- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 19:56:30 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Monday, May 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Marcos, All - re processing comments submitted against the 22-Mar-2011 > P&C LCWD, FYI, below are the comments I noted. > > Are there any other comments, bugs, etc. that need to be considered? > Not from me. BTW, Aplix is also now claiming to be passing 100% of the test suite, which is fantastic. Opera is only 5 tests out from reaching 100% (they actually pass 100% if the widgets are treated as Opera Extensions). There is a small bug in Opera's Desktop implementation that rejects widget without a name. I'm hopeful this will be fixed RSN. > > I recorded the following comments since that LCWD was published: > > = Charles McCathieNevile; 8-Apr-2011; localizing<author> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0121.html Addressed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0457.html > > = Addison Phillips; 30-Mar-2011; clarification on 9.1.3 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1076.html Addressed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0459.html > > = Jonathan Rees; 23-Mar-2011; bug in example in step 6 of media type > algorithm in WD-widgets-20110322 ? > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1042.html > Addressed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0462.html > Marcos - are there any other LCWD comments? I think that is it! :)
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 17:57:02 UTC