This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec
using #ED as the basis.
Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the
On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec
using #ED as the basis.
Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b)
On 11/25/12 10:19 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
Same objections as to the XHR WD.
Are you talking about
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0542.html?
The DOM ED includes the following in the boilerplate:
[[
Living Standard:
http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/
]]
What (else)
It seems like we should be consistent in our handling of the DOM and
XHR documents. For example, the copy of DOM at
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html lacks a
Status of this Document section, but presumably the version published
by this working group will have one. If we
Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
WD template) as the basis
Warning. This discussion seems by and large non-technical bike-shedding for political purposes, which I have tried to stay away from. But some important points are drowning in rhetorical over the several threads that have dealt with this "issue".In particular I note consensus that we don't want
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:34:03 +0400, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:27:55 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The comment period for the October 23 LCWD of Server-Event Events ended
yesterday. Since there were no comments submitted nor new bugs files,
this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of
Le 25/11/2012 20:07, Kyle Huey a écrit :
Have you read Adam Barth's contributions to this discussion?
Sure, and I personally mostly agree with these points.
He has summarized the point well, I think. There is a difference
between what the license legally obligates one to do
I talked very
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote:
The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain
for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close
to no condition, not even credit.
I can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote:
The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain
for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close
to no condition, not even credit.
I
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17974
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote:
The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public
domain for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them
Hi,
I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be
credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the WD.
As the co-Editors of W3C XHR spec wrote in the threads, we have our role and
contribution in moving this spec toward the W3C REC. Up to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:38:35 +0400, Jungkee Song
jungkee.s...@samsung.com wrote:
I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be
credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing
the WD.
The proposed wording seems accurate enough to meet my I
16 matches
Mail list logo
