- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:00:05 -0500
- To: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Cc: Olli@pettay.fi, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Yes, I considered explicitly saying "v1", but that implies that there will be a v2, something which always depends on interest level down the road. This is why I said "any specification developed based on the work of this group", meaning that any specification that does not address the requirement you checked is, in your opinion, incomplete. Presumably a v1 would need to satisfy everything you considered necessary. Thanks for all the clarifying questions -- I'm sure others had those as well! -- dan On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Bjorn Bringert wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Olli Pettay > <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote: >> On 01/14/2011 04:03 PM, Dan Burnett wrote: >>> >>> There is no way in the survey to do that, and that is on purpose. >>> From a >>> standards perspective the only difference between the two is one of >>> timing, and I have seen groups spend absurd amounts of time trying >>> to >>> distinguish (as a group) between the two when what really matters >>> most >>> is what people are willing to work on *today*. >> >> I'd be willing to work on both specs in the same time, v1, an v2 >> (if we'll have such), but I'd expect v1 to stabilize sooner and have >> implementations sooner than v2. >> >>> >>> Essentially anything that we do not want today will only happen in >>> the >>> future if there is interest to work on it at that time. >>> >>> Now, if what you want is a way to say "we should never do that, >>> for any >>> reason, at any time between now and infinity", that is a >>> discussion that >>> will only be necessary if there is otherwise resounding interest in >>> actually doing that thing now. I am sure that a discussion will >>> ensue in >>> that situation, questionnaire or no questionnaire. >>> >>> The goal here is to have a general priority ordering on which >>> requirements fulfill the interests of the broadest numbers of >>> organizations (as a proxy for the industry in general) so we can >>> focus >>> on those first. >> >> Ok, sounds like I should prioritize then the requirements we >> need for "v1". > > That's my interpretation as well. > > >>> We can work on supporting others later (only) as there >>> is interest. >>> >>> -- dan >>> >>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Bjorn Bringert wrote: >>> >>>> There is only a single boolean choice for each requirement. How >>>> should >>>> we express the distinction between "should not address" and >>>> "address >>>> later" (aka "do it in v2")? >>>> >>>> /Bjorn >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Group, >>>>> >>>>> The prioritization questionnaire is now ready and available at >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45260/ReqPri02/ >>>>> >>>>> As with the earlier requirements interest questionnaire, this one >>>>> asks for >>>>> only one input per Member organization. If you are not >>>>> officially a >>>>> member >>>>> of the Incubator Group, you should be :) However, in the mean time >>>>> you can >>>>> fill out the text version (linked from the page above) and send >>>>> it to >>>>> me, >>>>> Michael Bodell, or the list and we will incorporate it into the >>>>> results. >>>>> Please, only one reply per organization. >>>>> >>>>> The questionnaire is open through Wednesday of next week. If you >>>>> need an >>>>> extension please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> -- dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bjorn Bringert >>>> Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham >>>> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ >>>> Registered in England Number: 3977902 >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Bjorn Bringert > Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham > Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ > Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 19:00:40 UTC