- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:16:37 -0500
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Message-ID: <4CFD1A75.1000805@nokia.com>
OK, so coming back to the what's next for these 3 LC documents question [Head] ... All of these specs have a Bugzilla component for issue and comment tracking, all are included in the WHATWG issue tracker at [Issues], all of the specs have changed since their LC was published and all of the specs had at least one comment submitted against the LC via public-webapps. With respect to "does a spec need to return to LC or can it advance to Candidate?", Section 7.4.6 of W3C process says: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either of the following situations: 1. The Working Group makes substantive changes <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#substantive-change> to the technical report at any time after a Last Call announcement <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call> and prior to Publication as a Recommendation <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-publication>, *except* when the changes involve the removal of features at risk <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#at-risk-feature> identified in a Call for Implementations <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi>. In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft. ]] Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose the next step . Any volunteers? A few weeks ago, I reviewed the diffs, bugs and public-webapps comments for Server-sent Events and will send that data separately. -Art Barstow [Head] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0755.html [Issues] http://www.whatwg.org/issues/ [Bugzilla] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/query.cgi?format=advanced On Nov/29/2010 4:21 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Ian - regarding the following specs that ended LC on June 30, do you >> have some type of comment tracking document, like you did for XBL2 >> [XBL2-DoC]? > I do not believe I kept track of e-mail feedback, but the history of > feedback filed through Bugzilla is naturally available through Bugzilla. > > HTH.
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 17:17:05 UTC