[webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?

2011-04-28 Thread Arthur Barstow

All,

What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs:

1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match 
implementation behavior

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111

2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user 
attacks

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272

3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could 
place wherever you want.

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090

Which of these must be addressed before the WG considers the spec LC-ready?

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [webstorage] Moving Web Storage back to Last Call WD
Date:   Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:19:51 +0900
From:   ext Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
CC: 	Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com, Tab Atkins Jr. 
jackalm...@gmail.com, public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org




Ian Hicksoni...@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: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?

2011-04-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
 
 What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs:
 
 1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match
 implementation behavior
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
 
 2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user attacks
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272
 
 3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place
 wherever you want.
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090

My plan is to address them in the order of they appear on this bug list:

   
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrshort_desc=long_desc_type=allwordssubstrlong_desc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=keywords_type=allwordskeywords=bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDemailassigned_to1=1emailtype1=exactemail1=ian%40hixie.chemailtype2=substringemail2=bugidtype=includebug_id=votes=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cmdtype=doitorder=Last+Changedfield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=

In recent weeks I've been focusing on multitrack video and video 
conferencing, but I have now returned to just going through feedback. A 
precise ETA depends mostly on how many interrupts I get dealing with 
politics in the HTML WG.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'



Re: [webstorage] Plan to address open Bugs?

2011-04-28 Thread Arthur Barstow
Well, I guess the good news is that (at the time of this writing), there 
aren't 355 bugs ;).


All - Inputs and proposals for these bugs are encouraged!

On Apr/28/2011 2:33 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:

What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs:

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

2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user attacks
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12272

3. Bug-12090; It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place
wherever you want.
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090

My plan is to address them in the order of they appear on this bug list:


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrshort_desc=long_desc_type=allwordssubstrlong_desc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=keywords_type=allwordskeywords=bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDemailassigned_to1=1emailtype1=exactemail1=ian%40hixie.chemailtype2=substringemail2=bugidtype=includebug_id=votes=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cmdtype=doitorder=Last+Changedfield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=

In recent weeks I've been focusing on multitrack video and video
conferencing, but I have now returned to just going through feedback. A
precise ETA depends mostly on how many interrupts I get dealing with
politics in the HTML WG.