Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

2010-01-19 Thread Arthur Barstow
Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by February 2. Note the Process Document states the following regarding the

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

2010-01-19 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by February

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

2010-01-19 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ If you have any comments,

Re: MPEG-U

2010-01-19 Thread Cyril Concolato
Hi Doug, Le 13/01/2010 19:59, Doug Schepers a écrit : Hi, Cyril- Cyril Concolato wrote (on 1/13/10 10:37 AM): Yes, you're right, the problem is that liaisons usually are not considered as public documents so the secretariat or MPEG members are not allowed to make them public. ... Anyway,

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

2010-01-19 Thread Jonas Sicking
For what it's worth we are in the same situation at mozilla On Jan 19, 2010 3:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow... We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like

[selectors-api] comments on Selectors API Level 2

2010-01-19 Thread Daniel Glazman
Hi there. (this message contains personal comments and does not represent an official response from the CSS WG) I have read the recent Selectors API Level 2 draft [1] and have a few important comments to make: 1. I don't like the idea of refNodes. I think having the APIs specified at