W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > June 2012

Re: coremob-ISSUE-1: AppCaches fix planned for HTML.next only [COREMOB-1]

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:29:35 +0000
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>, "Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC0612E4.8E141%tobie@fb.com>

On 6/19/12 9:14 AM, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:34:25 +0200, Core Mobile Web Platform Community
>Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> coremob-ISSUE-1: AppCaches fix planned for HTML.next only [COREMOB-1]
>> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/track/issues/1
>> Raised by: Tobie Langel
>> On product: COREMOB-1
>> Some critical AppCache issues
>> (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14702) are being fixed
>> (http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7135&to=7136) in the HTML
>> Living Standard spec. Unfortunately, these fixes aren't brought (yet)
>> the HTML5 spec because they are considered new features belonging in
>> HTML.next. What should the group's position be with regards to that?
>Why would this group care where the spec starts? What matters is to have
>stable intereoperable spec, so it is more important to clarify that
>something is a requirement for this group, and there is interest (and
>effort offered??) in getting it stabilised.
>Which then means figuring out what is the shortest route to that path -
>hint: do work...

Agreed. Which is why I'd like to bring it up at the F2F next week.

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:30:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:47 UTC