Re: Telecon / meeting on first week of April for Web Components

2016-04-05 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl>, 2016-04-05 07:10 +0200:
> Archived-At: 
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/cadnb78jvj1kartvxakcda-xq18xzv56bdocovs8prbmims6...@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Jan Miksovsky <jan@component.kitchen> wrote:
> > I have no idea how to settle this question. If everyone else is happy using 
> > WebEx, and someone else can set up the video call, I certainly don’t have a 
> > problem with that. (My only issue would be if the meeting was restricted to 
> > voice only.)
> 
> Does WebEx even support video?

It does

> In any event, per
> https://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/InstallingWebEx this would require
> Java, which is a major security risk, and it seems the fallback is
> audio-only.

FWIW, there is an Android client (including video support). That is what I
use personally, though the only thing I use it for is it get the webex
system to call me back to dial me in to the conference on audio. After I
get that audio connection I then just shut down the client.

> So it seems better to use Hangouts or some such.

Yeah, if everybody can agree to that it may work out a lot better.

But another option is to use a WebRTC service like https://appear.in/ which
work well enough these days with up to 8 video connections going at once.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: John Schulz introduction

2016-02-23 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi John,

John Schulz <jsch...@twitter.com>, 2016-02-23 11:04 -0800:
> Archived-At: 
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/CADSq=V7KnWjrmBEVmHTUo_9sVfjV3_pOQ55903WBXyjJ=4f...@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> Hello WP,
> 
> My name is John Schulz and I recently joined the Web Platform Working Group.
> 
> I'm a software engineer at Twitter, where I've worked on prototyping tools,
> analytics, and the soon to be released update of mobile.twitter.com. I am
> now focused on performance tooling/improvements throughout the stack.
> 
> I've been doing Web development professionally since 1999 so there's a lot
> of ground to cover, but I enjoy async/distributed architectures,
> performance, animations, and generally improving the experience for
> developers and end-users.
> 
> Thank you for reading this, and for the opportunity. I look forward to
> meeting and working with you all.

Welcome! Are there some particular deliverables in the group that you’re
especially interested in? Just curious to hear your thoughts on which align
well with the problems you’re trying to solve in your own development and
the specific user needs/priorities you’re working to address.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [pointerlock] Oct 2015 Pointer Lock Status

2015-10-29 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi Vincent,

Vincent Scheib <sch...@google.com>, 2015-10-23 13:57 -0700:
> Archived-At: 
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/cak-efxmcpyhnw7bko_v7__amfpnr0fhhqrv5v2vk0dqr-e0...@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> Pointer lock reached Candidate Recommendation in Dec 2013. [CR]
> ...
> Testharness tests are not currently able to test the core Pointer Lock
> features, which would require user gesures (mouse clicks) and synthesizing
> mouse movement. No progress is seen here for this specification, but the
> challenge is present for several. E.g. Web Bluetooth brought up this
> concern recently [Platform Testing] on public-test-infra, but with no
> response. I have requested Jeffrey Yasskin and Sam Uong from Chrome to
> discuss this topic at TPAC.

I chatted briefly with Jeffrey about this on IRC just now and I know there
was also related discussion about it at the TPAC face-to-face meeting of
the group working on the WebDriver spec (with Jeffrey and Sam in attendance
for that discussion).

To make the needed WebDriver integration into testharness.js happen, the
main thing we have been lacking for more than year or so now is an engineer
committed to spending the weeks of time (say, three months) needed to do
the actual hands-on work of designing it and implementing it and landing it.

Hopefully we may finally now be reaching the point where we have critical
mass of people who need to see it happen sooner rather than later.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: what's the meaning of lighter blue thick underlined terms in some specs?

2015-08-23 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi =JeffH,

=JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com, 2015-08-23 14:51 -0700:
 Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/55da4071.2080...@kingsmountain.com
 
 Hi,
 
 I notice in at least some specs produced by y'all, such as..
 
 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/
 
 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webmessaging/
 
 
 ..there are some terms that are underlined with lighter blue thick lines,
 but which are not links, and are not explicitly defined within those specs.
 
 e.g, a few from [1] absolute url, tasks, event loops; and a few from
 [2] origin, task source, same.
 
 in looking at the source the specs are renderede from, in each case such
 terms are enclosed by span.../span, like so..
 
   spanorigin/span
 
 It seems like this markup is being used to signal that the term is defined
 in another spec (eg HTML5, URL),

Yeah, that’s exactly the case.

The formatting of those specs is an artifact of a time when we were still
using spec-production tools that didn’t support creating real hyperlinks to
the correct specs in those cases.

In fact both of those specs are somewhat just artifacts of earlier years,
in that they’re just copies of specs published elsewhere, Abe while the
Workers spec was officially a separate spec upstream as well, it was folded
back into the HTML spec years ago. And the content of the Web Messaging
spec has been, since it was first defined, part of the HTML spec.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Moving W3C Streams to Note and adding disclaimer [was: [charter] What is the plan for Streams API?]

2015-08-18 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
After looking back at how we’ve handled cases like this one in the past,
and after noting that we appear to already have some agreement that at
least a disclaimer of some kind would be appropriate here—and that it
would be uncontroversial to add one—I’ve gone ahead and done so.

That seems preferable to, say, just waiting to anything at all until more
of the relevant parties to the discussion who are on vacation now are back.

That said, moving the WD to Note of course would require a WG decision. So,
short of that, I think having the disclaimer on the drafts is as much as
can be done at this point.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Moving W3C Streams to Note and adding disclaimer [was: [charter] What is the plan for Streams API?]

2015-08-18 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com, 2015-08-10 08:07 -0400:
 Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/55c893e4.8050...@gmail.com
 
 On 8/7/15 8:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
 Given this status, and in the absence of other feedback, I think the Streams
 API should remain in WebApps' charter (at least for now). Then later, the
 work may proceed (if there is still agreement an additional API would be
 useful); otherwise, if there is agreement to stop the work, the work can be
 stopped (and a WG Note published).
 What would this additional API do?
 
 Given Takeshi's status it seems premature to speculate.

Given that Takeshi said:

 I don't have bandwidth to maintain W3C version of the spec even briefly
 currently...

...it seems we can’t actually claim to even have an active editor for the
spec. And the https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
source hasn’t had any changes in more than 10 months, which was also when
the https://www.w3.org/TR/streams-api/ WD was last updated.

 The current [TR] is now mostly void of content although it might be good to
 gut it even more as well as to add a clear note that indicates that work has
 stopped and might not resume.

On their own, the two facts that we lack of an active editor and that the
ED hasn’t had any changes in more than 10 months would normally be more
than sufficient grounds for moving the WD to Note right now, and to either
completely gut the ED or just make its URL redirect to the upstream spec.

But if we lack the collective will to go ahead and move that WD to Note
now, and to do the right thing with the ED, then we should at least as soon
as possible clearly mark both the WD and ED with big bold warnings saying
“Do not use this for anything, do not link to it as if it were representative
of current implementation plans.” or whatever.

Because in the mean time we have some widely-read pages such as the one at
https://dev.modern.ie/platform/status/streamsapi/ that are referencing the
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm document, and
that thus are giving misleading information to people (including implementors
who I’ve personally seen confused by it in discussions) about which spec it
is that UAs are actually implementing (or planning on implementing). And
experience tells us that’s never a good thing to have happening.

  —Mike

Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com, 2015-08-07 07:56 -0400:
 Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/55c49cf1.8040...@gmail.com
 
 On 8/5/15 10:53 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
 +domenic
 
 We've recently finished the ReadableStream part of the spec and
 experimenting integration with the Fetch API. Most of the spec is still
 unstable. I don't have bandwidth to maintain W3C version of the spec even
 briefly currently...
 
 Hi Takeshi, All,
 
 Given this status, and in the absence of other feedback, I think the Streams
 API should remain in WebApps' charter (at least for now). Then later, the
 work may proceed (if there is still agreement an additional API would be
 useful); otherwise, if there is agreement to stop the work, the work can be
 stopped (and a WG Note published).
 
 -Thanks, AB

Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com, 2015-08-05 23:53 +0900:
 Archived-At: 
 http://www.w3.org/mid/cah9hsjavzjhnb2s3hourfu0wsnuot38wmif8e+r6qc6xgre...@mail.gmail.com
 
 +domenic
 
 We've recently finished the ReadableStream part of the spec and
 experimenting integration with the Fetch API. Most of the spec is still
 unstable. I don't have bandwidth to maintain W3C version of the spec even
 briefly currently...
 
 Takeshi

Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com, 2015-08-04 10:13 -0400:
 Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/55c0c86d.9070...@gmail.com
 
 On 7/30/15 8:46 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
 http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/group-charter.html
 
 The WebApps + HTML WG draft charter says the following about WebApps'
 Streams API:
 
 [[
 Streams API https://w3c.github.io/streams-api/
An API for representing a stream of data in web applications.
 ]]
 
 I believe the previously agreed plan of record for this spec was to create
 an API on top of https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/. Is that still something
 this group wants to do, and if so, who can commit to actually doing the
 work, in particular: editing, implementation, and test suite?
 
 If we no longer have committed resources for doing the above tasks then this
 spec should be removed from the draft charter.

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


RE-SENDING [Apple's updated feedback on Custom Elements and Shadow DOM]

2015-07-20 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
 defined. We 
hope this does not need much justification. We think this is critical for v1. 
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/100
3. We wanted closed mode to be the default but we are ok with 
having no default, as was decided at the last F2F.

B. Multiple Generations of Shadow DOM
1. We are glad to see that multiple generations of Shadow DOM 
has been removed per F2F agreement.
2. After further consideration, we are even more convinced that 
the named slot proposal is the way to go for distribution for v1. Original 
proposal here: 
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Proposal-for-changes-to-manage-Shadow-DOM-content-distribution
 
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Proposal-for-changes-to-manage-Shadow-DOM-content-distribution
 Some detailed algorithms written out here: 
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/Slots-Proposal.md
 Github issue here: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/138

C. Imperative Distribution API
1. We think the imperative distribution API may be worth doing, 
but we're no longer confident that it is important for v1. 
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/60 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18429

D. Event Retargeting
1. We agree with making it optional (opt-in or opt-out). We 
don’t feel that strongly, but many web developers have asked for this. The 
default should likely match the default for open vs. closed (no retargeting by 
default if open by default). It seems like the issue is marked for v2, but we 
thought we'd all agreed to do something here for v1? 
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/89

E. Renaming the API
1. If any strongly incompatible changes are made, we suggest 
renaming createShadowRoot. This is to avoid compat problems with content 
written for Chrome’s shipping implementation. We are not sure if this will be 
required, but named slots may force it if adopted.





- End forwarded message -

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Components F2F

2015-07-08 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi Mark,

Mark Giffin m1...@earthlink.net, 2015-07-07 23:17 -0700:
 Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/559cc079.6080...@earthlink.net
 
 Dimitri, this page says the F2F is on Monday July 21, but July 21 is a
 Tuesday. Is July 21 the correct date?

Yeah, July 21 is the correct date. I changed that wiki page to indicate
it’s a Tuesday rather than a Monday.

  —Mike

 On 7/7/2015 11:23 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
 Hi folks!
 
 I just updated the meeting wiki [1] with the meeting location information.
 tl;dr: it's the same room that we had in April.
 
 [1]: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/WebComponentsJuly2015Meeting

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [IndexedDB] link to Editor's draft is a 404

2015-02-03 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com, 2015-02-02 08:47 -0500:
 Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/54cf7fe0.6090...@gmail.com
 On 2/2/15 7:14 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
 Heads-up that the link to the Editor's Draft of the IndexedDB spec is now
 a 404.
 
 Thanks for reporting this Tobie. I've asked Joshua and Mike Smith to address
 this problem.
 
 Not sure whether that is on purpose or an accident.
 
 This is a side effect of moving this spec to Github:
 
 repo: https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB
 ED: http://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/
 
 Would recommend redirecting to the ED of the next version of the spec.
 
 That makes sense to me.

Yup, sorry about thatーI forgot a step when we migrated the repos. But I've
now set up the redirects and things should be working as expected. If not
lemme know.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Spring meeting in Paris?

2015-01-12 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:13:57 -0800
 From: Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
 Archived-At: 
 http://www.w3.org/mid/4ecbfae7-b763-497d-b7ab-98055ef88...@apple.com
...
 Do you have any update on possible F2F meeting schedule?
 
 According to HTML WG's minutes, they might be planning to have it at MIT
 between Jun 9-12: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-html-wg-minutes.html

At this point it's almost certainly not going to be in June at MIT. It's
going to be mid-April or end-April or mid-May, more likely in Europe.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-20 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com, 2014-10-20 02:44 +:

 I just remembered another similar situation that occurred recently, and
 in my opinion was handled perfectly:
 
 When it became clear that the WHATWG DOM Parsing and Serialization
 Standard was not being actively worked on, whereas the W3C version was, a
 redirect was installed so that going to
 https://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/ redirected immediately to
 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html.
 
 This kind of solution seems optimal to me because it removes any
 potential confusion from the picture. XHR in particular seems like a good
 opportunity for the W3C to reciprocate, since with both specs there's a
 pretty clear sense that we all want what's best for the web and nobody
 wants to have their own outdated copy just for the sake of owning it.

In that same spirit, I'd suggest that everybody not avoid considering some
particular option just because they've been told it seems like it's not
possible. Or just because of the wrong assumption that since it's never
been done before, it somehow must not be possible.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com, 2014-10-19 09:59 -0400:
...
 c) Ship a TR based on the newest WHATWG version, reference WHATWG's Fetch 
 spec throughout.
 
 The staff does indeed permit normative references to WHATWG specs in
 WD and CR publications so that wouldn't be an issue for those types
 of snapshots. However, although the Normative Reference Policy [NRP]
 _appears_ to permit a Proposed REC and final REC to include a
 normative reference to a WHATWG spec, in my experience, in practice,
 it actually is _not_  permitted.

There's no prohibition against referencing WHATWG specs in RECs.

 (If someone can show me a PR and/or REC that includes a normative
 reference to a WHATWG spec, please let me know.)

If it's your goal to ensure that we actually do never have a PR or REC with
a normative reference to a WHATWG spec, the line of logic implied by that
statement would be a great way to help achieve that.

If Hallvord and the other editors of the W3C XHR spec want to reference the
Fetch spec, then they should reference the Fetch spec.

 As such, we could do c) but with respect to helping to set realistic
 expectations for spec that references such a version of XHR, I think
 the XHR spec should be clear (think Warning!), that because of the
 Fetch reference, the XHR spec might never get published beyond CR.

That's not necessary. Nor would it be helpful.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [testing] Common way to manage test bugs?

2013-12-19 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com, 2013-12-19 10:23 -0500:

 Can Bugzilla listen to GitHub events and auto-comment?

There's a github hook that can be used -

  https://raw.github.com/github/github-services/master/docs/bugzilla

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Sync API for workers

2013-10-11 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
pira...@gmail.com pira...@gmail.com, 2013-10-11 21:24 +0200:

 [Jonas said]:
  * Enable compiling code that was written for other platforms to the
  web. Specifically where such code uses synchronous APIs, but where we
  for good reasons have chosen not to expose synchronous counterparts in
  the web platform. The most obvious example here is synchronous
  filesystem access which is very commonly used in other platforms like
  posix and windows.
 
 Synchronous APIs are easier to use since it's how things have been done
 since decades ago, but I don't think they fit in a event-oriented
 environment like Javascript, and more specially to some so time consuming
 like filesystem and IO. I find it better to only develop asynchronous APIs
 for this use cases. It would make sense to use synchronous APIs to help
 porting current code for example from C/C++ to Javascript, but the required
 POSIX-like APIs would be better developed as external libraries on top of
 the asynchronous ones.

When I see discussion of any new/recent synchronous APIs for the Web
platform these days I pretty much take it they're implicitly intended just
for use with Workers. So I assume that's the context Jonas intended.

  --Mike

P.S. Of course there's room for disagreement about whether synchronous APIs
are even a good idea even for the Workers case -

  http://infrequently.org/2013/05/the-case-against-synchronous-worker-apis-2/

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: [admin] Recommended way to mark bugs as `next level`? [Was: Re: [custom-elements] Seeking pre-LC comments for Custom Elements; deadline Oct 13

2013-10-05 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi Art,

Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, 2013-10-05 08:00 -0400:

 On 10/4/13 8:12 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
 A better view of bugs is here: 
 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/showdependencytree.cgi?id=14968hide_resolved=1
 
 The only remaining bug is to coordinate with Math and SVG working groups
 to make sure that they don't step on our dashes:
 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23256
 
 Everything else is in the Level 2 pile. If there's a better way to mark
 these up, let me know.
 
 That's a good question. I don't recall WebApps agreeing on a specific
 mechanism for tagging bugs for the next level/version.
 
 One option is to set Severity to Enhancement and/or the Priority to one of
 the lower levels. Another option is to use the Whiteboard field.

The Whiteboard field is the easiest and lightest-weight way. That lets
individual editors use whatever values they want that are appropriate to
their particular specs. So Dimitri could just put Level 2 in the
Whiteboard field and optionally maybe also change the status to
resolved=later.

 (I kinda' like using Severity/Enhancement because it is visible in a
 component's default list view but I don't have a strong preference.)
 
 Mike, All - do you have a recommendation for Dimitri (and the rest of
 WebApps)?

Another option that's not as lightweight as using the Whiteboard field is,
we could create a set of Target Milestone values for the WebApps bugzilla
product, and those would be available to all WebApps components. We'd need
to first decide on what the set of values should be.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: [admin] Recommended way to mark bugs as `next level`? [Was: Re: [custom-elements] Seeking pre-LC comments for Custom Elements; deadline Oct 13

2013-10-05 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi Dimitri,

Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org, 2013-10-05 09:01 -0700:

 If I set resolved=later, the target milestone doesn't seem as useful.

It does it you plan to reopen a bug at some later date and work on it then

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Fwd: [XHR] request error distinction: abort and error

2013-09-03 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
The are no messages from Vitya in the public-webapps moderation queue, so I
don't know what the problem might be. I've asked the W3C systems team to
take a look.

  --Mike

Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl, 2013-09-03 13:15 +0100:

 For some reason Vic9's emails do not reach lists.w3.org. Mike?
 
 -- Forwarded message --
 Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM
 Subject: Re: [XHR] request error distinction: abort and error
 
 Hello, Anne van Kesteren
 
 mailing to you directly, because somehow my letters cannot reach w3.org
 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0395.html
 
 
 it seems, that ESC key still can be used to abort XHR while page
 loading or with some special browsers configuration.
 Anyway, it would be nice to distinguish 3 situations:
 1) network error;
 2) cancellation by the user
 3) document unloading
 in my product, i want to show the dialog with information about
 network error, but this dialog should not appear in other cases, as
 that will annoy the user.
 in my another product, i want to do retry in case of network error,
 but i should not do it in case of cancellation by the user.
 
 Thanks

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Reviewing test submissions

2013-04-05 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, 2013-04-04 11:59 -0400:

 On 4/4/13 10:23 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
 after having moved the test suite to the GitHub repository, we've been
 busy cleaning things up.
 
 Can the mirroring to http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/ be
 more frequent than every 10 minutes?

There is and I will try to get it set up next week, unless Robin beats me to it 
first.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: [admin] using Bugzilla's component tracking feature? [Was: [webcomponents]-ish: Visibility of work in Bugzilla

2012-08-20 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, 2012-08-20 08:11 -0400:

 On 8/16/12 1:29 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
 That's a great point. It's already tracking all of the Web Components
 work (it looks like I am by far the spammiest -- not the best of
 honors, but I'll take it). Perhaps we could just encourage people to
 listen to that?
 
 :DG
 
 On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
 kangh...@oupeng.com wrote:
 (12/08/17 0:36), Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
 Another idea is to have a separate mailing list for this. At least,
 there will be some opt-in step that will give other
 public-webapps-nauts at choice.
 We have public-webapps-bugzilla[1] already, but I have no idea why we
 can't just turn on the component watching feature at the W3C Bugzilla
 instance.
 
 I agree following public-webapps-bugzilla is a bit like a `fire hose` so
 turning on component-level watching would be useful.
 
 Mike - can Bugzilla's component watching feature be turned on (for at
 least WebApps' components)?

What component watching feature? I'm not aware of any such feature and I
don't find any config parameters in our bugzilla instance that would seem
to be related to such a feature.

Note that we are running version 3.6.2 of bugzilla, with was released two
years ago. I believe we run that because it's the latest release available
for Debian stable (or maybe for Debian anything) and so that's been tested
by Debian and gone through security review and that gets any needed
security patches and all that. So if this component-watching feature is
something that's recent -- added after 3.6.2 -- then that would be why we
don't have it.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Web Components Suggestion

2012-08-12 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com, 2012-08-12 15:43 -0700:

 What Dimitri said, but to address your comment directly, DTD-based
 validation is long-dead, at least when applied to HTML.  A DTD can't
 capture the validity requirements that the HTML spec already imposes,
 so it's irrelevant if it also can't validate a document containing
 custom elements.  The current validator used by the W3C is a
 combination of (iirc) constrains expressed in Schematron and custom
 Java code.

The core of the backend for the W3C Nu Markup Validator
(http://validator.w3.org/nu/) and validator.nu is James Clark's Jing, a
Relax NG implementation. The backend doesn't actually use Schematron, for
performance reasons. Instead it has some Java code to perform the
equivalent the of assertions-based checking that Schematron provides but
that can't be done with grammar-based checking alone (whether with Relax NG
or anything else). No grammar-based schema language is capable of
expressing all the constraints in HTML spec. Things like checking the data
types (microsyntaxes) of attribute values requires custom code --
especially if you want to report useful messages for errors (something
regexp-based checking it totally useless for). Also, more to the point
here, things like the fact that arbitrary attribute names prefixed with
data- are valid -- grammar-based checkers can't handle that at all. So
the validator.nu backend has some custom code that Henri wrote that drops
those data-* attributes -- basically, filters them out -- before the Jing
part of the toolchain even sees them.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Web Components Suggestion

2012-08-12 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com, 2012-08-12 12:36 +0200:

 It's my understanding that if you want to define a strict parser using a
 DTD that describes the markup, it's impossible to introduce arbitrary tage
 names (as in there are not tag wildcards in a DTD). A document that used
 arbitrary tags could not be validated.

There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the use
of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism it uses.
To allow custom tag names and still be able to check the conformance of
normal tag names, the only possibility is to limit the custom tag names to
some recognized prefix -- e.g., x-fancyButton or whatever.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike



WebSocket-enabled Jetty 7.6 now on w3c-test.org

2012-02-27 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
As discussed over on the testsuites list -

  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/2012Feb/thread.html#msg16

...we now have Jetty 7.6 running on http://w3c-test.org:8080/

It's just a stock install, but my understanding is it has built-in
WebSocket support. So it's possible to host WebSocket-based server apps
there for use in running WebSocket clients test cases, and I'm happy to
install apps there for that purpose (after code review).

This is in addition to the pywebsockets support on http://w3c-test.org/
which I sent a message about earlier (see below).

If there are any follow-up questions about either the Java or Python
support, we should take that to public-webapps-testsu...@w3.org or
public-test-in...@w3.org

  --Mike

Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org, 2012-02-22 16:14 +0900:

 We now have initial WebSocket server support set up on w3c-test.org. Simple
 demo here:
 
   http://w3c-test.org/demo/console.html
 
 The server support uses pywebsocket, so if you have server components of
 WebSocket test cases written in Python, we can host them under
 http://www.w3c-test.org/ws/
 
 If anybody's interested in actually trying that right now, and you have
 *_wsh.py handlers you'd like to have installed, we can work on getting
 something set up to facilitate it.
 
   --Mike
 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/+



[testsuites] WebSocket support on w3c-test.org

2012-02-21 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
We now have initial WebSocket server support set up on w3c-test.org. Simple
demo here:

  http://w3c-test.org/demo/console.html

The server support uses pywebsocket, so if you have server components of
WebSocket test cases written in Python, we can host them under
http://www.w3c-test.org/ws/

If anybody's interested in actually trying that right now, and you have
*_wsh.py handlers you'd like to have installed, we can work on getting
something set up to facilitate it.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

2012-02-08 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi Glenn,

 @2012-02-08 08:33 -0700:
 will there be liaison/participation with I18N Core WG on this work?

I've already given Richard Ishida and Felix Sasaki a heads-up about it. I
believe Richard is planning to propose an agenda item for it on the i18n WG
call today. But anyway certainly there shall be active liaise-ing with i18n
folk on this API. If you believe we need to capture that in the charter
then I can work with the chairs to make sure we do that.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

2012-02-07 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de, 2012-02-01 12:25 +0100:

 On 2012-01-03 13:39, Arthur Barstow wrote:
 On 12/29/11 8:48 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
 I note that
 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Websockets-Comments-LC-29Sep2011
 claims this was addressed but it was not.
 
 (In the meantime the reference additionally is out-of-date as RFC 6455
 has been published a few days later, and not waiting with publishing
 the CR is a sort-of embarasssing #FAIL of W3C/IETF coordination).
 
 The above is captured in bug 15400.
 
 But apparently hard to fix.

Not hard, but just slipped through the cracks until now due to it not
getting on my radar. But it's fixed in CVS now, and the spec should get
regenerated within the next couple of days.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Enabling a Web app to override auto rotation?

2012-02-07 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
About portrait-landscape auto rotation on current mobile/tablet
browsers/platforms: If a user has auto rotation set on their mobile or
tablet, I know it's possible for a particular native application to
override that setting and stay in whatever screen orientation it wants.

My question is if it is currently possible for a Web application to do the
same thing; that is, to prevent the browser on the device from
auto-rotating into a different mode. 

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: Enabling a Web app to override auto rotation?

2012-02-07 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Tobie Langel to...@fb.com, 2012-02-08 07:17 +:

 There's no current spec for this, but it's on our plate:
 
 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges#Additions_Agreed

Thanks for the link and I see that links to mail from Robin a week ago. Now
embarrassed that I'm not caught up on my public-webapps list mail :) (Been
away working on some other things for over the last week.)

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: Speech Recognition and Text-to-Speech Javascript API - seeking feedback for eventual standardization

2012-01-11 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi, 2012-01-09 18:12 +0200:

 It doesn't matter too much to me in which group the API will be developed
 (except that I'm against doing it in HTML WG).
 WebApps is reasonably good place (if there won't be any IP issues.)

Starting the work in a Community Group is another option to consider. A
really good option, actually. It's certainly the quickest way to get it
started and to get a W3C draft actually published, and the route that would
entail the least amount of unnecessary process overhead. The work could
later be graduated to, e.g., the WebApps WG if/when needed.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: Speech Recognition and Text-to-Speech Javascript API - seeking feedback for eventual standardization

2012-01-11 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Satish S sat...@google.com, 2012-01-11 10:04 +:

 The Community Groups [1] page says they are for anyone to socialize their
 ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization.

I don't think that page adequately describes the potential value of the
Community Group option. A CG can be used for much more than just
socializing ideas for some hope of standardization someday.

 The HTML Speech Incubator Group has done a considerable amount of work and
 the final report [2] is quite detailed with requirements, use cases and API
 proposals. Since we are interested in transitioning to the standards track
 now, working with the relevant WGs seems more appropriate than forming a
 new Community Group.

I can understand you seeing it that way, but I hope you can also understand
me saying that I'm not at all sure it's more appropriate for this work.

I think everybody could agree that the point is not just to produce a spec
that is nominally on the W3C standards track. Having something on the W3C
standards track doesn't necessarily do anything magical to ensure that
anybody actually implements it.

I think we all want is to for Web-platform technologies to actually get
implemented across multiple browsers, interoperably -- preferably sooner
rather than later. Starting from the WG option is not absolutely always the
best way to cause that to happen. It is almost certainly not the best way
to ensure it will get done more quickly.

You can start up a CG and have the work formally going on within that CG in
a matter of days, literally. In contrast, getting it going formally as a
deliverable within a WG requires a matter of months.

Among the things that are valuable about formal deliverables in WGs is that
they get you RF commitments from participants in the WG. But one thing that
I think not everybody understands about CGs is that they also get you RF
commitments from participants in the CG; everybody in the CG has to agree
to the terms of the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement -

  http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/

Excerpt: I agree to license my Essential Claims under the W3C CLA RF
Licensing Requirements. This requirement includes Essential Claims that I own

Anyway, despite what it may seem like from what I've said above, I'm not
trying to do a hard sell here. It's up to you all what you choose to do.
But I would like to help make sure you're making a fully informed decision
based on what the actual benefits and costs of the different options are.

  --Mike

 [1] http://www.w3.org/community/about/#cg
 [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech/

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: Speech Recognition and Text-to-Speech Javascript API - seeking feedback for eventual standardization

2012-01-11 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org, 2012-01-11 20:36 +0900:

 Satish S sat...@google.com, 2012-01-11 10:04 +:
 
  The Community Groups [1] page says they are for anyone to socialize their
  ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization.
 
 I don't think that page adequately describes the potential value of the
 Community Group option. A CG can be used for much more than just
 socializing ideas for some hope of standardization someday.
 
  The HTML Speech Incubator Group has done a considerable amount of work and
  the final report [2] is quite detailed with requirements, use cases and API
  proposals. Since we are interested in transitioning to the standards track
  now, working with the relevant WGs seems more appropriate than forming a
  new Community Group.

Another data point to consider is, we have a precedent of a CG that's
already far along with work on a spec that already has multiple
implementations: The Web Media Text Tracks CG, which is working on the
WebVTT format for text tracks (captions, subtitles, etc.) for HTML video:

  http://www.w3.org/community/texttracks/

They're well beyond the stage of documenting use cases and requirements and
providing proposals; they already have a complete spec:

  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/

And the WebVTT spec is already implemented in IE10 and partially in WebKit,
with active implementation work continuing -

  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh673566.aspx#WebVTT
  https://bugs.webkit.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=43668hide_resolved=1

That CG was started only a little over 3 months ago. So it is in fact
possible for a CG to be producing work that's actually already getting
actively implemented in current browsers.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+



Re: Overview of W3C technologies for mobile Web applications

2011-05-12 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Dominique Hazael-Massieux d...@w3.org, 2011-05-12 10:41 +0200:

 Since I've received at least one offer to help keeping the page up to
 date if moved to a wiki, I've moved a copy of the document above to the
 wiki page at
 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Standards_for_Web_Applications_on_Mobile
 
 In the upcoming two weeks, I'll bring a number of updates to the
 document for a new stable release at this of the month. Any help in
 bringing the document up to date will be very welcomed!

I have some things I think probably need adding, and realize the point is
that it's a wiki and I can add to it myself, but I probably can't make the
time to add anything this week. So for now at least, I just want to note
the following other wiki page:

  http://www.w3.org/wiki/BrowserTechnologies

...and I want to say it if you or anybody else has time to add relevant
specs from there, I think there probably are some that aren't included in
your page yet but probably should be.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: [webstorage] Moving Web Storage back to Last Call WD

2011-02-17 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch, 2011-02-14 10:13 +:

 On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
  
  What high priority work must be done such that this spec is ready to be
  re-published as a new Last Call Working draft?
 
 Tab, do you know of anything that is blocking redoing an LC?
 
 (Personally I'm fine with it going to REC yesterday, so...)
 
  Bugzilla shows no open bugs for this spec

I just now raised a new one:

  spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation 
behavior
  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Testing Requirements

2011-02-17 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
James Graham jgra...@opera.com, 2011-02-17 11:04 +0100:

 On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
 
 (I see that Art documented most of this in
 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements but thought
 this ought to be confirmed on the list)
 
 Is there some way to make put this documentation in some common location
 rather than having essentially the same facts documented once for HTML, once
 for WebApps, etc.?

I just now set up a Wiki page at this URL:

  http://www.w3.org/wiki/TestInfra/goals

That page is editable by anyone with a W3C user account.

The existing content there used to be at 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebBrowserTestSuite

Perhaps we can either merge the content at 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing
and http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements into that
page, or we can set up further subpages and add links to them on that goals 
page.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: File API and Directory API feedback

2011-02-11 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com, 2011-02-10 16:55 -0800:

 On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
  Is there somewhere that such issues should be filed?
 
 I'm not sure about the File API--it used to use [2], but I'm not sure
 if it still does.
 I've got [3] for FileWriter and [4] for FileSystem.  I'd appreciate
 any issues you'd care to log.

If you care to use bugzilla, I've created components for FileWriter and
FileSystem in the WebApps product in the W3C bugzilla:

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=WebAppsWG

Eric, if you create a W3C bugzilla account (and give me a heads-up after),
I'll set you as the default assignee for those components.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: File API and Directory API feedback

2011-02-11 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com, 2011-02-11 15:10 -0800:

 Michael, thanks.  However, I chose to use the tracker originally since
 that's what the File API was using.  I'd rather not have 2 different
 places to log issues.  If there's a strong reason I should move to
 Bugzilla, let me know, but otherwise I think we should remove those
 components.

The reason is that only members of the group can raise issues in the
tracker. So bugzilla is useful if you want to enable public commenters to
raise issues.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: [Web Workers] Bug filed and general question

2011-01-20 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Hi Drew,

 @2011-01-20 16:44 -0800:
 I'm also curious about this - I wrote a set of tests for SharedWorkers for
 WebKit that cover some of the subtler points around worker lifetime that I'm
 suspecting other implementations would find useful, and I'm guessing that
 there are tests from other implementations that would expose bugs in WebKit
 which would be useful to shake out sooner rather than later.
 
 I'm not certain if a test suite is a typical W3C deliverable, though, or if
 an external suite maintained by a third party (ala Acid) is the way to go?

You're encouraged to check the tests into the W3C mercurial repo:

  hg clone https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps

There is a tests subdir there, and I just set up a submissions subdir
under that.

  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/file/tip/tests/submission/
  http://test.w3.org/webapps/tests/submission/

The convention we've been following for test submissions for the HTML WG is
to have subdirs under that whose names are, e.g., DrewWilson

So you are welcome to create such a subdir there in that repo, and free to
manage files and subdirectories under that however you wish. The long-term
plan is of course to take tests in those submission subdirs and, as they
get reviewed and approved, migrate them into becoming part of a central,
approved testsuite maintained in that same repo.

  --Mike

If you want to do this and you have any trouble with the getting the new
directory and its contents pushed to that repo, please contact me directly
and let me know.  You can reach me on #whatwg on irc.freenode.net pretty
much any time I'm actually awake, or also feel free to e-mail me directly.

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: IndexedDB - renaming

2010-06-14 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com, 2010-06-10 10:32 -0700:

 Also, we need to redirect from the CVS version of the draft to
 the Mercurial version, since we are going to be maintaining only
 the Mercurial version. This version can be found at:
 
 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

I've just now set up that redirect. Let me know if you find any
problems with it

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: [IndexedDB] Bug/enhancement requests

2010-04-20 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
There is not really a single detailed W3C policy that's been
mandated for processing spec feedback. It's basically up to each
individual working group to determine the specific details for
what works best for them.

That said, the HTML WG has a documented Decision Policy document
that outlines the process that group uses -

  http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

WebApps WG editors could consider adapting that policy to their
own processing of feedback. One nice feature of it is that it can
be used for handling of comments for Last Call rounds (not just
for normal Working Drafts or Editors Drafts) -- and, eventually,
for generating the Disposition of Comments reports necessary for
exiting from Last Call.

  --Mike

Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com, 2010-04-19 23:29 -0700:

 Hi folks,
 
 I am excited to see all the discussion lately around IndexedDB as well as the 
 attention it is receiving from multiple implementors.
 
 In order to have a sane process around processing feedback and keeping track 
 of progress, may I request you to please use the W3 issue tracking system 
 [1], when possible?
 
 This will greatly assist all of us in our efforts to improve IndexedDB and 
 track the editor's processing of your feedback.
 
 I am not sure what the W3C process is for processing feedback, but I will 
 endeavor to collect everything there and process it accordingly.
 
 Regards,
 Nikunj
 
 [1] 
 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=WebAppsWGcomponent=WebSimpleDB
 

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike



Re: Renaming WebDatabase and WebSimpleDB

2009-11-30 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Hi Nikunj,

 @2009-11-26 02:00 -0800:
[...]
  Here's my suggestion:
 
  1. WebDatabase be renamed to WebSQLDatabase
  2. WebSimpleDB be renamed to ISAM Database Level 1

I don't think ISAM Database Level 1 is an improvement.

As an alternative title, I suggest Web Key-Value Database.

As far as what's wrong with ISAM Database Level 1: For one
thing, the term ISAM is not actually mentioned anywhere in the
text of the current draft itself. Also, I would wonder whether
most people in this group and on this mailing list know what
ISAM is. I didn't. I had to look it up to see what it means. I
think it would be preferable to have a title that doesn't
reference a technology term that'll be obscure to most readers.

I also suggest not including Level 1 in the title unless/until
we also publish a Level 2 draft.

And as far as the Web part of the title, the benefit of retaining
that in the title is that it's a convention that's developed as a
shorthand to indicate that a draft is for a technology that's
intended to be part of the Web platform -- and to be implemented
in Web clients/user-agents -- as opposed to being something
intended to be implemented on the server side, or as opposed to
something intended to be implemented for some other purpose than
for delivering and interacting with content on the Web.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: Renaming WebDatabase and WebSimpleDB

2009-11-30 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org, 2009-11-30 14:46 -0800:

 I agree with Mike, but I'd also note that Web Key-Value Database could
 easily be confused with WebStorage given that it also uses a Key-Value
 model.

True but we know the distinction is that Web Storage does not use
a database. Or I guess to put it more precisely, it's not exposed
to applications as a database. I do realize that to casual readers
that distinction might not be obvious to readers. But we always
have a tradeoff between, on the one hand, trying to make spec
titles precise, and on the other hand, keeping the titles concise.
I think the Storage vs. Database distinction is one that makes a
pretty good tradeoff.

 Which brings up another point:  Maybe WebStorage should be renamed as well?

I don't think we should unless somebody can come up with a concise
way of qualifying it more. I guess Web Local and Session Storage
might be more precise, but I'm not sure whether most people would
consider that an improvement.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: Renaming WebDatabase and WebSimpleDB

2009-11-30 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-11-30 16:49 -0800:

[...]
  A generic term could mean something too broad and a specific term might be 
  arcane. To the extent that the arcane term is the most used for a certain 
  meaning and can be easily understood by readers with minimal help, the 
  specific term sounds more useful. Would you agree that it was easy to 
  understand what ISAM means when you spend 5 minutes reading the Wikipedia 
  article on ISAM [1]?

Sure. But I don't think from that it necessarily follows that
having ISAM is the best thing to have in the title.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



seeking an editor for Web DOM Core draft

2009-10-12 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Simon Pieters put together a draft of a Web DOM Core spec
some time ago but currently lacks the cycles to serve as the
primary owner/editor for it going forward.

  http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core

To get an idea of the intended scope of the document, see the
current set of interface definitions it contains:

  http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core#interfaces

...and see also the Issues list at the beginning of the draft:

  http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core#issues

If you think you or someone else from your organization might have
time and interest in taking over ownership/editorship of that
draft, please let me or Doug Schepers know.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [WebStorage] Property enumeration and checking presence

2009-07-01 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-06-30 14:54 -0700:

  On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
 
  Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-06-30 09:12 -0700:
  I was inquiring about the term property enumeration
 
  I think in this case it means iterating over the Storage object to
  get a list of all its properties.
 
  Similarly, I also wanted to know the
  meaning of checking the presence of a property.
 
  I think in Javascript terms at least, it means using the in
  operator to check if the Storage object has a particular property.
 
  Is the spec complete in regards to this and does it need to clarify what is 
  meant by these two conditions?

If it is unclear to you, I'd say it's likely to be unclear to some
others. So I think it might be worth taking time to suggest that
the editor consider how to clarify it -- which you can do either
be posting a message to this list, or by raising it as an issue in
the W3C bugzilla for the group:

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=WebAppsWG

  I would imagine that these are special ECMAScript cases, am I
  right?

Yeah, it does seem to me at least that as currently worded at
least, they're specific to ECMA/Javascript.

   --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [WebStorage] Property enumeration and checking presence

2009-06-30 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-06-29 11:04 -0700:

  There is a requirement to obtain the storage mutex prior to performing 
  Storage interface operations on the localStorage DOM attribute.
 
  Section 3.4 asks for obtaining the storage mutex during property 
  enumeration, although this term is not used anywhere else in the document. 
  Similarly, it is not clear what is meant by when checking for the presence 
  of a property that is any different from the getItem() method.

The terms storage mutex and obtain storage mutex are defined
in the HTML5 draft:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#storage-mutex
  http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#obtain-the-storage-mutex

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [cors] TAG request concerning CORS Next Step(s)

2009-06-24 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Henry S. Thompson h...@inf.ed.ac.uk, 2009-06-24 18:22 +0100:

 Jonas Sicking writes:
 
  As Anne pointed out, others have also deployed partial support. In
  fact, relatively speaking, CORS has seen an extraordinary amount of
  browser deployment already.
 
 One point of clarification: my (admittedly imperfect) understanding
 was that the most important parts of CORS have to be implemented
 _server_-side for the proposal to achieve its goals.  If that's true,
 browser deployment alone is insufficient.  Is that a misunderstanding
 on my part?

It's not true.

The spec was explicitly designed with a goal of minimizing any
server-side changes that would need to be made to enable it.

Some of the relevant requirements:

  - Must be deployable to IIS and Apache without requiring actions
by the server administrator in a configuration where the user
can upload static files, run serverside scripts (such as PHP,
ASP, and CGI), control headers, and control authorization, but
only do this for URLs under a given set of subdirectories on
the server.

  - Must be able to deploy support for cross-origin GET requests
without having to use server-side scripting (such as PHP, ASP,
or CGI) on IIS and Apache.

  - Must not require that the server filters the entity body of
the resource in order to deny cross-origin access to all
resources on the server.

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-24 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-06-24 17:13 -0700:

  I want to raise two formal points of order about the manner in which this WG 
  has operated, particularly in respect to Web Storage.
 
  1. Charter
  2. Process
 
  Firstly, no one seriously responds to proposals about things that are 
  officially in the WG's charter.

That's not true.

If you believe that's been the case with a specific proposal, then
let's please talk about that specific proposal instead of turning
this into a process discussion.

  If there is inadequate interest, then we should get rid of the
  responsibility from this WG's charter.

If there's inadequate interest in *a particular proposal* from
other members of the group -- particularly among the vendors who
would be expected to implement it -- then that would be a pretty
good indicator that an investment of the already-constrained
resources of the group into trying harder to move that the
proposal forward might not be an investment that's likely to pay
off for us well as a group (in terms of actually being successful
at getting it implemented in UAs).

  On the other hand, if Web Storage and related matters are in
  this WG's charter based on this WG's agreement, there should be
  feedback from its members,

As far as I can see, that's already happening.

  and at least substantive discussions by its appointed editors.

First off, Ian is not an appointed editor for the Web Storage
draft. He's the editor of that particular draft by virtue of the
fact that he's the one wrote it. But the fact that he wrote it
and contributed it to the group does not magically bless it nor
necessarily give it any position of special entitlement in the
group. If you or any other member wants to contribute a related or
alternative draft and check it into the group's document
repository, you are very much encouraged to do so. We can then
continue with discussion about it -- with a status of Editor's
Draft in the group -- up to the point where we decide if/when we
decide as a group that we want to transition it to a First Public
Working Draft.

  If the editor is uninterested,

There is no the editor. There are *editors*, and Hixie is *an*
editor of *a* particular draft. Editors do not get appointed by
the chairs. As far as I can recall, we have never in this group
nor in either of its ancestor groups ever appointed someone to be
*the* editor. What has happened instead is that people have
stepped forward with drafts to contribute and expressed commitment
to editing those and managing discussion about them

That is the way things have always worked in this group.

  then I expect the chair to argue whether something seems to
  fall outside the charter's scope and provide reasoning for the
  same.

It's not the necessary for the chair to do that in order for
discussion and editing work on a particular draft to proceed. We
can have a specification in Editor's Draft and do anything we want
with it -- up to the point where it's time to decide as a group if
we want to transition it to FPWD. We can then evaluate whether our
charter permits us to publish it or not. If the existing charter
doesn't, then we can ask to amend the charter.

  If none of the chairs are interested, then we have a bigger
  problem.

What precisely would that bigger problem be? As far as I can see,
at this point, I think the case is that we may have one specific
proposal that you believe has not received adequate attention from
the group. If that's not the case, what other specific proposals
are you aware of that we have had problems with?

But if it is the case that the issue really is with one specific
proposal, I really wish we could discuss that one specific
proposal instead of making a process issue out of this.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



dev.w3.org CVS access [was: Why I don't attend the weekly teleconference]

2009-06-23 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch, 2009-06-24 00:10 +:

 I believe the working group's team contact can provide you with CVS 
 access if you want to commit a draft to dev.w3.org.

Yes, we can set up dev.w3.org CVS access for any member of the
working group who wants to have it. The authentication is
SSH2-based, so what we would need from you is an SSH2 public key
(either RSA or DSA, doesn't matter).

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



July 2008 f2f meeting minutes now publicly accessible

2009-06-18 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Almost one year ago now, we had a face-to-face meeting in Redmond
that focused primarily on the CORS spec. Due to simple sloth and
neglectfulness, we had left the permissions on the minutes such
that they were member-only. But they are now publicly accessible:

  http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-wam-minutes.html
  http://www.w3.org/2008/07/02-wam-minutes.html
  http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-wam-minutes.html

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



W3C and APIs writeup from TAG members

2009-06-18 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
For those on this list who are not also on the www-tag list, this
is just a heads-up that there's an informal draft document --
titled W3C and APIS -- that's likely to be of some potential
interest to people following the WebApps WG work. It was written
by Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, and (I think) Jonathan Rees,
and the current version of it is here:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/att-0085/W3C_and_APIs.htm

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [widgets] Digsig namespace document

2009-03-31 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com, 2009-03-31 18:47 +0200:

 Hi,
 MikeSmith requested I create a preliminary document for the widgets
 digsig namespace. Please find it at:
  http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ns/index.html
 
 We still need to define a few things there... The document  will
 eventually end up at:
 http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets-digsig

Actually, it's there now. We can update it later as needed.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [widgets] Updates FPWD published

2008-10-10 Thread Michael(tm) Smith

Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-10-10 10:38 +0300:

  On Oct 10, 2008, at 01:44, Marcos Caceres wrote:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-updates/
 [...]
  The Editor's Draft link points to the Editor's Draft of another spec.

Fixed

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [XHR] Some comments on charset in the Content-Type header

2008-09-19 Thread Michael(tm) Smith

Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-09-19 09:35 -0400:

  Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#send
 
  Oh, right.  I keep forgetting that the spec actually on the main W3C site 
  has no bearing on reality...  Is there a good reason it's there at all?  :(

It's intended in part to be a way to keep all our law-abiding
citizen readers in the general public informed about what progress
if any the group is making on the spec. Those of us who are
actually members of the Mongols, Boozefighters, Bandidos, or other
MCs should always follow the editor's draft instead.

I hope that clears things up.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [XHR] Some comments on charset in the Content-Type header

2008-09-19 Thread Michael(tm) Smith

Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-09-19 10:44 -0400:

  Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
  It's intended in part to be a way to keep all our law-abiding
  citizen readers in the general public informed about what progress
  if any the group is making on the spec.
 
  But if the information is months out of date, is it useful?  Seems to me 
  that it would be better to just make the editor's draft public and be done 
  with it.

Would that we could... Anyway, the Editor's Draft is called that
because that's what it is. It's not called, say, the Working Group
Draft because that's not what it is. It's a version of the spec
that represents the latest change made by the editor and which may
or may not have been reviewed at all by the group. In fact it's
main purpose is to provide some text for the working group to
actually review prior to publication. I'm not sure most people in
the group would agree that they'd like the latest Editor's Draft
to be published on the W3C as something representing the agreement
of the group.

Anyway, we can mitigate the out-of-datedeness issue somewhat by
working harder to try to follow the W3C publish-a-real-WD-from-the-
group-at-least-once-every-3-months heartbeat requirement. But
that also is actually a lot easier said than done.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [XHR] Some comments on charset in the Content-Type header

2008-09-19 Thread Michael(tm) Smith

Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-09-19 15:51 +0100:

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  But if the information is months out of date, is it useful?  Seems to me
  that it would be better to just make the editor's draft public and be done
  with it.
 
 Exactly. Though I still see a place of /TR/ docs in the WD phase. But
 we definitely need something like:
 
 **
 * THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE OUT OF DATE   *
 *-=aways check the latest editor's draft =- *
 **
 
 (1337 ASCII art optional :P )

+1!!

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



Re: [XHR] Some comments on charset in the Content-Type header

2008-09-19 Thread Michael(tm) Smith

Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-09-19 15:46 +0100:

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Michael(tm) Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-09-19 09:35 -0400:
   Anne van Kesteren wrote:
 http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#send
 
   Oh, right.  I keep forgetting that the spec actually on the main W3C site
   has no bearing on reality...  Is there a good reason it's there at all?  
  :(
 
  It's intended in part to be a way to keep all our law-abiding
  citizen readers in the general public informed about what progress
  if any the group is making on the spec. Those of us who are
  actually members of the Mongols, Boozefighters, Bandidos, or other
  MCs should always follow the editor's draft instead.
 
 This does bring up the wider issue of the importance of Editor's
 drafts. I think more emphasis should be put on the standard W3C
 template for WDs to point to an editor's draft (if one is publicaly
 available). Most specs get grossly outdated within a few days of
 publication on the TR page.

OK, that's something that's somewhat actionable and so something I
might be able to actually get done.

We already have a small amount of flexibility in the design of WDs
we publish. If somebody with half a lick of design sense (i.e.,
not me) can come up with a good way to represent that emphasis you
describe above without totally fubarring up the current titlepage
design, we might be able to actually get it done. Something other
than ASCII art, I mean. Or marquee or blink (as fond as I am
personally of those).

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



old WAF WG wiki to be deleted; save your content

2008-09-10 Thread Michael(tm) Smith

This is just a heads-up to let everybody know that the old Web
Application Formats WG wiki at http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/
will be deleted at the beginning of next week. If you have any
content there that you don't want to lose, you'll need to manually
copy it over to the current Web Apps WG wiki:

  http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Main_Page

Other than some meeting agendas that we had in the WAF WG, I've
not been able to find anything else there that it seems like we
need to save -- and it has otherwise become a spam magnet -

  http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/group/RecentChanges

...so we won't be migrating it in whole over to the current
MediaWiki-based Wiki (as we are doing with some of the other older
MoinMoin-based ones).

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/



heads-up: /2006/webapi/Binding4DOM moved to /2006/webapi/WebIDL

2008-06-29 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
I just now moved the /2006/webapi/Binding4DOM directory on the
dev.w3.org CVS server to /2006/webapi/WebIDL.

  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/

So you might get some warnings or other unexpected cvs client
behavior if/when you got update your /2006/webapi working
directory. To prevent that, you might want to just check in any
pending changes you have in your local working directory, then
move your existing webapi directory to webapi-old (or something),
then check out a fresh copy of the whole directory. That is:

  cd 2006
  cvs commit webapi
  mv webapi webapi-old
  cvs update -dP webapi

If you do run into any cvs client problems that you can't figure
out, please let me know right away.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Re: Agenda and logistics...

2008-06-24 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Hi Sunava,

 @2008-06-24 15:51 -0700:
 I noticed a number of people are flying out on the 3rd. If the
 2nd is a better alternative for dinner please let Chris and I
 know.

Seems like the 2nd is probably better if we want to make it
likely for more people to attend. So maybe we should go ahead and
plan on the 2nd if that works for you guys.

  --Mike

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-webapps-
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sunava Dutta
  Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:22 PM
  To: Charles McCathieNevile; Webapps; Chris Wilson
  Subject: RE: Agenda and logistics...
 
  Thanks for the info. Chris is working on getting us signed up before
  the meeting!
  Meanwhile, I'm fine with a Tues noon start.
  I've also requested we discuss our feedback on AC on Tuesday as Eric,
  our security PM is out of office Wed and Thursday. Let me know what we
  finally decide on both topics.
 
  Meanwhile, may I suggest we have a solid dinner to mark the end of the
  F2F and the July 4th weekend courtesy the IE team? (I can personally
  vouch for the place)
 
  Here's what I propose, let me know if there's anything else attendees
  would prefer?
 
  http://www.maggianos.com/foodbeverage/default.asp?menu=Family%20Style%2
  0Dinner
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-webapps-
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
   Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:24 AM
   To: Webapps
   Cc: Sunava Dutta
   Subject: Agenda and logistics...
  
  
   Hi folks,
  
   the agenda and logistics page for the meeting will be shortly
  available
   to
   working group members (Sunava, can you please ask your AC rep to
  ensure
   that you guys have joined by the time we have the meeting?).
  
   I have one question - although I am the chair, and the co-chair is
  not
   going to be available for this meeting, I am unable to be there for
  the
   first morning since I will be taking a horror flight from Boston and
   arriving at SEA-TAC just after 10am inshallah.
  
   I am equally happy to have someone else chair the meeting in my
  absence
   (that's something we expect Staff contacts to be able to do...) or to
   postpone the start until lunchtime, depending on how people feel.
  
   The agenda for the meeting is pretty basic, covering XHR1 and XHR2
  with
   Access Control, and the issues raised in MS' review of XHR2.
  
   Hopefully Mike will manage the right W3C mojo soon and announce the
   page
   with the information.
  
   Cheers
  
   Chaals
  

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


FW: [Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events]

2008-06-17 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
 is it good to have a new tag imgbrand
that renders the src as 100x100. You simply use the existing img
tag and modify it to your specific case.

Again, that is *only my opinion*, and final word on the subject.

Gareth

Content-Description: Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events (fwd)
To: Gareth Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martijn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:03:37 +0100
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.10 (Win32)
Cc: WHATWG List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events


On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:35:57 +0100, Gareth Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 For instance, if you had a 'branding' image for your web sites, and it
 is always 100px x 100px, that is not good for you to have a new
 attribute on the img tag for 'branding', so that the image is always
 rendered 100x100, nor is it good to have a new tag imgbrand that
 renders the src as 100x100. You simply use the existing img tag and
 modify it to your specific case.

FWIW: The proposal here is not entirely new. Internet Explorer supports
these events.


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/

Content-Description: Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events (fwd)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:29:31 +
From: Rob Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events


Gareth Hay wrote:
 Maybe your use case requires something different, but I can't imagine
 that scenario.

I ran across this issue the other day, and found this explanation /
example which may help clarify the issues people encounter:

http://dynamic-tools.net/toolbox/isMouseLeaveOrEnter/

Rob

Content-Description: Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events (fwd)
From: Gareth Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:45:27 +
To: Rob Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events


It's not a case of not understanding. I fully understand the use case
and bubbling, I just don't see this as a problem.

On 16 Mar 2007, at 12:29, Rob Crowther wrote:

 Gareth Hay wrote:
 Maybe your use case requires something different, but I can't
 imagine that scenario.

 I ran across this issue the other day, and found this explanation /
 example which may help clarify the issues people encounter:

 http://dynamic-tools.net/toolbox/isMouseLeaveOrEnter/

 Rob




- End forwarded message -

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Re: FW: [Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events]

2008-06-17 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Magnus Kristiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-06-17 12:19 +0200:

 Bjoern Hoehrmann did write a reply[1].

OK, thanks -- I seemed to have have missed that somehow.

 My recap: It clarified some technical misconceptions on my part. Also  
 confirmed that there is demand for the events and that the existing  
 solutions are exceedingly complicated.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008May/0111.html

OK, so I guess we ought to decide where we go with this next. Take
it up as an issue for the group? Assign somebody an action?
Something else?

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Re: New Progress Events editor's draft

2008-06-17 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Hi Mark,

You can find the editor's draft of the progress-events doc here:

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html

That's actually a direct link to the latest CVS source, so if/when
it gets updated, it'll be immediately available there.

Note that all of the Web API WG drafts are in this tree:

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/

And the WAF WG drafts (including Access-Control spec) are here:

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/

Regards,

  --Mike

Mark Birbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-06-17 11:08 +0100:

 Hi Chaals,
 
 Would you mind providing the link? I'm sure it's in an easy to find
 place, but I'm not yet familiar with the spec locations yet.
 
 Thanks.
 
 Mark
 
 On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Hi folks,
 
  I have produced a new editor's draft [1] that incorporates a bunch of the
  feedback I have on the Public Working Draft. It notes, rather than provides
  a resolution for, the new (or recycled) issues I raised on defining an
  eventType for document.createEvent and on where to define what parts of the
  message are counted towards counting content. There are some known things to
  clean up still.
 
  Feedback welcome as always and should be sent to this list.
 
  cheers
 
  Chaals
 
  --
  Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
 je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
  http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
 
 webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
 London, EC2A 4RR)
 

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Re: Seeking earlier feedback from MS [Was: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests]

2008-06-13 Thread Michael(tm) Smith
Sunava Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-06-13 14:36 -0700:

 [Sunava Dutta] We're kind of heads down in our development cycle
 with IE8 and the F2F is the first opportunity to discuss this at
 length.  Personally, I have other urgent pending standards
 related items in HTML 5.0 and Web Apps that I'll be having to
 attend to.

I don't find that acceptable. Everyone in the group has been
waiting for your long-delayed detailed comments with the
expectation that they would read them, evaluate them, and then
respond to them in the same way that they read and respond to any
other comments posted to the discussion.

You've yet to actually even deliver the comments to the group in
a way that makes it possible for members of the group to even read
them at all. You've missed the deadline you agreed to initially
(June 6) and also have missed the adjusted date you committed to
providing them (Tuesday or Wednesday this week at the latest).

When you do finally provide them to the group in the way that
you've been asked to (that is, without requiring members to agree
to a license in order just to read them, and in plain text or HTML
or short of that, as a PDF attachment), just dropping the comments
on the group and then saying that you have no plans to discuss
them at length during the next two weeks is not going to work.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature