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

Re: Beta and Beyond

From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:34:03 -0700
To: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
CC: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD779A80.6295E%julee@adobe.com>
Ah. Thanks. Do you have alternative language? J


----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee





-----Original Message-----
From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:26 PM
To: julee <julee@adobe.com>
Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org"
<public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Beta and Beyond

>Hi, Julee.
>
>Quoting 
>http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status#Goals_for_content:
>
>"It should be accurate
>
>  There must be no inaccuracies"
>
>I do see the other references to "reasonably complete" and clearly
>tagging whatever is not yet fully reliable, but there is still at
>least one unreasonably absolutist requirement in the current working
>copy.
>
>DougM
>
>On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi, DougM:
>>
>> Ha! I really appreciate your statement "we're changing the game, not
>>adding
>> new variants to the impossible dream."
>>
>> But I didn't see the quote you used: "should have no errors". What is
>>there
>> now is "should not have erroneous information",[1] with qualifiers. We
>> should have exemplary content. And if we have pages that are not beta
>>ready,
>> we should make it easy for the visitor to distinguish the good from the
>>--
>> not vetted.
>>
>> Again, we should work in the individual project areas to fine-tune the
>> criteria, but I hope this is along the lines you were thinking.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Julee
>>
>> [1] 
>>http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status#Goals_for_content
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> julee@adobe.com
>> @adobejulee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:53 PM
>> To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
>> Cc: julee <julee@adobe.com>, julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>,
>> "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers
>> <schepers@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Beta and Beyond
>>
>> 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 01:34:41 UTC

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