Re: Beta and Beyond

Hi, Julee.

Quoting http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status#Goals_for_content:

"It should be accurate

  There must be no inaccuracies"

I do see the other references to "reasonably complete" and clearly
tagging whatever is not yet fully reliable, but there is still at
least one unreasonably absolutist requirement in the current working
copy.

DougM

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi, DougM:
>
> Ha! I really appreciate your statement "we're changing the game, not adding
> new variants to the impossible dream."
>
> But I didn't see the quote you used: "should have no errors". What is there
> now is "should not have erroneous information",[1] with qualifiers. We
> should have exemplary content. And if we have pages that are not beta ready,
> we should make it easy for the visitor to distinguish the good from the --
> not vetted.
>
> Again, we should work in the individual project areas to fine-tune the
> criteria, but I hope this is along the lines you were thinking.
>
> Regards.
>
> Julee
>
> [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status#Goals_for_content
>
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:53 PM
> To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
> Cc: julee <julee@adobe.com>, julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>,
> "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers
> <schepers@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Beta and Beyond
>
> I still think "should have no errors" is impractical.  Maybe 90+%
> fully vetted (both technical and grammar, plus some baseline
> understandability), 95+% peer reviewed and provisionally approved, and
> 99+% cleared by the author (latest editor) and some initial review.
> Maybe what I'm trying to say is that we should go live with criteria
> that can't be invalidated in the first two minutes.  Remember -- we're
> changing the game, not adding new variants to the impossible dream.
>
> I applaud the API intention, but again unless there's been some major
> groundwork, this seems excessive for beta, unless there has already
> been substantial groundwork on an api spec, and we have already
> established user expectations to provide one.  I'm ignorant here -- is
> there a reasonable industry standard for code hinting, syntax
> highlighting, and auto-completion?  If there is, and we know that our
> repo is structured so as to make it easy to reliably output the needed
> metadata, then I'm excited to look at going for it.  Otherwise, my gut
> tells me there's a shortfall on the groundwork on this area, and it's
> an unneeded distraction on the way to Betaville.
>
> Please note that this advice is provided at no charge, with the full
> expectation that it was not unreasonably overpriced.  ymmv
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Julee,
>
> I removed the second "DOM Reference pages" under "Content items for later."
> The distinction/stipulation about having URLs is sufficient as is, says I.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Scott:
>
> Good point. It was my understanding that the Content project team would
> validate, flesh out, and recirculate a finalized list.
>
> So maybe do you want to fix the typo and add that distinction?
>
> Julee
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
>
> From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
> Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 5:20 PM
> To: julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>
> Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers
> <schepers@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Beta and Beyond
>
> hi all,
>
> I think that there is a typo under "Content items for later" where DOM
> reference pages are cited - both here and under "Content Items."
>
> My guess is that we won't have a complete DOM API reference, though
> meeting all of the goals for content is not unrealistic, but we should at
> least set the goal of having the pages organized in a coherent hierarchy
> delineated in the URLs.
>
> +Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, everyone:
>
> At today's community meeting we reviewed
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status and, barring any
> objections, we agreed to move ahead with it.
>
> Regards.
>
> Julee
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
> Organization: W3C
> Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:36 PM
> To: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> Subject: Beta and Beyond
> Resent-From: <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:37 PM
>
>>Hi, folks-
>>
>>Julee, Eliot, and I met on Friday to start to lock down our Beta
>>requirements and schedule. The gist (which should surprise nobody) is
>>that we will be making project for each "activity" in the project
>>management system (Bug Genie)
>>
>>Our Beta criteria will be focused on Infrastructure, Content, and
>>Community goals.
>>
>>We would like to establish a timeline for each project based on our
>>community discussion evaluation of the time needed, so please help
>>refine our rough notes here:
>>
>>http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status
>>
>>With a week or so, we hope to have several projects entered into
>>project.webplatform.org, and we'll use that as a starting point for
>>further refinements.
>>
>>Some criteria we want to meet may not be Beta... they may be later
>>goals. We should still list them and keep track of them.
>>
>>Regards-
>>-Doug
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 01:27:34 UTC