W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2013

CfC: re-publish the webaudio and webmidi working drafts (Was: Next publications / last call / updating our estimate milestones)

From: Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:37:15 +0000
To: "public-audio@w3.org WG" <public-audio@w3.org>
CC: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, "jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com Kalliokoski" <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7CE56A65-E533-41F6-AB0E-D5B561813CD8@bbc.co.uk>
Hi all,

Publications (in the W3C /TR public space) of our specs in overdue. This is a part of the W3C process which ensures that we do not go too long without soliciting formal input and review from the public. Ref:

I would like us to republish both the Web Audio API and the Web Midi API specs within the next two weeks. I do not think the Web Audio Use Cases require a new publication.

This e-mail should serve as a call for consensus, and barring any objection (e.g. if editors think now is a really bad time to issue new public WDs) we should consider consensus reached by the end of the week.

More details about this, and upcoming milestones, in my message from late May - quoted below.


On 29 May 2013, at 16:39, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> I have recently looked at our specs, and noticed that we have mostly been working on "editor's draft" and not officially published a new version of either the web audio or web midi specs since December. A public update seems overdue - we do have a rough requirement to organise "heartbeat" publications every 3 months or so.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webaudio-20121213/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webmidi-20121213/
> The group should take the resolution to re-publish soon. We will run a Call for Consensus to that effect in the next few weeks.
> I would also like to suggest that we look into whether this batch of publications should be what the W3C process calls "Last Call Working Draft".
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
> While the name suggests a very finished state, "Last Call" only means that the group considers that the specs are satisfying their relevant technical requirements, and that dependencies with other groups have been properly addressed. The fact that we still have work on refining some aspects of the specs and that we do have outstanding issues is not per se a barrier to considering Last Call.
> Indeed, I would argue that we should consider going to LC sooner than later, given that LC is the stage at which a lot of feedback is generally given to the group, it would be ineffective to spend too much effort on polishing the specs if some of the feedback is going to make us reconsider some of the specs' architecture. In other words, I consider the increasingly frequent mention that "feature X has been in the spec for a year and used by many" to be an indication that it is high time for us to move to LC.
> Can we have a collective thought about the question, and maybe put it on the agenda for one of our next teleconferences?
> On a side note - whatever our decision, we should review our milestones estimates for our publications.
> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/W3C_Audio_Publications_and_Milestones
> Cheers,
> --
> Olivier

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 08:37:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:10 UTC