Re: W3C Web Crypto WG : Promises - review of specifications

Hi Virgine,

I do think posting to public-script-coord might be a good starting point,
however I'm happy to do the review personally in another forum if you
prefer.

Perhaps a better venue might be asking the TAG to schedule Web Crypto for
discussion?

Regards


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:09 AM, GALINDO Virginie <
Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:

> Hello Ryan, Alex,
> TAG recommends to ask public-script-coord@w3.org to review deliverables
> including Promises (see below).
> Is it something that we should also do ? Or do we consider extensive
> review of Alex as a quality stamp ?
> Regards,
> Virginie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com]
> Sent: mercredi 24 juillet 2013 18:02
> To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; public-device-apis@w3.org; Rich Tibbett
> Subject: Re: Promises - review of use in Network Service Discovery draft?
>
> Hi Frederick,
>
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
>
> > Dear TAG members (cc'd DAP):
> >
> > The Device API working group (DAP) is working on a specification
> 'Network Service Discovery'.
> >
> > "This specification defines a mechanism for an HTML document to discover
> and subsequently communicate with HTTP-based services advertised via common
> discovery protocols within the current network."
> >
> > <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/discovery-api/Overview.html>
> >
> > Rich Tibbett, the editor, has updated the editors draft to use
> 'Promises' as noted in his message below.
> >
> > Would members of the TAG that have experience with Promises please (if
> possible) review the Promises usage in this editors draft and let the DAP
> WG know of any concerns or best practices that we need to consider (or
> confirm that our usage looks good)?
> >
>
> The best list for that feedback is actually public-script-coord@w3.org. I
> would recommend you start there. Otherwise, please see the Task Scheduler
> API Specification [1], which has been reviewed by both Alex and Annevk -
> and they said that the way that spec uses promises in prose and in WebIDL
> is correct.
>
> Regardless, I've added the Network Discovery spec to the TAG's spec review
> list. Thanks for bringing it to the TAG's attention:
> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/8
>
>
> [1] http://web-alarms.sysapps.org/
>
>