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 23:42:46 -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: <CD77DDA6.62987%jburdeki@adobe.com>
Hi, DougM:

Thanks for that input. I especially like the phrase "reliable and reusable
reference for the community". Given the nature of this doc (putting a stake
in the ground),  we don't want to put anything in there that will top the
project's progress, right? So, I did take the liberty to edit out your
refinements and suggestions. I added them as an comments page, one level
down,[1] in case you thought any points were critical to reintroduce into
this document. Also, the content group can review it when they form their
part of the project.

HTH

Julee

[1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status/comments

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




-----Original Message-----
From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:02 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

> OK.  I edited the page, taking a fresh crack at defining "accuracy"
> for the purpose of declaring the content up to Beta level.  I did my
> best to remain true to the already-expressed intent.  In the process,
> I renamed "content items" to "content areas" (like CSS properties),
> and suggested that we try to get areas up to this Beta standard in
> series (in parallel, but staged, maybe), pointing out that our
> elevated definition of done would require elevated community
> participation.
> 
> I (internally) debated the API requirement as being excessive, but
> after overtly adding reusability to the Beta standard, an API seemed
> like a given.  I added this as another consideration for sequencing
> areas to Beta status, since getting to a working API and real users
> might vary highly in net work to be done (and therefor, in current
> readiness, beyond raw content).
> 
> As usual, my first draft is wordy, in the service of completeness and
> low ambiguity for the next round of discussion, and I trust that
> someone far more focused will trim the excess.
> 
> DougM
> 
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>>  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 06:43:20 UTC

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