W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Length of LC comment period

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:15:50 -0500
Message-Id: <4162663A-535F-4833-821E-21E51FC3240B@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: ext Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:09 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cheer up, I can think of _much_ worst things that have popped  
>>>> out of
>>>> the W3C onto the Web than Web Storage:)
>>>
>>> Yeah but they typically have minimal impact on the deployed Web,
>>> unlike the storage mutex problem.
>>
>> So hang on... Why are going to LC if this is such a massive issue?
>
> Well from the point of view of the spec, the issue is resolved. It  
> "just"
> has unfortunate performance implications for multi-process UAs.
>
>
>> Is this issue clearly marked in the spec with a link to at least an
>> email thread where the problem is described?
>
> Not currently; I can add some text if you think that would be  
> useful. I
> had assumed everyone was pretty much fully aware of the issue.

Adding some text to the spec would indeed be consistent with the  
following LC entrance criteria:

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

2. Fulfill the relevant requirements of the Working Group charter and  
those of any accompanying requirements documents, or report which  
relevant requirements have not been fulfilled.
]]

-Art Barstow
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 14:16:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT