[widgets] Call for comments on pre-LC#2 of TWI spec; deadline 11 November

[Arthur Barstow]

To address the comments against the 18-Aug-2009 LCWD of the Widgets  
Interface (TWI) spec (formerly known as the APIs and Events spec),  
Marcos made a sufficient number of changes to the spec such that a  
new LCWD must be published.


Please review the latest Editor's Draft and submit comments before  
the 12 November Widgets voice conference:


 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

For related discussions on November 3, please see the following minutes:

 http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#item04
 http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#item05
 http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-wam-minutes.html#item06

-Regards, Art Barstow

Seeking pre-LCWD comments for: Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets, Storage Workers}; deadline 19 November

[Arthur Barstow]

As noted on 23 October [1], the following HTML5 APIs are ready or  
very close to being ready for Last Call Working Draft (LC):


1. Server-Sent Events
  http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/

2. Web Database
  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/

3. Web Sockets API
  http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

4. Web Storage
  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

5. Web Workers
  http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/

Please submit comments about these specs by 19 November.

Note the Process Document states the following regarding the  
significance/meaning of LCWD:


[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant  
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements  
document) in the Working Draft;


* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant  
dependencies with other groups;


* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these  
dependencies have been satisfied.
In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the  
Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later  
maturity levels.


]]

Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all  
issues resolved; that is, as Chaals noted yesterday, Last Call means  
the Working Group considers the work to be good.


-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 
0313.html

Selectors API 2 Status

[Lachlan Hunt]

Hi,
  Since we didn't get much time to discuss selectors api 2 during TPAC, 
this is an overview of the status, and a rough idea of how much work 
needs to be done.


Please refer to the draft spec [1] and the issue list for features being 
added [2].


The spec has a proposal to address a number of use cases, based on 
feature requests that I summarised previously [3].


In particular, matchesSelector which has been partially implemented by 
WebKit and Mozilla already, and the :scope selector which addresses 
several use cases like node list filtering, collective querying, etc.


There is also the queryScopedSelector() method which does some magic 
selector processing and makes things slightly easier than using an 
explicit :scope selector in some cases.  This method is somewhat 
controversial, and it's not clear whether or not we should keep it, or 
whether we should just require authors to either explicitly use :scope 
or have JS libraries insert it.


I believe, the parts of the spec defining those features are ready for 
FPWD.  However, John Resig has told me that he has an alternative 
proposal, but has not yet sent me any details.  Although, I believe we 
could proceed with FPWD now, and evaluate John's proposals if and when 
he sends them.


The major issue yet to be dealt with is namespace resolution.  This is 
the one that will take a very significant amount of time.  This will 
require first evaluating the use cases and reaching a conclusion about 
whether or not it's even needed, and then if it is, finding a solution 
that solves the problems identified without suffering from the design 
flaws of the previous proposals.


But I'd really like to avoid having this issue get in the way of 
addressing the other more pressing issues, as much as it did during the 
development of v1.  Because of this, it is not something I'm 
particularly interested in adding to the spec myself at this stage, but 
If the group believes it's worthwile to be worked on, I'd be happy for 
some other editor to draft a proposal somewhat independently from the 
rest of the spec.


[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWGcomponent=Selectors%20API

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1198.html

--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/