Re: How should we represent the status of a spec?

You, Sir, should really join our 5pm CET talk today on using test data in webplatform.org. 

And I should draft a more explicit proposal somewhere on how I'm thinking about storing this data and making it available.

--tobie 


On Friday, February 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Chris Mills wrote:

> Here are some thoughts for this proposal
> 
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Proposals/spec_status_representation
> 
> Chris Mills
> Opera Software, dev.opera.com (http://dev.opera.com)
> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org (http://webplatform.org)
> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
> 
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 09:20, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com (mailto:tobie@fb.com)> wrote:
> 
> > Sounds good.
> > 
> > --tobie 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, February 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Chris Mills wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm currently writing up a proposed solution to this, which I'll share soon - feel free to add to it when I do ;-)
> > > 
> > > Chris Mills
> > > Opera Software, dev.opera.com (http://dev.opera.com)
> > > W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org (http://webplatform.org)
> > > Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
> > > 
> > > On 15 Feb 2013, at 09:00, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com (mailto:tobie@fb.com)> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi, 
> > > > 
> > > > Spec status is important to webplatform.org (http://webplatform.org), referencing within specs[1] and our new testing effort.
> > > > 
> > > > Robin and I have been discussing finding an authoritative place for where this data could reside and be used by all W3C properties.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we should start having a cross-project conversation on the subject.
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > --tobie
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > [1]: https://github.com/darobin/respec/blob/develop/bibref/biblio.js
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, February 15, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Julee wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi, everyone:
> > > > > 
> > > > > We discussed the following bug at the last meeting: Finalize categories of "Standardization Status": stable, proprietary, draft (bug #20386 (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20386)). And we have other threads about this issue (such as "Subject: Standards status categories (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Dec/0179.html)").
> > > > > 
> > > > > You can see an example on the font-size page (http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/properties/font-size), after the title. You'll see the words "W3C Recommendation". These spec status values are not very usable as presented.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We want to take as a given that the community does need to know the status so it can be encouraged to participate in the standard development process. The community does need to know if a spec is in "last call" or whatnot.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But given that:
> > > > > What is your option on providing different values than those of W3C?
> > > > > Can you suggest values or a presentation more immediately helpful to WPD visitors? (One example of useful status was provided: html5please.com (http://html5please.com/#gradients))
> > > > > How should we represent feature status so visitor knows whether it's in most browsers? Production-ready?
> > > > > Should we add information about level of usability? Providing both values?
> > > > > Should we move this info to the bottom of the page? Near compatibility? Or should it stay up top for easy identification? Maybe an easy flag up top with details below?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated! And if you think you can provide a solution, please speak up. If you feel you have enough information from the above resources and any discussion ensuing from this query email to draft a proposal, please let us know and use the proposals namespace (http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Proposals) to write something up!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Julee
> > > > > ----------------------------
> > > > > julee@adobe.com (mailto:julee@adobe.com)
> > > > > @adobejulee
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>

Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 11:37:54 UTC