On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith 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 asserts per test are us
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 t
On 4/13/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
> submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
> Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing
> http://
l before LC, even if not all the tests are
reviewed yet.
So what I'd 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 wi
ssion
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
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:30, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> comments on a couple of timeless' comments.
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:20:35 +0200, timeless wrote:
>
>> Calling clearData() empties the system clipboard, or removes the specified
>>> type of data from the clipboard. See HTML5 for d
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
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 realising it is t
comments on a couple of timeless' comments.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:20:35 +0200, timeless wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Arthur Barstow
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
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Arthur Barstow 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
[editorial]
> Mathemat
I support this.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Arthur Barstow 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 wi
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:43:53 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Arthur Barstow
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
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Arthur Barstow 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 with this proposal,
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) does
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
e EDs during this CfC.
(I will follow up separately with Arun and Jonas re the status and plans
for the File API spec.)
-Art Barstow
spec:
>
> 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.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
> s
em 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 before
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/.
>
> -Art Barstow
>
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:37:46 +0200, Arthur Barstow
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 Opera Software, Standa
ll 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/.
-Art Barstow
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Arthur Barstow 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 c
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
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Steve Nester wrote:
>
> For example; in the example within the Cross-document
> messaging>Introduction 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
t B window. This
has been an issue which occurs in the use hosted payment pages nested in an
iframe within e-commerce sites.
Best regards
Steve Nester
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
> Draft o
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
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&#
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:54:08 +0100, Arthur Barstow
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 (some have suggested
ended"
3. Removing it from WebApps' charter the next 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. Pleas
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 that
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.
Given no comments were submitted during the 2-week pre-LC comment period
[1] for the Progress Events spec, this is a Call for Consensus to
publish a Last Call Working Draft of this spec based on the latest
Editor's Draft:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html
Thi
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 requireme
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&#
ore/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-webapps by March 2 at the latest.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, posi
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.
> > If you have any comments or c
re/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-webapps by March 2 at the latest.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is prefe
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
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:16:42 +0100, Arthur Barstow
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
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/2010OctDec/0757.html
2
Anne has addressed all of the open Actions and Issue for Progress Events
[A&I]. 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 t
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:47:18 +0100, Ian Hickson 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 say sets much
I support this.
/ Jonas
On Saturday, November 6, 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 Messa
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 Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:48:40 +0100, 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/
Opera sup
On Nov/6/2010 6:04 PM, ext 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.org/
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 wo
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
I support this too.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nikunj Mehta 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:
>>>
>>> [...] sug
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.
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
>> Messagin
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
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
publishi
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/
>
sage
Subject: ACTION-606: 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
Reply-To:
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&
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Cameron McCormack 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 to avo
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 d
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Travis Leithead 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 speaking it
> does allo
Monday, October 11, 2010 5:48 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.a
I support this.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Arthur Barstow 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 prefer
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:03:30 +0200, Arthur Barstow
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 preferred and encouraged
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 for
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 wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>
>> In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
On Oct/11/2010 6:56 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent.
Support!
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-dir-sys.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's
decision to request advancement".
By publishing a FPWD of the Directories and System spec, the group sends
a signal to the community to begin reviewi
Thanks, Cameron.
[DoNotCheckDomainSecurity] is one of the WebKit IDL's attributes,
briefly described here:
http://www.adambarth.com/papers/2009/barth-weinberger-song.pdf
I think security related attributes like this would be very helpful, too.
- Shiki
2010/10/12 Cameron McCormack :
> -minus
You've been missed, Cameron!
Just a reminder, my wish list is here (this doesn't have to be
reflected in the very next WD, though):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010JanMar/0003.html
A signed 8 bit integer type has been required in WebGL.
Best,
- Shiki
2010/10/12 Jo
-minus various people
Shiki Okasaka:
> You've been missed, Cameron!
>
> Just a reminder, my wish list is here (this doesn't have to be
> reflected in the very next WD, though):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010JanMar/0003.html
> A signed 8 bit integer type has been
Same here.
On Monday, October 11, 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
>
> In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
> Working Draft of Web IDL since he says "I’ve finished porting across Web IDL
> to target
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
Working Draft of Web IDL since he says "I’ve finished porting across Web
IDL to target ECMAScript 5th edition (modulo bugs of course!)":
http://dev.w3.org/2006/
Hi All,
In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
Working Draft of Web IDL since he says "I’ve finished porting across Web
IDL to target ECMAScript 5th edition (modulo bugs of course!)":
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/
As such, this is a Call for Consensu
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:13:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Below is a +1 below from Jonas (fwd'ed here with his permission).
I'll add +1 too.
Likewise Opera supports this.
cheers
Original Message
Subject: Re: CfC: publish a new WD of Progress Events
Below is a +1 below from Jonas (fwd'ed here with his permission).
I'll add +1 too.
Original Message
Subject: Re: CfC: publish a new WD of Progress Events; deadline October
14
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:59:59 +0200
From: ext Jonas Sicking
To: Barstow
Anne and Chaals suggested WebApps publish a new Working Draft of
Progress Events so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by October 14 at the latest
On 9/25/10 7:29 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent.
Support!
-ArtB
I support this publication.
Regards,
Maciej
On Sep 25, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dom
I support this.
/ Jonas
On Sunday, September 26, 2010, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:29:04 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec base
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:29:04 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's
Draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Opera sup
Support.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
&
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
(The spec does not yet include a W3C stylesheet but Anne will fix that
befor
a Working Draft.
This e-mail serves as a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last
Call Working Draft with following Editor's Draft to serve as the basis
for the new LCWD:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the gro
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:33:46 +0900, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
On 8/27/10 12:04 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call
for Consensus to do so:
Support.
Likewise...
cheers
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software,
On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call for
> Consensus to do so:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them to
> publi
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:33:46 +0900, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
On 8/27/10 12:04 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call
for Consensus to do so:
Support.
Likewise...
cheers
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software
On 8/27/10 12:04 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call
for Consensus to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-w
Hi, Anne-
Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/29/10 4:07 AM):
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers wrote:
There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to
address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit
wider review and comments, which is generally mor
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers wrote:
There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to
address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider
review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC. The
goal is to collect thes
Hi, Anne-
There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to
address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider
review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC. The
goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss them during
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:32:13 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Doug and the folks working on the DOM 3 Events spec believe the spec is
now feature-complete and would like to publish a Last Call Working Draft
of the spec. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish the
following document as
I support this.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call for
> Consensus to do so:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please sen
/html/DOM3-Events.html
<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 that as specified
in the Process Document [PD], a
Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call
for Consensus to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by September 3 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
If you have any comments or concerns about any of the proposed
resolutions, please send them to public-webapps by August 25 at the
latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be
On 8/13/10 9:15 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to remove the openURL method from the
Widget object
I support the proposal to remove the openURL method from the Widget
Interface spec.
Additionally, since this method has been implemented and deployed, if
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:37:03 +0800, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 15:15 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent.
+1
Support removing it.
cheers
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Soft
On Aug 13, 2010, at 15:15 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
> silence will be assumed to be assent.
+1
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
This is a Call for Consensus to remove the openURL method from the
Widget object as captured in Issue-116 and Action-568 and discussed on
the mail list ([1], [2], [3]) and during several calls (most recently
[4], [5]):
* Issue-116 "Need to flesh out the security considerations for the
openURL
We support this as well.
-pablo
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:06 AM
To: Jeremy Orlow
Cc: art.bars...@nokia.com; public-webapps
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish new WD
As a result of the discussions in the " [XHR] Status Update" thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0405.html
Anne would like to determine if there is consensus to close the
following XHR bugs:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10322
http://www
801 - 900 of 1096 matches
Mail list logo
