On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:38 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> Also, for what it's worth, given offline feedback, I plan to support
> the Service Workers WG charter. Apparently much of the discussion
> about service workers happens in WHATWG forums, but it still seems
> valuable to have the work happen
On Wednesday 2017-07-05 20:58 -0700, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron (dba...@dbaron.org) wrote:
> > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.
>
> I support the updated
We have implementation close to review for one-shot sync. I don't know of
any browser that has implemented and shipped periodic sync yet.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:49 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L.
On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > > development:
> > >
> > > https://lists.w3.org/Ar
On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > development:
> >
> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
> > (which contains
On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron (dba...@dbaron.org) wrote:
> I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.
I support the updated formal objection. Thanks Tantek for drafting it.
I've raised these i
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.
This looks good, appreciate your edits.
> Note
> that I added DOM 4 to the list, although perhaps there was
I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter. Note
that I added DOM 4 to the list, although perhaps there was a reason
you didn't include it?
-David
We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
>> The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
>> development:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
>> (which contains brief de
On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> development:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
> (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
>
> Web Platform Working Gr
The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
development:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
(which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
Web Platform Working Group
http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html
https://gith
11 matches
Mail list logo
