Re: [light][proximity] Issues to resolve before CR CfC

Thanks Anssi for making these changes. I've reviewed the diffs and closed the associated issues.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:49 PM, ext Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>> Before starting the CfC to go to CR with Light Events and Proximity I suggest we update the editors drafts to address the issues Dom raised, and also double check that there are no remaining issues from the earlier discussion thread with Anne.
> 
> Thanks Frederick for summarising the issues, and thanks Dom for reporting the spec bugs!
> 
> I think I've now fixed all the bugs Dom reported, see the detailed change logs below. As usual, easier to review the changes to .src.html as the generated versions of the specs have changes due to updated ReSpec.js generating a bit different markup.
> 
>> I have entered tracker issues against light/proximity for the issues Dom raised:
>> 
>> [OPEN] ISSUE-141 : Allow for infinite values in DeviceLightEventInit dictionary ; on [Light Events API]  http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/141 
> 
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/916dbd5920d8
> 
>> [OPEN] ISSUE-142 : Allow for infinite values in DeviceProximityEventInit dictionary ; on [Proximity API]  http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/142
> 
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/a6ad49819c41
> 
>> [OPEN] ISSUE-143 : should have a normative dependency on WebIDL, add reference ; on [Light Events API]  http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/143 
> 
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/5d7146b86243
> 
> [Typo in the commit message, should have referred to the action 143.]
> 
>> [OPEN] ISSUE-144 : should have a normative dependency on WebIDL, add reference ; on [Proximity API]  http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/144 
> 
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/fb7701910ff6
> 
>> [OPEN] ISSUE-145 : initialize Default value for LightLevelState to empty string ; on [Light Events API]  http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/145 
> 
>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/fdf57e69bf2b
> 
>> I believe the WG has agreed to not make a single specification for these various specifications but did not see a formal resolution to that effect. If I missed it please let me know.
>> 
>> I'm going to wait with the CR CfC until we've closed these issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Anssi

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 21:15:48 UTC