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 :)


> 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