- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:12:52 +0100
- To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Cc: "<public-web-and-tv@w3.org>" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:09:22 +0100, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > I had another thought about the liaison letter after the call: Instead > of stating that all responses will be W3C member-confidential, perhaps > we should provide an option for the group to indicate whether they want > their response to be public or member-confidential. There may be some > organizations that are more open than others. > Sounds good. The end result though will still be just an aggregated one. That will basically be the input we are going to provide to the W3C testing WG as input from the TV folks. The single responses can be either public or member-confidential. /g > Thanks, > mav > > On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> minutes from the last call, also in txt below >> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/03/27-webtv-minutes.html >> >> ---- >> 27 Mar 2013 >> >> [2]Agenda >> >> [2] >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Agenda_Telco_27th_March_2013 >> >> See also: [3]IRC log >> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/03/27-webtv-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Mark_Vickers, kaz, Graham, sheau, yosuke, Clarke, Bin, >> giuseppep >> >> Regrets >> Chair >> Clarke >> >> Scribe >> Mark_Vickers >> >> Contents >> >> * [4]Topics >> * [5]Summary of Action Items >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> clarke: Any open action items? >> >> giuseppe: old items cleaned out. >> >> clarke: will add action items to subsequent agendas >> ... Next topic is letter to related organizations >> ... (Reads draft liaison letter.) >> ... mav: Should we send a list of specs and ask to check off >> list? >> >> giuseppe: we could reference the table of specs recently >> posted. >> >> sheau: Does link give enough clarity for groups not so familiar >> with W3C? >> >> <giuseppep> alternative link could be this: >> [6]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Testing >> >> [6] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Testing >> >> sheau: For example, in ATSC, for example, they'd want more >> information. >> >> clarke: Asks Sheau to draft some text >> ... each liaison person can tailor the communication. >> >> mav: suggests attaching list of spcs >> >> clarke: will add list of specs >> >> mav: Will info be member confidential or public? >> >> giuseppe: We can make aggregate page public >> >> <Clarke> Here's the table: >> [7]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Feature_Coverage_T >> able >> >> [7] >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Feature_Coverage_Table >> >> giuseppe: Post aggregate responses on the public wiki. Send >> individual liaison responses only on the member mail list, not >> on the wiki. >> ... Explain that there is a need to prioritize W3C testing >> work. >> >> clarke: will ask for three level priority from liaison >> responses (i.e. low, medium, high) >> >> shaeu: Do we want to ask for current level of reference? i.e. >> already referenced in spec, planned to be referenced, etc. >> >> giuseppe: Perhaps addd a column for current spec usage >> >> mav: Perhaps use required/optional/no referenced instead of low >> medium and high >> >> clarke: Perhaps: Mandatory, Recommended, Not used >> ... Other column could show Currently published vs. Future >> publication >> >> Bin: Maybe ask for version number instead of Current/Future >> >> sheau: We could also ask them to provide link to spec >> >> mav: Column on current usage could be more sensitive. >> >> giuseppe: organizations can respond how they wish >> >> sheau: Suggest adding a column for comments. >> >> clarke: Will send draft to list >> >> giuseppe: Also include that response will be kept member >> confidential. >> ... asks where TV column came from >> >> mav: TV column came from me. We should delete it >> >> giuseppe: Suggests removing "Non W3C specs" >> >> clarke: Agrees to remove "non-w3c specs" >> >> giuseppe: suggest not including table in letter drafts until >> table more complete >> ... When do we send it out? >> >> clarke: Can be complete by next week. I'll have draft out >> before next week's meeting. >> ... Next topic: use cases >> >> giuseppe: (Describes process for creating a use cases while >> Clarke shows on screen sharing.) >> ... (Describes process for creating ISSUE while Clarke >> demonstrates on screen sharing.) >> ... New issue will create email to list. >> ... Use the ISSUE-nnn in email or just reply to the original >> automatic posting >> >> clarke: Next topic: Giuseppe to introduce his new use case. >> >> giuseppe: Functional completeness not sufficient - performance >> also important for some specs. e.g. spec could be implemented >> correctly, but too slow to be useful. >> ... One issue is browser support for timing tests. Some >> browsers support it, but it's not standard. >> >> clarke: Some basic timing features would be useful and would >> meet this requirement. >> ... If in test tool or code, you can say START TIMER and STOP >> TIMER >> >> giuseppe: Problem is the response you get from JavaScript is >> not precise enough, so you need better support. >> >> mav: Are there two outputs to this use case: 1. to spec missing >> API and 2. Suggest where to use performance testing >> >> giuseppe: Yes. The two outputs go to two different groups. >> ... Please provide comments on the use case to the list >> >> clarke: closes meeting >> >> >> -- >> Giuseppe Pascale >> Product Manager TV & Connected Devices >> Opera Software >> -- Giuseppe Pascale Product Manager TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 15:13:26 UTC