LC Status and implementation reports

* Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> [2012-01-26 08:16-0500]
> * Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> [2012-01-24 11:30-0500]
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:11, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> > >> - I think that for a final review leading to the CR, we should also see
> > >> the Status of Document session. Or is it so that the Status will only be the
> > >> boilerplate text for a CR generated by the tools you use for the
> > >> publication? (I would expect that to be the case, but we should know...)
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'll leave this to Eric
> 
> This will be a complex issue which I will take this up in thread
> called "LC Status and implementation reports".

Process-wise, it's up to the team contact (you) to draft a TR document
status, but of course it's nice to find text which has consensus. The
document should include diffs against the previous version.
Combinations of high-level changes and intimate diffs are easier for
readers, e.g. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-xml-c14n2-20120124/#sotd>.
The high-level changes for the DM are pretty minimal:
[[
The definition of literal map was subsumed by the definitions for
natural RDF literal and canonical RDF literal in the R2RML
specification.

Quoted identifiers (table and attribute names) in SQL examples in
order to clarify the case of the created schema.

Minor corrections in examples of direct graphs.

Updated Denotational Semantics and Rules to reflect above changes.
]]

Some CR docs assert minimal CR times and include pointers to the test
suite:

[[
The entrance criteria for this document to enter the Proposed
Recommendation stage is to have a minimum of two independent and
interoperable user agents that implementation all the features of this
specification, which will be determined by passing the user agent
tests defined in the test suite developed by the Working Group.

The Working Group does not expect to advance to Proposed
Recommendation prior to 30 January 2012. A preliminary implementation
report is available and will be updated during the Candidate
Recommendation period.
]] — <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-navigation-timing-20120117/#status-of-this-document>

Others, specifically say they won't make such a guess:
[[
The XML Security Working Group expects to request that the Director
advance this document to Proposed Recommendation once the Working
Group has verified two interoperable implementations of the Candidate
Recommendation. The XML Security Working Group does not have an
estimate of when this will be achieved. There is no preliminary
interop or implementation report.
]] — <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-xml-c14n2-20120124/#sotd>

Where are we in terms of being able to tell the world how to submit tests results?

-- 
-ericP

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 14:25:50 UTC