- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:48:33 +0000
- To: Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: "public-webrtc-editors@w3.org" <public-webrtc-editors@w3.org>
Dom said "go ahead" to send the CfC a couple of hours ago, so I've done that now. Let's hope we were not too quick! Stefan On 07/04/16 14:43, Daniel Burnett wrote: > Right, the implementations don't have to be ready to pass yet. > Traditionally the test suite was a part of the call for CR, but Dom is > definitely the right one to let us know if guidance there has changed. > > -- dan > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no > <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote: > > The test suite is definitely not ready - Alex Gouillard has made > substantial contributions, but it has been languishing for quite a > while. > > I would like Dom's input on process here. If we really need to wait > until we have a comprehensive test suite before asking for CR, I > think we urgently need to make the WG aware of this. > > (I am positively sure that none of the implementations would pass a > comprehensive test suite, and won't do so this quarter either, but > that's a completely different matter.) > > > On 04/06/2016 12:35 PM, 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 >> >> > > > -- > Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. > >
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 12:49:05 UTC