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

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:25 AM, GALINDO Virginie <
Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:

> Alex, Ryan, and all,****
>
> ** **
>
> Based on Alex feedback, let’s roll out the plan : ****
>
> **-          **Submit the spec to public-script-coord to make sure all
> relevant contributors know that Web Crypto WG is experiencing Promises.
> Ryan, as editor, can you do that ? ****
>
> **-          **Inform TAG and make sure when they review our deliverable.
> Alex, as a TAG member, can you do that ?
>

Yep. We're tracking reviews on Github right now. Here's an open ticket for
WC review:

   https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/3

Please cc yourselves in the comments so you can see updates to the issue.
I'll also make sure we open up a line of communication about when we can
schedule a call to have you present the API to the TAG.

In terms of what to expect, the Web Audio folks presented to us at the last
F2F and we are drafting feedback:

    https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/07/WebAudio.md

Does that sound good?


>
>
> Regards,****
>
> Virginie****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Alex Russell [mailto:slightlyoff@google.com]
> *Sent:* mercredi 24 juillet 2013 18:17
> *To:* GALINDO Virginie
> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi; Harry Halpin; Wendy Seltzer; public-webcrypto@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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/****
>
> ** **
>