On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:50:48 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on
public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR
process type discussions to another Public list.
I'm
On 7/6/11 5:49 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs?
If someone is interested in submitting fixes, they are welcome to contact
me, so that I can work with them to work out how we can get something set
up.
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:16:55 +0200, Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com
wrote:
The fix for the spec would be to drop the line
Once the end of the file is reached, the user agent must
dispatch the event one final time, as defined below.
For clarity something explicit could be added
If
Thanks Anne and Dan. I added your comments to bug 13071.
All - in addition to 13071, on July 6, Anne submitted 13155 and 13156
against this spec. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume the group wants to
block LC until all of these bugs are addressed.
As always, patches/fixes for open bugs are
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
prioritisation of the bug
Hi Hixie,
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
prioritisation of
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs?
If someone is interested in submitting fixes, they are welcome to contact
me, so that I can work with them to work out how we can get something set
up. There are a number of people who have
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on
public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR
process type discussions to another Public list.
I'm not asking to have a discussion about it at all; I'm asking that you
On 6 Jul 2011, at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Hixie,
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the
Since this thread was started, bug 13071 was filed against this spec
(the only open bug):
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Hixie - would you please provide a
FWIW I'm going to push for the Mozilla implementation to dispatch
only when an event is clearly terminated with a blank line (I filed
the bug). If EOF is encountered w/out a blank line it should be
considered an incomplete/corrupted event.
The fix for the spec would be to drop the line
Once
Hixie, All,
Ian responded [1] to the last set of Server-Sent Events comments I had
noted, and Bugzilla now reports Zarro Boogs [2] for this spec
(11835/Fixed, 11836/WontFix, 12411/Fixed, 12883/WontFix).
As such, this raises the question if the spec is ready for Last Call
Working Draft
12 matches
Mail list logo
