LGTM1 On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 9:13:56 AM UTC+1 Nonoka Muraki wrote:
> spec PR was merged.(https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9933) > > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:41:31 AM UTC+9 Mike Taylor wrote: > >> Thanks Rakina - right now the biggest blocker is the unlanded spec PR. >> Things should move pretty quickly once that's resolved. >> On 1/10/24 11:15 PM, Rakina Zata Amni wrote: >> >> > Hoping that the design doc can become an GH explainer with the usual >> format, as the design doc doesn't answer questions in the strucutre we like >> to see >> >> Can you clarify which part isn't answered yet in the explainer >> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md> >> ? >> >> From the list in your link: >> >> - The user-facing problem which needs to be solved; >> - Covered by this section >> >> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#background> >> . >> - The proposed approach to solving the problem; >> - Covered by this section >> >> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#proposal> >> . >> - The way the proposed solution may be used in practice to address >> the intended use cases, via example code; >> - Pretty much covered by this section >> >> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#proposal> >> although >> there's no actual code example. We will add the code example >> (basically >> just an event listener using the close event) >> - Any other venues (such as mailing list, pull requests or issue >> threads external to the location of the explainer) where the reader may >> catch up on discussions regarding the proposed feature or features; >> - The issue <https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1766> is linked >> from the explainer. >> - The alternatives which have already been considered and why they >> were not chosen; >> - Covered by this section >> >> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#alternatives-considered> >> . >> - Accessibility, security and privacy implications which have been >> considered as part of the design process. >> - Security & Privacy is covered by this sectio >> >> <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-messageport-close/blob/main/README.md#tag-security--privacy-questionnaire-answers>n, >> >> and there is no accessibility implication introduced by the new event. >> >> >> Please let us know if there are any parts that need further clarification. >> >> (BTW just to update the thread, the TAG review >> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/923> has been requested >> last month) >> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 1:49 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to Yoav's excitement about this. Thank you for pushing it forward. >>> >>> On TAG review, we're living in hope that the newly-expanded TAG will >>> have more bandwidth and focus for reviews, but as Mike says, we're >>> increasingly timing out. Filing for review at I2P time is always the >>> pro-move, and I it's a bad look for us to be leaving it to late regardless. >>> >>> Hoping that the design doc can become an GH explainer with the usual >>> format, as the design doc doesn't answer questions in the strucutre we like >>> to see: >>> >>> https://w3ctag.org/explainers/ >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:46:20 AM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: >>> >>>> Gentle reminder to request approvals for the other review gates in >>>> chromestatus, thanks. >>>> On 12/1/23 1:05 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/30/23 10:56 PM, Fergal Daly wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:23:12 PM UTC+9 Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 12:31, Nonoka Muraki <murakinon...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> TAG review >>>> >>>> Not needed because This is a small feature where we just dispatch a new >>>> event. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unfortunately that's not a criteria for skipping a TAG review. Can you >>>> file one? >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm concerned by this because every TAG review I've seen in the last >>>> couple of years has taken months to get a response. If our own privacy >>>> review is positive and we have agreement with other vendors would we block >>>> on the TAG review? >>>> >>>> In practice, we don't block on TAG reviews, but we like to give them a >>>> chance to review or comment within a reasonable time period (typically a >>>> week or two). >>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/184aedde-7eb9-433f-b378-db2665df87cdn%40chromium.org.
