W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > June 2016

Re: [presentation-api] CR Exit criteria

From: François Daoust via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:41:14 +0000
To: public-secondscreen@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-223536159-1464946873-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> Should we define "feature"? Or is that defined implicitly by the 
test suite for each conformance class?

Most specs leave that implicit. I could not find a generic definition 
of "feature" in the specs I had a look at. In some cases, groups have 
gone one step further and actually list the features, c.f. the 
WebMention spec for a recent example:

However, it may not be easy to apply that to our case, because our 
algorithms have more paths and conditions to check. We could start 
with the list of algorithms:

For the purposes of evaluating exit criteria, each of the following is
 considered a feature:

- For controlling user agents:
 - Constructing a PresentationRequest
 - Starting a presentation
 - Reconnecting to a presentation
 - Getting the presentation displays availability information
 - Monitoring the list of available presentation displays
 - Establishing a presentation connection
 - Sending a message through PresentationConnection
 - Receiving a message through PresentationConnection
 - Closing a PresentationConnection
 - Terminating a presentation in a controlling browsing context
 - Handling a termination confirmation in a controlling user agent

- For receiving user agents:
 - Creating a receiving browsing context
 - Monitoring incoming presentation connections
 - Sending a message through PresentationConnection
 - Receiving a message through PresentationConnection
 - Terminating a presentation in a receiving browsing context

However, the granularity does not look good enough. For instance, for 
"Starting a presentation", we would probably want to be much more 
precise, e.g.:
- Starting a presentation in the absence of user interaction
- Starting a presentation from a non secure context
- Starting a presentation from within an iframe
- Starting a presentation when a presentation is already starting.
- etc.

That's a bit tedious though, we would end up with the list of test 
cases in the test suite (and we have not built that list yet).

Feel free to add a generic some wording or build on the above text. 
Personally, I would leave the definition of feature implicit :)

> If (for example) Chrome implemented the 1-UA receiving user agent 
and Mozilla implemented the 2-UA receiving user agent, that would 
fulfill the criteria of having two interoperable and independent 
implementations of the receiving user agent conformance class, 


> Editing comment: Should the first sentence of each definition be 
capitalized? :)

They should :) I updated the PR accordingly.

GitHub Notification of comment by tidoust
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 09:41:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:19:00 UTC