I support this.
-Rob
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:29 AM
To: public-webapps; www-...@w3.org
Subject: CfC: to publish a new WD of the DOM3 Events spec; deadline Sep
I support a FPWD since I'm all for drafts of any kind being published.
However, I'm still unconvinced that this draft is heading the right
way for the web. My concern is two-fold:
1. It doesn't define enough to allow multiple interoperable
implementations. This is because the SQL dialect is not de
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote:
>
> I am sorry to say 'No'. If it is wrong time to speak out, please pardon
> me for keeping quiet for so long.
FWIW, Microsoft already supported publishing Web Database as a First
Public Working Draft in January 2008:
http://www.w3.org
Hey WebApps Group,
I am happy to see people scared (much like me :)). If CFC is just for
public *working* draft, then I think I was unnecessarily worried and thanks
Robin for helping me out here.
I am fine this going for public working draft and hence get reach more
p
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2009, at 13:44 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be straightforward to have a P+C module with a group for the
>>> choice of its children, and then for instance WARP could just add
>>> to that content.
>>
>> Nah. I don't like it
On Sep 1, 2009, at 13:44 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
It would be straightforward to have a P+C module with a group for the
choice of its children, and then for instance WARP could just add
to that content.
Nah. I don't like it! Not only does it require a rocket-science
degree, but it's still mea
Hi Laxmi,
just to make sure that we are clear on what you are objecting to: the
CfC is for a Working Draft (what's more, the first) to be published.
This by no means entails ratification by W3C, it simply reflects where
the group is on that topic.
This is not to say that you shouldn't obj
I am sorry to say 'No'. If it is wrong time to speak out, please pardon me for
keeping quiet for so long.
The 'Web Database' specification in its current form is not acceptable for the
following reasons:
- Expecting a single writer model is not the way the relational databases have
been desig
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 21:56 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:06 PM, mozer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 15:58 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
As we have partitioned the P&C spec into multiple specs, the RelaxNG
schem
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's
functionality was included in the
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:01:03 +0600, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality
was includ
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:01:07 +0600, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of the Web
Storage spec:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent
Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:15 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
Furthermore, since the schema isn't normative anyway, I think it could
just sit in CVS like a software project and be pointed to by the
specs. No need to include it in the spec's body.
I tend to favor Robin's proposal
On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:15 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
Furthermore, since the schema isn't normative anyway, I think it could
just sit in CVS like a software project and be pointed to by the
specs. No need to include it in the spec's body.
I tend to favor Robin's proposal above re how to document
On Aug 31, 2009, at 21:56 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:06 PM, mozer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Robin Berjon
wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 15:58 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
As we have partitioned the P&C spec into multiple specs, the
RelaxNG
schema is no longer compl
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Nikunj,
The File API is everyone's favorite API for feature requests as well
as programming style discussions :)
interface InputStream {
read(in DataHandler, [optional in] long long offset, [optional in]
long long length); abort()
16 matches
Mail list logo
