This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 26573 - Prepare for Last Call
Summary: Prepare for Last Call
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Encrypted Media Extensions (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: LC
Assignee: Adrian Bateman [MSFT]
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Keywords: editorial
Depends on: 25506 26811
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2014-08-13 18:47 UTC by David Dorwin
Modified: 2015-10-20 00:19 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Description David Dorwin 2014-08-13 18:47:33 UTC
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).
Comment 1 David Dorwin 2014-10-14 15:20:56 UTC
For #2, we should address bug 26811 first.
Comment 2 David Dorwin 2014-10-20 18:11:26 UTC
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?)
Comment 3 David Dorwin 2014-10-20 22:35:29 UTC
Also, the reference for that ReSpec supports is old.
Comment 4 Philippe Le Hegaret 2014-11-07 22:13:03 UTC
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.
Comment 5 David Dorwin 2014-11-17 18:23:09 UTC
(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: This could be reverted if necessary.
Comment 6 Anne 2015-02-24 20:15:10 UTC
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.
Comment 7 Anne 2015-02-24 20:15:47 UTC
(IDL v1 that is.)
Comment 8 Philippe Le Hegaret 2015-02-24 20:21:10 UTC
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.
Comment 9 Philippe Le Hegaret 2015-02-24 20:22:51 UTC
I was talking about WebIDL re plan, not about EME itself btw.
Comment 10 Anne 2015-02-24 20:27:53 UTC and around is plenty clear.
Comment 11 Philippe Le Hegaret 2015-02-24 20:31:53 UTC
yes, it proposes some options, but I don't know which one got chosen.
Comment 12 Philippe Le Hegaret 2015-07-22 13:25:47 UTC
Looking at an early upcoming draft of WebIDL v1, I see the following:

However, maplike is not part of it
Comment 13 Philippe Le Hegaret 2015-07-22 13:29:25 UTC
regarding maplike:
OK.  So I'm fine with maplike/setlike being considered unstable at the 
moment, because they are.
Comment 14 David Dorwin 2015-10-20 00:19:05 UTC
* #1 is resolved.
* #2 is now tracked by
* #3 is now tracked by ( was also related.)
* Comment #3 regarding JWK is now tracked by