Re: [webstorage] Plan to move the spec to Last Call Working Draft

Thanks Scott for volunteering to create a fix for 13020.

Ideally, the Editor would address all of the open bugs and WebApps' 
version of Web Storage would be as close as possible to the WHATWG's 
version. However, given the conflicting constraints of moving this spec 
to LC now and the low priority of this spec for Ian, it appears we need 
to proceed otherwise.

Scott - please create a fix we can review and base it on the latest ED 
[ED]. It may be helpful if your fix included PLH's fix for 12111 
[1211-fix] and to put your version of the spec in the "publish" 
directory [PUB] e.g. create LC-webstorage-2011July.html.

-Thanks, ArtB


On 6/30/11 3:20 PM, ext Scott Wilson wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2011, at 14:55, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Given the lack of support for stopping work on Web Storage [1], I'd let to get consensus on the plan to move it to Last Call Working Draft.
>> Currently there are two open bugs:
>> 1. Bug 12111: "spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior". PLH created a version of the spec that addresses this bug [12111-fix].
>> 2. Bug 13020: "No user agent will implement the storage mutex so this passage does not reflect reality".
>> There are different opinions on the priority of Web Storage ...
>> * Web Storage is a low priority and the Editor will get to it when he gets to it
>> * Web Storage is a high priority because the lack of a LCWD will block at least the Widget Interface spec from progressing on the Rec track
>> There are various options on what to do next, including:
>> 1. Fix 12111 and 13020 and move Web Storage to LCWD
> +1
>> 2. Leave Web Storage as is and eventually implementations will match the spec
>> 3. Do #1 in one version of the spec and keep #2 as a separate version of the spec (e.g. L1 and L2).
>> Comments on these options are welcome.
>> If you prefer #1, please indicate if you are willing to create a fix/patch for bug 13020.
> Yes.
>> -AB
>> [1]
>> [12111]
>> [12111-fix]
>> [13020]

Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 16:02:59 UTC