Re: PLEASE READ: Requirements discussion priority

  I should note that I support these answers but I will likely be more 
active in this group for the TTS side of things.

Cheers,
David
On 15/10/10 1:53 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> Here are the answers:
>
> R1, 1
> R2, 5
> R3, 7 (if the question is about using scripts to bind the results), 2 
> if the question is about something like what X+V has.
> R4, 7
> R5, 7
> R6, 5
> R7, 6
> R8, 7
> R9, 4
> R10, 3
> R11, 4
> R12, 3
> R13, 3
> R14, 7
> R15, 1
> R16, 2
> R17, 7
> R18, 7
> R19, 1
> R20, 2
> R21, 1
> R22, 3
> R23, 6
> R24, 4
> R25, 4
> R26, 4
> R27, 7
> R28, 2
> R29, 7
> R30, 6
> R31, 7
> R32, 7
> R33, 7
> r34, 7
>
> U1, 6
> U2, 6
> U3, 4
> U4, 4
> U5, 6
> U6, 4
> U7, 3
> U8, 4
> U9, 5
> U10, 2
> U11, 3
> U12, 6
> U13, 4
> U14, 2
> U15, 4
>
>
>
> -Olli
>
>
> On 10/11/2010 02:01 PM, Dan Burnett wrote:
>> Group,
>>
>> As Michael asked I have created a survey [1] to assess interest (by
>> Organization) in discussing each of the requirements in Michael's
>> document. There have been some minor suggestions on the email list to
>> adjust the requirements (e.g., R8) -- please take these into account
>> when filling out the survey.
>>
>> The purpose of the survey is to help us determine which requirements are
>> of interest to the greatest number of participating organizations to
>> help us focus the discussion.
>>
>> The survey is open through Wednesday of this week. If you expect to need
>> more time let me know.
>>
>> -- dan
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45260/ReqPri01/
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Michael Bodell wrote:
>>
>>> I've now taken the original collated list of 70 use cases and
>>> requirements from
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Sep/0051.html 
>>>
>>> and created a first draft of a document that combines like use cases
>>> and requirements and organizes the remaining 15 use cases and 34
>>> requirements into different related sections. I've also (generously)
>>> linked the requirements back to the use cases that support them. For
>>> contribution I also took the style of the VBWG (everyone listed in the
>>> editors section, not a separate editors and authors section),
>>> appologies in advance if I missed someone, I took the people who were
>>> linked in the earlier collation above (and I wasn't sure what the
>>> organization was for the two people who aren't members of the XG).
>>>
>>> As always, if there are some use cases or requirements that could be
>>> made more clear or added, that would be great.
>>>
>>> For a next step I've asked Dan to consider running a poll that will
>>> help us prioritize the use cases and requirements so we can start by
>>> focusing the discussion on the use cases and requirements that have
>>> the highest priority.
>>> <speech.html>
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 17:59:02 UTC