in ge

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

Art, Charles, We are very pleased to see the positive responses to the CfC. In particular, we believe this meets all the criteria that Art suggested in [1]. 1. Relatively clear scope of the feature(s) The scope is well-defined and bounded. [1] [2] 2. Editor commitment(s) Google and

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

On Jan 24, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Dan Burnett wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires wrote: >>> 2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaS

RE: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

4*. > > On 1/20/12 6:55 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: > > The deadline for comments is extended to January. > > > > Andrian, Maciej - I would appreciate it you would please provide some > > feedback on this CfC. > > > > On 1/12/12 7:31 AM, ext Arthur Ba

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires wrote: >> >>> 2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaScript APIs. >>> The XG group consisted of a large number of

RE: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

age- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:39 PM > To: ext Charles McCathieNevile; Glen Shires; Deborah Dahl; Scott McGlashan; > Kazuyuki Ashimura > Cc: public-webapps; public-xg-htmlspe...@w3.org > Subject: Re: CfC: to add S

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires wrote: 2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaScript APIs. The XG group consisted of a large number of speech experts, but only a few with broad web API expertise. We

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

e valuable, balanced guidance and feedback. (FWIW I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is likely to be a real problem as opposed to a risk, and I think this conversation helps us work that out). 3. The scope of this effort is well-defined and bounded. All that have responded t

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

well-defined and bounded. All that have responded to this CfC have agreed that JavaScript API portions of the XG Final Report are relevant to WebApps, and that the wire protocol portions of the XG Final Report are not relevant to WebApps (and should be pursued in another group, such as IETF). The diff

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

The deadline for comments is extended to January *24*. On 1/20/12 6:55 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: The deadline for comments is extended to January. Andrian, Maciej - I would appreciate it you would please provide some feedback on this CfC. On 1/12/12 7:31 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

The deadline for comments is extended to January. Andrian, Maciej - I would appreciate it you would please provide some feedback on this CfC. On 1/12/12 7:31 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Glen Shires and some others at Google proposed [1] that WebApps add Speech API to WebApps' charte

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

Members of Mozilla and Nuance have >> voiced various levels of support for this proposal. As such, this is a Call >> for Consensus to add Speech API to WebApps' charter. >> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will >> be consi

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

On 1/19/12 9:45 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: (see [WorkMode]). Ooops. [WorkMode] is:

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

is is a Call for Consensus to add Speech API to WebApps' charter. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is January 19 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org.

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

a and Nuance have voiced various levels of support for this > proposal. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to add Speech API to > WebApps' charter. > > Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence > will be considered as agreeing with the prop

CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

is a Call for Consensus to add Speech API to WebApps' charter. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is January 19 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org. -AB

Re: CfC: add Quota API to WebApps' charter; deadline December 20

Hi, (Sorry for my slow response, I'm in a half-vacation status) On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:10:45 +0100, Kinuko Yasuda > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Arthur Barstow > >wrote: >> >> Hi Kinuko, All, >>> >>> Besides the

Re: CfC: CORS to advance to Last Call

Anne, All, What does this CfC mean vis-à-vis open bugs 14663, 14664, 14700: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsSec&component=CORS&resolution=--- I also noticed Tracker Issue-108 and was wondering about its state: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/pr

CfC: CORS to advance to Last Call

As discussed in the WebAppSec WG call on Dec 6, the editor would like to promote Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) to Last Call and this is a Call for Consensus to do so: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-cors-20100727/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group&

Re: CfC: add Quota API to WebApps' charter; deadline December 20

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:10:45 +0100, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Kinuko, All, Besides the Chromium team, I think it would be helpful if other browser vendors would state their level of interest for this API (e.g. would review drafts, pr

Re: CfC: add Quota API to WebApps' charter; deadline December 20

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi Kinuko, All, > > Besides the Chromium team, I think it would be helpful if other browser > vendors would state their level of interest for this API (e.g. would review > drafts, prototype, deploy, etc.). > > Kinuko - do you have a commitme

Re: CfC: add Quota API to WebApps' charter; deadline December 20

Hi Kinuko, All, Besides the Chromium team, I think it would be helpful if other browser vendors would state their level of interest for this API (e.g. would review drafts, prototype, deploy, etc.). Kinuko - do you have a commitment for the Editor role and testing related tasks e.g. creating

Re: CfC: publish new WD of DOM4; deadline December 21

p://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/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 send >

CfC: publish new WD of DOM4; deadline December 21

Anne and Ms2ger would like to publish a new WD of DOM4 and this is a Call for Consensus to do so. The latest ED of this doc follows (it doesn't yet reflect a W3C Status section): http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Agreement to this CfC: a) indicates suppor

CfC: add Quota API to WebApps' charter; deadline December 20

Subject corrected ... On 12/13/11 7:22 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: As IanF mentioned before, Google would like to add a Quota API to WebApps' charter and Kinuko has now provided a link to a document that provides some details about this API: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Quota As such, this i

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the "old" XHR(1); deadline December 8

It is not possible to have only one XHR document. There is already a published CR for XHR1, which will always remain at [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/ The question is what to do with that branch. Moving [1] to a WG Note would help resolve confusion about the status

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the "old" XHR(1); deadline December 8

On 12/01/2011 08:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for Consensus to do so. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them to public-webapps by

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the "old" XHR(1); deadline December 8

On Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 19:25, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to > clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for > Consensus to do so. I object to doing so. It will just cause more confusion. Please lets on

Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

ver a year ago. I also wish we'd have technical discussion, as at that Offline Workshop, rather than a procedural discussion whenever Art issues a CfC on one of the drafts I work on. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/

CfC: publish WG Note of the "old" XHR(1); deadline December 8

our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal. -AB Original Message Subject:Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5 Resent-Date:Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:30:54 + Resent-From: Date

Re: CfC: publish new WD of Indexed Database API; deadline Oct 21

Hi All - although this CfC "passed", for various reasons the WD was not published before TPAC. However, yesterday, Jonas and Eliot prepared a WD that is now queued for publishing on Dec 6: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview-WD-06-December-2011.html On 10/14/

RE: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

On Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:12 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:29:37 +0100, Arthur Barstow > wrote: > > It appears Adrian is proposing: > > > > .../TR/XMLHttpRequest/ be a WG Note but it's not clear to me what > > version of XHR would be used: the 3-Aug-2010 XHR CR,

Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:29:37 +0100, Arthur Barstow wrote: It appears Adrian is proposing: .../TR/XMLHttpRequest/ be a WG Note but it's not clear to me what version of XHR would be used: the 3-Aug-2010 XHR CR, the last ED that was created, some other version? .../TR/XMLHttpRequest2/

Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

On 11/30/11 8:17 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote: On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Anne completed his merge XHR and XHR2 merge and the new History section includes information about the merge. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of XHR using the f

CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

Anne completed his merge XHR and XHR2 merge and the new History section includes information about the merge. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of XHR using the following ED (not yet "pub ready") as the basis: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Agre

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Interface; deadline December 5

Although there is an open CfC for some non-substantive changes to the Widget Interface [1], this is a CfC to publish a new Candidate Recommendation of this spec, provided there is consensus on [1]. The spec used as the basis of the CR is the latest ED: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of WARP; deadline December 5

WG's requirements: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr * Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. ]] Positive response to t

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of WARP; deadline December 5

that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. ]] Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the pro

Re: CfC: Add PointerLock and Gamepad APIs to WebApps' charter; deadline December 1

s WG's charter >> and not the Web Events WG's charter. This is a Call for Consensus to accept >> that proposal. >> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will >> be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for

Re: CfC: Add PointerLock and Gamepad APIs to WebApps' charter; deadline December 1

ll for Consensus to accept > that proposal. > > Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will > be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is > December 1 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org. > > -AB >

Re: [Widgets] CfC: add WidgetStorage interface to API spec; deadline December 1

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:42:08 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote: On Nov 24, 2011, at 15:36 , Arthur Barstow wrote: Marcos asserted in followups to his proposal that this change would not affect any implementations nor applications. As such, the change request, if applied, will not require republicat

Re: [Widgets] CfC: add WidgetStorage interface to API spec; deadline December 1

On Nov 24, 2011, at 15:36 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > Marcos asserted in followups to his proposal that this change would not > affect any implementations nor applications. As such, the change request, if > applied, will not require republication as a new (LC)WD. +1 -- Robin Berjon - http://berj

[Widgets] CfC: add WidgetStorage interface to API spec; deadline December 1

blocked by the W3C's dependency maturity rules (Web IDL, Web Storage in particular). Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with Marcos' proposal. The deadline for comments is December 1 and all comments should be sent to publ

CfC: Add PointerLock and Gamepad APIs to WebApps' charter; deadline December 1

Below, Darin proposes the Pointer Lock [PL] (formerly known as Mouse Lock) spec and the Gamepad [GP] spec be added to the Web Applications WG's charter and not the Web Events WG's charter. This is a Call for Consensus to accept that proposal. Positive response to this CfC is pre

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage; deadline Nov 25

On Friday, November 18, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged > and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The > deadline for comments is November 25 and all comments should be sent to > public-webapps a

CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage; deadline Nov 25

s are slow to appear. ]] 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 the Process Document: http://www.w3.o

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

ug is [12510]. This editorial bug was reopened after the CfC started. If anyone thinks those references are critical, they should please add a diff (based on [1]) to the bug and I will add them before the CR is published. [Given Doug and I are traveling next week, we must schedule and hold a Direc

CfC: Identifying "Test Spec Editors"; deadline Nov 11

Hi All, One of the topics discussed this week was to designate a "Test Spec Editor(s)" for each of our specs. One reason to identify Test Spec Editors is to acknowledge that some Spec Editors don't have the cycles to lead their spec's testing effort and another is to try to prevent the prove

RE: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

nt quality to test interoperability and will produce an > > implementation report (hosted together with the test suite). > > > > 2. A minimum of three months of the CR stage will have elapsed (i.e. > > not until after DD MMM 2012). This is to ensure that enough time is &g

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:40:56 -0700, Julian Reschke wrote: That section says: "2.1 Dependencies This specification relies on several other underlying specifications. HTML Many fundamental concepts from HTML are used by this specification. [HTML] WebIDL The IDL blocks in this sp

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

On 2011-11-03 16:29, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:50:08 -0700, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-03 05:22, Arthur Barstow wrote: During the October 31 meeting [1], there was agreement to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the WebSockets API and this is a Call for Consensus

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:50:08 -0700, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-03 05:22, Arthur Barstow wrote: During the October 31 meeting [1], there was agreement to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the WebSockets API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

On 2011-11-03 05:22, Arthur Barstow wrote: During the October 31 meeting [1], there was agreement to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the WebSockets API and this is a Call for Consensus to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ ... That specification has a new section "Parsing Websock

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

). This is to ensure that enough time is given for > any remaining major errors to be caught. The CR period will be extended if > implementations are slow to appear. > ]] > > This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's > decision to request a

CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSockets API; deadline Nov 9

test suite). 2. A minimum of three months of the CR stage will have elapsed (i.e. not until after DD MMM 2012). This is to ensure that enough time is given for any remaining major errors to be caught. The CR period will be extended if implementations are slow to appear. ]] This CfC satisfies: a

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

On Monday, 24 October 2011 at 20:33, Arthur Barstow wrote: > In Marcos Caceres' objection [Objection-2], he asserts some of the > overlaps and redundancies between D3E and DOM4 are confusing and > requests the D3E spec clarify its relationship to DOM4. I encourage > Marcos to work with the Ed

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

Given the objections to this CfC, a publication request for CR will not be submitted. The group's next step will be to"endeavor to resolve" the objections as described in the Process Document [Consensus]. Ms2ger enumerates 3 points in his objection [Objection-1]. My expectatio

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > However, *I do object to the publication* of this specification because the > inappropriate resolution of the following issues (in no particular order): > > First (issue 123), it contradicts an uncontested requirement [1] in DOM4 > forbidding the mi

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

On Friday, 21 October 2011 at 21:42, Ms2ger wrote: > Hi Art, all, > > On 10/14/2011 09:27 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > The people working on the D3E spec (namely Jacob, Doug and Olli) propose > > below that the spec be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

Hi Art, all, On 10/14/2011 09:27 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: The people working on the D3E spec (namely Jacob, Doug and Olli) propose below that the spec be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:27:50 +0900, Arthur Barstow wrote: As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is October 21 and all comments should be sent to www-dom at w3.org. As

Re: CfC: publish new WD of Indexed Database API; deadline Oct 21

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:04:06 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus to publish a new Working Draft of the Indexed Database API spec (last published 19-Apr-2011): Yes please. cheers http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Agreement to the proposal:

CfC: publish new WD of Indexed Database API; deadline Oct 21

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a new Working Draft of the Indexed Database API spec (last published 19-Apr-2011): http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Agreement to the proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate su

CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

The people working on the D3E spec (namely Jacob, Doug and Olli) propose below that the spec be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html The comment tracking document for the last LCWD is: http

[File API] New Draft | Re: CfC: new WD of File API; deadline Oct 17

On 10/14/11 10:11 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:25:42 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus to publish a WD of the File API spec (last published 26-Oct-2010): Do it... Thanks for encouragement :). The document is in pub rules format already

Re: CfC: new WD of File API; deadline Oct 17

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:25:42 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus to publish a WD of the File API spec (last published 26-Oct-2010): Do it... http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Storage; deadline Oct 20

also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. ]] Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. The deadline for comments is October 20 and please sen

CfC: new WD of File API; deadline Oct 17

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a WD of the File API spec (last published 26-Oct-2010): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. The deadline for comments is

CfC: publish new WD of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline Oct 16

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a WD of HTML5 Web Messaging (last published 17-Mar-2011): http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. The deadline for comments is October

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >