Re: Length of LC comment period [Was: Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit]

2009-12-05 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC period (say 2

Re: Length of LC comment period [Was: Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit]

2009-12-05 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the spirit of the Recommendation track

Re: Feedback on WebSocket API, Editor's Draft 13 November 2009.

2009-12-05 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Sebastian Andersson wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:52, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: With flash, you can connect to any server and any port as long as the application can first download a policy file from the same IP number. Flash's security model has had

Re: Length of LC comment period [Was: Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit]

2009-12-05 Thread Ian Hickson
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: If we already have multiple implementations of a

Spam Alert (was: Warning Notice!!!)

2009-12-05 Thread Doug Schepers
Hi, Folks- Obviously, the previous message on this thread was phishing spam, and was not from the W3C Team. As far as I can tell, it was sent to the following lists: public-xhtml2 public-webont-comments semantic-web public-xmlsec public-webapps Please don't reply to the original email, for