Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

LGTM On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:22 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > OK, here's a reformulation that takes a somewhat stronger position > (mainly by checking the other box, and adding the paragraph at the > end). > > -David > > > [X] opposes this Charter and requests that this group

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

OK, here's a reformulation that takes a somewhat stronger position (mainly by checking the other box, and adding the paragraph at the end). -David [X] opposes this Charter and requests that this group not be created [Formal Objection] (your details below). We're concerned enough about

Proposed W3C Charter: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Nov/0001.html https://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Friday, December 2.

Upcoming intermittent orange hacking meeting Tuesday November 8th

On Tuesday, November 8th we will be holding another intermittent orange hacking meeting at 08:30 PDT: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Auto-tools/Projects/Stockwell/Meetings This week we will discuss: * Triaging intermittents via OrangeFactor * What makes up a good or a bad test case? The wiki with

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > >> There should be some mention of the prior art in this space. > > Why in the spec? (honestly interested to know what you think should be > in a spec without making it more wordy as Martin pointed out) Because there

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > The JSON reference really needs to be to RFC 7159, not 4627. (blocking, but > trivial issue) Will file an issue on that. > There should be some mention of the prior art in this space. Why in the spec? (honestly

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> W3C Editor's draft: https://webmention.net/draft/ > > Wow, that is an extraordinarily wordy document for something that does > so little. It

Re: Intent to ship: requestIdleCallback

I think we need to fix this issue as well. I think it could probably be uplifted before requestIdleCallback() hits release, though. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1315260 On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Andreas Farre wrote: > As of 2016-11-7 I intend to turn

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > > So, first, it's not clear to me which option to check in the review. > I think the basis of these comments is somewhere between: > > [X] suggests changes to this Charter, and only supports the > proposal if the

Re: Fwd: New Correlations on crash-stats

This is an amazing improvement to our ability to diagnose the cause of a crash. Excellent work Marco! Lawrence On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > As we say in French, rendering to Caesar that which isCaesar's: > > Marco = Marco Castelluccio > >

Re: Fwd: New Correlations on crash-stats

As we say in French, rendering to Caesar that which isCaesar's: Marco = Marco Castelluccio Sylvestre Le 04/11/2016 à 05:18, Nicholas Nethercote a écrit : [Forwarding this to a wider audience because this is a big deal. Please try out these correlations! They can be critical in diagnosing

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

So, first, it's not clear to me which option to check in the review. I think the basis of these comments is somewhere between: [X] suggests changes to this Charter, and only supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection] (your details below). and: [ ] opposes