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

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

From: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:33:42 +0000
To: public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B3834CD60F5@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I support publishing this LC#2. I will do a second review of the updated text to see if Microsoft has any further LC comments. Thanks!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-script-coord-request@w3.org [mailto:public-script-coord-
>request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
>Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:49 AM
>To: public-webapps; public-script-coord
>Subject: CfC: publish LC#2 of Web IDL; deadline September 16
>
>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 16:34:47 UTC

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