Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2
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 significance/meaning of a LCWD: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. ]] Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all issues resolved. If there are other groups that should be asked for comments, please forward this email to them or identify the group(s). -Regards, Art Barstow
Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2
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 2. Note the Process Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. ]] Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all issues resolved. If there are other groups that should be asked for comments, please forward this email to them or identify the group(s). -Regards, Art Barstow We (Google) support this LC publication. We would, however, like time to gather meaningful experience with the spec before the last call review period ends. We expect we'll have this experience by the end of May. Would it be permissible to have a 4 month LC review period to facilitate this? Thanks, Jeremy
Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2
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, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by February 2. Note the Process Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. ]] Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all issues resolved. If there are other groups that should be asked for comments, please forward this email to them or identify the group(s). -Regards, Art Barstow We (Google) support this LC publication. We would, however, like time to gather meaningful experience with the spec before the last call review period ends. We expect we'll have this experience by the end of May. Would it be permissible to have a 4 month LC review period to facilitate this? We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like additional time to review. It doesn't matter that much to us if the review time is before or during Last Call, but we definitely can't do a meaningful review by February 2, and therefore cannot really sign off by that date on whether the document has satisfied relevant technical requirements, is feature-complete, and has all issues resolved. (As far as I can tell the document is less than 4 months old as an Editor's Draft and is about 60 pages long, so I hope it is reasonable to ask for some reasonable amount of review time.) Regards, Maciej
Re: MPEG-U
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, MPEG is meeting next week, I'll raise your questions and try to have MPEG make a formal answer. Could you please make sure that the secretariat sends the email to team-liais...@w3.org, CCing Steven, Mike, and me, as the Team Contacts for the WebApps WG, and Philippe Le Hegaret as Interaction Domain Lead? It's not appropriate to email Tim Berners-Lee for liaisons at this level, though if they insist, I suppose they can include him. We need to make sure that these liaisons are dealt with in a timely manner. I would greatly appreciate if you could have the secretariat send an immediate acknowledgment email to the above email addresses, just to make sure that the process is understood and accepted, before sending the liaison itself. Could you please request that right away? I know you are doing what you can to make sure the communication channels are clear, so I appreciate your help. Just for clarification. I don't know yet if the liaison can be sent to a public mailing list. But if it is possible, is it preferable to send it directly to the public mailing list or to list of persons you mentioned? Regards, Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group Telecom ParisTech 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/
Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2
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 additional time to review. It doesn't matter that much to us if the review time is before or during Last Call, but we definitely can't do a meaningful review by February 2, and therefore cannot really sign off by that date on whether the document has satisfied relevant technical requirements, is feature-complete, and has all issues resolved. (As far as I can tell the document is less than 4 months old as an Editor's Draft and is about 60 pages long, so I hope it is reasonable to ask for some reasonable amount of review time.) Regards, Maciej
[selectors-api] comments on Selectors API Level 2
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 Element level makes it confusing. I would recommend applying the NodeSelector interface to NodeList instead. If queryScopedSelector() and queryScopedSelectorAll() are applied to an Element or a NodeList, the corresponding element(s) are the refNodes of the query. Same comment for matchesSelector(). 2. I am extremely puzzled by the parsing model of scoped selectors. In particular, I think that the :scope pseudo-class introduces things that go far beyond scoping. Let's consider the selector :scope+p. Clearly, it's _not_ scoped since it queries element that are outside of the subtree the context element is the root of. Furthermore, these elements can be queried without scopes, and I don't see why this is needed at all!!! I would recommend dropping the pseudo-class :scope and make a simpler model where a fictional :scope pseudo-class and a descendant combinator are prepended to all selectors passed as the argument of the corresponding APIs. I don't like the idea that implementors will have to check if the first sequence of simple selectors in a selector contains or does not contain a given pseudo-class to prepend something to the context. This is clearly the kind of things I think we should avoid in Selectors in general. 3. the section about :scope does not include error handling. What happens if multiple :scope are present? 4. what's the specificity of that pseudo? Since it's proposed as a regular and non-fictional pseudo, web authors _can_ use it in regular stylesheets, even if it's meaningless outside of a scoped stylesheet. What's the behaviour in that case? What's the specificity? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api2/ /Daniel -- W3C CSS WG, Co-chair
