W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: A Second Edition of Web Storage? [was: Re: Web Storage Rec errata?]

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 16:07:33 +0200
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <462221431439653@webcorp01e.yandex-team.ru>
In this case we don't know if the spec is feature complete. We just know there are things that need to be done.

If they turn out to be all that needs to be done the thing is feature complete, and we ask for CR. If not, we hope to discover so now.

But then, it's not a big deal either way. It just feels odd calling a draft a "wide review" draft, as if we didn't want that on other drafts. And fails to match what the Process requests of Working drafts which is that they all identify which bits they particularly want reviewed - changes, "the whole thing", "missing bits", …

cheers

12.05.2015, 14:05, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
> On 5/12/15 7:57 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>  I don't think we need a CfC to publish a WD, right? We should just
>>  publish it, and then open a CfC on the plan to move to 2nd edition
>>  with these changes incorporated, and asking if there are other changes
>>  we should include before we move ahead.
>
> Yes, our SOP is not to do a CfC for a `plain` WD publication but I
> understood a `wide review WD` as a signal the spec is feature complete
> and the next step is CR+. Thus in this case, it seems like a single CfC
> to capture that, plus the other stuff I mentioned should be sufficient.
>
> -AB

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2015 14:08:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC