- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:49:03 -0700
- To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Hi Thierry et al., I am happy to draft a SOTD for the IMSC CR, based on Thierry's input at [1] and the exit criteria listed in the 2014 process [2]. I am planning to do so for consideration at the TPAC F2F. Best, -- Pierre [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/WD-ttml-imsc1-20141014/Overview.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#candidate-rec On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > [adding PlH] > > On 14/10/2014 17:50, Nigel Megitt wrote: >> >> Thierry, >> >> thanks for preparing this. For folk having trouble accessing the CR draft >> the correct link is: >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/WD-ttml-imsc1-20141014/Overview.html >> >> >> Exit Criteria >> >> The exit criteria stated here include a requirement for two independent >> interoperable implementations of each feature. Many times I've been told >> that there is no W3C process requirement for this criterion. So that we >> can make the best decision when choosing the appropriate exit criteria >> from this CR, please could you outline the options that we have here? > > > The "two independent interoperable implementations of each feature", is the > regular exit criteria, that most Draft go throught (at least with the former > 2005 Process). Note that each implementation does not necessary covers all > features. > > If you want some different exit criteria, you will make your case to the > Director when requesting transition to CR. > > This is what will be asked for transition to CR (new 2014 Process) about > Implementation: > > - The group must document how adequate implementation experience will be > demonstrated. Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the > WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented (e.g., a > matrix showing how different pieces or classes of software implement > different features)? Is the expectation to show two complete implementations > (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show > that each feature is implemented twice in some piece of software? > - What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional > features? In general, the Director expects mandatory features and optional > features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional > features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability) > may require less implementability testing. > - Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help > demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day > or workshop? Is one planned?)? > > > >> >> >> Review end date >> >> I'm unsure right now when we will /enter/ CR, but specifying an end date >> no sooner than 31 December may appear provocative to some, depending on >> how long the minimum review period ends up being, because it is during a >> time when many folk take holidays. It may be more appropriate to set the >> end date a little later (or even earlier), noting that we may hit a heavy >> period of comment reviews when we think about TTML2 as well - our >> timetable has the TTML2 pre-CR WD review period ending mid-January right >> now. > > > Remember that this is a minimum review date. > Per W3C process it must be at least four weeks after publication. > > http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#candidate-rec > > So depending on the CR publication, we will setup that date. It is a no > brainer. > > >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Nigel >> >> >> >> On 03/10/2014 15:32, "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Pierre, Nigel, TTWG, >>> >>> Now that we have published the IMSC1 WD for wide review, we should be >>> tracking incoming comments on public-tt@w3.org. >>> >>> If there are comments coming in, we should discuss those, by email or >>> during calls, or at F2F and come to a WG resolution. Then the WD should >>> respond to each commenter to collect his approval. >>> (We don't necessary have to accept the proposal from the commenter, but >>> if we don't, we should explain why it is only partially >>> adopted/postponed or rejected/, etc. >>> Finally, if the commenter does not agree to our resolution, we will make >>> our case to the Director. >>> >>> In parallel we should start working on the CR draft. >>> >>> Therefore I have drafted the SOTD section [1] for this CR, that Pierre >>> may incorporate in his document. >>> >>> Please look at the exit criteria and the end date of CR (set for 31 dec >>> 2014), and let's discuss those. >>> >>> Thierry. >>> >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/09/WD-ttml-imsc1-20141014/ >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 19:49:54 UTC