W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > October 2014

Re: IMSC1 WD wide review and CR draft.

From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:49:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF_7JxCFNRAfBUheQOP59bMED7=Rgp2UsdXty7z-skZQR5OuBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Hi Thierry et al.,

I am happy to draft a SOTD for the IMSC CR, based on Thierry's input
at [1] and the exit criteria listed in the 2014 process [2].

I am planning to do so for consideration at the TPAC F2F.

Best,

-- Pierre

[1] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/WD-ttml-imsc1-20141014/Overview.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#candidate-rec

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
> [adding PlH]
>
> On 14/10/2014 17:50, Nigel Megitt wrote:
>>
>> Thierry,
>>
>> thanks for preparing this. For folk having trouble accessing the CR draft
>> the correct link is:
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/WD-ttml-imsc1-20141014/Overview.html
>>
>>
>> Exit Criteria
>>
>> The exit criteria stated here include a requirement for two independent
>> interoperable implementations of each feature. Many times I've been told
>> that there is no W3C process requirement for this criterion. So that we
>> can make the best decision when choosing the appropriate exit criteria
>> from this CR, please could you outline the options that we have here?
>
>
> The "two independent interoperable implementations of each feature", is the
> regular exit criteria, that most Draft go throught (at least with the former
> 2005 Process). Note that each implementation does not necessary covers all
> features.
>
> If you want some different exit criteria, you will make your case to the
> Director when requesting transition to CR.
>
> This is what will be asked for transition to CR (new 2014 Process) about
> Implementation:
>
> - The group must document how adequate implementation experience will be
> demonstrated. Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the
> WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented (e.g., a
> matrix showing how different pieces or classes of software implement
> different features)? Is the expectation to show two complete implementations
> (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show
> that each feature is implemented twice in some piece of software?
> - What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional
> features? In general, the Director expects mandatory features and optional
> features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional
> features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability)
> may require less implementability testing.
> - Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help
> demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day
> or workshop? Is one planned?)?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Review end date
>>
>> I'm unsure right now when we will /enter/ CR, but specifying an end date
>> no sooner than 31 December may appear provocative to some, depending on
>> how long the minimum review period ends up being, because it is during a
>> time when many folk take holidays. It may be more appropriate to set the
>> end date a little later (or even earlier), noting that we may hit a heavy
>> period of comment reviews when we think about TTML2 as well - our
>> timetable has the TTML2 pre-CR WD review period ending mid-January right
>> now.
>
>
> Remember that this is a minimum review date.
> Per W3C process  it must be at least four weeks after publication.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#candidate-rec
>
> So depending on the CR publication, we will setup that date. It is a no
> brainer.
>
>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/10/2014 15:32, "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Pierre, Nigel, TTWG,
>>>
>>> Now that we have published the IMSC1 WD for wide review, we should be
>>> tracking incoming comments on public-tt@w3.org.
>>>
>>> If there are comments coming in, we should discuss those, by email or
>>> during calls, or at F2F and come to a WG resolution. Then the WD should
>>> respond to each commenter to collect his approval.
>>> (We don't necessary have to accept the proposal from the commenter, but
>>> if we don't, we should explain  why it is only partially
>>> adopted/postponed or rejected/, etc.
>>> Finally, if the commenter does not agree to our resolution, we will make
>>> our case to the Director.
>>>
>>> In parallel we should start working on the CR draft.
>>>
>>> Therefore I have drafted the SOTD section [1]  for this CR, that Pierre
>>> may incorporate in his document.
>>>
>>> Please look at the exit criteria and the end date of CR (set for 31 dec
>>> 2014), and let's discuss those.
>>>
>>> Thierry.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/09/WD-ttml-imsc1-20141014/
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 19:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:18 UTC