RE: Overview of testing in view of CR exit

To avoid confusion I suggest you change:

a) the text "At risk - no implementations or tests" to "No implementations or tests".

b) the text "Items that do not have tests or implementations are flagged as "at risk" and unless implemented, will be dropped from the final spec." to "Items that do not have implementations or tests are flagged and unless implemented, will be dropped for the final spec."
 
> One thing though, the editors spoke about it and the at risk items will come out of the CR document if not implemented, but they will remain in the 2DContext Level 2 document to give more time to implement.

This is a the logical plan.

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Munro 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Paul Cotton; Eliot Graff
Cc: Rik Cabanier (cabanier@adobe.com); Tom Wiltzius; Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org); HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)
Subject: RE: Overview of testing in view of CR exit

I can switch around anything to whatever is preferred. One thing though, the editors spoke about it and the at risk items will come out of the CR document if not implemented, but they will remain in the 2DContext Level 2 document to give more time to implement. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cotton 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:47 AM
To: Eliot Graff; Jay Munro
Cc: Rik Cabanier (cabanier@adobe.com); Tom Wiltzius; Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org); HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)
Subject: RE: Overview of testing in view of CR exit

The supplied Canvas interoperability document states: "Items that do not have tests or implementations are flagged as "at risk" and unless implemented, will be dropped for the final spec.".  In addition it uses the colour red with the text "At risk - no implementations or tests" to describe the following sections of the Canvas document:

7. Path Objects At risk - no implementation 
	a. path objectAt risk - no implementation 
	b.  addPath()At risk - no implementation 
	c. addPathByStrokingPath()At risk - no implementation 
	d.  addText()   - 2 varientsAt risk - no implementation 
	e.  addPathByStrokingText() -  2 varients

12.   Drawing paths to the canvas
...
	d.  drawSystemFocusRing()At risk - no implementation 
	e. drawCustomFocusRing()At risk - no implementation 
	f.  scrollPathIntoView()At risk - no implementation 

14.   Hit regionsAt risk - no implementation 
	a. addHitRegion()At risk - no implementation 	
	b.  path()At risk - no implementation 
	c. id()At risk - no implementation 
	d.  parentID()At risk - no implementation 
	e.  cursor()At risk - no implementation 
	f.  control()At risk - no implementation 
	g. label()At risk - no implementation 
	h.  roll()At risk - no implementation 
	i.   removeHitRegion()At risk - no implementation 
	j.  region

The actual Canvas CR document describes only the following two items as being "at risk" (as per the W3C Process definition):

>The following features are at risk and may be removed due to lack of implementation. 

	*Path objects 
	*Hit regions

Therefore the use of the phrase "at risk" in this document for the Focus Ring sections may be misleading since I don't believe the Hit Region functionality was actually designated as being "at risk" (as per the W3C Process definition) in the Canvas CR draft.  

If indeed the WG decided to remove the Focus Ring sections due to lack of implementation and/or tests then this would force the Canvas spec back to Last Call since the Focus Ring sections were not pre-identified as being "at risk" (as per the W3C Process definition) in the Canvas CR draft.  

I wonder if we should use another phrase instead of "at risk" in this document to avoid this confusion?

/paulc
 
Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 12:30 PM
To: HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)
Cc: Eliot Graff; Rik Cabanier (cabanier@adobe.com); Jay Munro; Tom Wiltzius; Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org)
Subject: RE: Overview of testing in view of CR exit

> I've made a pass over the ToC to reflect the notions we had about what is considered stable on its own (as per exit criteria), what requires testing, and in the latter set what has implementations and/or tests 

The Canvas editors have prepared a document that does this for the HTML Canvas 2D Context CR specification [1].

See:

     http://dev.w3.org/html5/misc/canvas-implementation.html

Comments are welcome on this document.

After a suitable initial comment period the Chairs plan to run a CfC on this document as we have for the main HTML5 specification [2].

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-2dcontext-20121217/ 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0033.html 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:39 AM
To: HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)
Subject: Overview of testing in view of CR exit

Hi,

based on the discussion we had at the face to face, I've made a pass over the ToC to reflect the notions we had about what is considered stable on its own (as per exit criteria), what requires testing, and in the latter set what has implementations and/or tests (I took a conservative approach to flagging that and will be refining it to add more).

This provides the basic information from which to start planning the CR exit. All the parts that are flagged as needing testing but not having tests will need to have tests written, and once we have tests for all of them they will need to be run through two implementations to produce an implementation report.

See:

     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tests-cr-exit.html

Comments welcome,

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 16:18:05 UTC