Re: Canvas Task Force Meeting - 2014/12/19

Sam,
You had set said last week that there would be a meeting today. Mark and I
showed and nobody else was on.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To:	"public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, Rik
            Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Jatinder Mann
            <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date:	12/18/2014 11:31 AM
Subject:	Re: Canvas Task Force Meeting - 2014/12/19



On 12/12/2014 03:13 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I had the link wrong, the passcode didn't work, and we didn't have
> quorum; so this meeting has been rescheduled.
>
> A corrected link for next week:
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20141219T20
>
> We also have an update, bug 27264 has been fixed.  I'd appreciate it if
> everybody verified this fix and speak up if there is anything else that
> needs to be done before we return to LC (old process) or CR (new
process).

Paul reminded me that there are two bugs open:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=CR%20HTML%20Canvas%202D%20Context&list_id=49384&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced


Can the editors look at the following two bugs, and propose resolutions?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26977
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25309

Thanks!

- Sam Ruby

> On 12/10/2014 11:29 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Friday 19:00-21:00 UTC (3:00pm-4:00pm Boston local)
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20141212T19
>> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 226827 ("CANVAS")
>> IRC: #canvas-api on irc.w3.org port 6665 or port 80
>>
>> Topics:
>>
>> 1) https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27264
>> If we get this bug fixed, we can return to LC or CR?
>>
>> 2) https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Canvas_Task_Force/CR-Test
>> Still a lot of "fill in" cells, as well as partial passes.
>>
>> 3)
>>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2014OctDec/0044.html
>>
>> Consensus is to keep with the 2005 process for this document?
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 20:22:38 UTC