Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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 no

[admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. & Top-posting

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 ... [[

Is Quota Management API ready for First Public Working Draft?

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

CfC: publish WD of DOM 3 Events; deadline June 4

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 as the basis. Note this is Not a Last Call WD and the comment tracking document for the last LCWD

RfC: LCWD of WebSocket API; deadline June 14

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

RfC: LCWD of Indexed Database; deadline June 21

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

Re: IndexedDB: Binary Keys

On 5/21/12 8:03 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Joran Greef 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). Many popular KV sto

Comments, Spec Bugs and Test Case are Always Welcome! [Was: Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal]

[ 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 mea

Spec Bugs and Test Suites [Was: Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal]

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, fixi

CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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):

Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal

FYI, a Script Library Community Group (Cc'ed) was formed some time ago and it may have some similar interest(s) (although their mail list archive indicates the CG isn't very active). Perhaps someone in that CG has some comments on Yehuda' email. -AB P

Re: WebApps May F2F Minutes

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: May 2:

[admin] New wiki about Spec Editing

Since WebApps has quite a few new Editors, I created a new wiki doc about "Spec Editing" . 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

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Sockets; deadline May 18

bject: [websockets] Moving Web Sockets back to LCWD; is 15210 a showstopper? Resent-Date:Thu, 3 May 2012 22:42:24 + Resent-From: Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:41:46 -0700 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps During WebApps' May 2 discussion about the Web Sockets API CR, f

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline May 17

Original Message Subject:RfC: LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline May 17 Resent-Date:Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:30:54 + Resent-From: Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:30:25 -0400 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps This is a Request for Comments for

Re: [admin] short-names and 1-liners for our 7 new FPWDs

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 us

[admin] short-names and 1-liners for our 7 new FPWDs

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 W

Re: Draft Minutes: 1 May 2012 f2f meeting

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

RfC: 2 LCWDs "Performance Timeline" and "User Timing"; deadline June 7

WebApps has been asked to review and submit comments for two LCWDs by the Web Performance WG: 1. Performance Timeline . This new LCWD version takes into account the High Resolution Time specification, removes string constants, and a

CfC: publish LCWD of Indexed Database; deadline May 15

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

Re: [websockets] Moving Web Sockets back to LCWD; is 15210 a showstopper?

On May 3, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: During WebApps' May 2 discussion about the Web Sockets API CR, four Sockets API bugs were identified as high priority to fix: 16157, 16708, 16703 and 15210. Immediately after that discussion, Hixie checked in fixes for 16157, 16708 and

[admin] A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Requirements

roup Issue Tracker Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group To: ACTION-662: Make sure all of WebApps' new Editors are at least aware of http://www.w3.org/TR/test-methodology/ (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/662 On: Arthur Barstow Due

CfC: publish FPWD of URL spec; deadline May 9

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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overvi

CfC: publish FPWD of Screen Orientation ; deadline May 9

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 requir

CfC: publish FPWD of Input Method Editor (IME); deadline May 9

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 requiremen

Re: CfC: publish a FPWD of Web Components Explainer; deadline May 9

ns how 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, Arthu

CfC: publish a FPWD of Web Components Explainer; deadline May 9

Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group To: ACTION-659: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Components Explainer (when an ED with TR template is available) (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actio

CfC: publish FPWD of Shadow DOM; deadline May 9

Applications Working Group To: 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 for this group, please update your

CfC: publish FPWD of Pointer Lock spec; deadline May 9

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 at: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings

CfC: publish FPWD of Gamepad spec; deadline May 9

Group To: 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 update your settings at: http:/

CfC: to stop work on From-Origin spec; deadline May 8

acker Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group To: 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 If you do not want to be notified on new action items for

CfC: to stop work on XBL2; deadline May 8

t Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group To: ACTION-658: Start CfC to create a WG Note for XBL2 (and Chaals will do the work) (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/658 On: Arthur Barstow Due: 2012-05-0

Re: CORS: joint meeting of WebApps and WebAppSec next week?

7.html On 4/25/12 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' age

Call for Implementations: Web Workers Candidate Recommendation

A Candidate Recommendation for Web Workers has been published and as such, this is a Call for Implementations of the CR: The root of the spec's test mirror is: . CanIUse reports relatively broad deplo

Call for Implementations: HTML5 Web Messaging Candidate Recommendation

A Candidate Recommendation for HTML5 Web Messaging has been published and as such, this is a Call for Implementations: The root of the spec's test mirror is: . CanIUse reports very broad dep

What about a new WebApps Developer's list? [Was: Re: CORS in Google App Engine]

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 r

Re: WebApps' new charter has been approved

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 re

WebApps' new charter has been approved

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

Re: Web Intents on WebApps' May 1-2 f2f meeting agenda?

10, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Arthur Barstow <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 t

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates; deadline May 2

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 . The Exit Criteria

RfC: LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline May 17

This is a Request for Comments for the April 26 Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events: The comment deadline is May 17 and all comments should be sent to the public-webapps@w3.org list.

Re: Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Widget Updates; deadline April 19

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

CORS: joint meeting of WebApps and WebAppSec next week?

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 )? Currently, WebApps' agenda for that day is mostly wide open

Reminder: Comment deadline for CORS Last Call Working Draft is May 1

May 1 is the deadline for comments for the CORS LCWD . Original Message Subject:TransAnn: CORS published as Last Call Working Draft Resent-Date:Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:58:36 + Resent-From: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:57

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Widget Interface; deadline April 26

Now that the normative references for the Widget Interface spec have advanced and we have documented the spec only uses stable features of HTML5 [1], the Widget Interface is ready for publication as a Proposed Recommendation. As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish a PR of this spec usin

Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

On 4/19/12 8:57 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: On 19 Apr 2012, at 7:48 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, As I understand it, the W3C's publication precedence re normative references for a Proposed Recommendation, is that all W3C normative references must be at CR or a later maturity level.

[widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

Hi All, As I understand it, the W3C's publication precedence re normative references for a Proposed Recommendation, is that all W3C normative references must be at CR or a later maturity level. With today's publication of a CR of Web IDL [WebIDL-CR], the only W3C normative reference in the W

Re: Reminder: May 1-2 f2f meeting: registration deadline is April 16

On 4/16/12 10:33 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:55:42 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: Agenda topic requests are welcome <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/May2012F2FMeeting#Potential_Topics>. (I added some items to the "potential topics" list.) FW

Reminder: May 1-2 f2f meeting: registration deadline is April 16

items to the "potential topics" list.) Begin forwarded message: *Resent-From: *mailto:public-webapps@w3.org>> *From: *ext Arthur Barstow <mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> *Date: *March 15, 2012 8:13:54 AM EDT *To: *public-webapps <mailto:public-webapps@w3.org>> *Subject:

CfC: publish LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline April 23

The Server-sent Events spec has three open bugs: * 14900 - suggests adding an origin warning check * 15495 - generic comment re Web platform (not really SSE specific) * 16070 - request for additional reference I don't see any of these bug as important enough to block LC so this is a Call for Co

Re: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ?

Hi All - I created bug [16730] to capture this question/issue. The CfC to publish a CR of Workers started on April 4 [CfC], the same day Simon posted his question [Head]. Since there were no objections to the CfC and a solution to this issue is likely to be backward compatible, I intend to mov

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Widget Updates; deadline April 19

Original Message Subject:RfC: LCWD of Widget Updates; deadline April 19 Resent-Date:Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:49:25 + Resent-From: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:48:37 -0400 From: ext Arthur Barstow Reply-To: public-webapps To: public-webapps [ bcc

Re: Web Intents on WebApps' May 1-2 f2f meeting agenda?

ww.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/May2012F2FMeeting#Agenda_May_1>. If that doesn't work, let me know. -Thanks, Art > Thanks, > James > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi James, Greg, All - in case you did not know, WebApps is having a f2f > meet

Re: Delay in File * spec publications in /TR/ [Was: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3]

On Mar 30, 2012, at 2:25 PM, ext Eric U wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Hi All - the publication of the File API LC was delayed because of some >> logistical issues for Arun as well as some additional edits he intends to >> make. &

Web Intents on WebApps' May 1-2 f2f meeting agenda?

, plans, etc. If we do want to allocate some time, we can of course use the W3C voice conference bridge to facilitate remote participants but we would need to nail down the day + time slot. WDYT? -AB Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: > From: ext Arthur Barstow > Date: April 9,

Reminder: May 1-2 f2f meeting: registration deadline is April 16

Thanks, AB Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: > From: ext Arthur Barstow > Date: March 15, 2012 8:13:54 AM EDT > To: public-webapps > Subject: Call for Agenda Topics: May 1-2 f2f meeting; Registration deadline > April 16 > archived-at: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4f61dd

Re: [IndexedDB] Full text search?

On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:19 AM, ext Javier Holguera wrote: > Hi, > > I’m starting with IndexedDB with a simple sample application. It is a Tasks > List which stores its information into a IndexedDB database. I may have > chosen a simpler persistence technology, but I wanted to give a try to > In

Re: Draft report for offline apps workshop

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:06 PM, ext Brian LeRoux wrote: > Hey Dom --- uhm, not the best feedback in the world but I think > everyone here should see/incorporate Jake Archibalds JSConf talk this > year: > > http://lanyrd.com/2012/jsconf-us/sqxcz/ Thanks Brian (nice deck). > I think we can all agree

Fwd: ACTION-623: Notify TAG when a Last Call Working Draft of CORS or UMP is published (Web Applications Working Group)

G > > > ACTION-623: Notify TAG when a Last Call Working Draft of CORS or UMP is > published (Web Applications Working Group) > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/623 > > On: Arthur Barstow > Due: 2011-05-05 > Product: CORS > > If you do n

Re: CfC: Add warnings to old DOM specifications; deadline April 18

On Apr 4, 2012, at 8:00 PM, ext Cameron McCormack wrote: > Arthur Barstow: >> All - If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please >> send them to public-webapps@w3.org <mailto:public-webapps@w3.org> by >> April 2 at the latest. > > April 18? Ooops - yes, April 18!

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 11

During the comment period for the March 13 LCWD of HTML5 Web Messaging, no comments were submitted nor were any new bugs filed. This spec's bug list contains the same bug that was present when the CfC for LC was started (13686 which is a request for a non-normative example). The latest ED - whic

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Workers; deadline April 11

During the comment period for the March 13 LCWD of Web Workers, no comments were submitted nor were any new bugs filed. The Worker bug list contains the same 2 bugs that were present when the CfC for LC was started (14086 which is marked as an enhancement and 14214 which is editorial). The lates

CfC: Add warnings to old DOM specifications; deadline April 18

In September 2011, an obsolescence message was added to the November 2000 DOM 2 Views specs [D2V]. As WebApps previously discussed (link below), we would like to add a similar message to additional (old) DOM Recommendations. Msger's (Mozilla) proposed text is in the following document and this is a

Re: Warnings for old DOM specifications

Thanks Ms2ger! I will start a CfC and include the HTML WG and CSS WG chairs since those WGs are explicitly mentioned in your proposed text. -Art On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:53 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote: > Hi all, > > A while ago I proposed adding warnings to a number of specifications to alert > reader

FYI: Speech API Community Group Proposed

FYI: yesterday, a Speech API CG was proposed . Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: > From: ext Do Not Reply > Date: April 2, 2012 4:54:46 PM EDT > To: > Subject: Speech API Community Group Proposed > archived-at:

Delay in File * spec publications in /TR/ [Was: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3]

ed in /TR/ soon-ish. OTOH, if they have dependencies on the latest File API, it may be better to postpone their publication until File API is published. WDYT? -Thanks, ArtB On Feb 25, 2012, at 7:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Comments and bugs submitted during the pre-LC comment period for

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 3

Original Message Subject:RfC: LCWD of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 3 Resent-Date:Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:40:01 + Resent-From: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:39:17 -0400 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps This is a Request for Commentsfor

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Web Workers; deadline April 3

Original Message Subject:RfC: LCWD of Web Workers; deadline April 3 Resent-Date:Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:34:30 + Resent-From: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:33:38 -0400 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps This is a Request for Commentsfor the March

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Web Workers; deadline April 3

Original Message Subject:RfC: LCWD of Web Workers; deadline April 3 Resent-Date:Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:34:30 + Resent-From: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:33:38 -0400 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps This is a Request for Commentsfor the March

Re: [Bug 15400] New: WebSocket Protocol reference needs updating

Ian - Julian contacted me privately about getting this bug fixed. Is this something you could please fix relatively soon? Is there something Julian can do to facilitate a fix e.g. create a patch against some source file? -Thanks, AB On 1/3/12 7:36 AM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote: http

CfC: publish WD of DOM4; deadine April 2

Ms2ger would like to publish a new WD of DOM4 and this is a Call for Consensus to do so: Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.

Re: CfC: test suite for Web Storage CR; deadline April 11

security requirements. Apart from that, I think the test suite is pretty complete. ]] -Thanks, ArtB [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/2012Mar/0028.html [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/rev/ad44919e3519 On 3/21/12 8:50 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: WebApps

RfC: LCWD of Widget Updates; deadline April 19

[ bcc public-native-web-apps ] On March 23, WebApps published a LCWD of Widget Updates . If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by April 19.

CfC: test suite for Web Storage CR; deadline April 4

WebApps' testing group completed a Request for Review [RfR] of the Web Storage tests submitted by Infraware and the tests that are now considered approved by the testing group have been copied into the [approved] directory. As we agreed in WebApps' testing process [Testing], this means the appr

Call for Agenda Topics: May 1-2 f2f meeting; Registration deadline April 16

Hi All, I created a meeting page for our May 1-2 f2f meeting at a Microsoft facility in the Silicon Valley . Participants must register for this meeting via and the deadline

RfC: LCWD of WebPerf WG's High Resolution Time; deadline April 10

WebApps has been asked to review the Web Performance WG's High Resolution Time LCWD . Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback directly to the Web Perf WG. If you have comments, please send them to the following list by

RfC: LCWD of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 3

This is a Request for Commentsfor the March 13 version of the Last Call Working Draft of HTML5 Web Messaging: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webmessaging-20120313/ The comment deadline is April 3 and all comments should be sent to the public-webapps@w3.org list.

RfC: LCWD of Web Workers; deadline April 3

This is a Request for Commentsfor the March 13 version of the Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-workers-20120313/ The comment deadline is April 3 and all comments should be sent to the public-webapps@w3.org list.

CfC: publish LCWD of Widget Updates; deadline March 19

Marcos would like to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the Widget Updates spec and this is a CfC to do, using the following document as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/pub/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision to request advance

[CORS] Review of CORS and WebAppSec prior to LCWD

[ + public-webappsec ] Below is a comment about CORS. Given the original CfC for LCWD was started months ago, perhaps this comment should be considered as an LC comment. Re whether to use p-webapps or p-webappsec, I don't recall any agreement on that question. I do note the latest ED says to

Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

Feras - this seems kinda' late, especially since the two-week pre-LC comment period for File API ended Feb 24. Is this a feature that can be postponed to v.next? On 3/2/12 7:54 PM, ext Feras Moussa wrote: At TPAC we discussed the ability to deterministically close blobs with a few others.

CfC: LCWD of Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS); deadline March 9

: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:17:57 -0500 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: ext Thomas Roessler , "Hill, Brad" CC: , "w3t-c...@w3.org Team" , , Eric Rescorla , "Anne van Kesteren (ann...@opera.com)" Since last December's CfC was indeed sent to both WGs, I agr

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Workers; deadline March 9

The Web Messaging spec has two open bugs: [14086] is marked as an "enhancement" and [14214] is a minor editorial comment. I'd like to get this spec moving on the REC track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD using as the basis. This CfC sat

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Messaging; deadline March 9

The Web Messaging spec has one open bug [13686] and it is a request for a non-normative example. I'd like to get this spec moving on the REC track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD using as the basis. This CfC satisfies the group's require

CfC: publish Widget URI spec as a WG Note; deadline March 9

It appears no one is interested in moving the Widget URI spec along the REC track. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to stop work on that spec and to publish it as a WG Note using the following ED as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ If you have any comments or concerns ab

Re: May face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps; deadline March 4

WebApps WG members - in the absence of any major non-resolvable conflicts, I think we should consider the May 1-2 dates as confirmed. As such, if there are any major issues with these dates, please speak up by March 4 at the latest. -Thanks, AB On 3/1/12 11:22 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote

Re: Bug Tracking for the File* specs

lic/describecomponents.cgi?product=WebAppsWG>. On 2/27/12 8:04 PM, ext Steve VanDeBogart wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Arthur Barstow <mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote: Hi Brona, For mostly historical reasons, WebApps' File* specs still use Tracker rather than Bugzilla

CfC: publish WD of File API: Writer + File API: Directories and System; deadline March 3

This is a Call for Consensus to publish new WDs of the File API: Writer + File API: Directories and System specs, using the following EDs as the basis of the publications: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-dir-sys.html Agreement

CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3

Comments and bugs submitted during the pre-LC comment period for File API spec have been addressed and since there are no open bugs, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of the File API spec using the latest ED as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ This CfC satisfies

Re: [webapps-component] Web and Canvas Components, select, audio controls and ARIA

Hi Charles, On 2/23/12 9:09 PM, ext Charles Pritchard wrote: Regarding UI components in web applications ... Please consider these UI issues as a whole, find a coherent narrative about the problem. If and when we can get that far, maybe we can have a webapps-ui group, and discuss the parti

RfC: Timing control for script-based animations Last Call; deadline March 20

WebApps has been asked to submit comments for the "Timing control for script-based animations" LCWD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-animation-timing-20120221/ Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback directly to the Web Performance WG. If you have comments, please

Re: [webcomponents]: Progress updates

On 2/17/12 2:02 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Hi all! I've been publishing a steady stream of progress updates on the Web Components work here: https://plus.google.com/103330502635338602217/posts. Should I also summarize and post them here weekly? Monthly? Happy to do whatever is the most conv

Re: CfC: Proposal to add web packaging / asset compression

Given the various issues and questions raised about this proposal, I don't support adding it to WebApps (at least not now). I do support work in this area and agree a new CG is one possibility. It also seems like the work could be argued as in scope for the native Web apps CG which includes ap

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On 2/14/12 2:02 AM, ext David Bruant wrote: Le 13/02/2012 20:44, Ian Hickson a écrit : Should we just tell authors to get used to the async style? I think we should. More constructs are coming in ECMAScript. Things related to language concurrency should probably be left to the core language unl

[FileAPI] RfC of pre-LC version; deadline Feb 24

Arun's latest updates to File API means the spec is very close to being ready for Last Call WD. As such, this is a Request for Comments of a pre-LC version of the spec using the latest ED as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ Please review the latest ED (above) now and send al

CfC: publish WD of Clipboard API and events; deadline February 16

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of the Clipboard API and events spec using the latest ED as the basis (Hallvord has not yet prepared it for publication in /TR/): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishi

Re: April face-to-face meetings for WebApps

[ - public-html ] WebApp'ers - if there are any objections or non-resolvable conflicts with WebApps meeting April 10-11 please speak up as soon as possible. To get at least a rough idea regarding who would attend the meeting, if there is a relatively high priority you will attend, please let

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

Given the positive responses to this proposal, I added it to the additions agreed section of the charter changes wiki and Chaals will add it to the draft charter. On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: Hi all, I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by. In a d

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

Given the positive responses to this CfC, the Screen Orientation API has now been added to the Additions Agreed section of charter changes wiki . On 1/30/12 8:26 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: OK, since I was planning to have the charte

Re: CG for Speech JavaScript API

Hi Glen, All - I think your proposal is a good one and I am looking forward to following the CG's work! Re the mail list, if we turn this around and look at it from the perspective of someone that is mostly interested in the CG and not WebApps, they would then receive close to an additional 2K

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >