On Dec 6, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Given the storage mutex problem, I would estimate that Web Storage is
actually the draft that needs the longest review period. Going to
CR in
July would already be a huge
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Sorry Ian, you are assuming you are the only one that can edit that
spec. If you want help with editing the spec or with the test suite,
just ask. I'm not saying I'll do it, but I can
On Dec 7, 2009, at 3:29 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Yes, I totally got that and completely agree. However, we have a
number of people that have implemented this that could be pressed for
feedback. Also, creating a test suite for Web Storage would allow us
to find at least some spec bugs quickly
On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:29 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Anyway, my point was that even if I did have time to edit the
spec, it
would be a bad idea to accelerate the process. Reviewing a
On Dec 4, 2009, at 7:19 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC
period
(say 2 months given the time of the year) and then
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 7:19 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC
period (say 2
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 7:19 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
spirit of the
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Sorry Ian, you are assuming you are the only one that can edit that
spec. If you want help with editing the spec or with the test suite,
just ask. I'm not saying I'll do it, but I can ask at Opera for one of
the WHATWG superstars to take it over.
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC
period (say 2
On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
spirit of the Recommendation track
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:23 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
As predicted last week [1], I have replied to the outstanding
issues that
had been raised on the following specs, and thus am ready to
suggest that
we take these specs to LC to get wider review:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
On 12/4/09 7:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Would those that have implemented and/or deployed the above specs please
comment on the LC review period length for these specs?
Seems reasonable to me, personally.
-Boris
On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:23 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
As predicted last week [1], I have replied to the outstanding
issues that
had been raised on the following specs, and thus am ready to
suggest that
we take these specs to LC to get wider
On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC
period
(say 2 months given the time of the year) and then (assuming
15 matches
Mail list logo
