Re: [IndexedDB] Straw man proposal for moving spec along TR track

*crickets*

Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an editor has
bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution of the issues and
implementations are already sufficiently interoperable so that adoption is
not being hindered by the state of the spec, but should still be corrected
in this version before moving forward.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> It's been a month since we talked  about the next publication steps for
> the IDB spec (#Mins). Since then, I am not aware of any work on the
> #LC-comments tracking. As such, here is a straw man proposal to move v1
> forward:  ...
>
> * Forget about processing #LC-comments
>
> * Mark all open #Bugsfor v.next
>
> * Start a CfC to publish a new LC based on the latest #ED "as is". (If
> Jonas commitsto making some important changes, that would be fine too but I
> don't think we want to includeany "feature creep" or API breaks.)
>
> Re v.Next, I recall Jonas said he was willing to continue to be an Editor
> but I am not aware of anED being created. If/when a new ED is created, we
> can work toward a FPWD.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> #Mins <http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-**webapps-minutes.html#item16<http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-webapps-minutes.html#item16>
> >
> #Bugs <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/buglist.cgi?product=**
> WebAppsWG&component=Indexed%**20Database%20API&resolution=--**
> -&list_id=2509<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWG&component=Indexed%20Database%20API&resolution=---&list_id=2509>
> >
> #ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/**Overview.html<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
> >
> #LC-comments <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/**
> IndexedDB%20Disposition%20of%**20Comments.html<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/IndexedDB%20Disposition%20of%20Comments.html>
> >
>
>
>
>