Dimitri would like to publish a new Working Draft of Shadow DOM and this
is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following document as the
basis
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/publish/shadow/index.html.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a
On 9/25/12 7:00 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
If you are interested in this Editor position, please contact me offlist.
Thanks to those that expressed interest in helping move the XHR spec
along the Recommendation track.
We selected three co-Editors for this spec: Julian Aubourg (jQuery
Hi All,
The current Editors of the DOM4 spec are not interested in moving that
spec toward Recommendation (in the context of WebApps WG). Consequently,
we need an Editor(s) to work on the DOM4 Recommendation track document.
If you are interested in this Editor position and have relevant
Earlier today the W3C announced:
[[
... the advancement of Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML
Configuration (Second Edition) to Proposed Edited Recommendation
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PER-widgets-20120925/
This second edition incorporates all known errata as of the publication
The upcoming TPAC meeting week (Oct 29-Nov2) provides an opportunity for
joint WG meetings and lots of informal information sharing. As such, it
can be useful to make new publications before TPAC.
There is a publication blackout period around TPAC and Oct 23 is the
last day to request
On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
* Pointer Lock - Vincent - what's the status of the spec and its implementation?
Firefox 14 and Chrome 22 shipped Pointer Lock implementations to
stable channel users
On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft [1], and
would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't received any
substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that it could be in good
shape for
Hi All,
As you may know, Anne left Opera a few months ago and since the Invited
Expert route didn't work out, we need an Editor(s) to move the XHR spec
[XHR] towards Recommendation.
If you are interested in this Editor position, please contact me offlist.
-Thanks, AB
[XHR]
On 9/20/12 8:24 PM, ext Samuel Bronson wrote:
This does not make it clear why the specification was abandoned, or
say where more recent efforts in this area are focused; I suggest
changing it to something more like:
Thanks for the suggestion. If/when we publish that document again, I
will
A new Candidate Recommendation of the WebSocket API was published on
September 20 and that resulted in a Call for Implementations [CfI]:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-websockets-20120920/
The root of the test suite for this spec follows. Currently, the test
suite consists of submissions from
On 9/11/12 9:03 PM, ext Sean McHugh wrote:
I submitted a proposal yesterday. I don't want to spam you so this is
the last time I will make this suggestion directly.
This is the first email I have seen from you on this list.
Please note we have a mail list usage and etiquette policy
On 9/6/12 3:05 PM, ext Karl Dubost wrote:
Hi,
I was ready to send a comment about the spec using the Feedback Comments form
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
If you wish to make comments regarding this document in a manner that is
tracked by the W3C, please submit them via using our
On 9/5/12 11:16 AM, ext Adam Sobieski wrote:
Web Applications Working Group,
The subject matter of this mail list is the WG's specifications. Please
use this list accordingly.
If anyone wants to reply to Adam's e-mail, please use some other mail
list (such as www-t...@w3.org).
-Thanks,
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft of
the DOM Parsing and Serialization spec using the following ED as the
basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request
[ cross-posting to www-dom and public-webapps - please reply just to
www-dom ]
All - Travis has the D3E spec down to Zarro Bugs [1] and as such this is
a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of the spec
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html.
This CfC
On 8/20/12 5:05 PM, ext Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, 2012-08-20 08:11 -0400:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kangh...@oupeng.com wrote:
We have public-webapps-bugzilla[1] already, but I have no idea why
we can't just turn
Marcos would like to publish a Proposed Edited Recommendation [PER] of
the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to incorporate the
spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do so.
The [Errata] has already been reflected in the [Proposed-PER] (see
[Diff]) and it includes a
On 8/16/12 1:29 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
That's a great point. It's already tracking all of the Web Components
work (it looks like I am by far the spammiest -- not the best of
honors, but I'll take it). Perhaps we could just encourage people to
listen to that?
:DG
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at
On 8/10/12 12:34 AM, ext Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
No technical comments.
A few editorial comments.
CLOSING (numeric value 2)
The connection is going through the closing handshake.
The readyState can enter CLOSING also when close() is called before
establishment. In that case, it's not going
McCathieNevile wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)
wrote:
Marcos would like
On 7/31/12 2:17 PM, ext Michael Brooks wrote:
I like IndexedDB and non-relational databases. One feature that is
very useful is the ability to search by regular expression:
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Advanced+Queries#AdvancedQueries-RegularExpressions
By not having this feature, I
Hi All,
As announced earlier, WebApps will have a f2f meeting October 29-30 as
part of the W3C's annual Technical Plenary Week
http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/ in Lyon France.
WebApps' meeting page is
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/TPAC2012Meeting. We will again
preallocate some time slots
On 7/19/12 11:15 PM, ext Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
Sorry for my late comment.
While I think it's fine to publish LCWD Selectors API as it is, it would
be nice if it can address my comment in [1]. By address, I mean either
define the desired behavior or explicitly mark it as undefined (which I
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of WebSocket API using
the following document as the basis for the LC
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/publish/LC-websockets-Aug-2012.html.
Note that besides the ArrayBuffer patch ([r1.272] which fixes bug 17263
as discussed in [1]), to reduce
the WebSocket API CR and
first publish a new LC with Hixie's fix for this bug?
In the absence of any additional feedback, I will start a new CfC for LC
(and stop the request to publish a CR).
-Thanks, AB
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi All
Marcos would like to publish a Proposed Edited Recommendation [PER] of
the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to incorporate the
spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do so.
The [Errata] has already been reflected in the [Proposed-PER] (see
[Diff]) and it includes a
Hi All,
Earlier today, Hixie added ArrayBuffer back to the WebSocket API ED (see
[r1.272]) as requested in bug [17263] which ATM is Resolved/WontFix.
Since the CfC to move this spec to CR passed on July 18 (but the CR has
not yet been published), I would appreciate it you would please Raise
On 7/12/12 8:06 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-12 13:47, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I agree with Hixie that ideally the fix would apply to the original
source rather than 1-off versions in dev.w3. However, if that isn't
worked out, I will apply Julian's patch to the CR version.
Sounds
Hi All,
The comment deadline for the April 26 SSE LC [LC] ended May 17. Since
the LC was published, I noted 2 comments, 1 bug report (see below) and 5
ED updates (see below).
The comments are:
1. 17-Apr-2012; Odin Hørthe Omdal (Opera);
On 7/11/12 7:52 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's draft, and
the diffs. ...
..and the diff was
Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Selectors API Level 1; deadline July 19
Resent-Date:Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:59:09 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:58:36 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public
/
Original Message
Subject: [websockets] Seeking comments on moving back to CR; deadline
June 28
Resent-Date:Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:29:06 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:28:31 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
WebApps has been asked to review the July 10 LCWD of WebAppSec's Content
Security Policy 1.0 spec http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-CSP-20120710/.
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the Web Perf WG. If you have comments, please send them to
the
This is a Request for Comments for the June 28 Last Call Working Draft
of Selectors API Level 1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-selectors-api-20120628/
The comment deadline is July 19 and all comments should be sent to the
public-webapps@w3.org list with a Subject: prefix of [selectors-api].
comments on moving back to CR;
deadline June 28
Resent-Date:Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:29:06 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.orgmailto:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:28:31 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.commailto:art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps
On 6/21/12 4:53 PM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-06-21 16:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:
...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0880.html
-
This is an editorial bug and is already captured in Bug 12510. Ideally,
this bug would be fixed before the v1 CR branch
Hi All - Arun is back to actively editing the File API spec and this is
a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of the spec. Please note that
Arun will be committing some changes during this CfC and that the ED
does not yet use the WD template:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
On 6/21/12 5:16 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai
fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
You could just work in the explanation I sent in
http://www.w3.org/mid/4fc64100.3060...@inkedblade.net
Added a note.
The reason this is not very elaborated is
Hi All,
I created a tracking document for the two comments and five bugs that
were submitted against the 24 May LCWD of Web Sockets (or in the
approximate time frame of that publication):
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Websockets-Comments-LC-24May2012.
Below is my take on these bugs
The Independent User Interface WG (aka IndieUI) was started a few
weeks ago [Charter] and they now have a CfP for the group's two
specifications: IndieUI Events, and IndieUI User Context. Details below.
-AB
[Charter] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/indie-ui-charter
Original Message
On 5/29/12 2:45 PM, ext James Hawkins wrote:
Dave Raggett (d...@w3.org) made a call [1] on April 10 to publish a
first public working draft, and this is a Call for Consensus to do so,
using the following document as the basis:
dvcs.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html
I
On 6/19/12 3:52 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 18/06/12 13:09, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the
FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during
On 6/19/12 3:49 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 19/06/12 09:41, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM,
fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
It looks like you missed #2.
I think ::backdrop is clear enough. Not entirely sure what you would
expect seeing there
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're going to review the bits of this document
On 6/14/12 10:11 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Hi,
I have updated the specification for Selectors API Level 1, which is
currently in CR.
Most of it was editorial in nature, to bring it in line with Selectors
API Level 2, except without adding any of the new features like
findAll() or or
On 6/18/12 8:34 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2012-06-18 13:57, Arthur Barstow wrote:
In the process, I also made a few minor editorial changes to v2 just
to tidy it up.
At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or
possibly move it up to PR.
I like the changes Lachlan
Lachlan would like to publish a new Working Draft of the Selectors API
Level 2 spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so using the
following Editor's Draft as the basis
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
Lachlan has made some changes to the Selectors API Level 1 spec (last
published as a CR) and we consider the changes sufficient to require the
spec be published as a Working Draft (see the [1] thread). As such, this
is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD of this spec using the
following
On 6/16/12 8:16 PM, ext Alex MacCaw wrote:
The blog article link has changed to:
http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/preview/Pc1LYBw4xDT95OPWZGihod7z8WhrnfAdXMjQxMDg3MTc5NDIaXNjA1p
Alex - perhaps this API will be of interest to the Web Payments
Community Group http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/.
Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Indexed Database; deadline June 21
Resent-Date:Thu, 24 May 2012 17:21:06 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:20:20 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps
Elliott, All - please use the www-...@w3.org list for DOM4 discussions
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/.
(Elliott, since that spec is still in the draft phase, you should
probably use the latest Editor's Draft
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html instead of
Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of WebSocket API; deadline June 14
Resent-Date:Thu, 24 May 2012 17:21:24 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:20:50 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps
Having seen no negative responses to the Is the Quota Management API
spec ready for FPWD? thread [1], this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to
publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Quota Management API
using the following ED as the basis of the FPWD:
On 6/6/12 1:55 PM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
Hi,
I recently stumbled upon a number of use case and requirements docs (such
as MediaStream Capture Scenarios[1] or HTML Speech XG[2]) that were
published as officially looking W3C documents (for whatever that means, at
least, it's not a page on a
On 5/30/12 2:36 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
What are people's thoughts on whether or not the Quota Management API
spec is ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD)?
(Ooops, cp error above: s/Quota Management/Webapp Manifest/)
A rule of thumb for FPWD is that the ED's scope should cover
On 5/31/12 5:23 PM, ext Adam Barth wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I don't recall anyone else committing to an implementation (although it
could be a bit early).
All - please speak up both on a) Adam's question; and b) the question in
the
On 5/17/12 10:00 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
During WebApps' May f2f meeting, the participants agreed [1] to
publish a First Public Working Draft of the Fullscreen spec and this
is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following document as the
basis (note that the document does not yet
Hi All,
Besides the thread below that Anant started a few weeks re the Webapp
Manifest spec, Marcos also started a few threads on this spec ...
What are people's thoughts on whether or not the Quota Management API
spec is ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD)?
A rule of thumb for
Hi Kinuko, All - what are people's thoughts on whether or not the Quota
Management API spec is ready for First Public Working Draft?
A rule of thumb for FPWD is that the ED's scope should cover most of
the expected functionality although the depth of some functionality may
be very shallow,
A recent manifest spec thread lead to a discussion about the group's
top-posting policy which is a good segue to remind everyone we do have
some expectations on the usage of the group's mail lists and I'll quote
it here ...
[[
Travis would like to publish a new Working Draft of the DOM 3 Events
spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html
as the basis.
Note this is Not a Last Call WD and the comment tracking document for
the last LCWD
This is a Request for Comments re the 24-May-2012 LCWD version of the
WebSocket API:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-websockets-20120524/
The comment deadline is June 14 and all comments should be sent to the
public-webapps@w3.org list. The Bugzilla component for the API is [Bugz].
I Cc'ed the
This is a Request for Comments re the 24-May-2012 LCWD version of
Indexed Database:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-IndexedDB-20120524/
The comment deadline is June 21 and all comments should be sent to the
public-webapps@w3.org list.
-Thanks, AB
On 5/21/12 8:03 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Joran Greefjo...@ronomon.com wrote:
IndexedDB supports binary values as per the structured clone algorithm
as implemented in Chrome and Firefox.
IndexedDB needs to support binary keys (ArrayBuffer, TypedArrays).
On 5/17/12 7:03 PM, ext Julian Aubourg wrote:
To me the biggest abomination of all is
Just a reminder that WebApps' [PubStatus] page enumerates all of its
specs and for each spec, there (or will be): a) a link to the spec's
Bugzilla component; b) a link to the spec's Test Suite.
Finally,
[ My previous response was accidentally sent before it should have been
(delete it) ... ]
On 5/17/12 7:03 PM, ext Julian Aubourg wrote:
To me the biggest
Comments on all of WebApps' specs are always welcome, regardless of
where the spec is in the W3C's Recommendation process.
I've been
FYI, a Script Library Community Group (Cc'ed) was formed some time ago
and it may have some similar interest(s)
http://www.w3.org/community/scriptlib/ (although their mail list
archive indicates the CG isn't very active).
Perhaps someone in that CG has some comments on Yehuda' email.
-AB
During WebApps' May f2f meeting, the participants agreed [1] to publish
a First Public Working Draft of the Fullscreen spec and this is a Call
for Consensus to do so, using the following document as the basis (note
that the document does not yet use a W3C publishing template):
Thanks a lot Josh!
Doug - please replace the date-space version or the May 1 and May 2
minutes with Josh's updated version:
May 1:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/att-0022/minutes-2012-05-01.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/05/01-webapps-minutes.html
May 2:
back to LCWD; is 15210 a
showstopper?
Resent-Date:Thu, 3 May 2012 22:42:24 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:41:46 -0700
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
During WebApps' May 2 discussion about
Since WebApps has quite a few new Editors, I created a new wiki doc
about Spec Editing http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/SpecEditing.
Currently, the doc is mostly a skeleton but it does enumerate some
expectations of Editors as well as provide links to various resources
used to publish a spec as
Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline May 17
Resent-Date:Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:30:54 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:30:25 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps
On 5/9/12 12:55 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
On 05/08/2012 09:10 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
4. Web Components;
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html
short-name = webcomponents
1-liner = Provides an overview of Web Components
Maybe it would be useful to keep
On 5/8/12 3:56 AM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to defer the feature requested in 15210 to a
future version of Web Sockets API. It would also be reasonable to include it if
anyone feels strongly. Was a reason cited for why 15210 should be considered
critical? I
As discussed during last week's f2f meeting [Mins], IDB bug 14404 was
the last remaining bug blocking a LCWD of the spec and the other
remaining bugs are considered editorial and not blockers for LCWD
[Bugz]. Bug 1404 is now closed so this is a Call for Consensus to
publish a LCWD of IDB using
WebApps has been asked to review and submit comments for two LCWDs by
the Web Performance WG:
1. Performance Timeline
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-performance-timeline-20120508/. This new
LCWD version takes into account the High Resolution Time specification,
removes string constants, and
On 5/8/12 1:11 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Greg, Tantek, All - I think there is an error in this part of the draft
Web Intents minutes:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2012/05/01-webapps-minutes.html#item06
tantek:do you know about opendoc and ola?
... systems for applications doing this. Have you
All - assuming the 7 CfCs I started on May 2 to publish new FPWDs
passes, for each FPWD I will need to request a short-name as well as
provided a 1-liner description when the spec is published.
The short-name is the last part of the URI used in /TR/; f.ex. workers
is the short-name for Web
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-09
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update your settings at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings
sysbot+trac...@w3.org
Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group public-webapps@w3.org
To: art.bars...@nokia.com
ACTION-647: Start a CfC to stop work on From-Origin spec (Web Applications
Working Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/647
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-08
-webapps@w3.org
To: art.bars...@nokia.com
ACTION-650: Start CfC for FPWD + LCWD of Gamepad spec (Web Applications Working
Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/650
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
@w3.org
To: art.bars...@nokia.com
ACTION-652: Start CfC for Pointer spec (Web Applications Working Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/652
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update your settings
Group public-webapps@w3.org
To: art.bars...@nokia.com
ACTION-653: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Shadow DOM (Web Applications
Working Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/653
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items
.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/659
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update your settings at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings
the various proposed APIs work.
So, why do we need explainer as FPWD?
Some people in the meeting (including me) thought this would be a useful
informative (non-normative) wrapper for the Shadow DOM and other related
specs in Dimitri's queue.
-AB
-Olli
On 05/02/2012 11:22 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote
As discussed during WebApps' May 1 f2f meeting [2], the Input Method
Editor (IME) spec is ready for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
publication and this a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
As discussed during WebApps' May 1 f2f meeting [2], the Screen
Orientation spec is ready for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
publication and this a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
As discussed during WebApps' May 1 f2f meeting [2], the URL spec is
ready for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) publication and this a
Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so. Mike agreed to prepare the spec for
publication using the following draft:
A Candidate Recommendation for HTML5 Web Messaging has been published
and as such, this is a Call for Implementations:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/
The root of the spec's test mirror is:
http://test.w3.org/webapps/WebMessaging/tests/.
CanIUse reports very broad
/12 6:04 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne, Brad, All - does it appear it would be useful for WebApps and
WebAppSec to schedule some joint meeting time on May 2 re CORS (the LC
deadline is May 1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-cors-20120403/)?
Currently, WebApps' agenda for that day is mostly wide
/webapps/track/actions/658
On: Arthur Barstow
Due: 2012-05-08
If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please
update your settings at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings
Hi Anne, WebApps, Bruce,
Although I agree with Anne that the primary use of public-webapps is
WebApps' specs and we should keep it that way, perhaps it would be
useful if we had a separate list that Web application developers can use
(f.e.x public-webapps-dev) for how to ... type questions re
Hi All,
Yesterday the Director announced WebApps' new charter [Charter] was
approved so thanks to all that helped with the chartering effort.
I added all of the new specs to our [PubStatus] page and made a couple
of tweaks to the group's [WorkMode] wiki.
As is done with our old specs, our
On 4/27/12 10:51 AM, ext Mounir Lamouri wrote:
The Screen Orientation API is now listed as View Orientation API.
I do not really understand why this change has been made. I could
understand that Screen Orientation might be confusing with
DeviceOrientation but View Orientation isn't really
This is a Request for Comments for the April 26 Last Call Working Draft
of Server-sent Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-eventsource-20120426/
The comment deadline is May 17 and all comments should be sent to the
public-webapps@w3.org list.
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
10, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr 10, 2012, at 2:28 PM, ext James Hawkins wrote:
If we can schedule this for May 1, that would be fantastic.
Unfortunately something last-minute has come up and I won't be
able
May 1 is the deadline for comments for the CORS LCWD
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-cors-20120403/.
Original Message
Subject:TransAnn: CORS published as Last Call Working Draft
Resent-Date:Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:58:36 +
Resent-From:www-...@w3.org
Date: Tue, 3
Anne, Brad, All - does it appear it would be useful for WebApps and
WebAppSec to schedule some joint meeting time on May 2 re CORS (the LC
deadline is May 1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-cors-20120403/)?
Currently, WebApps' agenda for that day is mostly wide open
Hi Marcos, All - the comment period for the Widget Update LC ended on
April 19. AFAIK, no comments were submitted.
Is anyone aware of any reason(s) to *not* start a CfC to publish a CR -
based on the LC?
-Thanks, AB
On 4/12/12 8:05 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Original Message
601 - 700 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
