Re: [ambient light events LC] Feedback ( LC-2736)

[- webapps]

Tab, 

Thanks for checking. Before we close this issue we should resolve the point you mention below.

Sorry about the trouble reaching the document.  I believe editors should maintain ReSpec source in Overview.src.html and generate html for Overview.html so that the html is readable by all without issues, as well as having the correct generation date. Slightly more work for the editors with more usability for all the readers. I will  raise this editorial issue again (I wasn't heard the last time)

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jan 17, 2013, at 7:42 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:15 AM,  <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Dear Tab Atkins Jr. ,
>> 
>> The Device APIs Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the
>> Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ambient Light Events published on 13 Dec
>> 2012. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to
>> send us comments!
>> 
>> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
>> been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/light/Overview.html.
>> 
>> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
>> public-device-apis@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 28 Jan 2013.
>> In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution
>> for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus
>> cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal
>> objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition
>> of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
> 
> Following the discussion on my original feedback thread, the
> LightLevelState enum needs to have an empty string value.  Right now,
> the spec is inconsistent with the IDL, as it says to sometimes set
> attributes that are typed as LightLevelState to the empty string, but
> that is an invalid value.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm happy with the changes made in response to my feedback.
> 
> ~TJ
>

Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 14:56:58 UTC