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

Re: Beta and Beyond

From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:53:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABPs60GY_RgysC2zo4hk14JPRwPem4xpbrFsG4gb4V9oCmD8Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
Cc: Julee <julee@adobe.com>, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
I still think "should have no errors" is impractical.  Maybe 90+%
fully vetted (both technical and grammar, plus some baseline
understandability), 95+% peer reviewed and provisionally approved, and
99+% cleared by the author (latest editor) and some initial review.
Maybe what I'm trying to say is that we should go live with criteria
that can't be invalidated in the first two minutes.  Remember -- we're
changing the game, not adding new variants to the impossible dream.

I applaud the API intention, but again unless there's been some major
groundwork, this seems excessive for beta, unless there has already
been substantial groundwork on an api spec, and we have already
established user expectations to provide one.  I'm ignorant here -- is
there a reasonable industry standard for code hinting, syntax
highlighting, and auto-completion?  If there is, and we know that our
repo is structured so as to make it easy to reliably output the needed
metadata, then I'm excited to look at going for it.  Otherwise, my gut
tells me there's a shortfall on the groundwork on this area, and it's
an unneeded distraction on the way to Betaville.

Please note that this advice is provided at no charge, with the full
expectation that it was not unreasonably overpriced.  ymmv

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks Julee,
>
> I removed the second "DOM Reference pages" under "Content items for later."
> The distinction/stipulation about having URLs is sufficient as is, says I.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Scott:
>>
>> Good point. It was my understanding that the Content project team would
>> validate, flesh out, and recirculate a finalized list.
>>
>> So maybe do you want to fix the typo and add that distinction?
>>
>> Julee
>> ----------------------------
>> julee@adobe.com
>> @adobejulee
>>
>> From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
>> Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 5:20 PM
>> To: julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>
>> Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers
>> <schepers@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Beta and Beyond
>>
>> hi all,
>>
>> I think that there is a typo under "Content items for later" where DOM
>> reference pages are cited - both here and under "Content Items."
>>
>> My guess is that we won't have a complete DOM API reference, though
>> meeting all of the goals for content is not unrealistic, but we should at
>> least set the goal of having the pages organized in a coherent hierarchy
>> delineated in the URLs.
>>
>> +Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, everyone:
>>>
>>> At today's community meeting we reviewed
>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status and, barring any
>>> objections, we agreed to move ahead with it.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Julee
>>> ----------------------------
>>> julee@adobe.com
>>> @adobejulee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
>>> Organization: W3C
>>> Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:36 PM
>>> To: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Beta and Beyond
>>> Resent-From: <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:37 PM
>>>
>>> >Hi, folks-
>>> >
>>> >Julee, Eliot, and I met on Friday to start to lock down our Beta
>>> >requirements and schedule. The gist (which should surprise nobody) is
>>> >that we will be making project for each "activity" in the project
>>> >management system (Bug Genie)
>>> >
>>> >Our Beta criteria will be focused on Infrastructure, Content, and
>>> >Community goals.
>>> >
>>> >We would like to establish a timeline for each project based on our
>>> >community discussion evaluation of the time needed, so please help
>>> >refine our rough notes here:
>>> >
>>> >http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status
>>> >
>>> >With a week or so, we hope to have several projects entered into
>>> >project.webplatform.org, and we'll use that as a starting point for
>>> >further refinements.
>>> >
>>> >Some criteria we want to meet may not be Beta... they may be later
>>> >goals. We should still list them and keep track of them.
>>> >
>>> >Regards-
>>> >-Doug
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 00:53:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:41 UTC