W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

CfC: publish LC#2 of Web IDL; deadline September 16

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:49:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4E6A195C.6090801@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Hi All - based on the changes made to address the comments received [1] 
for Web IDL LC #1, Cameron recommends WebApps publish LC#2 and this is a 
Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:

   http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/

This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's 
decision to request advancement" for this LCWD.

Note the Process Document states the following regarding the 
significance/meaning of a LCWD:

[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant 
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) 
in the Working Draft;

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant 
dependencies with other groups;

* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these 
dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement 
is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the 
technical report to later maturity levels.
]]

Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence 
will be considered as agreement with the proposal. The deadline for 
comments is September 16. Please send all comments to:

   public-script-coord@w3.org

-Art Barstow

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/lc1.txt

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	publishing Web IDL with a second LCWD
Resent-Date: 	Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:29:28 +0000
Resent-From: 	<public-script-coord@w3.org>
Date: 	Fri, 9 Sep 2011 23:28:43 +1000
From: 	ext Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
To: 	public-script-coord@w3.org <public-script-coord@w3.org>



Hello everyone.

I've just finished resolving the LC comments on Web IDL.  The only
sticking point is the one about modules -- I decided to defer their
removal just because I don't have the time right now, but it seems like
that is the right thing to do.  I think it should be OK to drop them
from the spec after the publication, and not have that be an impediment
to going to CR afterwards.  Similarly, there was some editorial work
(making more obvious which features are for legacy APIs only) that I did
not get to.  I will do that once I am back, too.

There were a couple of questions in Allen Wirfs-Brock's feedback that
weren't direct requests for changes, but my response questions to him
might result in some further changes at some point.  Nothing drastic,
though.

The lc1.txt file is up to date, I believe.  We probably don't need to
wait for commenter satisfaction indication in all cases, since we are
not going to CR straight away.

I'm away for the next four week, so it would be good if we could get the
spec published again.  Art, if you think we are good to go, could you do
a CfC for LCWD#2 (and assume my +1 to publishing) and handle the
publication?

Thanks,

Cameron
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 13:49:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC