- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:59:07 -0500
- To: Jungkee Song <jungkees@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- CC: WG Webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com > <mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote: > > The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group record > consensus to publish it. However, it's usually helpful if the FPWD > is feature complete from a breadth perspective but there is no > expectation the FPWD is complete from a depth perspective. As > such, if there are missing features, it would be good to mention > that in the ED and/or file related bugs. > > > I believe things are mostly addressed in a breadth perspective albeit > quite a few issues are still being discussed and sorted out. We are > currently drafting the ED and thought the F2F is sort of a right time > to have a consensus for FPWD but think it'll be nicer if we can make > it even before that to get a wider review as soon as possible. Given the broad interest in this spec, I think it would be helpful to move toward FPWD "as soon as possible". Would you please give a "rough guestimate" on when you think spec can ready for a CfC to publish a FPWD? -Thanks, ArtB
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 12:59:48 UTC