W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB LC draft

From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:14:01 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE3A5BFD1228D84A8D9C158EEC195FD53D8833BB@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Jonas,

Do you agree with Tobie that Sections 6 & 7 should be non-normative? If so, I am happy to take care of this.

Cheers.

Eliot

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:28 AM
> To: Tobie Langel
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB
> LC draft
> 
> Thanks for finding this. I filed
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17303
> 
> / Jonas
> 
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Section 6 (Privacy) and 7 (Authorization) of the IndexedDB LC draft[1]
> > feel very informative, yet they're not marked as such.
> >
> > Is there ground to keep them as normative content or should we
> > explicitly mark them as non-normative, remove their usage of the RFC
> > 2119 MAY keyword, and mark the linked references ([COOKIES]) as
> informative?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > --tobie
> >
> > ---
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-IndexedDB-20120524/
> >
> >
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:14:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT