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

Re: Beta and Beyond

From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:15:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABPs60EFevN4XaONXu8KQ0WwME1GHEa-S2LCYpeeTvVneYdQmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Nicely done, Julee.  Thanks.


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
> 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 18:16:23 UTC

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