On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation
but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of
the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title)
transient, so
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation
but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of
the Landscape
Hi Marcos,
On 9/16/11 10:14 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Marcos, All,
To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
Working Group Notes:
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as
Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route,
it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable
for this spec)
On 9/19/11 10:54 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as
Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route,
it would presumably mean publishing a LC,
Marcos, All,
To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
Working Group Notes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
If anyone has any comments or objections to
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Marcos, All,
To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
Working Group Notes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/
