> The other feedback we received, seems to have been agreed on by the
> iplementers & WG but not documented in the spec.
Did I miss some sort of agreement on the last call comment in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0087.html
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public
On 1/4/13 4:35 PM, ext Israel Hilerio wrote:
We don't see the need to go back to LC. Most of the feedback was editorial. The
other feedback we received, seems to have been agreed on by the iplementers &
WG but not documented in the spec. We believe that addressing the bugs till the
end of J
On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>On 12/10/12 5:12 PM, ext Joshua Bell wrote:
>> Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an
>> editor has bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution
>> of the issues and implementations are already suffi
On 12/10/12 5:12 PM, ext Joshua Bell wrote:
Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an
editor has bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution
of the issues and implementations are already sufficiently
interoperable so that adoption is not being hindered by th
*crickets*
Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an editor has
bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution of the issues and
implementations are already sufficiently interoperable so that adoption is
not being hindered by the state of the spec, but should stil
It's been a month since we talked about the next publication steps for
the IDB spec (#Mins). Since then, I am not aware of any work on the
#LC-comments tracking. As such, here is a straw man proposal to move v1
forward: ...
* Forget about processing #LC-comments
* Mark all open #Bugsfor v.n
