- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:24:54 +1200
- To: public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Hi Art, Arthur Barstow: > Cam mentioned off-list that closing these bugs by June 30 should be > doable so let's please work toward that deadline. > > If any new bugs are raised between now and the time the LC is > published, unless a bug is a showstopper for LC, let's plan to > address those new bugs during the LC comment period. All non-enhancement bugs (Severity:Enh is how I’ve reclassified those feature requests I’ve deferred until V2; I would probably forget about bugs that are marked RESO REMIND) are now resolved, with one exception: the one about exceptions! http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623 The general approach of how Web API specifications should use IDL exceptions is still an open one, and I think more implementors and spec writers need to chime in there. Any actual change to the spec that might come out of that bug is likely to be pretty small, however; if we decided against the propose approach, we would either tweak the name property so that it reflects the DOMException code rather than the IDL exception name, or we’d add a separate property for it. Given that, I don’t think we need to hold up publication, so I think you can feel free to issue the CfC. If it is acceptable, then during the week while the CfC is running I will go through and perform some editorial cleanups on the document. (There are some red box editorial notes in the document indicating features we may want to drop due to lack of use and maybe consider as At Risk features; I might add one or two of those.) Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 05:25:22 UTC