W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:27:28 -0500
Message-ID: <50E6CAB0.4060604@nokia.com>
To: ext Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 12/10/12 5:12 PM, ext Joshua Bell wrote:
> Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an 
> editor has bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution 
> of the issues and implementations are already sufficiently 
> interoperable so that adoption is not being hindered by the state of 
> the spec, but should still be corrected in this version before moving 
> forward.

Joshua, Jonas, Adrian, All,

If we go ahead with LCWD #2 for v1, which [Bugs] do you consider 
showstoppers for LC #2?

Does anyone object to a v1 plan of LC#2 as the next publication (after 
the showstopper bugs have been fixed)? (Of course we will have a CfC for 
any publication proposals so I'm just looking for immediate feedback).

Joshua, Adrian - can you (or someone from your company) help with IDB 
editing (at a minimum to address the showstopper bugs)?

-Thanks, AB

[Bugs] 
<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWG&component=Indexed%20Database%20API&resolution=---&list_id=3759>


>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com 
> <mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote:
>
>     It's been a month since we talked  about the next publication
>     steps for the IDB spec (#Mins). Since then, I am not aware of any
>     work on the #LC-comments tracking. As such, here is a straw man
>     proposal to move v1 forward:  ...
>
>     * Forget about processing #LC-comments
>
>     * Mark all open #Bugsfor v.next
>
>     * Start a CfC to publish a new LC based on the latest #ED "as is".
>     (If Jonas commitsto making some important changes, that would be
>     fine too but I don't think we want to includeany "feature creep"
>     or API breaks.)
>
>     Re v.Next, I recall Jonas said he was willing to continue to be an
>     Editor but I am not aware of anED being created. If/when a new ED
>     is created, we can work toward a FPWD.
>
>     Comments?
>
>     -Thanks, AB
>
>     #Mins <http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-webapps-minutes.html#item16>
>     #Bugs
>     <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWG&component=Indexed%20Database%20API&resolution=---&list_id=2509>
>     #ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
>     #LC-comments
>     <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/IndexedDB%20Disposition%20of%20Comments.html>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 12:27:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT