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

Re: Publishing an update of File API spec

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:14:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4E00DFA3.1020109@nokia.com>
To: arun@mozilla.com, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
[ + PLH ]

Thanks for the update Arun.

I just chatted with PLH in #webapps [1] and he will followup on the URI 
list about the registration process question you asked below. He and I 
agree with you that the completion of the scheme registration does not 
need to block LC.

All open bugs should be closed before a CfC for LC is started. 
Currently, I only know of the two bugs that Adrian filed:


Given this thread has served as a general heads-up re publishing an LC, 
I don't think we need a pre-LC comment period.


[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20110621

On Jun/21/2011 12:54 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>> Hi Arun, Jonas, All,
>> The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so it 
>> would be good to publish a new Working Draft in w3.org/TR/.
>> Since Tracker shows 0 bugs for the spec [Tracker] and the ED does not 
>> appear to identify any open issues, does the spec meet the Last Call 
>> Working Draft requirements (as, indicated in previous CfCs for LCWD 
>> such as [CfC-LCWD])?
> (Apologies for the tardiness of this response -- I only had 
> intermittent access to this email account for the past few weeks).
> I'm ok with publishing a LCWD after I address comments received on 
> this listserv.  Right now, most of the spec issues have occurred in 
> the listserv, without use of [Tracker], but I think it useful to start 
> using [Tracker] as workflow here.
>> If not, what is the schedule and plan to get this spec "LC ready"?
>> In case people missed it, Arun started a discussion about the blob 
>> URI scheme on the URI mail list:
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2011May/0000.html
> The URI listserv gave me some feedback which I intend to take into 
> account (mainly, clarifying spec. changes, an explanation of why other 
> schemes weren't chosen first including urn:uuid, and then a 
> reinitation of the discussion), but I'm not certain what the correct 
> course of action after I make the changes are.  I'm not sure that this 
> scheme needs to be an IETF RFC, for example, but that's an open 
> question.  I'm also not certain that this question needs to block LCWD 
> status.
> Course of action might be:
> 1. Fix spec. nits in ED based on feedback on listservs -- URI, 
> public-webapps, and WHATWG.
> 2. Initiate LCWD based on ED.
> I definitely hope to finish 1. by June 27.  Can we go straight to the 
> LCWD process after that?
> -- A*
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 18:15:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:32 UTC