W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > June 2015

Re: Timing of TAG review

From: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:54:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CALgg+HEeiYu_qP0eL0-Fqr1hPGuRiRY9+O_PFSjtgav22gJhzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Cc: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi MarkFo, Francois,
>
> > On 08 Jun 2015, at 11:24, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> As part of the process of exposing the API, the Chrome Web platform team
> >> usually wants to see a W3C TAG review of the specification requested or
> >> in progress.
> >
> > Side process note in case people are wondering: asking the TAG to review
> our spec is not required per process as such.
>
> [...]
>
> Francois - I think the trigger for this TAG review comes from the
> "Intent-to-Ship" process of Blink, see [1].
>
> Mark - correct?
>

Yes that's correct.


> The W3C Process itself does not require a TAG review, although conducting
> such a review is recommended as Francois explained. I guess we should
> expect these Blink initiated TAG reviews to happen earlier than those
> (optionally) triggered by the W3C Process at wide review since there's
> tendency to ship things early to the developer channel.
>

Yes, part of the goal is to solicit feedback from the wider developer
community and improve the implementation based on real world usage.  Since
this is a relatively major feature with dependencies on several browser
components, the sooner we can get this feedback, the better.


>
> I agree that the list of tasks proposed by Francois would make the spec
> easier to digest for someone not actively following the work (e.g. a TAG
> member). However, given the spec is still relatively fresh, this TAG review
> would be more about asking for TAG input and thus open questions should be
> highlighted in the spec to set the expectations right.
>
> I agree a good procedural milestone to reach before requesting the TAG
> review would be to publish a new snapshot of the spec in the "TR space".
>

So is the plan to finish the items outlined by Francois, publish a report
in the TR space and then request review?  Just trying to gauge the scope of
work remaining for the editor here :)

m.



>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi (WG chair)
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Apr/0019.html
Received on Monday, 8 June 2015 16:55:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:18:56 UTC