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

Re: Timing of TAG review

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:48:18 +0200
Message-ID: <55840182.7020809@w3.org>
To: "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
CC: "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>
On 2015-06-18 22:52, mark a. foltz wrote:
> 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.

That all makes sense to me :)

Anssi, although that directly follows from resolutions and actions 
agreed upon at the F2F, given the number of updates that were made, I 
wonder if we shouldn't turn that into a proper call for consensus that 
would ask everyone here to:

1. review latest changes, with a specific focus on making sure that 
terminology, structure, and markup are consistent ;
2. note the anticipated changes that are still pending (but certainly 
not forgotten) ;
3. agree with the plan to publish an updated Working Draft and to ask 
the TAG, Privacy IG (PING) and Web Security IG for an initial review and 
specific feedback on issues labeled "TAG":


That means another 10 days or so before going to the TAG, but that would 
give time for everyone to do a whole-document editorial pass. What do 
you think?

>  Francois, can you help ensure the document is "pubrules-compliant"?

It is already as pubrules-compliant as possible except for a now broken 
reference to DOMException which is no longer defined in the DOM standard 
but got moved to WebIDL. All links to:


... should be replaced by links to:


To run the new pubrules checker on the editor's draft, just go to:


... and enter the URL to check, selecting "Working Draft" as Profile and 
"Check that the document is valid for automatic publication with 
Echidna". The errors reported are all due to the fact that this is an 
Editor's Draft, and not a Working Draft. The changes I made to the 
Makefile should produce a working draft that fixes these errors.

To check links:


There is no real need to test the generated Working Draft before 
triggering Echidna. Echidna will run the pubrules checker and refuse to 
publish the draft if it contains errors in any case. Echidna will report 
the outcome to the public-tr-notifications mailing-list:


> 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?

I agree.


> 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
Received on Friday, 19 June 2015 11:48:30 UTC

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