W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Shelving documents

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:21:06 +0100
To: robin@berjon.com, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v4zt9gdk6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
I think this proposal makes a lot of sense.
In addition, may I suggest to add to the warning a link to a page (DAP  
home page?) where people can find more info on the "new paths" the DAP is  
exploring for the use cases outlined in the (now outdated) document?

/g


On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:57:56 +0100, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> I suggest we update the status text to outline the specific reason for  
> shelving, as noted in your CfC emails.
>
> I also suggest changing the warning to the following:
>
> "WARNING:  This draft is no longer current or under revision. The Device  
> APIs WG is currently not pursuing the approach outlined in this draft,  
> so it should be considered historical. Please treat this document with  
> caution and do not reference it or use it as the basis for  
> implementation."
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:21 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> over the course of this group's existence, we have explored many  
>> avenues. Some of those have not seen any recent work on them, and can  
>> therefore be very misleading to people outside the group trying to  
>> assess what we are doing. In some cases, this results in people  
>> starting implementations of approaches we've abandoned. I am seeing  
>> books shipping or about to ship with mention of device APIs and  
>> mentioning things that we currently don't plan on turning into reality.  
>> It also means that people sometimes form a bad opinion of DAP (or, as  
>> often as not, of W3C) because ideas we don't believe work are still out  
>> there as if they reflected the best of our thinking.
>>
>> As a result, I think that we need to be better citizens when it comes  
>> to marking our drafts as "shelved". I have picked this word carefully.  
>> It does not mean that we have abandoned the corresponding deliverable.  
>> It also doesn't mean that we've abandoned the use cases in a given  
>> draft, simply that we are working on an approach that we believe works  
>> better. We can, at any time, take a shelved document and return it to  
>> active work simply by editing and republishing it.
>>
>> We therefore need some form of process to shelve documents. The idea,  
>> as discussed at the meeting last week, is that both the TR and the ED  
>> versions will get big warning text as part of the SotD indicating that  
>> it is currently shelved. Such decisions will be made through one-week  
>> CfCs, as for publications (which they are).
>>
>> Proposed text:
>>
>> """
>> WARNING: The Device APIs WG does not believe that the approach outlined  
>> in this document best addresses the problems it set out to work on. We  
>> are looking into alternative options which we hope will produce better  
>> solutions. In the meantime, please treat this document with caution as  
>> it no longer captures the reality of the group's consensus.
>> """
>>
>> I will be following this email with a list of CfCs for several of our  
>> documents. If there are more documents that you think should be  
>> shelved, please simply bring it up. If you have issues with this  
>> process or with the text above, please express them by replying to this  
>> message and not to the ones concerning specific documents proposed for  
>> shelving — it should be obvious that we will not shelve anything before  
>> we have consensus on the process side!
>>
>> --
>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>>
>>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 15:21:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:24 GMT