Single page view
Not all comments have been marked as
replied to. The disposition of comments
is not complete.
In the table below, red is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.
In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.
| Commentor | Comment | Working Group decision | Commentor reply |
|---|
LC-2514
Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> (archived comment) |
Le mercredi 08 juin 2011 à 14:26 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> >> For photos I think it's an easy win. The current draft has Base64 or
> >> URI. We could just have URI, indicating that if it's Base64 it can be
> >> a data: URI (and it could also be a blob: URI).
> >
> > Photos are clearly my #1 request; having a field that can have both URLs
> > and binary-encoded-data-but-not-a-data-URL seems like non-sense.
>
> For photos I certainly agree that it's a bug in the spec to have the two variants that we currently have.
As discussed during the call, let's start with fixing this for photos,
and leave the other fields alone for the time being. Based on
implementers/developers feedback, we can always revisit that later.
That would be the resolution for ISSUE-111.
Dom
|
Fixed in photos by using a URL |
yes |
|---|
LC-2515
Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> (archived comment) |
Hi,
The Contacts API currently defines it find() method as special caller
method; I'm not sure why it is so, but that's not compatible with Web
IDL: the find() method has optional arguments, and Web IDL forbids
special operations with optional arguments.
The Calendar API has the same issue.
Dom
|
Fixed in editors draft of Contacts |
tocheck |
|---|