Re: [testing] draft of liaison letter [ISSUE-65]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:56:47 +0100, Vickers, Mark  
<Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Here's the updated liaison letter with the suggested changes from our  
>> discussion. Let me know if I've >>missed anything. I have a couple more  
>> questions as well.
>> Should we provide a fax number in case somebody wants to print this out  
>> and just fill it in with a >>pen?
> If they want to print out & use a pen, they can then scan it and email  
> it back.

+1

>
>> Should we provide an HTML form and a link so it can be filled out on  
>> line and logged/aggregated >>automatically?
> It seems good because it's using the web, but I think it's problematic  
> and time-consuming. One difficulty is since the >organizations aren't  
> W3C members, they can't see the aggregated results. So, they'd be  
> filling out a form, which would >go into a hole. Also, would they need  
> to create an account, so the page doesn't get spammed?

agree, it's better to go for a simple document that you as TF moderator  
maintain and then share on the *member only* list once is done (i.e. once  
all results are collected).

>
>> I just pasted the HTML table in the message, but it was suggested to  
>> create a Word document.
Please wait until last minute to include the table as other specs may be  
added (I'm personally going to check if something is missing now).

>>
>> What is the best combination of these response methods to make it easy  
>> for the respondents and >>make it easy for us (although with only a  
>> dozen likely respondents we don't have to get too fancy).
>
> I'd say all replies should just come by return email to whomever sent  
> the survey. FYI, I think this may need to be >Staff. Also, some  
> organizations have liaison relationships, so we'll use those contacts.

I think the letter should be sent out from the chairs (after staff  
approval), as we have done previously for other liaison letters. The reply  
should be sent to the chairs and W3C liaison email. I can take care of  
this, as I've done it already a couple of times.

We should include in the letter an explicit request about confidentiality  
of the response, i.e. if the organization would be OK with us sharing the  
reply on the public list, or if they would prefer it to stay Web&TV member  
confidential.


/g



>
>> Thanks,
>> -Clarke
>>>>
>>>> ------
>> [contact] at [organization],
>>
>> The Web & TV Testing task force of the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C)  
>> is developing testing >>requirements for HTML5 (and other related W3C  
>> specifications), the Web, and television applications. We >>are seeking  
>> input from organizations working in this area to help us prioritize our  
>> HTML5 testing >>requirements.
>
> Suggested rewrite:
> The Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) is sending this survey to ask for  
> [organization] input to help prioritize W3C test >development. The W3C  
> has started an unprecedented effort to greatly increase the test  
> coverage of W3C tests[1][2]. The >W3C understands that other  
> organizations are referencing HTML5 and other W3C specifications. As  
> today, all the tests >and test harnesses will be available for use by  
> other organizations at no cost. In addition, the tests will also be  
> >reorganized to make usage by outside organizations easier.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/02/testing_the_open_web_platform.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Testing
>
>>>>>> If you are a member of W3C, your direct participation in the group  
>>>>>> would be appreciated. Otherwise, you >>can send email to:  
>>>>>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org.
>> Please include [testing] at the beginning of the subject line. Feel  
>> free to add specifications you feel should >>be included in the table.  
>> Individual replies will be kept confidential unless explicit permission  
>> is given to >>make them public. Aggregated anonymous results will be  
>> made public.
>
> I suggest replacing this whole paragraph just asking them to email back  
> to whomever sends this.
>
>> Please use the following values under the "Reference" column:
>> P = The indicated specification is already referenced in one of your  
>> published specifications.
>> F = The indicated specification will be referenced in one of your  
>> future published specifications.
>> N (or blank) = You have no official plans to reference the indicated  
>> specification.
>> Please use the following values under the "Testing" column:
>> M = Testing of the indicated specification is mandatory.
>> O = Testing of the indicated specification is optional.
>> N (or blank) = Not used
> Suggest: N = There will be no testing of this specification.
>
> Perhaps add another column DATE NEEDED and ask them to enter a rough  
> timeframe when the tests would be needed, like >"Now" or "Q1 2014".
>
>>>> We also encourage you to edit or add to our use cases here  
>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/>>Web_%26_TV_Testing_Discussions).
>
> I'd leave out all these side issues and requests for participation.  
> Those can come in follow-up communication. Let's >keep the message  
> focussed on the survey only and not a general engagement,
>
>>>>>> We wish to establish a liaison communication relationship with your  
>>>>>> organization, particularly with those >>groups within your  
>>>>>> organization that may be working on specifications that reference  
>>>>>> W3C specifications >>in general, and the HTML5 specification in  
>>>>>> particular. We welcome an appointed member from your >>organization  
>>>>>> to serve as a formal liaison between our organizations. At this  
>>>>>> time, we have appointed >>[INSERT NAME] to be our liaison to your  
>>>>>> organization.
>
> Of course, some groups already have liaisons. Perhaps we can just end  
> with a general catch-all invitation, something >like:
>
> Feel free to also contact me concerning any additional issues, such as  
> liaison relationships, participation in the W3C >testing activity or  
> information on any other W3C efforts.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> Clarke Stevens
>
> Again, I think this should come from Staff. Maybe Kaz or Philipp?
>
>>>>>> Moderator
>> W3C Web & TV Testing Task Force
>>
>> -----------
>> Feature Coverage Table
>
> Suggest adding a new section at the bottom for "Please write-in any  
> additional W3C specifications" with at least 10 >blank rows.
>
>>> Group >>Category >>CoreMob >>Reference >>Testing
>> HTML5 >>Canvas 2D Content >>M >> >>
 >>HTML5 >>M >> >>
>> CSS >>CSS 2.1 >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Animations >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Backgrounds and Borders >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Color Level 3 >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Fonts Level 3 >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Transforms >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Transitions >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Object Model >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSSOM View Model >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS3 Basic User Interface Model >> >> >>
>>  >>CSS Device Adaptation >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Flexible Box Layout >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Image Values and Replaced >>Content >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Media Queries >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Selectors Level 3 >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Text Level 3 >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Values and Units Module Level 3 >>M >> >>
>>  >>CSS Multi-Column Layout >> >> >>
>>  >>CSS Namespaces >> >> >>
>>  >>CSS Writing Modes >> >> >>
>> Web >>APIs >>CORS >>M >> >>
 >>DOM 3 Events >>M >> >>
 >>DOM 4 >>M >> >>
 >>Progress Events >>M >> >>
 >>Web Storage >>M >> >>
 >>Web Workers >>M >> >>
 >>XMLHttpRequest >>M >> >>
 >>Server-sent Events >> >> >>
 >>Device Orientation Event >>M >> >>
 >>File API >>M >> >>
 >>Geolocatoin API >>M >> >>
 >>Indexed Database API >>M >> >>
 >>Quota Management API >>M >> >>
 >>Timing control for script-based >>animations API >>M >> >>
 >>Touch Events v1 >>M >> >>
 >>Web Messaging API >>M >> >>
>> Other >>W3C >>SVG 1.1 2nd Ed. >>M >> >>
 >>Coverage is quite good. >>M >> >>
 >>WOFF File Format 1.0 >>M >> >>
 >>PNG >> >> >>
 >>GIF >> >> >>
 >>HTML Media Capture >>M >> >>
>> Non W3C >>HTTP 1.1 >>M >> >>
 >>Web Origin Concept >>M >> >>
 >>ECMAScript 5.1 >>M >> >>
 >>WebGL (Canvas 3D) >> >> >>
 >>Open Font format >> >> >>
 >>JPEG >> >> >>
 >>data URL scheme >>M >> >>
 >>mailto URL scheme >>M >> >>
 >>tel URI >>M >> >>
 >>sms URI >>M >> >>
 >>mmsto URI >>M >> >>

>>>>
>>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software