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

Re: [widgets] Processing comments from 22-Mar-2011 LCWD of Widgets P&C

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>
Message-ID: <29D9EE93A0E54F448C494A7E5D155317@gmail.com>

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 GMT

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