Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Scott Wilson]

On 14 May 2013, at 15:00, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 at 14:32, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
>> Scott indicated [1] Wookie implemented Widget Updates and Chaals 
>> indicated [2] he would followup with Opera but I couldn't find a 
>> response from them in the list archive.
>> 
>> Do we have two (complete?) implementations of the spec? Opera, Richard?
>> 
>> It's not clear to me if we should drop this spec (i.e. publish as a WG 
>> Note) or if there are sufficient resource commitments to continue to 
>> advance it along the REC track.
>> 
>> Marcos - what is the status of the test suite 
>> ? (The 
>> Implementation Report doesn't look good 
>> .)
>> 
>> -AB
>> 
>> [1] 
>> 
>> [2] 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Unless someone else wants to take this, I suggest we just publish as a note. 

Well, we implemented it and it works, but I'd be fine with it being published 
as a Note.

> 
> 
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Rich Tibbett]

On May 14, 2013, at 11:00 PM, Marcos Caceres  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 at 14:32, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
>> Scott indicated [1] Wookie implemented Widget Updates and Chaals 
>> indicated [2] he would followup with Opera but I couldn't find a 
>> response from them in the list archive.
>> 
>> Do we have two (complete?) implementations of the spec? Opera, Richard?
>> 
>> It's not clear to me if we should drop this spec (i.e. publish as a WG 
>> Note) or if there are sufficient resource commitments to continue to 
>> advance it along the REC track.
>> 
>> Marcos - what is the status of the test suite 
>> ? (The 
>> Implementation Report doesn't look good 
>> .)
>> 
>> -AB
>> 
>> [1] 
>> 
>> [2] 
>> 
> 
> Unless someone else wants to take this, I suggest we just publish as a note. 

Publishing this as a WG note works for me.

- Rich

Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Marcos Caceres]

On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 at 14:32, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Scott indicated [1] Wookie implemented Widget Updates and Chaals 
> indicated [2] he would followup with Opera but I couldn't find a 
> response from them in the list archive.
> 
> Do we have two (complete?) implementations of the spec? Opera, Richard?
> 
> It's not clear to me if we should drop this spec (i.e. publish as a WG 
> Note) or if there are sufficient resource commitments to continue to 
> advance it along the REC track.
> 
> Marcos - what is the status of the test suite 
> ? (The 
> Implementation Report doesn't look good 
> .)
> 
> -AB
> 
> [1] 
> 
> [2] 
> 
> 

Unless someone else wants to take this, I suggest we just publish as a note. 


--
Marcos Caceres

Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Arthur Barstow]

Scott indicated [1] Wookie implemented Widget Updates and Chaals 
indicated [2] he would followup with Opera but I couldn't find a 
response from them in the list archive.


Do we have two (complete?) implementations of the spec? Opera, Richard?

It's not clear to me if we should drop this spec (i.e. publish as a WG 
Note) or if there are sufficient resource commitments to continue to 
advance it along the REC track.


Marcos - what is the status of the test suite 
? (The 
Implementation Report doesn't look good 
.)


-AB

[1] 

[2] 




On 10/20/12 8:12 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
For various reasons, a Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates was 
never published, although the CfC to do so passed and the ED is 
prepared as such [widget-updates].


Since no one has raised this as an issue, I would like feedback on 
what we should do with this spec. The main options are: 1) to stop 
work (and publish a WG Note); 2) to move forward with the CR.


I don'tthink it makes much sense to move the spec to CR if we do not 
have  commitments for at least two independent implementations of the 
CR. Therefore, Implementors should please speak up if they willcommit 
to implementing this CR.


-Thanks, AB

[widget-updates] 

 Original Message 
Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates; 
deadline May 2

Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:42:00 +
Resent-From: 
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:41:34 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow 
To: public-webapps 
CC: 



The comment deadline for the Widget Updates LCWD ended April 19. No
comments were submitted for that document so this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the spec using the LC
as the basis .

The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other
widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each
test case.

This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's
decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for
Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process 
Document:


http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs

Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is
May 2 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org.

-Thanks, AB

Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:37:51 +0200, Scott Wilson  
 wrote:




On 20 Oct 2012, at 13:12, Arthur Barstow wrote:

For various reasons, a Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates was  
never published, although the CfC to do so passed and the ED is  
prepared as such [widget-updates].


Since no one has raised this as an issue, I would like feedback on what  
we should do with this spec. The main options are: 1) to stop work (and  
publish a WG Note); 2) to move forward with the CR.


I don'tthink it makes much sense to move the spec to CR if we do not  
have  commitments for at least two independent implementations of the  
CR. Therefore, Implementors should please speak up if they willcommit  
to implementing this CR.


Its implemented in Apache Wookie from version 0.13.


It's implemented in Opera extensions, and in their extension server set  
up, although I don't have a lot more details to hand. I'll ask Opera if  
they can provide more info.


cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
  cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com

Re: [widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Scott Wilson]

On 20 Oct 2012, at 13:12, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> For various reasons, a Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates was never 
> published, although the CfC to do so passed and the ED is prepared as such 
> [widget-updates].
> 
> Since no one has raised this as an issue, I would like feedback on what we 
> should do with this spec. The main options are: 1) to stop work (and publish 
> a WG Note); 2) to move forward with the CR.
> 
> I don'tthink it makes much sense to move the spec to CR if we do not have  
> commitments for at least two independent implementations of the CR. 
> Therefore, Implementors should please speak up if they willcommit to 
> implementing this CR.

Its implemented in Apache Wookie from version 0.13.

> 
> -Thanks, AB
> 
> [widget-updates] 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject:  CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates; 
> deadline May 2
> Resent-Date:  Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:42:00 +
> Resent-From:  
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:41:34 -0400
> From: ext Arthur Barstow 
> To:   public-webapps 
> CC:   
> 
> 
> 
> The comment deadline for the Widget Updates LCWD ended April 19. No
> comments were submitted for that document so this is a Call for
> Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the spec using the LC
> as the basis .
> 
> The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other
> widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each
> test case.
> 
> This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's
> decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for
> Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process Document:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
> 
> Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
> considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is
> May 2 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org.
> 
> -Thanks, AB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

[widgets] Does anyone still care about Widget Updates?

[Arthur Barstow]

For various reasons, a Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates was 
never published, although the CfC to do so passed and the ED is prepared 
as such [widget-updates].


Since no one has raised this as an issue, I would like feedback on what 
we should do with this spec. The main options are: 1) to stop work (and 
publish a WG Note); 2) to move forward with the CR.


I don'tthink it makes much sense to move the spec to CR if we do not 
have  commitments for at least two independent implementations of the 
CR. Therefore, Implementors should please speak up if they willcommit to 
implementing this CR.


-Thanks, AB

[widget-updates] 

 Original Message 
Subject: 	CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Widget Updates; 
deadline May 2

Resent-Date:Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:42:00 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:41:34 -0400
From:   ext Arthur Barstow 
To: public-webapps 
CC: 



The comment deadline for the Widget Updates LCWD ended April 19. No
comments were submitted for that document so this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of the spec using the LC
as the basis .

The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other
widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each
test case.

This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's
decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for
Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process Document:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs

Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is
May 2 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps at w3.org.

-Thanks, AB