On Fri, 17 May 2013 03:40:16 +0400, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com>
wrote:
It appears there is no longer sufficient interest to move the Widget
Updates on the Recommendation track so this is a Call for Consensus to
publish this spec as a WG Note and thus formally stop work on it.
Go ahead.
cheers
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
public-webapps@w3.org by May 23 at the latest. Positive response is
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal.
-Thanks, AB
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:33:26 +0000
Resent-From: <public-webapps@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:32:22 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Scott indicated [1] Wookie implemented Widget Updates and Chaals
indicated [2] he would followup with Opera but I couldn't find a
response from them in the list archive.
Do we have two (complete?) implementations of the spec? Opera, Richard?
It's not clear to me if we should drop this spec (i.e. publish as a WG
Note) or if there are sufficient resource commitments to continue to
advance it along the REC track.
Marcos - what is the status of the test suite
<http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/test-suite/>? (The
Implementation Report doesn't look good
<http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/imp-report/>.)
-AB
[1]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0256.html>
[2]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0261.html>
On 10/20/12 8:12 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
For various reasons, a Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates was
never published, although the CfC to do so passed and the ED is
prepared as such [widget-updates].
Since no one has raised this as an issue, I would like feedback on
what we should do with this spec. The main options are: 1) to stop
work (and publish a WG Note); 2) to move forward with the CR.
I don'tthink it makes much sense to move the spec to CR if we do not
have commitments for at least two independent implementations of the
CR. Therefore, Implementors should please speak up if they willcommit
to implementing this CR.
-Thanks, AB
[widget-updates] <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates;
deadline May 2
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:42:00 +0000
Resent-From: <public-native-web-a...@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:41:34 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: <public-native-web-a...@w3.org>
The comment deadline for the Widget Updates LCWD ended April 19. No
comments were submitted for that document so this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the spec using the LC
as the basis <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-widgets-updates-20120322/>.
The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other
widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each
test case.
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's
decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for
Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process
Document:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is
May 2 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org.
-Thanks, AB
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
