26573 2014-08-13 18:47:33 +0000 Prepare for Last Call 2015-10-20 00:19:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG Encrypted Media Extensions unspecified All All RESOLVED MOVED editorial P2 normal LC 25506 26811 1 ddorwin adrianba annevk mike Paul.Cotton plh public-html-media watsonm public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 110155 0 ddorwin 2014-08-13 18:47:33 +0000 This bug is to track work necessary before proceeding to Last Call. 1. Add references (depends on ReSpec, which is bug 25506). 2. Publish a stable version of the Stream Format and Initialization Data Format Registry (see related MSE bug 25581). 113111 1 ddorwin 2014-10-14 15:20:56 +0000 For #2, we should address bug 26811 first. 113482 2 ddorwin 2014-10-20 18:11:26 +0000 3. Ensure the references are correct. For example, we are using cutting-edge Web IDL (Second Edition) features while the reference is to the CR from 2.5 years ago. Paul, do you know how we should handle this? Also, like MSE, the in-page references are to the DOM Living Standard rather than the LC WD in the references. (Speaking of MSE, it does not list DOM in the references. Should it since it references exceptions and links to the spec?) 113507 3 ddorwin 2014-10-20 22:35:29 +0000 Also, the reference for http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key that ReSpec supports is old. 114693 4 plh 2014-11-07 22:13:03 +0000 Looking at the WebIDL reference, the spec only uses the following from the second edition: Promise<?>. While this is not an issue to move the spec to LC or CR, it will be good to understand how stable the spec syntax (by asking the editor and/or looking to see if others are using it as well) and implementations are for this before moving to PR. 115022 5 ddorwin 2014-11-17 18:23:09 +0000 (In reply to Philippe Le Hegaret from comment #4) > Looking at the WebIDL reference, the spec only uses the following from the > second edition: Promise<?>. The spec also uses: * maplike (once bug 26372 is implemented) * DOMException in its new location (it is to be removed from the DOM spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#errors). This could be reverted if necessary. 118124 6 annevk 2015-02-24 20:15:10 +0000 plh, you should know by know that bz and others have explained several times that there are fundamental problems with v1 that are not getting fixed (no resources). Please stop encouraging WGs to waste time on it. 118125 7 annevk 2015-02-24 20:15:47 +0000 (IDL v1 that is.) 118126 8 plh 2015-02-24 20:21:10 +0000 At this point, it's not clear to me what needs to be done to be honest. I asked to see a plan and I'm still waiting for one. 118127 9 plh 2015-02-24 20:22:51 +0000 I was talking about WebIDL re plan, not about EME itself btw. 118128 10 annevk 2015-02-24 20:27:53 +0000 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0521.html and around is plenty clear. 118129 11 plh 2015-02-24 20:31:53 +0000 yes, it proposes some options, but I don't know which one got chosen. 122259 12 plh 2015-07-22 13:25:47 +0000 Looking at an early upcoming draft of WebIDL v1, I see the following: - https://ylafon.github.io/webidl/l1-respec.html#idl-exceptions - https://ylafon.github.io/webidl/l1-respec.html#idl-promise However, maplike is not part of it http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-maplike 122260 13 plh 2015-07-22 13:29:25 +0000 regarding maplike: [[ OK. So I'm fine with maplike/setlike being considered unstable at the moment, because they are. ]] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015AprJun/0097.html 123794 14 ddorwin 2015-10-20 00:19:05 +0000 * #1 is resolved. * #2 is now tracked by https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/104. * #3 is now tracked by https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/107. (https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/74 was also related.) * Comment #3 regarding JWK is now tracked by https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/108.