- From: Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:05:32 +0000
- To: public-secondscreen@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