W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [workers] Processing comments from 10-Mar-2011 LCWD

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 09:58:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4DBEB88E.80601@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tab Atkins <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Hi Tab, All - can you Tab, or someone else, commit to processing the 
comments and bugs for the Workers LCWD?

Given Hixie's bug list [1], perhaps we shouldn't wait for him.

-Art

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0385.html

On Apr/28/2011 1:35 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Hixie, All,
>
> April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the Web 
> Workers  spec [WW-LC].
>
> Since that LC was published, I noted 2 set of comments and 2 new bugs:
>
> * Adrian Bateman; 9-Mar-2011
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0877.html
>
> * Travis Leithead; 20-Apr-2011
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0269.html
>
> * Bug-12067; Jonas Sicking; 14-Feb-2011
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12067
>
> * Bug-12340; Olli Pettay; 19-Mar-2011
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12340
>
> Hixie - what normative changes have been made in the ED [WW-ED] (since 
> the LC was published) that would affect an implementation based on the 
> March 10 LC?
>
> The Process Document defines the requirements for processing LC 
> comments [LC] and the WG's main requirement is to respond to all 
> comments.
>
> It appears there is no agreed conclusion to the two comments nor to 
> Bug-12067 and there were no responses to Bug-12340.
>
> -ArtB
>
> [WW-LC] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
> [WW-ED] http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
> [LC]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 13:59:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT