W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: [webcomponents] PubStatus reorg; Plans and Expectations

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:29:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky0=Ks-9Fz4fDBGtEArGJZUova_=qaiaH3BCfhh4GnrybQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> Hi Dimitri All,
>
> FYI, yesterday I moved all of the Web Components specs in PubStatus to its
> own table [PubStatus-WC] to help address the "so, what is the status of Web
> Components standardization in WebApps" use case (as well as to be
> consistent with the way PubStatus organizes the Widgets spec suite).
>
> Although PubStatus provides current data about the state of WebApps'
> specs, other than the Plans data (which is typically quite terse or empty),
> PubStatus doesn't facilitate Editors documenting more "forward looking"
> information such as roadmaps, longer term expectations, etc. Given this,
> and the broad interest in Web Components, I think it would be useful if
> there was some type of "state of Web Components standardization" that
> included things like:
>
> * Expectations for the specs by EoY 2014
>
> * Status and plans of Web Component native implementations (f.ex.
> information beyond what is available in CanIUse.com and
> ChromeStatus.com/features)
>
> * Status and plans of Web Component polyfills
>
> * Key open issues, dependencies
>
> * Testing status and plans
>
> * Deployment status
>
> Thus, when someone asks "so, what do we expect for the state of Web
> Components standardization by the end of 2014?", we have a document/thread
> we can point to (and that document could be a reply to this email, a blog,
> etc.). WDYT?
>

I think it's reasonable. I've been away from the keyboard for a little bit
and am still digging out from the email backlog, so please be patient with
me :)


>
> (BTW, I'm not picking on Dimitri here (who has done exemplary work,
> especially regarding professional community engagement). I wold be
> *delighted* if other Editors would provide similar information for their
> specs.)
>

Yay, I love being delightful!


>
> -Thanks, ArtB
>
> [PubStatus-WC] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Web_
> Components_Specifications>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 17:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:21 UTC