Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

2009-02-05 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate Recommendation, Opera supports publishing this spec as a CR - and if we can get a test suite and interop report in

RE: Reminder: January 31 comment deadline for LCWD of Widgets 1.0: Packaging Configuration spec

2009-02-05 Thread Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
Hi Marcos, Many thanks for the thorough feedback - I'm glad the comments were useful. Some quick responses below for the editorial comments (marked [mp]). I will address your other comments in the next couple of days. Thanks again, Mark --- 6

Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

2009-02-05 Thread Robin Berjon
On Feb 4, 2009, at 20:05 , Marcos Caceres wrote: Yep. But like Charles said, it should be the other way around: Bondi specs should be brought to the W3C for standardization once they are ready. If the specs are done, implemented, and have an associated test-suite, then standardization through

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

2009-02-05 Thread Kartikaya Gupta
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate Recommendation, following the end of the last call. [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/ One minor fix:

Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

2009-02-05 Thread Nick Allott
Apologies for entering thread late. To clarify: BONDI work would have been introduced to W3C activity earlier in the process, however, we have been fighting the internal (and cross organisational) processes surrounding IPR regimes. This is now fully clarified - and formal inputs will be

Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

2009-02-05 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: On Feb 4, 2009, at 20:05 , Marcos Caceres wrote: Yep. But like Charles said, it should be the other way around: Bondi specs should be brought to the W3C for standardization once they are ready. If the specs are done,

Fwd: Security for Access to Device APIs from the Web: Workshop Report Published

2009-02-05 Thread Arthur Barstow
Begin forwarded message: From: ext Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org Date: February 5, 2009 3:05:02 PM EST To: public-device-a...@w3.org public-device-a...@w3.org Subject: Security for Access to Device APIs from the Web: Workshop Report Published Archived-At:

Re: CfC to publish Errata for Element Traversal Recommendation; deadline February 2

2009-02-05 Thread Kartikaya Gupta
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:07:08 -0500, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: WebApps WG Members - this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the Element Traversal errata as proposed by Cameron: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/ 0168.html As with

Re: CfC to publish Errata for Element Traversal Recommendation; deadline February 2

2009-02-05 Thread Cameron McCormack
Hi Kartikaya. Kartikaya Gupta: I just noticed that the java binding file has a link to ww.w3.org instead of www.w3.org. Well spotted! I committed an updated ElementTraversal-java-binding.zip file. Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

2009-02-05 Thread Jonas Sicking
So do I, and most likely the rest of mozilla. / Jonas On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: Hi folks, this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

2009-02-05 Thread Cameron McCormack
Charles McCathieNevile: this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate Recommendation, following the end of the last call. +1 -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/