- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 09:58:38 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tab Atkins <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Hi Tab, All - can you Tab, or someone else, commit to processing the comments and bugs for the Workers LCWD? Given Hixie's bug list [1], perhaps we shouldn't wait for him. -Art [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0385.html On Apr/28/2011 1:35 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hixie, All, > > April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the Web > Workers spec [WW-LC]. > > Since that LC was published, I noted 2 set of comments and 2 new bugs: > > * Adrian Bateman; 9-Mar-2011 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0877.html > > * Travis Leithead; 20-Apr-2011 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0269.html > > * Bug-12067; Jonas Sicking; 14-Feb-2011 > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12067 > > * Bug-12340; Olli Pettay; 19-Mar-2011 > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12340 > > Hixie - what normative changes have been made in the ED [WW-ED] (since > the LC was published) that would affect an implementation based on the > March 10 LC? > > The Process Document defines the requirements for processing LC > comments [LC] and the WG's main requirement is to respond to all > comments. > > It appears there is no agreed conclusion to the two comments nor to > Bug-12067 and there were no responses to Bug-12340. > > -ArtB > > [WW-LC] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/ > [WW-ED] http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ > [LC]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call >
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 13:59:00 UTC