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

Re: [admin] sample status text for CR drafts

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:55:14 +0000
To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <1CB2E0B458B211478C85E11A404A2B2701998D0B@008-AM1MPN1-033.mgdnok.nokia.com>
of course it is "Device APIs Working Group" in the sample text all places

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Mar 1, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> I took an action to provide *sample* text to go into CR drafts going forward ( <item>> should be replaced as appropriate), this is in addition to the standard boilerplate.
> 
> [[
> This is a W3C Candidate Recommendation Working Draft of  "<<spec-name>>". The W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to indicate that the document is believed to be stable and to encourage implementation by the developer community. The Device API Working Group expects to request that the Director advance this document to Proposed Recommendation once the Working Group has verified two interoperable deployed implementations of each feature. The Device API Working Group does not have an estimate of when this will be achieved. There are preliminary interop results for <<TBD with link>>.
> 
> No features have been marked as "at risk".
> ]]
> 
> Obviously the sentence about interop results should only be there if there are any with a linkable document. If there are features at risk,they should be noted.
> 
> Of course the WG can agree to 3 implementations, 2 is a minimum bar.
> 
> In addition the text regarding the earliest date for PR advancement is now be generated by ReSpec using 'crEnd'
> 
> This generates text like the following: 
> 
> [[
> W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to indicate that the document is believed to be stable and to encourage implementation by the developer community. This Candidate Recommendation is expected to advance to Proposed Recommendation no earlier than <<date specified by crEnd>>.. All feedback is welcome.
> ]]
> 
> If the WG has two independent implementations that are based on different underlying libraries then that should suffice; if the underlying libraries are the same then I believe the WG and Team can work together make a judgement call as to whether to make a transition request to progress to PR based on the circumstances, without locking it down in the SOTD.
> 
> For the Battery CR draft (8 May 2012) [1]  and the Vibration CR draft [2] the exit criteria were both "two interoperable implementations of all features " and no features were recorded at risk  - see the minutes [3]. 
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-battery-status-20120508/
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-vibration-20120508/
> 
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Apr/att-0026/minutes-2012-04-11.html#item07
> 
> For tracker, completes ACTION-618
> 
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 23:55:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 March 2013 23:55:52 GMT