Re: Announce CfC for moving mediacapture-main to CR

Thanks Dan.

I take your comment as you think the draft itself is in good enough 
shape to request a transition to CR, but we need to think about how we 
will document how "adequate implementation experience will be 
demonstrated" (quoted from the process document). I think that is a good 
comment, and I think Dom is looking into it.

Stefan

On 06/04/16 12:35, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> Two thoughts:
> 1. Typically you only move to CR when you are pretty sure there will be
> no more substantive changes.  I am almost convinced that's the case :)
> 2. CR is also a call for implementations, usually based on a test
> suite.  Is the test suite completely ready?  I haven't been directly
> following that but plan to soon; however, I got the impression we are
> not yet ready.
> In particular, the tests I find [1] look good but appear to be far fewer
> in number than I would guess we have normative statements for in the
> spec.  The issue here is that a CR period normally has a defined end by
> when the Implementation Reports need to be in, something difficult to do
> if the test suite is not yet complete.
>
> I do absolutely think it is time to work on the wording for the Call for
> Implementations, meaning that we work out just exactly what we expect to
> receive from implementers in the form of an Implementation Report.  If
> this happened and I missed it, please feel free to point me in the right
> direction.
>
> -- dan
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/mediacapture-streams
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     Dan is in the process of making a new Editor's draft which incorporates
>     the PRs #319 and #330.
>
>     The chairs would like to announce a CfC to the TF (which will then I
>     suppose have to be cascaded to the parent WebRTC and DAP WGs) to request
>     a transition to Candidate Recommendation.
>
>     We know there are still some open Issues, but we think they are all
>     solvable (something we would also say in the CfC mail).
>
>     Does any of the editors see a problem with moving forward in this way?
>
>     Stefan for the chairs
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2016 11:16:45 UTC