- From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:48:27 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Nikunj, All, > > Charles will respond separately regarding a way forward but I want > to respond to the false accusation below. > > On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:13 PM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: > >> The WG chair went ahead with the publication of the Web Storage draft >> overriding serious objections about it's direction and emphasis. > > The record actually shows Nikunj saying: > > [[ > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/ > 0145.html > > Oracle conditionally supports the publishing this draft as FPWD > provided that the abstract is worded appropriately. > > ... > > Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract: > > This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in Web > clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for > accessing structured data. > ]] > > Ian agreed [1] to make the requested change above (it is included in > the FPWD [2]) and thus addressed the only concern you raised re > publishing the FPWD. Seeing the way things were, there was no way to stop the publication [1]. To mitigate the negative effects of publication, Oracle made its assent conditional. In reality, the chairs should have taken in to account the prior reluctance to continue with the draft [2] and asked the author to seek requirements and provide cautionary text in prominent places in the FPWD. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0143.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0106.html
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 19:51:06 UTC