Re: CfC: FPWD for Input Events

With expressions of support, and no objections, this Call for Consensus passes. Thanks - I'll work with Johannes and the Team Contacts to get this published as soon as we can... cheers 14.08.2016, 14:31, "cha...@yandex-team.ru" : > Hi, > > This is a Call for Consensus on

Re: CFC to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed Recommendation

On 16/08/2016 07:46, Léonie Watson wrote: This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed Recommendation (PR) [1]. This CFC received positive messages of support and no objections, and so it passes. Thank you to Yves and Travis for their work on this specification

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. This CFC

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

Quick reminder that this CFC closes tomorrow, Saturday 20th August. Thanks. Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: Hello, Web Platform WG, This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Pointer Lock using the [PR

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

+1 Great for this to be progressing. Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: Hello, Web Platform WG, This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you

CFC to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed Recommendation

Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed Recommendation (PR) [1]. Some editorial changes were made to the specification during the Candidate Recommendation (CR) period, but none that affects conformance. The CR implementation report is available [2

CfC: FPWD for Input Events

Hi, This is a Call for Consensus on the proposition "Publish the Input Events specification at https://w3c.github.io/input-events/ as a First Public Working Draft". Please reply before the end of the day on 22 August, either in this email thread or by adding a +1 or -1 to the proposal which

CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

Hello, Web Platform WG, This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. The test results for Pointer

Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

With thanks to everyone who responded. This CFC received only positive responses, and so passes without objection. Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 03/08/2016 15:46, Léonie Watson wrote: Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working Draft

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

A quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day tomorrow (Friday 12th August). Thanks. Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 05/08/2016 18:17, Léonie Watson wrote: Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for referencing the Image Description

RE: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

+1 > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk > <mailto:t...@tink.uk> > wrote: > > > Quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day > tomorrow (Wednesday 10th August). Thanks. > > Léonie. &

Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

+1 On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: > Quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day tomorrow (Wednesday > 10th August). Thanks. > > Léonie. > > -- > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem > > On 03/08/2016 15:46, L

Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

Quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day tomorrow (Wednesday 10th August). Thanks. Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 03/08/2016 15:46, Léonie Watson wrote: Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of IndexedDB 2.0

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

+1 via CloudMagic Email<https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pa=8.6.36=6.0.1=email_footer_2> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 1:21 PM, L?onie Watson <t...@tink.uk<mailto:t...@tink.uk>> wrote: Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for referencing the

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

Despite lingering concerns about removing a valid attribute from the table of attributes in the document, in the interest of cooperation and collaborative consensus building I will agree with this CfC. JF On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: >

CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension specification [1]. The CFC is posted to public-webapps@w3.org because this is the official WP email list, and copied to public-h...@w3.org. The proposal: 1

CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of IndexedDB 2.0 [1]. We are still exploring different ways of responding to a CFC. Please choose one of the following methods: 1. Reply by email to this thread (on public-webapps@w3.org). 2. Reply

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

On 21/06/2016 13:14, Léonie Watson wrote: Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by end of day on Thursday 23^rd June 2016. With thanks to those who responded, this CFC passes. We will begin the process of transitioning Pointer Lock to CR. Léonie

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] Sent: 21 June 2016 11:18 Yes, CR requires at least two implementations in shipping browsers. Once Pointer Lock is at Recc, hopefully the Shadow DOM content will be stable enough to include in Pointer Lock next. Correction: A CR doesn’t require 2+

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

From: Takayoshi Kochi [mailto:ko...@google.com] “I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the intended change to the spec yet, and so it could be immature to include in a "CR". (Does CR require at least 2 implementors exist?)” Yes, CR requires at least

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by end of day on Thursday 23rd June 2016. From: Vincent Scheib [mailto:sch...@google.com] Sent: 21 June 2016 05:09 “I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with this proposal: Move to a CR

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the intended change to the spec yet, and so it could be immature to include in a "CR". (Does CR require at least 2 implementors exist?) On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote: > I've

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with this proposal: Move to a CR for the v1 Pointer Lock specification without Shadow DOM changes, and a note on accessibility. Implementations are nearly consistent for v1 and it can move to a published status sooner. We can

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

think the issue can be resolved with an informative note in the spec. It’s a question of what the browser does in accessibility terms once a pointerlockchange event has been fired. Will post this to the GH issue in a moment… but don’t believe this should hold up the CFC. Léonie

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

l Bijl <mich...@agosto.nl> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Looks good, +1 >>>>> >>>>> —Michiel >>>>> >>>>> On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

agosto.nl> wrote: >>> >>> Looks good, +1 >>>> >>>> —Michiel >>>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello WP, >>>> >>>> This is a Cal

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

l Bijl <mich...@agosto.nl> wrote: Looks good, +1 —Michiel On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the Mouse

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

t; wrote: >> >> Hello WP, >> >> This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer >> Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit >> Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that >>

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

abstain On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michiel Bijl <mich...@agosto.nl> wrote: > Looks good, +1 > > —Michiel > > On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: > > Hello WP, > > This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

Looks good, +1 —Michiel > On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: > > Hello WP, > > This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer > Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit > Dictionary

CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that were made after the current CR was published in 2013 [2]. Please

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 Alexander Schmitz jQuery Foundation On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Ian Pouncey wrote: > +1 > > On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: >> >> Hello WP, >> >> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML >> Working Draft

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: > Hello WP, > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted > to > public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. >

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dylan Barrell wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: > >> +1 >> >> --joanie >> >> On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: >> > Hello WP, >> > >> > This is a call for consensus

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: > +1 > > --joanie > > On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > > Hello WP, > > > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML > > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 --joanie On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > Hello WP, > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted to > public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. > >

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR. Alex On 3 June 2016 at 05:30, Gez Lemon wrote: > +1 > > On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: > >> Hello WP, >> >> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML >> Working Draft (WD) as a

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: > Hello WP, > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted > to > public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. >

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

aye - (as TPG WG person) -- Regards SteveF Current Standards Work @W3C On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: > Hello WP, > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:48:10 +0200, Léonie Watson wrote: Hello WP, This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). +1 Please do. chaals - Yandex hat on, chair hat off -- Charles McCathie Nevile

CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

Hello WP, This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org no later than end of day

About the packaging spec Re: CFC

incubation before continuing along the Recommendation track. This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note. We generally "gut" Notes to avoid confusion and prevent implementation. It might be fine to gut it if there is no implementer interest (particularly give Ser

Re: CFC

ng the Recommendation track. > > This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note. We generally "gut" Notes to avoid confusion and prevent implementation. It might be fine to gut it if there is no implementer interest (particularly give Service Workers and HTTP2). But then, we

RE: CFC: Convert Packaging on the Web to a W3C note

With the subject line repaired this time... > -Original Message- > From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] > Sent: 24 May 2016 18:54 > To: public-webapps@w3.org > Subject: CFC > > Hello WP, > > At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that

CFC

Hello WP, At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further incubation before continuing along the Recommendation track. This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note. If the CFC passes

Re: CFC: Publish as W3C Notes

Method Editor API [2] This is a CFC to publish each of these specifications as a W3C note, under the Software and Document License. Anyone wishing to take these ideas further is then welcome to use the notes to seed incubation within WICG or elsewhere. With positive support and no d

CFC: Publish as W3C Notes

Hello, At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the following two specifications would benefit from further incubation before continuing along the Recommendation track: Quota Management API [1] Input Method Editor API [2] This is a CFC to publish each

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL Level 1; deadline December 9

n.github.io/webidl/publications/cr-20151124.html> > > If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by > December 9 at the latest. Silence will be considered as agreeing > with the proposal and explicit responses are preferred. If no > non-resolvable blocking issues are r

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL Level 1; deadline December 9

;> of WebIDL Level 1 and this is a Call for Consensus to do so. The >> draft CR is: >> >> <https://ylafon.github.io/webidl/publications/cr-20151124.html> >> >> If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by >> December 9 at the latest

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL Level 1; deadline December 9

Yves and Travis would like to publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebIDL Level 1 and this is a Call for Consensus to do so. The draft CR is: <https://ylafon.github.io/webidl/publications/cr-20151124.html> If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by Dece

Re: CfC: Is Web Workers Ready for CR? deadline Dec 14

On 11/30/15 8:31 AM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: The latest [TEST RESULTS] of Web Workers indicate that Dedicated Workers have been widely implemented by the major browser vendors. Compatibly? Last I checked, for example, Blink doesn't support Dedicated Workers inside workers, only inside Window. I

Re: CfC: Is Web Workers Ready for CR? deadline Dec 14

> On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 11/30/15 8:31 AM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: >> The latest [TEST RESULTS] of Web Workers indicate that Dedicated Workers >> have been widely implemented by the major browser vendors. > > Compatibly? Last I checked, for

Re: CfC: Is Web Workers Ready for CR? deadline Dec 14

On 11/30/2015 02:31 PM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: > This is a call for comments regarding the next step of Web Workers. > > The latest [TEST RESULTS] of Web Workers indicate that Dedicated > Workers have been widely implemented by the major browser vendors. > > [Diff] between the latest W3C WD and the

CfC: Is Web Workers Ready for CR? deadline Dec 14

This is a call for comments regarding the next step of Web Workers. The latest [TEST RESULTS] of Web Workers indicate that Dedicated Workers have been widely implemented by the major browser vendors. [Diff] between the latest W3C WD and the WHATWG living standard suggests substantial changes

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Storage 2nd Edition; deadline October 27

Hi Xiaoqian - this CfC passed so please go forward with PR publication as you proposed below. -Thanks! On 10/20/15 1:31 PM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Storage (Second Edition) using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Storage 2nd Edition; deadline October 27

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Storage (Second Edition) using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. The test results for Web Storage

Call for Consensus (CfC) to close the Web Intents Task Force - Deadline October 29, 2015

This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to close the Web Intents Task Force [1]. This Task Force has been inactive for some time. There are no relevant deliverables in the draft revision of the DAP WG charter [2], or the Web Platform WG charter [3]. The purpose of this CfC is obtain consensus

CfC: Transition "Secure Contexts" to CR; deadline October 1st.

nced terms are available for review at https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#index-defined-elsewhere . The deadline for this CfC is one week from today, October 1st. As always, explicit (positive!) feedback to public-webapp...@w3.org is appreciated! -- Mike West <mk...@google.co

Fwd: [webappsec] CfC: Proposed non-normative updates to CORS

, WebAppSec WG -- Forwarded message - From: Brad Hill hillb...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:05 PM Subject: [webappsec] CfC: Proposed non-normative updates to CORS To: public-webapp...@w3.org public-webapp...@w3.org In response to https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage 2nd Edition deadline June 3 [Was: CfC: Moving webstorage to REC 2nd Edition]

publish a CR directly. This all sounds fine to me. However, strictly speaking I believe we need to record the group's consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation. As such, let's consider this e-mail as a CfC to publish a CR to publish a CR of Web Storage 2nd edition. If anyone has

Re: CfC: Moving webstorage to REC 2nd Edition; deadline May 21

REC section, and the github commit history. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by May 21 at the latest. Silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal and explicit responses are preferred. If no non-resolvable blocking issues are raised, this CfC

RE: [W3C TCP and UDP Socket API] Informal CfC on moving the SysApps TCP and UDP Socket API to a Community Group

There were no objections on the proposal in this CFC and one positive response (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0035.html). Accordingly I will issue a request for relicensing. BR Claes Claes Nilsson Master Engineer - Web Research Advanced Application Lab

Re: CfC: Moving webstorage to REC 2nd Edition; deadline May 21

. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by May 21 at the latest. Silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal and explicit responses are preferred. If no non-resolvable blocking issues are raised, this CfC will be considered as passing and we will proceed

RE: CfC: Moving webstorage to REC 2nd Edition; deadline May 21

From: Kostiainen, Anssi [mailto:anssi.kostiai...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 21:16 To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps Subject: Re: CfC: Moving webstorage to REC 2nd Edition; deadline May 21 On 14 May 2015, at 14:30, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Publish

CfC: Moving webstorage to REC 2nd Edition; deadline May 21

about this CfC, please reply by May 21 at the latest. Silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal and explicit responses are preferred. If no non-resolvable blocking issues are raised, this CfC will be considered as passing and we will proceed with this proposal. -Thanks, ArtB

[W3C TCP and UDP Socket API] Informal CfC on moving the SysApps TCP and UDP Socket APi to a Community Group

The SysApps WG charter expired Oct 1 2014 and no re-chartering process is in progress. Similar to Wayne Carr's CfC on Intel's SysApps specification, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0001.html, I am issuing an informal CfC on moving the SysApps TCP and UDP Socket API

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

and the draft PR and note the draft PR's status section includes a short summary of the changes. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows

RE: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

Microsoft supports publishing this. Thanks to all involved! - Subject:CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:51:45 -0400 From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

on 25/03/2015 03:52, Sigbjorn Finne wrote: Hi, if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome canary/nightly builds have the fixes included. (Fixes for http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html should appear overnight also.) hth --sigbjorn Thank

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

On 3/24/15 3:52 PM, Sigbjorn Finne wrote: Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv: On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@gmail.com wrote: 2.http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv: On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@gmail.com wrote: 2.http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that is

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. If you have any comments or concerns about

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

Hi All, This CfC (original thread is [1]) is now moving forward and on March 17 there will be two publications: 1. /UI Events (Keyboard Extension)/; W3C Working Group Note; (draft is http://jay.w3.org/~plehegar/uievents-ext.html). 2. /UI Events Specification (formerly DOM Level 3 Events

CfC: publish Wide Review Draft of Manifest for web application; deadline Feb 5

to publish a new WR draft of this spec using the 2014 Process [PD-2014] and the proposed review period is three weeks. The latest Editor's Draft of the spec is: http://w3c.github.io/manifest/. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by February 5 at the latest. Silence

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Packaging on the Web; deadline November 3

On 10/27/14 12:34 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Jeni and the TAG would like to publish - on behalf of both the TAG and WebApps - a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Packaging on the Web specification and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so using the following ED as the basis: http

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

] spec should stop, the various replies raise sufficient questions that I consider this CfC (as written) as failed. Travis, Gary - would you please make a specific proposal for these two specs? In particular, what is the title and shortname for each document, and which spec/shortname becomes the WG

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 10:22 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Travis, Gary, Philippe, Since Anne's proposal hasn't been implemented, what exactly is the plan for these two specs? There is also a related proposal DOM L3 Events Input Events Work to the Editing Task Force by Ben [Ben] and

RE: CfC: Move URL spec to 2014 Process (and publish)

Microsoft supports the proposal. cheers -Original Message- From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 4:45 PM To: Webapps WG Subject: Re: CfC: Move URL spec to 2014 Process (and publish) 03.12.2014, 02:41, cha...@yandex-team.ru cha

CfC: Move URL spec to 2014 Process (and publish)

Hello all, this is a call for consensus on the proposal Webapps will publish future drafts of the URL specification under the 2014 Process Document http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/ Silence will be taken as assent but positive response to this email is preferred, and will be accepted

Re: CfC: Move URL spec to 2014 Process (and publish)

03.12.2014, 02:41, cha...@yandex-team.ru cha...@yandex-team.ru: Hello all, this is a call for consensus on the proposal Webapps will publish future drafts of the URL specification under the 2014 Process Document http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/ Silence will be taken as assent but

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

raise sufficient questions that I consider this CfC (as written) as failed. Travis, Gary - would you please make a specific proposal for these two specs? In particular, what is the title and shortname for each document, and which spec/shortname becomes the WG Note? After we have agreed

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 28

unlikely to occur in a tested deployment. As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish SSE as a Proposed Recommendation. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by November 28 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged, and silence

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 28

, the failure appears to be a relatively low priority implementation bug that seems unlikely to occur in a tested deployment. As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish SSE as a Proposed Recommendation. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by November

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 10:28 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: During WebApps' October 27 meeting, the participants agreed to stop work on the UI Events spec and to publish it as a WG Note (see [Mins]). As such, this is a formal Call for Consensus (CfC) to: a) Stop work on this spec b) Publish a gutted WG Note

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Although there appears to be agreement that work on the [uievents] spec should stop, the various replies raise sufficient questions that I consider this CfC (as written) as failed. Travis, Gary - would you please

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On 11/19/14 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Although there appears to be agreement that work on the [uievents] spec should stop, the various replies raise sufficient questions that I consider this CfC (as written

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

consider this CfC (as written) as failed. Travis, Gary - would you please make a specific proposal for these two specs? In particular, what is the title and shortname for each document, and which spec/shortname becomes the WG Note? After we have agreed on a way forward, I'll start a new

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 11:46 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: this is a Call for Consensus to: a) Publish a gutted WG Note of the spec (see [Draft-Note]) FYI, this WG Note has been published http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-XMLHttpRequest2-20141118/.

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

technical content (as WebApps did recently with [e.g.]) d) gut the ED [ED] of all technical content (note: this hasn't been done yet but I will do so if/when this CfC passes) FYI, the WG Note was published http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-fullscreen-20141118/.

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Indexed Database; deadline November 9

Recommendation of Indexed Database. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by November 9 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. We now have a DRAFT Proposed

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On 11/8/14 2:07 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 08.11.2014, 14:43, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November 14 at the latest. My concern is that we previously agreed

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On 11/7/14 10:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by November 14 at the latest. My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much more

RE: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained

RE: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails. I guess I was just inspired by Mike Smith earlier saying something along the lines of don't let past practice constrain your thinking as to what can be done in

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

08.11.2014, 14:43, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]  OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14

08.11.2014, 14:46, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru]  That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails. I guess I was just inspired by Mike Smith earlier saying something along the lines of don't let past practice

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >