- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:51:06 +0000
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Scott <markdavidscott@google.com>, "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, "Daniel Davis" <ddavis@w3.org>
On 02 Jun 2014, at 14:28, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: [...] > In the end, from a charter perspective, I would simply define interoperability as "same content rendered and same experience regardless of the implementation and secondary display considered" with the following draft proposal for the Success Criteria section: > > [[ > To advance to Proposed Recommendation, each specification is expected to have two independent implementations of each feature defined in the specification. > > To advance to Proposed Recommendation, interoperability between the independent implementations (that is, same content rendered and same experience regardless of the implementation and secondary display considered) should be demonstrated. The Test Suite prepared by the Working Group is key to success. > ]] > > Now, I agree that this does not say much about interoperability. I suspect we all want to go beyond that but I do not see how to amend the draft charter in that effect. Perhaps we could also say that the spec will contain informative guidance for implementers, meaning some sort of best practices to add support for a particular type of screen or something like that. Any better suggestion, anyone? Or its own Best Practices document? Given this would be non-normative, it could be either in the spec or in its own standalone document to be published as a W3C Note. We should mentioned this in the Other Deliverables section, give the group some freedom to do it either way. Feel free to propose text. I think we can learn from the WebRTC group in this regard, as they also need to do realistic end-to-end testing. >> If the proposed charter needs to be updated on this aspect, I’d be happy to merge another pull request from you :-) > > I'd be happy to turn the proposed text into a pull request that would also move protocols out of scope for the group if that sounds good for everyone. Sounds good. I’d +1 on moving protocols out of scope. Please send a PR and ping the group for review. Thanks for your help! -Anssi
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 12:51:39 UTC