W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > January 2017

[presentation-api] Publish a revised Candidate Recommendation

From: Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:05:32 +0000
To: public-secondscreen@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-201211802-1484643930-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
anssiko has just created a new issue for 
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api:

== Publish a revised Candidate Recommendation ==
[All - please let us know if you have any comments or concerns with 
this publication plan. Silence is considered consent.]

There has been [substantive changes][1] to the Presentation API since 
the latest [Candidate Recommendation 14 July 2016][2] thanks to 
extensive implementation feedback and findings from the conformance 
testing of the API. See also the [visual HTML diff][3] between the CR 
and the latest [Editor's Draft][4]. Given that, we should publish a 
revised Candidate Recommendation.

Per the [process for revising a CR][5], the group needs to address the
 following requirements to make that happen:

- [x] must show that the revised specification meets all Working Group
 requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been 
deferred,
- [ ] must specify the deadline for further comments, which must be at
 least four weeks after publication, and should be longer for complex 
documents,
- [ ] must document the changes since the previous Candidate 
Recommendation,
- [ ] must show that the proposed changes have received wide review, 
and
- [ ] may identify features in the document as "at risk". These 
features may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation 
without a requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.

To tick the boxes, I suggest we:

* use the deadline of four weeks for further comments,
* document high-level changes since the first CR in the Status of This
 Document section, and in addition, link to the [GitHub compare][1] 
(or the HTML diff) for the detailed changes (@mfoltzgoogle could you 
help compile the high-level list?), 
* regarding the wide review of the changes, @tidoust let us know your 
recommendation how to handle the wide review of the delta,
* document "at risk" features in the SoTD section as well -- 
implementers @mfoltzgoogle @schien et al.: please let us know if there
 are features in the spec you are considering not to implement.

Finally, after we've ticked the above boxes, @tidoust will help us 
acquire the approval from the Director to publish a revision, and I 
expect will help prepare a publication-ready updated CR snapshot:

- [ ] must obtain the Director's approval to publish a revision of a 
Candidate Recommendation

[1]: 
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/compare/gh-pages@%7B2016-07-14%7D...gh-pages
[2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-presentation-api-20160714/
[3]: 
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2016%2FCR-presentation-api-20160714%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Frawgit.com%252Fw3c%252Fpresentation-api%252Fgh-pages%252Findex.html%253FspecStatus%253DED%253BshortName%253Dpresentation-api
[4]: https://w3c.github.io/presentation-api/
[5]: https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/406 using your GitHub 
account
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 09:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:19:02 UTC