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

Also, perhaps add two more things after the table:

1. "Comments: Please let us know anything else that would be relevant to our testing work, such as any requirements for test tools or how to make the tests work well with your testing process.__________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________"

2. "Confidentiality: Would you like your responses to be:
[  ] W3C Public - Your full reply will be posted on the W3C public Website, or
[  ] W3C Member Confidential - Your full reply will only be available to W3C Members. Your anonymized responses will be included in aggregated results on the public W3C website."

Thanks,
mav


On Mar 29, 2013, at 6:56 PM, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com<mailto:Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>>
 wrote:


On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com<mailto: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.

  *   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?

  *   I just pasted the HTML table in the message, but it was suggested to create a Word document.
  *   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.

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<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3c.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