Re: CfC: publish First Public Working Draft of the Presentation API (deadline 12 Feb)

Anssi, Francois,

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi MarkFo,
>
> > On 05 Feb 2015, at 01:39, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Anssi,
> >
> > I wanted to raise a concern that the issues listed in the FPWD milestone
> [1] do not reflect significant remaining work items as far as having the
> spec meet the scope of the charter.  If the goal of the FPWD milestone is
> to gain wider visibility and comment in unfinished areas, shouldn't these
> be included?
>
> Thanks for the review and feedback.
>
> The expectation for First Public Working Draft is not to be feature
> complete. The stage at which feature completeness is required by the
> process is Candidate Recommendation. For an illustration of the process,
> see:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#recs-and-notes
>
> That said, it is very helpful to clearly communicate the issues that the
> group attempts to address before reaching feature completeness in order to
> set the expectation for the wider community that will review the FPWD. To
> that end, Francois updated the Status of This Document section recently to
> better communicate the work in progress status of the spec:
>
> [[
>
> This document is a work in progress and is subject to change. It builds on
> the final report (dated 18 November 2014) produced by the Second Screen
> Presentation Community Group. Algorithms have been drafted in particular.
> Most sections are still incomplete or underspecified. Privacy and security
> considerations are missing. A few open issues are noted inline. Please
> check the group's issue tracker on GitHub for an accurate list. Feedback
> from early experimentations is encouraged to allow the Second Screen
> Presentation Working Group to evolve the specification based on
> implementation issues.
>
>   http://w3c.github.io/presentation-api/#sotd
>
> ]]
>


> > Charter [2]:
> > "...a means to communicate with and control the web content from the
> initiating page and other authorized pages"
> > Implies we should address issues 36 [3] and 19 [4] in the draft spec as
> a work in progress.
> >
> > Charter:
> > "The user agent is responsible for determining which secondary displays
> are compatible with the content that is requested to be shown through the
> API."
> > Implies we should address issue 9 [5] in the draft spec as a work in
> progress.
> >
> > Finally, we have a milestone item for defining postMessage behavior in
> issue 46 [6], but we can't really do that until we finalize the messaging
> API per issue 16 [7].  Since Mozilla already has an implementation should
> that be folded into the spec?
>
> This is something I'd be very happy to see discussed in this group. Please
> feel free to start a focused discussion on this one.
>
> > Would the next step be to reprioritize these issues appropriately, and
> update the spec to ensure that it correctly reflects the scope of remaining
> work?  Otherwise we will be missing feedback on some key aspects.
>
> Does the updated Status of This Document help set the expectations
> appropriately?
>

Thank you for updating the status section and cross referencing the issue
tracker.  If we wish to use the issue tracker to provide transparency into
the work process of the group, then we should update it to reflect intended
work items.


>
> If you'd like to volunteer to do some gardening in the issue tracker, that
> would be very much welcome. In addition, it'd be helpful if you could
> better align the GH issues with the inline issues we have in the spec and
> ensure they're not in conflict with each other, perhaps consider linking
> the inline open issues to corresponding GH issues, ensure they have a
> corresponding GH issue.
>

I can certainly help; I will need edit access to the issue tracker for GH
account 'mfoltzgoogle.'


>
> > I can help craft a pull request with some of these changes.
>
> Thanks for volunteering, much appreciated. Note that the CfC ends 12
> February 2015, so please let me know if you need more time, or if you have
> further questions or concerns.
>

My next opportunity to work on this would be 2/9, so it may be prudent to
extend the CfC if you want review of the updated document and issue tracker.

m.


>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi (WG chair)
>
> > [1] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/milestones/FPWD
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/secondscreen/charter.html
> > [3] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/36
> > [4] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/19
> > [5] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/9
> > [6] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/46
> > [7] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/16
>
>