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

Re: Timing of TAG review

From: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:52:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CALgg+HHSDaMXHfAfkZ5tvjLRmEzxRyuOgtnu2bO4eDNKpw0jkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Cc: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>
Anssi, Francois,

I just wanted to check-in on the timing of the TAG review.  The issues
noted as being high priority for TAG review [1] have had (or will have)
some proposal put forward in the spec, so this may be a good time to move
this forward.

Given the number of pull requests that have landed recently, I think a
whole-document editorial pass to make sure terminology, structure, and
markup are consistent would be a good idea.  Then, perhaps we can publish a
working draft using the new process for TAG review.  Francois, can you help
ensure the document is "pubrules-compliant"?

I anticipate changes to naming and API structure (but not functionality) to
address the outstanding issues relating to defining conformance classes [2]
and having clearly defined APIs for the controlling and presenting contexts
[3].  But I am not sure we should delay TAG review based on those.

What do you think?

m.

[1]
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3ATAG
[2] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/93
[3] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/91



On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi MarkFo,
>
> > On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:54, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > 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.
>
> Real world feedback is great to get this early on. We should expect some
> spec churn based on developer feedback (which is great to get).
> Implementers should be prepared for some possible backwards incompatible
> changes too.
>
> [...]
>
> > 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 :)
>
> If that plan sounds reasonable to you given your schedule, that'd be
> perfect. However, I note there are quite many issues open, so please let us
> know if you think you'd prefer us to triage the issues to be able to
> resolve only the highest priority ones prior to TAG review.
>
> Also, the other group members are encouraged to help close the issues by
> submitting proposals, pull requests.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi (WG chair)
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 20:53:23 UTC

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