I support this.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
>>
>> All - the Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new
>> Working Draft:
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Any chance #10304 could be resolved prior to the publishing? Seems
like it would be nice to get a change to the core store API sooner
rather than later. Either way, I am +1 for publishing though.
Thanks,
Kris
On 8/10/2010 5:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrot
Yes, the deadline for comments is August 17!
On 8/10/10 7:38 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Arthur Barstow
mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote:
All - the Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to
publish a new Working Draft:
http://dvcs.w3.o
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> All - the Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new
> Working Draft:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them
> to p
All - the Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a
new Working Draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by August 10 at the latest.
As with all of our Cf
That is correct (both that I volunteered and that I have not had time).
I find myself home-bound for a couple days so I should be able to get
something out to Anne for feedback by the end of the week.
Apologies to all for the delay,
-- Dirk
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wr
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:50:26 +0200, Mark S. Miller
wrote:
Has anyone been working towards a revised Security Considerations
section?
Your Google colleague Dirk has volunteered but I believe has not yet had
the time unfortunately.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:50:46 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
All,
Anne proposed WebApps publish a new WD of the CORS spec (last published
in March 2009):
Yes please...
cheers
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer nor
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> All,
>
> Anne proposed WebApps publish a new WD of the CORS spec (last published in
> March 2009):
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them
> to public-web
All,
Anne proposed WebApps publish a new WD of the CORS spec (last published
in March 2009):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by July 20 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive
On 7/8/10 4:51 PM, ext Devdatta Akhawe wrote:
3. Text, which can be in a separate document, exists that explains the
security considerations for this specification. This may be done in a
generic manner as they are most likely applicable to various APIs. The
working group will decide whether th
>
> 3. Text, which can be in a separate document, exists that explains the
> security considerations for this specification. This may be done in a
> generic manner as they are most likely applicable to various APIs. The
> working group will decide whether the text is of sufficient quality.
Where
with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
>>> and silence will be assumed to be assent.
>>>
>>> -Art Barstow
>>>
>>> On 6/15/10 1:03 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is a Call for Consensus to publish
quest:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
The comment period for the 19 November 2009 LCWD of XHR [LC] ended 16
December 2009 and the disposition of comments for this LCWD is:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/disposition-of-comments-3
During this CfC review period, Ann
te:
>> This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of
>> XMLHttpRequest:
>>
>>http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
>>
>> The comment period for the 19 November 2009 LCWD of XHR [LC] ended 16
>> December 2009 and the disp
WD is:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/disposition-of-comments-3
During this CfC review period, Anne and Thomas agreed to work on the
Security Considerations issue and others are welcome to contribute.
A test suite has not been agreed by the Working Group, and will not be
require
On 6/16/10 8:03 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Maciej mentioned on IRC that he would really like to see these defined
before he makes a decision. I drafted what I think we can all accept as
good criteria:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#crec
I.e. requiring at least two imple
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:03:05 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
The Editor's Draft does not yet include CR exit criteria. I would expect
the criteria to be similar to our previous CRs i.e. require a thorough
test suite and at least two implementations that pass all tests. (We can
discuss the cri
/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/disposition-of-comments-3
During this CfC review period, Anne and Thomas agreed to work on the
Security Considerations issue and others are welcome to contribute.
A test suite has not been agreed by the Working Group, and will not be
required for the CR to be published
Lachlan,
On Jan 15, 2010, at 8:48 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Since the CfC ends later today and there's been no objections and
presumably won't be, I've prepared the draft for publication as FPWD,
and rewritten the status of the document and done the PubRules checks.
I just ne
Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>
> This CfC satisfies
On Jan 13, 2010, at 00:29 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>
> This CfC satisfies the
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> I too like the subset relationship between UMP and CORS and hope to
> retain it. AFAIK, the only issue here is whether or not the user-agent
> can follow a non-uniform redirect. There are two ways to resolve this:
> UMP forbids fo
I support this publication.
On Jan 12, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec,
latest Editor's Draft at:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
This CfC satisfie
al
> concerns so that no one misunderstood what my support for the FPWD
> meant.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
>> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Po
support
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>
> This Cf
Support.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working
> Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's
> Draft at:
>
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>
wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>
> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the gro
Support.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>
> This Cf
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec,
latest Editor's Draft at:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's
decision to
I support this publication.
- Maciej
On Jan 9, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
This CfC satisfies the group&#
I support this publication.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
>
> This CfC sat
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's
decision to request advancement".
By
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of
Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for
comments
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:09 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > > What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If
> > > there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's f
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:09 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If
there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web
Sockets
API and then either publish it a
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If
there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web Sockets
API and then either publish it as LC (if Adrian agrees) or at least WD.
I think it makes more se
On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:46 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If
there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web
Sockets API
and then either publish it as LC (if Adrian agrees) or at least WD.
The deadline is "18 Decembe
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > >
> > > Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3],
> > > Art[4], Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the
> >
On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3], Art[4],
Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the primary
concerns raised are the normative "User agents must implemen
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3], Art[4],
> Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the primary
> concerns raised are the normative "User agents must implement the SQL
> dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web
On Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
> >> Draft of the fo
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of
the Indexed Database API spec with a new short-name of "indexeddb":
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
encouraged and silence will be ass
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft
of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web
for a database then space will be freed
>> automatically by DROP TABLE.
>
> This is a perfectly fine behavior and a perfectly fine paragraph in a
> manual. However this is not the kind of language you expect to see in a
> standard where a wider range of behaviors is desired.
>
&
at 4:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web Sockets API
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webs
On Dec 8, 2009, at 01:46 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of
> the following specs:
>
> 1. Server-Sent Events
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
>
> 2. Web SQL Database
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web Sockets API
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
4. Web Storage
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us
to willfully violate the process?
Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions.
We have already aligned.
Thanks.
Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise
ail.com] On Behalf Of
Marcos Caceres
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:23 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Arthur Barstow; Robin Berjon; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2
December
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik
wrote:
> Hi Art
d on the current WARP).
> Given the above use case, I think that the special value "local" could
> address it and together with @subdomains attribute covers all but one ([5])
> from the above comments.
>
> In the light of LC#2 it seems that the my comments to CfC could be sum
from the
above comments.
In the light of LC#2 it seems that the my comments to CfC could be summarized
as:
Do the comments that arrived after the LC#1 deadline have to be repeated by
their authors to get into LC#2 review (I assume not, but it is unclear to me).
If not, then I assume
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Since the PAG has started with the earlier draft of WARP and
relation to PAG was an argument for LC#2, we assume that the group
still has time to accommodate the LC#1 comments in the present
version of the specification without the detri
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Please list exactly which comment were not addressed.
Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html
You (not sure about Robin, the editor) see
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
>>> Please list exactly which comment were not addressed.
> Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html
> You (not sure about Robin, the editor) seem to like some o
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were
not all addressed.
I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment
period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate
otherwise, please
bile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Marcos Caceres
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:22 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] CfC
c-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: public-webapps
> Subject: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Last Call Working Draft
> #2 of:
>
-company.com
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:50 PM
To: public-webapps
Subject: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
This is a Call for
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:49:58 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
Hi folks,
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API
draft at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
a
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote:
>
> - Expecting a single writer model is not the way the relational
> databases have been designed. Note: Neither Microsoft Jet nor Microsoft
> SQL CE exhibit this behavior. The right way (read: ANSI way) is to have
> isolation levels for
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> The CSS WG relatively recently dropped this requirement. Developer
> builds are now sufficient. I was not really in favor, but most of the
> group was.
I'm not really in favour of dropping this requirements either. The whole
point of beta build
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
>> silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December
>> 2.
>
> We support publishing th
On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
> silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December 2.
We support publishing this document.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:05 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but
essentially are:
For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec,
there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably,
and
do
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Last Call Working Draft
#2 of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
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 Proc
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially
are:
For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec,
there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably, and
do not fail any "additional" tests bas
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:05:31 +0100, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/26/09 9:58 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Actually, correction. Minefield and Opera don't meet the condition if we
keep the shipping requirement in the exit criteria.
Which imo we should. I don't think we want to be opening up that
l
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/26/09 9:58 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Actually, correction. Minefield and Opera don't meet the condition if we
keep the shipping requirement in the exit criteria.
Which imo we should. I don't think we want to be opening up that loophole.
The Gecko 1.9.2 branch builds h
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:08:31 +0100, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/26/09 11:52 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
And I don't see any problem with using public development builds.
The main problem I have with them is that they have typically not gone
through the sort of full QA cycle that would
On 11/26/09 11:52 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
And I don't see any problem with using public development builds.
The main problem I have with them is that they have typically not gone
through the sort of full QA cycle that would point out possible problems
in the implementation of the "b
On 11/26/09 9:58 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Actually, correction. Minefield and Opera don't meet the condition if we
keep the shipping requirement in the exit criteria.
Which imo we should. I don't think we want to be opening up that loophole.
The Gecko 1.9.2 branch builds have the null/undefine
> BlackBerry 9700 browser:
>(Kartikaya Gupta from RIM e-mailed me off list about this to tell me,
> I'm unable to verify these results myself without access to the
> device.)
>Baseline Tests: HTML/CSS2.1:PASS
>Additional Tests: HTML/CSS3: PASS
>Additional Tests: X
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:58:56 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There must be at least two complete, independent implementations, each
of which must pass 100% of the baseline testsuite and should pass
additional tests, dependent on the following conditions:
...
The current state
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There must be at least two complete, independent implementations, each
of which must pass 100% of the baseline testsuite and should pass
additional tests, dependent on the following conditions:
...
The current state of implementations is as follows:
Minefield:
Baseline Tests
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially are:
For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec,
there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably, and
do not fail any "additional" tests based on misimplementing
Workers
http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
Based on the status Hixie provided today:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/
0942.html
This CfC is postponed until or about "the first week of next month".
-Art Barstow
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Hi folks,
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API
draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-
api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;
%20charset=iso-8859-1 as a Candi
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft
> at
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
> as a
On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:49 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors
API draft
at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/
Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
as a Candidate Recom
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:49:58 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
Hi folks,
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API
draft at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
a
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of
each of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web Storage
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
3. Web Workers
http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
This CfC satisfies the
On Nov 19, 2009, at 00:49 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft at
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
> as a Candidate Recommend
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Hi folks,
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API
draft at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
as a Candidate Recommendation (assuming Lachy f
Hi folks,
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API draft
at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?rev=1.101&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1
as a Candidate Recommendation (assuming Lachy fixes the apparent encodin
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:01 PM, 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. The deadline for
comments is November 18.
I support this publication. [Let's get this puppy to Candidate!]
-Art B
On Nov 10, 2009, at 23:01 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne has now resolved the last issue for XHR (1) and as discussed during last
> week's f2f meeting [1], the spec is ready for a Last Call Working Draft
> publication:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
+1
--
Robin Berjon - htt
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le mardi 03 novembre 2009 à 21:27 -0800, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the File API spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:49:22 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
1. Length of the comment period. 3 weeks is minimum and would be OK with
me, especially since this spec has been previously published as a LCWD.
Sounds good.
2. Who do we ask to review the LC, both W3C WGs and external groups?
HT
Anne, All,
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:01 PM, 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. The deadline for
comments is November 18.
I support this publication.
Assuming we do get consensus to
, the spec is ready for a Last
Call Working Draft publication:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
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 [2
ebapi/XMLHttpRequest/
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 [2], a Working Group's Last Call
announcement is a signal that:
* the Working Group beli
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le mardi 03 novembre 2009 à 21:27 -0800, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the File API spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne has now resolved the last issue for XHR (1) and as discussed during
> last week's f2f meeting [1], the spec is ready for a Last Call Working Draft
> publication:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
&g
Anne has now resolved the last issue for XHR (1) and as discussed
during last week's f2f meeting [1], the spec is ready for a Last Call
Working Draft publication:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group&
Le mardi 03 novembre 2009 à 21:27 -0800, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
> Working Draft (FPWD) of the File API spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
My understanding is that the FPW
901 - 1000 of 1096 matches
Mail list logo
