- From: Christophe Dumez <christophe.dumez@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:59:58 +0200
- To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:23 PM, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com> wrote: >> Are these things that really need to hold up a FPWD? FPWD is just the first stage of many and there is no expectation that the final specification will look *anything* like the version published as FPWD. So there will be ample time to address issues after the FPWD. > > I've stated in a separate email that Calls-for-Exclusion apply to the FPWD. Because of this, I'd like to see the FPWD reflect a workable version of the API. The current Editor's Draft is not, but it looks like the editor has some changes in mind that could make the spec sufficient for an FPWD. > > Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward on this this spec too. It also seems from the feedback provided by Christophe and yourself, that there are some changes that have been identified that would be possible for inclusion in the spec. Given that, would it be possible for the editor to provide another version of the Alarm API spec with the some of the necessary changes (e.g. error codes, DST examples, etc.) soon? I would at least like to see this next version of the spec before withdrawing my objection to making this into an FPWD. Hi, The draft has been updated to add error codes and DST examples already. Please let me know if you have comments. Kr, -- Christophe Dumez, PhD Linux Software Engineer Intel Finland Oy - Open Source Technology Center
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 06:00:36 UTC