W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [admin] CfC completed - publish W3C Notes for TR shelved items to clarify status

From: Mats Wichmann <m.wichmann@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:11:50 -0700
Message-id: <52C1A956.7070202@samsung.com>
To: public-device-apis@w3.org
On 12/30/2013 05:43 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> On 04 Nov 2013, at 17:16, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>> The CfC to publish W3C Notes for the shelved DAP specifications that had WD publications has completed.
>>
>> Given the support on the DAP call and no disagreement on the list we will publish the Notes using the method suggested by Wayne (see below, thanks again Wayne).
> 
> To clarify the status of the shelved DAP specification, Iíve prepared a bunch of W3C Working Group Notes:
...
> Yep. The contents of the W3C Working Group Notes is pruned down to:
> 
> * The standard headers (spec name, maturity, pub date, /TR links, editors, boilerplate)
> * Abstract (from the latest published version)
> * Status of This Document (identical in all the specifications)
> 
> This minimalistic template has been used before as Wayne pointed out, for example see:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-acss

These look pretty okay to me.  I'd possibly nitpick some of the wording,
for example in:

"The domain covered by this document is still within the scope..."

I would not use "domain" as while it has a common meaning that we're
likely to informally assume, it does have a rather specific meaning
within the DOM model, which is not the same thing. Possibly "problem
space" could be an alternative term?

For "is still" I might say "remains".

But that level of nitpicking could just come down to personal opinions.

Really though, the question is how a reader understands what is going
on.  Each of these has an Abstract to which one might react "hmm, that
could be useful.  So why was work discontinued?"  Is the answer to that
purely to go to the mailing list archive and hunt for relevant messages?
Or do we somewhere show additional guidance (selfish question, since I'm
quite new to the WG and don't know the history).

For example, the systeminfo API draft that was abandoned contains this
terminology: "Issues and editors notes in the document highlight some of
the points on which the group is still working and would particularly
like to get feedback" which might lead to some problem descriptions, but
there are no issues or editors notes that I can find.  Meanwhile, I know
that Tizen is proceeding with a systeminfo api which is quite important
to the project.

-- mats
Received on Monday, 30 December 2013 17:12:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:01 UTC