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
On December 8, Last Call Working Draft (#2) of the Widget Access
Request Policy spec was published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/
Please send comments to public-webapps@w3.org by 13 January 2010.
Robin, Frederick - if appropriate, please forward this RfC to DAP WG.
Below is the draft agenda for the 10 December Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html#action01]
trackbot Created ACTION-467 - Submit a Transition Request to
publish a CR of the TWI spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-12-17].
AB: thanks to the Editors of the TWI spec - Marcos, Arve and Robin!
WARP spec: getting wide review
Messaging must uphold.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Mark, Tyler,
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote:
I made some minor edits and formatting improvements to the document
sent out on Friday. The new version is attached. If you read
restrictions that server-side app
authors may count on, which therefore protocols such as CORS and
Uniform Messaging must uphold.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Mark, Tyler,
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote:
I made some minor
During the December 3 widgets call, Marcos mentioned the following
document by Vodafone regarding View Modes Media Feature spec [VM-MF]:
http://lab.vodafone.com/w3c/vmmf-20091201.html
Robin - what's the status of this doc?
-Art Barstow
[VM-MF] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/
On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:17 PM, ext Adam Barth wrote:
I'd be happy to help with #3.
3. Before we begin a CfC to publish #1 and #2 above, some
combination of the
active participants in the CORS and UM discussions (Adam, Anne,
Jonas,
Maciej, Hixie, Tyler, Mark, etc.) create a comparison
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 assumed to be assent.
On Dec 14, 2009, at 3:06 PM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Right now, there's a no for atomicity, concurrency-error-free
operation, etc. I think this at least deserves a * that explains
this is only a problem with browsers that have multiple event
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 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
Below is the draft agenda for the 17 December Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
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
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
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:09 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
, status, etc. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-wam-minutes.html#action01]
trackbot Created ACTION-471 - Follow-up with MWTS WG re the Widget
DigSig test suite re their plans, status, etc. [on Arthur Barstow -
due 2009-12-24].
AB: I'll plan to provide an update re MWTS
On December 22 WebApps published the following Last Call Working
Drafts (LCWD):
1. Server-Sent Events
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/
2. Web Storage
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/
3. Web Workers
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-workers-20091222/
The
Hi All,
First, and most important, thanks to everyone for your good work this
year, especially the Editors!
Although the best measures of a spec's value are its adoption rate
and efficacy to solve real interoperability issues, here is some raw
(objective) data regarding WebApps' 2009
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
Reminder: January 13 is the deadline for comments for the 8-Dec-2009
Last Call Working Draft of the Widget Access Request Policy spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/
If you have any comments, please send them to:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
Begin forwarded
scribe ACTION: barstow respond to Mohamed's 29-Dec-2009 email from
ISO SC34/WG4 [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-wam-minutes.html#action01]
trackbot Created ACTION-474 - Respond to Mohamed's 29-Dec-2009
email from ISO SC34/WG4 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-01-14].
AB
The XML Security WG is considering changing the syntax of the Profile
and Role elements of the XML Signature Properties spec.
It appears to me the proposed change would affect at least sections 5.
{1,2,3} and the example.
If you have any comments on the proposed changes, please send them to
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 publishing this FPWD,
Hixie, All,
On Jan 9, 2010, at 3:00 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the
Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently
split
from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have
suggested it
/
On Jan 9, 2010, at 12:53 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 9, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All,
On Jan 9, 2010, at 3:00 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the
Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from
On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:17 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
However, I believe that this spec actually is within our charter.
Overall, Section 2 of the charter, Scope, states: The scope of the
Web Applications Working Group covers
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 request advancement.
By
The next widgets voice conference will be January 21 (there will not
be a call on the 14th).
Among the higher priority work items:
* WARP spec - respond to LC comments and update the LC comment
tracking doc
Marcos; Dec 21:
http://www.w3.org/mid/
Hi All,
On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:42 AM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 12, 2010, at 3:48 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Was that Advisory Committee Review process followed for any of the
other specs we're working on that are not mentioned by name in the
charter? I listed a number of them in my
Rokesh,
On Jan 15, 2010, at 6:43 AM, ext Rokesh Jankie wrote:
I just found out that this group is very interesting and it stopped
because of several reasons in 2007.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Web Applications Format (WAF) WG and
Web API WG which both ended in 2008 (and as Lachan
Nikunj,
On Jan 16, 2010, at 7:07 PM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
I would like to move the IndexedDB spec to Last Call at the earliest
possible. Please provide feedback that can help us prepare a strong
draft for LCWD.
Do you want a fixed-length pre-LC comment period (as we did last
November
Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call
Working Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/
If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org
by February 2.
Note the Process Document states the following regarding the
Below is the draft agenda for the January 21 Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
?
Steven-cwi Apologies for lateness
scribe ACTION: barstow make sure all WG members know about the
PAG's mail list [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-wam-minutes.html#action02]
trackbot Created ACTION-479 - Make sure all WG members know about
the PAG's mail list [on Arthur
Sebastian, All,
On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:54 AM, ext Sebastian Hennebrueder wrote:
About half a year ago I came up with an idea to add a unique window id
as request header to each browser request. I published this
initially on
my website
Re the URI scheme spec, there have been some followups on other
publicly archived mail lists. In chronological order:
1. Jan 25 from Larry Masinter:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jan/0075.html
2. Jan 29 from Art Barstow:
Below is the draft agenda for the 4 February Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:30 AM, ext David Rogers wrote:
Please could you point us in the direction of the documentation
from W3C on progressing to PR? Is there some kind of formal gate to
progression?
See the PD:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr
-Art Barstow
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:48 AM, ext David Rogers wrote:
Are there formal points (e.g. 100,000 users etc.) at which this is
gated? I'm assuming that some organisations would wait until it
reached PR before implementing so your proposal could be somewhat
chicken and egg related.
Each CR
Hi All,
Zhiheng's email resulted in some good discussion.
Is Web Timing ready for standardization? If so, what's the best home
for it: WebApps, somewhere else?
-Art Barstow
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Zhiheng Wang zhihe...@google.com
Date: January 27, 2010 2:39:20 AM EST
To:
[on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-02-11].
AB: do you consider the TWI test suite complete?
MC: no
... one issue was raised by Dom
... some of the tests were built manually and some were
auto-generated
... some of the auto-generated tests need review and possilby some
work
Doug, All,
On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:25 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
We are interested in comments to refine the charter before
submitting it
to the Advisory Committee and W3C management for review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html
The changes from the current [Charter]
Last week the XML Security WG published LCWDs of two specs the Widget
Digital Signature CR [Widget-DigSig] references:
XML Signature Properties
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmldsig-properties-20100204/
XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 1.1
Hi Cyril,
On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:22 AM, ext Cyril Concolato wrote:
Dear Mr. Barstow,
As indicated in the mails about MPEG-U, I would like to request
that the WG discusses the MPEG liaison regarding widgets. Could you
add it to the agenda ?
We can do so provided you agree to never again
On Feb 11, 2010, at 5:32 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Feb 11, 2010, at 05:40 , Doug Schepers wrote:
Scott Wilson wrote (on 2/9/10 10:32 AM):
There are a couple of additional areas it would be useful to
consider
for future work in the Widgets space, specifically:
- inter-widget
to determine how
to test the PC ITS test(s) [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-wam-minutes.html#action01]
trackbot Created ACTION-491 - Work with MC and the Team to
determine how to test the PC ITS test(s) [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-02-18].
SP: input mode on XHTML Basic
Hi Dom, All
During the 4-Feb-2010 widgets voice conference, we discussed how to
test WebApps' WARP spec [WARP] and Marcos raised concerns about how
to test the spec given it requires at least two domains to test
against since the test cases will make cross-domain requests:
Anne, All,
WebApps has been asked to review LCWD #3 of:
Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ct-guidelines-20100211/
In particular, Francois notes for the following for WebApps the
document applies to proxies that may receive requests initiated
Hi Cyril,
On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:56 AM, ext Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 11/02/2010 17:33, Robin Berjon a écrit :
We discussed this on the call today and decided that it would be
better if you were around while we discussed it; would it be
possible for you to join our next call?
I would be
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org
Date: February 12, 2010 1:40:53 PM EST
Cc: Dave Raggett d...@w3.org
Subject: W3C Workshop: Future Standards for Model-Based User
Interfaces
Dear Advisory Committee Representative,
I am pleased to announce an upcoming W3C Workshop:
On Feb 13, 2010, at 5:18 PM, ext Scott Wilson wrote:
On 13 Feb 2010, at 20:52, Doug Schepers wrote:
That's not to say a Social API is not useful or desirable. I'd
love to see this done at W3C, and I think it's important to make
sure it works well in both web sites and widgets. So, my
Below is the draft agenda for the February 18 Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before
the meeting:
The draft minutes from the February 18 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/18-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before February 25 (the
Below is the draft agenda for the February 25 Widgets Voice
Conference (VC). The I18N Core WG is invited to agenda item 3a -
Widgets and ITS.
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please
to help drive the View Modes
Media Feature spec to LC [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/25-wam-minutes.html#action01]
trackbot Created ACTION-497 - Find someone to help drive the View
Modes Media Feature spec to LC [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-03-04].
Arve: I can look inside
Editors, All - FYI, some information from the I18N group re normative
reference for language tags.
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Richard Ishida ish...@w3.org
Date: March 1, 2010 9:53:20 AM EST
Subject: Information about latest specs for language tagging
It seems that a number of people
Below is the draft agenda and logistics for the March 4 Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before
the
attribute discussions [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-03-11].
AB: the draft agenda includes a discussion on the Widget BiDi spec
... I presume there is no need to discuss that now
MC: yes, that's correct; we need to get feedback from I18N WG
... this is a new and complex area
AB: ok
This is the start of a 2-week pre-LCWD call for comments re the View
Modes Media Feature spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vmmf/Overview.html
If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org
by March 17.
Note the Process Document states the following regarding
FYI (subject says it all).
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Alexey Melnikov alexey.melni...@isode.com
Date: March 4, 2010 1:19:33 PM EST
To: Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org
Cc: i...@ietf.org i...@ietf.org, marc...@opera.com
marc...@opera.com, public-ietf-...@w3.org public-ietf-
Hi All,
The Media Annotations WG is preparing the following two specs for LC
and is seeking comments from the WebApps community:
1. Ontology for Media Resource 1.0 [Version 09 March 2010]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100309/
2. API for Media Resource 1.0 [Version 09 March
- Follow up with Scott re the span
element and dir element and Wookie [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-03-25].
Widget Interface spec: status and next steps
AB: we haven't talked about the TWI spec (
[16]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ )
[16] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api
]
trackbot Created ACTION-513 - Add proposal to move WARP spec to CR
to April 8 agenda [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-04-08].
URI Scheme spec: Action-510
AB: before I can ping IETF on the status of our scheme registration,
Robin needs to respond to Julian re (
[25]http://www.w3.org
What is the status and plan to get CORS ready for Last Call?
I see the following related Raised Issues:
Reduce the length of the header names?
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/89
Exposing more (~infinite) response headers
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/90
confused
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:19 PM, ext Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:12:33 +0200, Tyler Close
tyler.cl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've uploaded a new draft of the Uniform Messaging Policy to:
Anne - for any of the issues you want to close, please propose a
resolution with at least a 1-week review period.
Tyler - do any of these CORS issues apply to UMP?
-Art Barstow
On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:22 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:06:55 +0200, Arthur Barstow
Thanks Frederick!
All - we plan to publish this LCWD on April 15 so if you have any
comments, please send them as soon as possible:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
-Art Barstow
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
I have updated the Digital
Robin, All,
On Apr 12, 2010, at 7:15 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
VMMF has been updated with all feedback that had been sent to the
list, I look forward to commenters indicating love or hatred for
the changes.
I support the recent changes and think the spec is ready for LC.
There are two
All - FYI, I think the next steps here are to hash out some process
related issues so I started a related discussion on the public-
hypertext-cg mail list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/2010AprJun/
0001.html
-Art Barstow
On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:12 PM, ext Marcos
On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:00 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
I've added a new section to the wiki page, UMP as subset of CORS:
http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/
Comparison_of_CORS_and_UMP#UMP_as_subset_of_CORS
I do not think the set of subset
On April 20 a Candidate Recommendation of the WARP spec was published
thus the spec is ready for implementation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-widgets-access-20100420/
The Implementation Report [IR] is currently just a place holder and
the test suite [TS] needs work.
Some implementation
The April 22 VC is canceled.
Please:
a. address open actions and issues:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
b. submit use case examples and requirements for CSSOM spec to www-
style as discussed during the April 15 VC:
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-wam-minutes.html#item04
Reminder: May 6 is the deadline for comments re the April 15 LCWD of
the Digital Signatures for Widgets spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100415/
Please send comments to public-weba...@w3.org.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)
FYI.
From: Alexandre Bertails berta...@w3.org
Subject: DVCS platform at W3C
Date: April 29, 2010 10:23:55 AM EDT
W3C is pleased to announce the availability of its new Distributed
Version Control System, based on Mercurial [1].
If one wants to request a new repository, just send an email to
On May 4, 2010, at 9:35 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
This feels like a wouldn't it be nice kinda feature.
I added a pointer to Doug's original email to the widget features list:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R
-Art Barstow
Hi Manu,
Thanks for your e-mail (and the succinct list of relevant questions).
All - can anyone in the WebApps WG/Community commit to a quick high-
level review of the RDFa DOM API draft?
Manu - FYI, we've got a significant number of specs in progress [1]
so I don't think you should block
On May 5, 2010, at 9:40 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
Our only other comment on the specification is related to the new
requirement for the validator to support C14N11:
A validator MUST support [C14N11] to process a ds:Reference that
specifies [C14N11] as a canonicalization method.
If we
/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html#action02]
trackbot Created ACTION-537 - Ask I18N WG if they approve the span
and dir changes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-13].
AB: ACTION-533 PC spec: re the dir attributes lro and rlo
values, need to define these or add a reference
[[ Bcc: public-xmlsec ]]
On May 11, a new Last Call Working Draft of the Digital Signatures
for Widgets spec was published to address issues found in the 15-
April-2010 LCWD (see [1] and [2] for details):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-widgets-digsig-20100511/
The deadline for this new LC's
On May 11, 2010, at 10:03 AM, ext Nathan wrote:
One request though, does anybody have a chart or note of UA support
for
CORS? (even partial definitely doesn't work in x,y,z)
Some implementation data re CORS is available at:
http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/
Several responses to this thread were made by Thomas and Adam and
since those responses are not archived in a Public area, with their
permission, here are all of the responses, starting with the oldest.
The last Public response to this thread is:
Jonas, Anne, Tlyer, All,
On May 11, 2010, at 3:08 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally I would prefer to see the UMP model be specced as part of
the CORS spec, mostly to avoid inevitable differences between two
specs trying to specify the same thing. And creating an authoring
guide
All - I just learned May 13 is a holiday throughout Europe so there
will be no widgets call that day. The next call will be May 20.
Below is a list of Open Actions and Issues per spec. Please continue
to work on those items and others listed at:
On May 12, 2010, at 2:42 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
If so, I'd really like to see the chairs move forward with making the
WG make some sort of formal decision on weather CORS should be
published or not. Repeating the same discussion over and over is not
good use your time or mine.
There is
Simpler and/or shorter would indeed be good, although it may be too
late.
Jonas, IE Guys (Chris, Adrian, ...) - what is your input on this issue?
-Art Barstow
On May 13, 2010, at 3:39 AM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 6, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Here is a brief
Giles,
On 5/20/10 5:43 AM, ext Giles Hogben wrote:
Apologies - I should have explained a little more what we are looking for from
the WG and you are right that some of the questions are out of scope - not
answering all the questions is fine. In response to your mail:
1. I thought that some
spec: add the 19-May-2010
comment from Michael Cooper to the LC comment tracking doc [on
Arthur Barstow - due 2010-05-27].
AB: the next step is discussions about CR
... any comments about its readiness for CR?
RB: need response from PF first
AB: ok, so then during our May 27, we
On May 19, 2010, at 6:37 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Is it possible for us to change the component name form
WebSimpleDB to IndexedDB or Indexed Database API in the bug
tracker? I know we went through several iterations early on, but
it'd be nice if we could be consistent about the name.
On May 21, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
On May 19, 2010, at 6:37 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Is it possible for us to change the component name form
WebSimpleDB to IndexedDB or Indexed Database API in the bug
tracker? I know we went through several iterations
Original Message
Subject: RfC: 11-May-2010 LCWD of Digital Signatures for Widgets spec;
deadline 1 June 2010
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 16:09:53 +0200
From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
Reply-To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
To: public-webapps public
Below is the draft agenda for the May 27 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics
via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the
meeting:
to schedule a Candidate
call with the Director [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-wam-minutes.html#action03]
trackbot Created ACTION-557 - Work with StevenP to schedule a
Candidate call with the Director [on Arthur Barstow - due
2010-06-03].
AB: anything else on VMMF
Hixie - would you please provide a short status and plan for these docs?
-Thanks, Art Barstow
Original Message
Subject: Seeking comments on LCWDs of Server-events, Web Storage, Web
Workers; deadline 30-June-2010
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:37:20 +0100
From: Arthur Barstow
Below is the draft agenda for the June 3 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics
via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the
meeting:
On 5/28/10 2:15 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Jim,
your comments reach us right after the WG decided to take the specification to
CR, but thankfully I was a bit slow with the editing so that we could take them
into
in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-wam-minutes.html#action03]
trackbot Created ACTION-560 - Submit a TransReq for PC PR [on
Arthur Barstow - due 2010-06-10].
AB: anything else on PC for today?
... CONGRATULATIONS TO MARCOS!
view-mode Media Feature spec
AB: last week we agreed
All - the Media Annotations WG asked WebApps to review two of their
LCWDs. Details below including the mail list for comments (deadline for
comments is July 11).
-Art Barstow
Original Message
Subject: Last Call Working Drafts transition announcement of the API
and Ontology
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 disposition of comments for this LCWD is:
Hi All,
A few of WebApps' specs, as well as specs from at least one other WG,
have a normative dependency on the Web IDL spec [WebIDL]. Lack of
progress on Web IDL (last published in Sept 2009 and only minor editing
since then) will eventually block the dependent specs from advancing.
301 - 400 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
