- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:52:32 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@google.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <D4258410-3435-4319-BFEB-E67093222CFF@o-micron.com>
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com >> > wrote: >> Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last >> Call Working Draft (LCWD): >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ >> >> If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org >> by February 2. >> >> Note the Process Document states the following regarding the >> significance/meaning of a LCWD: >> >> [[ >> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call >> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant >> technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements >> document) in the Working Draft; >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant >> dependencies with other groups; >> >> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these >> dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call >> announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to >> advance the technical report to later maturity levels. >> ]] >> >> Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all >> issues resolved. >> >> If there are other groups that should be asked for comments, please >> forward this email to them or identify the group(s). >> >> -Regards, Art Barstow >> >> >> We (Google) support this LC publication. >> >> We would, however, like time to gather meaningful experience with >> the spec before the last call review period ends. We expect we'll >> have this experience by the end of May. Would it be permissible to >> have a 4 month LC review period to facilitate this? (For some reason, I didn't get Jeremy's email.) I am completely open to keeping a long enough LC period to allow everyone a chance to perform detailed review of the spec. > > We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like > additional time to review. It doesn't matter that much to us if the > review time is before or during Last Call, but we definitely can't > do a meaningful review by February 2, and therefore cannot really > sign off by that date on whether the document has satisfied relevant > technical requirements, is feature-complete, and has all issues > resolved. I leave it to the chair to decide the best way to schedule this. > > (As far as I can tell the document is less than 4 months old as an > Editor's Draft and is about 60 pages long, so I hope it is > reasonable to ask for some reasonable amount of review time.) > > Regards, > Maciej >
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 02:53:49 UTC