Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28
On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Are there any other open bugs, issues, comments, etc. for File API? https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDemail1=arun%40mozilla.comemailassigned_to1=1emailreporter1=1emailtype1=exactlist_id=30639 is the current list. Some came up on 12/15/2013 and are minor. Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume the group wants to address the above before a new Technical Report is published and depending on the outcome of these issues, the next publication could be a Last Call Working Draft or a Candidate Recommendation. I agree with this. -- A*
Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28
On 12/2/13 3:30 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote: On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and [23946] was filed on November 30. Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC? -Thanks, ArtB [23853] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 Timely implementor feedback will help close this one out. I will initiate a separate email thread about this issue. [23946] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23946 I don't believe this issue is accompanied with a strong enough use case, and think it likely that it will be marked WONTFIX during the timeframe of the CfC. Hi Arun, All, If anyone was wondering if a CR was published, the answer is no. My tally of new bugs and comments since this CfC started is: [[ * 24102 ; Specify the targets for events; filed by Ms2ger 15-Dec-2013 ; https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24102 * 24101 ; filed by Ms2ger 15-Dec-2013 ; Missing word in Return the readAsText() method, but continue to process the steps in this algorithm ; https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24101 * File API: closed Blob objects ; AvK 12-Dec-2013 ; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0991.html * File API | lastModified and Date attribute change ; Arun 2-Dec-2013 ; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0662.html * 23946 ; Lift the ban on query parts in “blob:” URIs ; filed by Manuel Strehl 30-Nov-2013 ; https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23946 * 23853 REOPENED by Arun on 28-Nov-2013 ; Please clarify the interpretation of the WebIDL undefined Date in the File constructor ; https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 ]] Are there any other open bugs, issues, comments, etc. for File API? Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume the group wants to address the above before a new Technical Report is published and depending on the outcome of these issues, the next publication could be a Last Call Working Draft or a Candidate Recommendation. -Thanks, ArtB
Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28
On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and [23946] was filed on November 30. Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC? -Thanks, ArtB [23853] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 Timely implementor feedback will help close this one out. I will initiate a separate email thread about this issue. [23946] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23946 I don't believe this issue is accompanied with a strong enough use case, and think it likely that it will be marked WONTFIX during the timeframe of the CfC. -- A*
Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28
Since this CfC was started, Arun reopened [23853] on November 28 and [23946] was filed on November 30. Arun - what's the plan here vis-à-vis this CfC? -Thanks, ArtB [23853] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 [23946] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23946 On 11/21/13 1:44 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, Arun completed processing the comments [Comments] for the Last Call version of File API [LCWD]. Although the comments resulted in changes to the spec (see [Diff]), no new features were added and the changes are considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the Constructor APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7]. Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR using the following version as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ 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. Note the Status of the Document section and References in the Draft CR need some changes. I propose 3 months as the minimal amount of time before we are ready to advance the spec to Propose Recommendation and I propose we re-use the CR exit criteria we used for the IDB CR: [[ During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends @T+3months, the WG will complete its test suite. Before this specification exits Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. The group will also create an Implementation Report. ]] If anyone has feedback regarding features that could be marked at risk, please speak up during this CfC. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is November 28 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps @ w3.org. -Thanks, ArtB [Comments] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/LCWD-FileAPI-20130912 [LCWD] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-FileAPI-20130912/ [Section-7] http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FWD-FileAPI-20130912%2Fdoc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2F2006%2Fwebapi%2FFileAPI%2F#file [Diff] http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FWD-FileAPI-20130912%2Fdoc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2F2006%2Fwebapi%2FFileAPI%2F
Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:44:29 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Hi All, Arun completed processing the comments [Comments] for the Last Call version of File API [LCWD]. Although the comments resulted in changes to the spec (see [Diff]), no new features were added and the changes are considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the Constructor APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7]. Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR using the following version as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ Please do. ... I propose 3 months as the minimal amount of time before we are ready to advance the spec to Propose Recommendation and I propose we re-use the CR exit criteria we used for the IDB CR: [[ During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends @T+3months, the WG will complete its test suite. Before this specification exits Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. I suggest s/each/every/ here just to disambiguate a bit more. But I can live with these as criteria. cheers chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of File API; deadline November 28
Hi All, Arun completed processing the comments [Comments] for the Last Call version of File API [LCWD]. Although the comments resulted in changes to the spec (see [Diff]), no new features were added and the changes are considered bug fixes. The most significant change is the Constructor APIs in Section 7 - see [Section-7]. Arun proposes the spec be advanced to Candidate Recommendation and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a CR using the following version as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ 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. Note the Status of the Document section and References in the Draft CR need some changes. I propose 3 months as the minimal amount of time before we are ready to advance the spec to Propose Recommendation and I propose we re-use the CR exit criteria we used for the IDB CR: [[ During the Candidate Recommendation period, which ends @T+3months, the WG will complete its test suite. Before this specification exits Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. The group will also create an Implementation Report. ]] If anyone has feedback regarding features that could be marked at risk, please speak up during this CfC. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for comments is November 28 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps @ w3.org. -Thanks, ArtB [Comments] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/LCWD-FileAPI-20130912 [LCWD] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-FileAPI-20130912/ [Section-7] http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FWD-FileAPI-20130912%2Fdoc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2F2006%2Fwebapi%2FFileAPI%2F#file [Diff] http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FWD-FileAPI-20130912%2Fdoc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2F2006%2Fwebapi%2FFileAPI%2F
