W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:47:05 +0100
To: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Travis Leithead" <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.uphr8r2pwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile  
<chaals@opera.com> wrote:

> this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate  
> Recommendation, following the end of the last call. The disposition of  
> comments[2] has no formal objections, and I believe all substantive  
> issues are resolved - the only outstanding one is whether i18n accepts  
> the proposal that notes about normalisation should be in CSS specs  
> rather than this one, and in any case that can be resolved editorially  
> since it has no effect on conformance of implementations.
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/
> [2]  
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/disposition-of-comments.html
>
> As always, silence will be taken as assent, but positive responses are  
> preferred.
>
> In addition, since this specification has a number of implementations we  
> may try to have a zero-length CR period (by approving tests and showing  
> that we have interoperability already) - any comments on that approach  
> are welcome.
>
> Please provide assent or dissent and any comments by the end of Thursday  
> 12 February.

With no dissent, several people offering test cases, and test results, we  
are in a good position. In fact, it would appear that we are in a good  
position to ask for PR directly, which simplifies the publishing path.

If the WG accept's all of John's tests as-is and decides that they  
constitute a complete test of the specification, it would seem that we  
have precisely one issue arising from implementation experience - which is  
the webIDL question that people have raised.

I propose that in fact we look at John's tests (and any other tests -  
Travis, now would be a good time to post your tests so we can examine them  
and agree...) and assure ourselves that they are as good as we all  
believe, and we resolve the issue with what to do about undefined=empty,  
and issue a new call for consensus asking to go directly to PR.

Lachy, could you post a new editor's draft noting the current status  
(approved as a CR draft but the group is considering requesting PR status  
in light of extensive interoperable implementation), which is why there  
will be a further slight delay in publishing a formal version?

If anyone objects to this approach (which saves some administrative work  
and some time), please speak up...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 10:47:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT