Anne would like to move the Progress Events spec to Last Call Working
Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
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:
On Feb/17/2011 5:04 AM, ext James Graham wrote:
On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
(I see that Art documented most of this in
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements but thought
this ought to be confirmed on the list)
Is there some way to make put this
On Feb/22/2011 4:40 PM, ext Mike Taylor wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.html
I get a 404.
The above is missing and x and should be:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.xhtml
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.
Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding re-publishing the Web Workers spec [ED] as a new Last Call
Working Draft ...
Bugzilla shows one open bug [Bugs]:
11818 - As documented in the Creating workers section, a worker *must* be
an external script.
http://www.w3.org
Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding re-publishing the Server-sent Events spec [ED] as a new Last
Call Working Draft ...
1. 11835 - EventSource must support cross-domain requests (ala CORS)
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11835
This will be supported
On Feb/24/2011 8:50 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Given the information below, I think it would be useful to move this
spec to a test-ready state. That is, publish it as a Last Call
FYI, the Web Performance WG [WebPerf] intends to add Visibility API,
Yield and Continue, requestAnimationFrame to their Charter when it is
renewed/updated (in the next month or two):
See their recent meeting minutes for some details:
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-webperf-minutes.html#item01
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 to
Hixie, All,
Is the HTML5 Web Messaging spec ready for Last Call Working Draft?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
If not, what must be done before it is ready for LC and what is the time
frame to complete the work?
Bugzilla [1] reports one bug for this component without a Resolution and
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.
list.
-Art Barstow
[DS] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0687.html
[AvK]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0722.html
On Feb/23/2011 11:20 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued
that harm implementations without having their ok
# [21:21] Hixie so whether it's in LC or REC or ED doesn't make any
difference to me or the implementors as far as i can tell :-)
# [21:21] ArtB Hixie - ok; good to hear!
]]
-AB
On Feb/28/2011 3:09 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All
Hi All,
WebApps' Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving spec was last updated
by Nikunj in January 2010. Since then, my attempt to determine the level
of interest in this spec via the tread below (archived at [1]) received
no real traction.
As such, this is a Call for Consensus to formally
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
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:
[ Just WebApps ]
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the Media Annotations WG.
If anyone in WebApps wants to propose an official WG response, please do
so ASAP, in reply to this email so the WebApps WG can discuss it.
-Thanks, AB
On Mar/8/2011
Ian, Leigh, Dimitri, All,
On March 11, the agenda of the so-called Hypertext Coordination Group
[HCG] will include XBL [XBL] to continue related discussions they had
during their Feb 11 call [Feb-11-Mins]. I wasn't present at that call
but based on those meeting minutes and what Leigh said
terminate W4 as previously
outlined.
At this point, all dedicated workers owned by 'D' would be terminated
leaving no orphans.
___
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:31 AM
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft
of Progress Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 1
June 2011 at the latest:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft
of Server-sent Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-eventsource-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21
April 2011 at the latest:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft
of Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21
April 2011 at the latest:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/#status-of-this-document
If anyone objects to this, please speak up by March 20 at the latest.
-AB
On Mar/3/2011 8:25 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi All,
WebApps' Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving spec was last updated
by Nikunj in January 2010. Since then, my
Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period of
a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec.
On Mar/17/2011 7:21 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
(accidentally hit reply instead of reply all, so sending again)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Phillips,
The W3C staff is trying to determine which WGs will meet f2f during the
Oct 31 - Nov 4 TPAC meeting week in Santa Clara, CA US.
The general format for the week is the same as TPAC 2011:
[[
Schedule for the week:
Group Meetings: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday
Plenary Day: Wednesday
Earlier today the W3C announced an Identity in the Browser Workshop
May 24-25 in Mountain View CA US. The deadline for Position Papers is
April 22:
Identity in the Browser
24-25 May 2011
Mountain View, CA, USA
Hosted by the Mozilla Foundation
http://www.w3.org/2011/identity-ws/
As the
Hi All,
Louis-rémi's thread [1] on AppCache led to discussions about other
storage related APIs including DataCache, Google Gears, IDB and the File
* APIs.
Are there are any good resources that describe the various storage APIs
(from the app developer's perspective) and compare their main
, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
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
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them to
public-webapps by April 5
Hi All - I see that Hixie already submitted comments and I encourage
others, especially those that have participated in the implementation of
the Web Sockets API, to also submit comments.
All comments should be submitted to h...@ietf.org by April 15 at the latest.
If anyone in WebApps wants
Hi All,
During the 2011 TPAC meeting, I agreed to an action (action-611) to work
with Chaals and WebApps' Team Contacts to define the group's testing
processes.
To that end, I created the following documents:
1. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing - some high level goals,
and links
On Mar/31/2011 10:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Mar 31, 2011, at 14:04 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
1. What is the level of uptake of testharness.js within the HTML WG and other WGs? If any of these
groups provide usage information, what are the URIs? Do any WGs make testharness.js's
use
This is painful to read. WebSQL development died because SQLite, the most
widely-deployed database software in the world, was too good? That sounds like
a catastrophic failure of the W3C process.
--
Glenn Maynard
Hear.
I am starting to think that Mozilla will step up and provide an
Yes I agree, as has been said before on this list, that comments are
always welcome and let's all please make sure those comments are
consistent with the principles to which I referred.
-Art Barstow
On Apr/1/2011 12:21 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Arthur
On Apr/1/2011 3:39 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote:
If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't
show up in a spec as simply do what SQLite does, but as a complete
spec of SQLite's behavior.
FYI, the Web SQL Database NOTE says:
[[
think that could help with making faster progress?
-Michael
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Michael, All,
On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
I have in mind several
Process
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:45:02 -0700
From: ext Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
To: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
CC: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
On 3/31/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
4. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Harness
This is a Call for Consensus to publish new Working Drafts of Eric's two
File API specs (last published about 6 months ago):
1. File API: Writer
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html
2. File API: Directories and System:
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-dir-sys.html
[ I don't know why this e-mail dated 31-March-2011 just showed up in my
Inbox today ... ]
On Mar/31/2011 9:25 AM, ext Sylvain GREZE wrote:
Hello there,
I write this email to let you know about our surprise when we saw that
the Web SQL Database is no longer part of the html5 specification.
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]
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
I'm not sure we need to explicitly designate test suite maintainers.
I'd be okay with not having specific maintainers, but then we need to
figure out some good process for
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect
On Apr/6/2011 6:33 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
| Within each test one may have a number of asserts.
I don't agree.
SRP applies to functions and also unit tests. Limiting test functions
to one assertion keeps them
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)
Jonas created a list of IndexedDB features that are not included in the
first version of the spec. Those features are documented in the
following wiki page:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/IndexedDatabaseFeatures
Comments on this document are welcome.
-Art Barstow
Hi Arun, Jonas - what is the status/plan for the File API spec?
What remains to be done before the spec is LC ready?
(Tracker shows 0 bugs and WebApps does not have a Bugzilla component for
this spec).
-Thanks, AB
On Apr/11/2011 11:20 AM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 4/11/11 9:38 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Arun, Jonas - what is the status/plan for the File API spec?
What remains to be done before the spec is LC ready?
Art:
A few things need to be done:
1. There continue to be a few spec. nits
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://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Submission
The public-webapps-testsu...@w3.org list is now operational:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/
Please use this list for WebApps' testing discussions.
To subscribe to this list, send a subscribe e-mail to:
public-webapps-testsuite-requ...@w3.org
For discussions
Original Message
Subject: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events; deadline
April 21
Resent-Date:Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:36:09 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:34:08 -0500
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
On Apr/14/2011 6:39 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of
Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please
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
I agree the need for clear test suite status is implied and should be
explicit. I've added a new requirement for this to [1]. As to how this
requirement is addressed, perhaps we should adopt/re-use some existing
good practice; otherwise perhaps we can use a Status/Readme file in each
.
Thanks,
Adrian.
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:22 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I agree the need for clear test suite status is implied and should be
explicit. I've added a new requirement for this to [1]. As to how this
requirement is addressed, perhaps we should adopt/re-use some existing
good
-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:22:35 -0500
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
Marcos would like to publish a new Last Call Working Draft of the Widget
Packaging and Configuration spec and this is a Call
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with the way it
is written. Although the conformance requirements are fairly clear, the
Hi Rafael,
On Apr/22/2011 8:35 PM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Myself and a few other chromium folks have been working on a design
for a formalized separation between View and Model in the browser,
with needs of web applications being the primary motivator.
Our ideas are implemented as an
On Apr/26/2011 7:40 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies
.
-Thanks, AB
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0306.html
Original Message
Subject:Re: [widgets] Dig Sig spec
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:19:44 +0200
From: ext Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com
To: Arthur Barstow art.bars
Thanks for the update Richard.
Is this spec ready for LCWD publication? If not, what remains to be done
before it is LC-ready?
Also, I would appreciate any implementation data you can share so we can
update [1]
-Thanks, AB
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation
On
/webapps/wiki/Submission
(RSN, I will move the two previous test suite submissions in Mercurial
to the new structure).
-Art Barstow
Original Message
Subject:CfC: WebApps testing process; deadline April 20
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:02:16 -0400
From: Arthur Barstow
Hixie, All,
April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the
Server-Sent Events spec [SSE-LC].
Since that LC was published, I noted 1 set of comments and 1 new bug:
* CfC: server-sent-events; 15-Apr-2011; Ian Clelland
Hixie, All,
April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the Web
Workers spec [WW-LC].
Since that LC was published, I noted 2 set of comments and 2 new bugs:
* Adrian Bateman; 9-Mar-2011
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0877.html
* Travis
?
Original Message
Subject:Re: [webstorage] Moving Web Storage back to Last Call WD
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:19:51 +0900
From: ext Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
CC: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalm...@gmail.com
Well, I guess the good news is that (at the time of this writing), there
aren't 355 bugs ;).
All - Inputs and proposals for these bugs are encouraged!
On Apr/28/2011 2:33 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
What is the plan to address the following Web
;
deadline May 1
Resent-Date:Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:51:20 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 06:49:32 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org, Marcos Caceres
marcoscace...@gmail.com
Reminder: May 1
Hi Tab, All - can you Tab, or someone else, commit to processing the
comments and bugs for the Workers LCWD?
Given Hixie's bug list [1], perhaps we shouldn't wait for him.
-Art
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0385.html
On Apr/28/2011 1:35 PM, ext Arthur
Hi All,
Pardon the interruption here to digress a bit to look at Rafael's
proposal from the process perspective ...
[Charter] defines WebApps' scope and explicit deliverables. Depending on
how the proposal is viewed, (perhaps) at least part of it could be
rationalized by being related to
On May/4/2011 12:29 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi,
I just realised that I actually localise my own name in certain
languages
(most particularly to ensure that I get my preferred transliterations
when
I am publishing). But I cannot do that in config.xml. Likewise, I would
like to localise
The people working on the DOM 3 Events spec have resolved all the
issues we believe are critical for DOM3 Events vis-à-vis the September
2010 LCWD [LC-2010], and have addressed the issues regarding
discrepancies between D3E and DOM Core [Mins]. As such, they now propose
the WG publish a new
Hi Dom,
On May/12/2011 4:41 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le jeudi 24 février 2011 à 16:03 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a
écrit :
As part of a European research project I'm involved in [1], I've
compiled a report on the existing technologies in development (or in
discussion) at
HTML5 Web Messaging:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-webmessaging-20110317/
Original Message
Subject: RfC: LCWDs of Web Workers, Server-sent Events, Progress Events
and HTML5 Web Messaging
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:53:19 -0400
From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
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
The DAP WG is planning to publish a Last Call WD of their Contacts API
on June 8, with a proposed comment deadline of July 6 or 13 (4 or 5 weeks):
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/
Since they intend to ask WebApps to review the LC, please speak up ASAP
(before May 26) if the July 6
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 the
Hi All,
The Web IDL spec is a normative dependency for many specs from several
Working Groups. As such, its progression along the Recommendation track
is very important and Cameron has agreed to the following schedule to
publish a Last Call Working Draft by June 30:
* June 20 - start a
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 for
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
Over the last few days, CfCs were started to publish Last Call Working
Drafts of three of the widget specs: Packaging and Configuration,
Interface and Digital Signature.
By the time the LC comment period ends (June 28), Marcos expects to have
data that at least two independent implementations
On May 31, Last Call Working Draft #2 of the DOM 3 Events spec was
published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20110531/
If you have any comments on this spec, please send them to the following
mail list by June 28 at the latest:
www-...@w3.org
-Art Barstow
Dom - WebApps' current charter does not directly include this API and I
don't think the charter includes any deliverables that could directly
rationalize Adam's spec. However, if someone interprets the charter
differently, then please speak up.
Adam - what is the status and plan for the URL
I support WebApps starting some new work, provided there is broad
support for it and it doesn't block or slow work we already started.
All, especially implementors - what is your level of interest in Adam's
URL API?
Dom - what's your interest here? F.ex., is this API something DAP or
some
Hixie, All - PLH proposed a fix for this bug in comment #5 (use
DOMString instead of any in {get,set}Item).
AFAIU, PLH's proposal matches what has been widely implemented. As such,
it seems like the spec should be updated accordingly.
-AB
On Jun/2/2011 8:31 AM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org
What are the specific change(s) to the Web Messaging spec being proposed:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
-AB
On Jun/2/2011 11:25 AM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Kenneth Russellk...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch
, please speak up.
-AB
[ED] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
On Mar/10/2011 7:33 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working
Draft of Progress Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110310/
If you have any comments, please
On Jun/2/2011 2:51 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 18:38 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All - PLH proposed a fix for this bug in comment #5 (use
DOMString instead of any in {get,set
Hi Marcos - given this spec is in the Candidate Recommendation state,
before a CfC to publish a new LCWD is started, I think it would be
helpful if you provided a list of the changes you propose and a short
summary for each change. WDYT?
I don't have a strong opinion on where the list of
[ Bcc public-webapps; please reply to public-device-a...@w3.org ]
As noted in the Battery Status Event spec, comments for the spec should
be sent to the DAP WG's mail list:
public-device-a...@w3.org mailto:public-device-a...@w3.org
On Jun/6/2011 1:44 AM, ext Andres Riofrio wrote:
Hello,
I
Given the positive support indicated, one way forward with respect to
WebApps is for Adam to put his spec into WebApps' Mercurial repo and to
continue related discussions on public-webapps.
Note, WebApps cannot publish this spec (in w3.org/TR/) until the spec is
included in the WG's charter.
Hi Arun, Jonas, All,
The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so it
would be good to publish a new Working Draft in w3.org/TR/.
Since Tracker shows 0 bugs for the spec [Tracker] and the ED does not
appear to identify any open issues, does the spec meet the Last Call
On June 7 WebApps published LCWDs of 3 widget specs:
1. Widget Packaging XML Configuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-widgets-20110607/
2. Widget Interface
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-widgets-apis-20110607/
3. Widget Digital Signature
Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if
the participants would please summarize where they think we are on this
issue, e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move
forward, etc.
Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if
There are now 11 comments on Web Storage Bug 12111, the last remaining
bug before moving this spec back to Last Call:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
If anyone has additional comments, please add them to the bug before the
end of this week.
I would like to get
On Jun/9/2011 7:09 PM, ext Rich Tibbett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Marcos Caceresmarcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
To fix it, the widget URI spec needs to respond with HTTP responses
when a URI is dereferenced... similar to what blob:// does:
On Jun/10/2011 6:14 AM, ext Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 10 juin 2011 à 06:10, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
What are the benefits of having a different scheme?
I'm confused... different to what?
:) http
FYI, some of that info was consolidated in:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme
Adrian - this bug is for the Web Sockets API spec (and not Web Storage),
correct?
On Jun/8/2011 1:21 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12913
Summary: Close() should throw the same exception as send() for
My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5
Hixie - are you willing to change the spec accordingly?
-AB
On Jun/8/2011 7:57 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
There are now 11
On Jun/10/2011 3:05 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5
Hixie - are you willing
/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0947.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1004.html
Until this is clearer, I will not submit a request to publish this CR.
-AB
On Jun/2/2011 7:27 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The Last Call comment period for the HTML5 Web
On Jun/8/2011 5:24 PM, ext Kenneth Russell wrote:
My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies
the ports argument to postMessage as an array of objects to
transfer, in such a way that we:
- Maintain 100% backward compatibility
- Enhance the ability to pass
501 - 600 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
