Re: New approach to activities/intents

2014-11-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
 My understanding of the document is that a website can register itself
 as a share endpoint but can't try to programmatically starts a share
 action; instead, the user will use the browser UI to do so. Is that
 correct? I assume also that the UA would show a UI requesting the user
 whether they want to accept foo.com to be added as a share endpoint,
 right?

Yes and yes.


 Wouldn't be worth experimenting first with a list of predefined share
 endpoints (that you anyway might want to have) and see if the feature is
 actually something that users are looking for?

We have something like that in Firefox Nightly. Apple ships something
similar in Safari. Both can be extended through proprietary APIs.


 Furthermore, wouldn't
 that make sense to have a similar mechanism than Open Search and have a
 way for a website to advertise its share endpoint(s)? Maybe the Manifest
 could be a good use for that. Generally speaking, I see a lot of common
 aspects between Open Search and this proposal.

Maybe. It would be even less flexible and depend even more on user
interface innovation from the user agent.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/



CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow
[ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint 
deliverable for WebApps and CSS ]


Hi Anne, Tantek, WebApps and CSSWG,

During WebApps' October 27 f2f meeting, the attendees had a straw-poll 
regarding stopping work on the Fullscreen spec (a joint deliverable for 
these two WGS) and to publish a WG Note of the spec. Since there were no 
objections raised during the poll (see [Mins]), this is a formal Call 
for Consensus to:


a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when 
WebApps' charter is updated)


b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed 
document)


c) gut the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently 
with [e.g.])


d) gut the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been 
done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes)


Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see 
[CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to this 
CfC (although all feedback is welcome.)


If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by 
November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged 
and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the 
absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is 
published.


-Thanks, AB

[Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item09
[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html
[ED] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
[e.g.] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-file-system-api-20140424/
[CSS-Mins] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html##Fullscreen




Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread chaals


07.11.2014, 14:41, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com:
 [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint
 deliverable for WebApps and CSS ]

 Hi Anne, Tantek, WebApps and CSSWG,

 During WebApps' October 27 f2f meeting, the attendees had a straw-poll
 regarding stopping work on the Fullscreen spec (a joint deliverable for
 these two WGS) and to publish a WG Note of the spec. Since there were no
 objections raised during the poll (see [Mins]), this is a formal Call
 for Consensus to:

 a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when
 WebApps' charter is updated)

Yes (and no)

 b) Publish a WG Note of this spec; (see [Draft-Note] for the proposed
 document)

Yes

 c) gut the WG Note of all technical content (as WebApps did recently
 with [e.g.])

Yes.

 d) gut the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been
 done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes)

Abstain.

cheers

 Since the CSS WG already resolved to publish this spec as a WG Note (see
 [CSS-Mins]), there is no need for members of that group to reply to this
 CfC (although all feedback is welcome.)

 If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by
 November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged
 and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the
 absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is
 published.

 -Thanks, AB

 [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item09
 [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html
 [ED] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
 [e.g.] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-file-system-api-20140424/
 [CSS-Mins]
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html##Fullscreen

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com



Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/

I no longer work for Opera Software.

The Status of this Document section should probably not mention the
mailing list or bug tracker.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/



Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know
 what you do want.)

I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all.


 Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't
 especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is
 especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list.
 Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD?

 or bug tracker.

 Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be
 included.

Why would I want feedback on this Note?

(It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?)


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/



Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:


07.11.2014, 14:41, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com:

[ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint

a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when
WebApps' charter is updated)

Yes (and no)


For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are 
effectively a whatever that we can defer until if/when there is a 
charter discussion. Agreed?


-Thanks, AB





Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:

Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know
what you do want.)

I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all.


Please give me @X and @Y in: a href=@X@Y/a. (Doing so offlist is 
fine ;-)).




Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't
especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is
especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list.
Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD?


Ooops. I did mean ... is NOT especially harmful.




or bug tracker.

Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be
included.

Why would I want feedback on this Note?


The bugzilla component is for the spec.


(It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?)


I think we already have a precedence for doing this, so yes, this is 
fine with me.


-Thanks, AB






Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:

[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/


That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is 
permitted or not. Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests? I 
suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the 
boilerplate. Would that work for you Anne?



I no longer work for Opera Software.


Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know 
what you do want.)



The Status of this Document section should probably not mention the
mailing list


Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't 
especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is 
especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment 
list. Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD?



or bug tracker.


Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should 
be included.


-Thanks, AB





CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow
During WebApps' October 27 meeting, the participants agreed to stop work 
on the UI Events spec and to publish it as a WG Note (see [Mins]). As 
such, this is a formal Call for Consensus (CfC) to:


a) Stop work on this spec

b) Publish a gutted WG Note of the spec; see [Draft-Note]

c) Gut the ED (this will be done if/when this CfC passes)

d) Prefix the spec's [Bugs] with HISTORICAL and turn off creating new bugs

e) Travis will move all bugs that are relevant to D3E to the D3E bug 
component


Note Action-734 resulted in a discussion about the rationale for this 
proposal ([Discuss]).


If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by 
November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged 
and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the 
absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is 
published.


-Thanks, AB

[Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item05
[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/d4e/raw-file/default/tr.html
[Bugs] 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWGcomponent=UI%20Eventsresolution=---
[Discuss] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0262.html




Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November
 14 at the latest.

My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much
more suitable name for the contents of DOM Level 3 Events. But we
would keep using DOM Level 3 Events because it would be done quickly
and then we'd move on to UI Events. As we now know we did not finish
DOM Level 3 Events quickly. So I would like us to abandon that name
and settle on UI Events.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/



CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow
During WebApps' XHR discussion on October 27, no one expressed interest 
to work on XHR L2 [Mins]. The last TR of XHR L2 was published in January 
2012 [WD] thus that version should be updated to clarify work has 
stopped. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to:


a) Publish a gutted WG Note of the spec (see [Draft-Note])

If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by 
November 14 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged 
and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. In the 
absence of any non-resolvable issues, I will see make sure the Note is 
published.


-Thanks, AB

[Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item21
[WD] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/
[Draft-Note] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html




Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread fantasai

On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:

[Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

It would be nice if editor's draft points to https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/


That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or 
not.
Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?


I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.


I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate.


It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
currently-maintained draft.

~fantasai



Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html

Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/?


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/



Re: New approach to activities/intents

2014-11-07 Thread Mounir Lamouri
(I realise that my reply went to public-webapps instead of whatwg, not
sure why. I will blame my email client :))

On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, at 20:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
  Wouldn't be worth experimenting first with a list of predefined share
  endpoints (that you anyway might want to have) and see if the feature is
  actually something that users are looking for?
 
 We have something like that in Firefox Nightly. Apple ships something
 similar in Safari. Both can be extended through proprietary APIs.

I think it would be great if Mozilla could keep track of the usage of
this feature and share that data.

  Furthermore, wouldn't
  that make sense to have a similar mechanism than Open Search and have a
  way for a website to advertise its share endpoint(s)? Maybe the Manifest
  could be a good use for that. Generally speaking, I see a lot of common
  aspects between Open Search and this proposal.
 
 Maybe. It would be even less flexible and depend even more on user
 interface innovation from the user agent.

I don't think the issue here is flexibility. It's extensibility. You
want website to be able to advertise themselves in that list. Thus,
websites will only try to do so if they see a benefit in doing that, in
other words, if that feature is actually used by Firefox users.

As a side note, I don't think that innovation always need to come from
new APIs. That feature sounds like a great opportunity to innovate
within the browser UI then iterate with an API.

-- Mounir



Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Domenic Denicola




 On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:55, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
 
 On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html
 
 Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/?

Or better yet, just be a redirect to it, as was done with WHATWG's DOM Parsing 
spec to the W3C one?





Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread chaals


07.11.2014, 17:53, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net:
 On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
  On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
  [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html
  It would be nice if editor's draft points to 
 https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/
  That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted 
 or not.
  Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?

 I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.
  I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the 
 boilerplate.

 It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
 currently-maintained draft.

Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are. So we 
do the world a service by pointing to that, and no service by avoiding it.

And I don't know of a rule that says we cannot do that. It isn't a normative 
reference, it's just a link to useful information.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com



Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread chaals


07.11.2014, 15:05, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com:
 On 11/7/14 8:43 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
  07.11.2014, 14:41, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com:
  [ Sorry for the cross posting but the Fullscreen spec is a joint

  a) Stop work on the spec (and remove it as a deliverable if/when
  WebApps' charter is updated)
  Yes (and no)

 For the purposes of this CfC, I think my parenthetical and your `no` are
 effectively a whatever that we can defer until if/when there is a
 charter discussion. Agreed?

Yeah, definitely.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com



Re: New approach to activities/intents

2014-11-07 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
FWIW, I think we should be concentrating on something like the Tubes (aka
navigator.connect): https://github.com/dglazkov/tubes

It is hard to impossible to get these types APIs right on the first try.
That's why we need to create a clearinghouse for capability experiments and
be data-driven in designing the right API.

:DG

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:

 (I realise that my reply went to public-webapps instead of whatwg, not
 sure why. I will blame my email client :))

 On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, at 20:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
   Wouldn't be worth experimenting first with a list of predefined share
   endpoints (that you anyway might want to have) and see if the feature
 is
   actually something that users are looking for?
 
  We have something like that in Firefox Nightly. Apple ships something
  similar in Safari. Both can be extended through proprietary APIs.

 I think it would be great if Mozilla could keep track of the usage of
 this feature and share that data.

   Furthermore, wouldn't
   that make sense to have a similar mechanism than Open Search and have a
   way for a website to advertise its share endpoint(s)? Maybe the
 Manifest
   could be a good use for that. Generally speaking, I see a lot of common
   aspects between Open Search and this proposal.
 
  Maybe. It would be even less flexible and depend even more on user
  interface innovation from the user agent.

 I don't think the issue here is flexibility. It's extensibility. You
 want website to be able to advertise themselves in that list. Thus,
 websites will only try to do so if they see a benefit in doing that, in
 other words, if that feature is actually used by Firefox users.

 As a side note, I don't think that innovation always need to come from
 new APIs. That feature sounds like a great opportunity to innovate
 within the browser UI then iterate with an API.

 -- Mounir




Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread chaals
07.11.2014, 18:28, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me:
  On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:55, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html
  Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/?

 Or better yet, just be a redirect to it, as was done with WHATWG's DOM 
 Parsing spec to the W3C one?

That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails.

But yeah, a pointer is a pretty obvious thing to put in.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com



Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 11/7/14 12:57 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:

07.11.2014, 17:53, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net:

On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

  On 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:

  [Draft-Note] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html

  It would be nice if editor's draft points to 
https://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/

  That would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or 
not.
  Yves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?

I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.

  I suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate.

It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
currently-maintained draft.

Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are.


OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft 
points to Anne's document 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html.





Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 11/7/14 1:05 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:

07.11.2014, 18:28, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me:

  On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:55, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:

  On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html

  Should this not include a reference to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/?

Or better yet, just be a redirect to it, as was done with WHATWG's DOM Parsing 
spec to the W3C one?

That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails.

But yeah, a pointer is a pretty obvious thing to put in.


Yes, sorry, I meant to include that. I just checked in a patch that adds 
a reference and link for WebApps' XHRL1 spec and the WHATWG spec above. 
That patch add this info to the SotD section 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/TR/XHRL2-Note-2014-Nov.html#sotd.


Currently, the Draft Note does not include Latest Editor's Draft data in 
its boilerplate. If we want to add that data, it's not clear if we want 
to add WebApps' ED and/or WHATWG's spec. Strong preferences?


-Thanks, AB





Re: Spring meeting in Paris?

2014-11-07 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Nov 5, 2014, at 7:54 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
 we have had a (northern) spring meeting in California for the last few years, 
 co-located with HTML.
 
 The HTML group is considering having a meeting in may(ish) 2015 in Paris - 
 and there is an offer to host such a meeting.
 
 So the question is whether people are interested in having a face to face in 
 Paris instead of Silicon Valley.

Given the last two TPACs and F2F have been in Shenzhen and Silicon Valley, it 
seems only fair to host one in Paris or elsewhere in Europe this time.  My only 
request is to host all related F2F events (e.g. HTML WG's) in the same week as 
usual.

- R. Niwa




RE: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

2014-11-07 Thread Travis Leithead
To clarify: are you asking to rename DOM Level 3 Events to UI Events? 

Perhaps a fresh name would help get that spec done faster :)

Gary what do you think?

-Original Message-
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 7:36 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: public-webapps; www-...@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by 
 November
 14 at the latest.

My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much more 
suitable name for the contents of DOM Level 3 Events. But we would keep using 
DOM Level 3 Events because it would be done quickly and then we'd move on to UI 
Events. As we now know we did not finish DOM Level 3 Events quickly. So I would 
like us to abandon that name and settle on UI Events.


--
https://annevankesteren.nl/