On Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ]
Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob, All,
The WG is chartered to do maintenance on the DOM specs so a question for
us is how to organize the DOM specs, in particular, whether
of DOM Core and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support for the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments
Hi Art,
(CCing some people you apparently forget to CC, but who might have an
opinion on this matter, and a stake in the outcome of the discussion.)
On 08/11/2011 12:28 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ]
Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob,
and this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new
LCWD of this spec using the following ED as the basis:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
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
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Before we publish a new WD of Anne's DOM spec, I would like comments on how
the DOM specs should be organized. In particular: a) whether you prefer the
status quo (currently that is DOM Core plus D3E) or if you want
using the following ED as the basis:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
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
and this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new
LCWD of this spec using the following ED as the basis:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
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
/eventsource/
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
Purpose
I support this.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Anne would like to publish a new WD of DOM Core and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Anne would like to publish a new WD of DOM Core and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates support
The pre-LC comment period for Progress Events resulted in no comments
[1]. As such, Anne proposes a new LC be published and this is a CfC to
do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:12:40 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The pre-LC comment period for Progress Events resulted in no comments
[1]. As such, Anne proposes a new LC be published and this is a CfC to
do so:
Opera supports publishing.
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:30:41 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
As mentioned in [1], the exit criteria of the view-mode Media Feature
Candidate Recommendation [2] has been met (at least two implementations
pass every test):
FYI
--- Forwarded message ---
From: Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org
To: w3c-html-cg w3c-html...@w3.org, w3c-xml...@w3.org
Cc:
Subject: Media Type Sepecifications and Registration Procedures
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:00:26 +0200
W3C Working Groups are *highly* encouraged to review
[[
As mentioned in [1], the exit criteria of the view-mode Media Feature
Candidate Recommendation [2] has been met (at least two implementations
pass every test):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/imp-report/
As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation
(PR)
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Although there are ongoing discussions regarding exceptions, there were no
objections to this CfC. As such, I will request publication of a LC
specification to encourage broader review and comments.
Sorry, I'm
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:01:17 +0200, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Although there are ongoing discussions regarding exceptions, there were
no
objections to this CfC. As such, I will request publication of a LC
Although there are ongoing discussions regarding exceptions, there were
no objections to this CfC. As such, I will request publication of a LC
specification to encourage broader review and comments.
-AB
On 6/30/11 6:46 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
As Cameron indicated in [1], all non
As discussed in [1], Anne would like to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion (From-Origin)
and this a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
As Cameron indicated in [1], all non-enhancements bugs for Web IDL are
now resolved and as such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last
Call Working Draft of Web IDL:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision
The comment period for the 7-June-2011 LCWD of the Widget Packaging and
XML Configuration spec ended with no comments and as documented in the
spec's Implementation Report [ImplRept], there are 4 implementations
that pass 100% of the test suite. As such, this is Call for Consensus to
publish a
The comment period for the 7-June-2011 LCWD of the Widget Digital
Signature spec ended with no comments and as documented in the spec's
Implementation Report [ImplRept], there are 2 implementations that pass
100% of the test suite's Mandatory feature tests. As such, this is Call
for Consensus
Because of the changes Anne applied to this spec, a new Last Call
Working Draft will be needed so this CfC is _Canceled_:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1247.html
On Jun/17/2011 9:57 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
As noted earlier this month [1], the Progress
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:57:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The exit criteria is in the Draft CR and is based on the criteria in the
XHR CR:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/#crec
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and
As noted earlier this month [1], the Progress Events spec's Last Call
comment period ended with no comments. As such, Anne proposes the spec
be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies
Although there were no objections to this CfC, my take on the following
ongoing thread is that addressing the various issues discussed in that
thread may result in the Web Messaging spec changing (and that could
result in the spec going back to Last Call Working Draft):
http://lists.w3.org
Marcos has updated the Widget Interface spec and he proposes a new Last
Call Working Draft be published. This is Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos has updated the Widget Interface spec and he proposes a new Last Call
Working Draft be published. This is Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
This CfC satisfies
Marcos has updated the Widget Packaging and Configuration spec and he
proposes a new Last Call Working Draft be published. This is Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/pub/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos completed the changes he proposed [1] to the Widget Digital Signature
spec. He now proposes a new Last Call Working Draft be published and this is
a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006
Marcos completed the changes he proposed [1] to the Widget Digital
Signature spec. He now proposes a new Last Call Working Draft be
published and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record
Doug's objection [1] to the Feb 24 CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core
[2] has been removed (see [3] Member-only list). As such, Ms2ger would
like to publish a new WD of this spec and this is a Call for Consensus
to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing
LCWD and this is Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html
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
this proposal, please send them
to public-webapps by April 5 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
Please note that during this CfC, Hallvord will continue to edit the ED and
will create
On 04/21/2011 01:10 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh
cases to the approved directory. I can imagine some test suites having
multiple RfRs. After a test suite is approved by the p-w-ts community
and the WG considers its spec complete, I think it would then make sense
to have a formal CfC among the entire WG to approve a test suite.
Re various
tests, the maintainer should be
allowed to approve them without a CfC, at least while the spec is
still a Working Draft. That way we have a single repository from the
beginning that should include all useful tests, instead of having many
tests of varying quality scattered throughout
On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is
On 4/19/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward
is that the contents of approved/ be under the
control of the maintainer of the test suite, like the editor controls
the spec. If people are submitting tests, the maintainer should be
allowed to approve them without a CfC, at least while the spec is
still a Working Draft. That way we have
A couple of comments on the Server-Sent Events draft proposal:
Section 4:
When close() is called on the EventSource object, the initial connection may
not have been established yet, or a reconnection could be scheduled for some
arbitrary time in the future (not currently being attempted). Should
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is allowed.
I'll reiterate that I think multiple
On 4/18/11, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
A test with 0 assertions could be used to test exceptions but only if
the testing framework provides for @throws annotation (my
TestRunner.js does).
testharness.js has an assert_throws() function that can be used in
prefer is that the contents of approved/ be under the
control of the maintainer of the test suite, like the editor controls
the spec. If people are submitting tests, the maintainer should be
allowed to approve them without a CfC, at least while the spec is
still a Working Draft. That way we have
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Approval
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Harness
Agreeing with this CfC, means you agree the WG should use this process
going forward. However, since this is a new process, I think we also
must recognize that: changes and tweaks may need to be made as we
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:30, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.comwrote:
comments on a couple of timeless' comments.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:20:35 +0200, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
Calling clearData() empties the system clipboard, or removes the specified
type of data from the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them
to public-webapps by April 5 at the latest.
Sorry, i've been doing other stuff
comments on a couple of timeless' comments.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:20:35 +0200, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html
If you have any comments or concerns about this
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
Disagree. In explanatory text the more correct term is clearer. math is
only american in usage, and avoiding the feeling that it is a typo would
reduce congitive dissonance without being incorrect.
ok
not
The Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new
Working Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
If one agrees with this proposal, it: a) indicates support for
publishing a new WD; and b)
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new Working
Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
If one agrees
I support this.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new Working
Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of the
WebSockets API:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
Among the reasons to publish a new WD are: the last publication of this
spec in w3.org/TR/ was over one year ago, recent discussions on this
spec's LC readiness [1
during this CfC.
(I will follow up separately with Arun and Jonas re the status and plans
for the File API spec.)
-Art Barstow
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:37:46 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a new Working Draft of
Hallvord's Clipboard API and Events spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html
Please do...
cheers
--
Charles McCathieNevile
.
Please note that during this CfC, Hallvord will continue to edit the ED and
will create a Table of Contents before the spec is published in w3.org/TR/.
-Art Barstow
at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
Please note that during this CfC, Hallvord will continue to edit the ED and
will create a Table of Contents before the spec is published in w3.org/TR
them to
public-webapps by April 5 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
Please note that during this CfC, Hallvord will continue to edit the ED and
will create a Table of Contents
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos would like to publish a new Last Call Working Draft of the Widget
Packaging and Configuration spec and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to
do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
The changes since
Since the CfC to stop work on DataCache was agreed, to make this status
clear to anyone that reads this document via w3.org/TR/DataCache/, we
should publish a WG Note for this document and clearly indicate work on
the spec has stopped - just like we did with the Web SQL Database spec:
http
Marcos would like to publish a new Last Call Working Draft of the Widget
Packaging and Configuration spec and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC)
to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
The changes since the last publication (26-October-2010) are summarized
in the spec:
http
in an
iframe within e-commerce sites.
Best regards
Steve Nester
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the HTML5 Web Messaging spec based on the following version of the
spec (copied
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Steve Nester wrote:
For example; in the example within the Cross-document
messagingIntroduction section, document A calls the function causing an
event to fire in document B. Document B should either be able to call a
function causing an event to fire in document A OR
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the HTML5 Web Messaging spec based on the following version of
the spec (copied from ED version 1.77):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/publish/LCWD-webmessaging-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:54:08 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
There is significant support for this CfC and in general, I tend to
favor PEPO (publish early, publish often).
However, in this case, the group already agreed D3E is feature complete
and it would be suboptimal
Hi All,
There is significant support for this CfC and in general, I tend to
favor PEPO (publish early, publish often).
However, in this case, the group already agreed D3E is feature complete
and it would be suboptimal (some have suggested harmful), for WebApps to
publish a spec
time the charter is
renewed (current charter ends June 2012)
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 March 10. Please send all comments to:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
[1
On Mar/2/2011 7:07 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The deadline for comments is March 9.
The deadline for comments is March 7.
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the Server-sent Events spec based on the following version of
the spec (copied from ED version 1.161):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/publish/LCWD-eventsource-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the Web Workers spec based on the following version of the spec
(copied from ED version 1.276):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/publish/LCWD-workers-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement
/Overview.html
As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of DOM Core.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them to
public-webapps by March 2 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued to work
on the DOM Core spec and they propose publishing a new Working Draft of
the spec:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of DOM
Core
and they propose publishing a new Working Draft of the
spec:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of DOM
Core.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them
to public
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:16:42 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be agreement with this proposal to
publish.
Lets do it!
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
It appears the Editor Drafts of the December 2009 Last Call Working
Drafts of Sever-sent Events, Web Workers and Web Storage, have changed
enough such that their next publication is a new Working Draft (not a
Candidate Recommendation). As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC)
to publish new
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:53:01 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Hi Anne - since this CfC was started, there were three threads on this
spec:
1. [ProgressEvents] How to deal with compressed transfer encodings Jonas
Sicking
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps
Anne has addressed all of the open Actions and Issue for Progress Events
[AI]. As such, he proposes it be published as a Last Call Working Draft
and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record
I support this.
/ Jonas
On Saturday, November 6, 2010, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants
expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft
of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:47:18 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our
Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it.
I really don't think that what our charters
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:48:40 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/html5
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our
Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it.
I really don't think that what our charters say sets much of an
expectation. There would be much more concern over them
On Nov/6/2010 6:09 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this
is Call for Consensus to do.
I support this in principle.
OK.
I can't commit to providing the draft,
though. A few months ago I
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Are there any normative edits/changes that must be made to the doc
before it is published as a WG note?
I'm not aware of any.
Regarding the non-normative W3C boilerplate (e.g. Status of the
Document), Mike Smith indicated he is willing to work
I am glad to see this after having brought this up last year at TPAC. I support
this.
Nikunj
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this
is Call for Consensus to do.
I
I support this too.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
I am glad to see this after having brought this up last year at TPAC. I
support this.
Nikunj
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
http://dev.w3
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision
: Start a CfC to publish Web SQL Database as a
Working Group Note (and hence signal the spec is no longer on the REC
track) (Web Applications Working Group)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:26:07 +0100
From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker
sysbot+trac...@w3.org
Reply-To: Web
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
This CfC satisfies the group's
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this
is Call for Consensus to do.
I support this in principle. I can't commit to providing the draft,
though. A few months ago I turned off this particular spigot in my
publishing
I favor publication of Web Messaging.
Regards,
Maciej
On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an
interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and
this is a CfC to do so
:48 PM
To: Shiki Okasaka; public-script-coord; public-webapps
Subject: Re: CfC: publish a new Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18
Thanks, Cameron.
[DoNotCheckDomainSecurity] is one of the WebKit IDL's attributes, briefly
described here:
http://www.adambarth.com/papers/2009/barth
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Travis Leithead tra...@microsoft.com wrote:
For IE9, we've adopted this attribute as well [msDoNotCheckDomainSecurity]
It has different meanings for different types of properites (fields vs.
accessors) and causes some proxies to be setup, but generally
Jonas Sicking:
My gut reaction is to leave this out from the spec and not let WebIDL
specify security aspects.
Agreed. It’d be fine even for other specs (HTML5?) to define their own
security-related extended attributes to avoid writing prose that defines
when SECURITY_ERRs get thrown, but I
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
My gut reaction is to leave this out from the spec and not let WebIDL
specify security aspects.
Agreed. It’d be fine even for other specs (HTML5?) to define their own
security-related extended attributes
Arun and Jonas would like to publish a new Working Draft of the File
API spec and this is Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent.
The deadline
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:03:30 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Arun and Jonas would like to publish a new Working Draft of the File
API spec and this is Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is
I support this.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Arun and Jonas would like to publish a new Working Draft of the File API
spec and this is Call for Consensus to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
As with all of our CfCs, positive
I support this as well.
-Sam
On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Same here.
On Monday, October 11, 2010, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
In case you didn't know, Cameron is back!
701 - 800 of 995 matches
Mail list logo
