W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:52:32 -0800
Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@google.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D4258410-3435-4319-BFEB-E67093222CFF@o-micron.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com 
>> > wrote:
>> Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last  
>> Call Working Draft (LCWD):
>>
>>  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/
>>
>> If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org  
>> by February 2.
>>
>> 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.
>> ]]
>>
>> Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all  
>> issues resolved.
>>
>> If there are other groups that should be asked for comments, please  
>> forward this email to them or identify the group(s).
>>
>> -Regards, Art Barstow
>>
>>
>> We (Google) support this LC publication.
>>
>> We would, however, like time to gather meaningful experience with  
>> the spec before the last call review period ends.  We expect we'll  
>> have this experience by the end of May.  Would it be permissible to  
>> have a 4 month LC review period to facilitate this?

(For some reason, I didn't get Jeremy's email.)

I am completely open to keeping a long enough LC period to allow  
everyone a chance to perform detailed review of the spec.

>
> We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like  
> additional time to review. It doesn't matter that much to us if the  
> review time is before or during Last Call, but we definitely can't  
> do a meaningful review by February 2, and therefore cannot really  
> sign off by that date on whether the document has satisfied relevant  
> technical requirements, is feature-complete, and has all issues  
> resolved.

I leave it to the chair to decide the best way to schedule this.

>
> (As far as I can tell the document is less than 4 months old as an  
> Editor's Draft and is about 60 pages long, so I hope it is  
> reasonable to ask for some reasonable amount of review time.)
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 02:53:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT