Hi All,
Thanks for this analysis Xiaoqian.
Based on the differences, I think moving toward a 2nd edition REC seems
reasonable.
Re the next publication step, it seems like the next publication should
be a (4 week) wide review WD using Process-2014.
Re what to do with the 1st Edition errata
On 5/12/15 7:57 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
I don't think we need a CfC to publish a WD, right? We should just
publish it, and then open a CfC on the plan to move to 2nd edition
with these changes incorporated, and asking if there are other changes
we should include before we move ahead.
12.05.2015, 13:35, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com:
Hi All,
Thanks for this analysis Xiaoqian.
Based on the differences, I think moving toward a 2nd edition REC seems
reasonable.
Re the next publication step, it seems like the next publication should
be a (4 week) wide review WD
In this case we don't know if the spec is feature complete. We just know there
are things that need to be done.
If they turn out to be all that needs to be done the thing is feature complete,
and we ask for CR. If not, we hope to discover so now.
But then, it's not a big deal either way. It
Hi,
On 08 May 2015, at 19:58, Xiaoqian Wu xiaoq...@w3.org wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up, Anssi.
The diff between the REC and the latest Editor’s Draft[1] indicated at least
two normative changes, so I’d like to propose a second edition of Web
Storage. What do you say?
Here’s my
Thanks for bringing this up, Anssi.
The diff between the REC and the latest Editor’s Draft[1] indicated at least
two normative changes, so I’d like to propose a second edition of Web Storage.
What do you say?
Here’s my analysis for the current mutex. All your comments are welcome.
* ED L174,
