Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/7/14 8:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: this is a formal Call for Consensus to: a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when WebApps' charter is updated) b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed document) c) gut the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently with [e.g.]) d) gut the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes) FYI, the WG Note was published http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-fullscreen-20141118/.
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/8/14 2:07 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 08.11.2014, 14:43, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained Version or Replaced By. Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative. Agree that it's the wrong framing, and the point is that the current W3C work is recognised as being supereseded... I just updated the Draft WG Note to use See Instead https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained Version or Replaced By. Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative. I use a replaced by wording on specs I've moved elsewhere; see https://tabatkins.github.io/specs/css-color/ for an example. ~TJ
RE: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained Version or Replaced By. Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative.
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
08.11.2014, 14:43, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained Version or Replaced By. Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative. Agree that it's the wrong framing, and the point is that the current W3C work is recognised as being supereseded... cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
[ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint deliverable for WebApps and CSS ] Hi Anne, Tantek, WebApps and CSSWG, During WebApps' October 27 f2f meeting, the attendees had a straw-poll regarding stopping work on the Fullscreen spec (a joint deliverable for these two WGS) and to publish a WG Note of the spec. Since there were no objections raised during the poll (see [Mins]), this is a formal Call for Consensus to: a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when WebApps' charter is updated) b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed document) c) gut the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently with [e.g.]) d) gut the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes) Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see [CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to this CfC (although all feedback is welcome.) If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is published. -Thanks, AB [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item09 [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html [ED] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html [e.g.] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-file-system-api-20140424/ [CSS-Mins] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html##Fullscreen
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
07.11.2014, 14:41, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com: [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint deliverable for WebApps and CSS ] Hi Anne, Tantek, WebApps and CSSWG, During WebApps' October 27 f2f meeting, the attendees had a straw-poll regarding stopping work on the Fullscreen spec (a joint deliverable for these two WGS) and to publish a WG Note of the spec. Since there were no objections raised during the poll (see [Mins]), this is a formal Call for Consensus to: a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when WebApps' charter is updated) Yes (and no) b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed document) Yes c) gut the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently with [e.g.]) Yes. d) gut the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes) Abstain. cheers Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see [CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to this CfC (although all feedback is welcome.) If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is published. -Thanks, AB [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item09 [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html [ED] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html [e.g.] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-file-system-api-20140424/ [CSS-Mins] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html##Fullscreen -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ I no longer work for Opera Software. The Status of this Document section should probably not mention the mailing list or bug tracker. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know what you do want.) I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all. Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list. Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD? or bug tracker. Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be included. Why would I want feedback on this Note? (It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?) -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 07.11.2014, 14:41, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com: [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when WebApps' charter is updated) Yes (and no) For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are effectively a whatever that we can defer until if/when there is a charter discussion. Agreed? -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know what you do want.) I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all. Please give me @X and @Y in: a href=@X@Y/a. (Doing so offlist is fine ;-)). Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list. Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD? Ooops. I did mean ... is NOT especially harmful. or bug tracker. Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be included. Why would I want feedback on this Note? The bugzilla component is for the spec. (It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?) I think we already have a precedence for doing this, so yes, this is fine with me. -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or not. Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests? I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate. Would that work for you Anne? I no longer work for Opera Software. Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know what you do want.) The Status of this Document section should probably not mention the mailing list Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list. Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD? or bug tracker. Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be included. -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or not. Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests? I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note. I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate. It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the currently-maintained draft. ~fantasai
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
07.11.2014, 17:53, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net: On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or not. Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests? I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note. I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate. It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the currently-maintained draft. Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are. So we do the world a service by pointing to that, and no service by avoiding it. And I don't know of a rule that says we cannot do that. It isn't a normative reference, it's just a link to useful information. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
07.11.2014, 15:05, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com: On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 07.11.2014, 14:41, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com: [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when WebApps' charter is updated) Yes (and no) For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are effectively a whatever that we can defer until if/when there is a charter discussion. Agreed? Yeah, definitely. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
On 11/7/14 12:57 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 07.11.2014, 17:53, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net: On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or not. Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests? I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note. I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate. It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the currently-maintained draft. Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are. OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html.
