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:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-webmention-20160524/#feature

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, 
correct?

Correct.

> 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 
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/pull/314#issuecomment-223536159
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 09:41:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 June 2016 09:41:16 UTC