- From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:15:51 -0700
- To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
- Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Nicely done, Julee. Thanks. On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote: > Hi, DougM: > > Thanks for that input. I especially like the phrase "reliable and reusable > reference for the community". Given the nature of this doc (putting a stake > in the ground), we don't want to put anything in there that will top the > project's progress, right? So, I did take the liberty to edit out your > refinements and suggestions. I added them as an comments page, one level > down,[1] in case you thought any points were critical to reintroduce into > this document. Also, the content group can review it when they form their > part of the project. > > HTH > > Julee > > [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Project_Status/comments > > ---------------------------- > julee@adobe.com > @adobejulee > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:02 PM > To: julee <julee@adobe.com> > Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" > <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Beta and Beyond > > OK. I edited the page, taking a fresh crack at defining "accuracy" > for the purpose of declaring the content up to Beta level. I did my > best to remain true to the already-expressed intent. In the process, > I renamed "content items" to "content areas" (like CSS properties), > and suggested that we try to get areas up to this Beta standard in > series (in parallel, but staged, maybe), pointing out that our > elevated definition of done would require elevated community > participation. > > I (internally) debated the API requirement as being excessive, but > after overtly adding reusability to the Beta standard, an API seemed > like a given. I added this as another consideration for sequencing > areas to Beta status, since getting to a working API and real users > might vary highly in net work to be done (and therefor, in current > readiness, beyond raw content). > > As usual, my first draft is wordy, in the service of completeness and > low ambiguity for the next round of discussion, and I trust that > someone far more focused will trim the excess. > > DougM > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote: > > Ah. Thanks. Do you have alternative language? J > > > ---------------------------- > julee@adobe.com > @adobejulee > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:26 PM > To: julee <julee@adobe.com> > Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" > <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> > Subject: 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 18:16:23 UTC