Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs
On 6/6/12 1:55 PM, ext Tobie Langel wrote: Hi, I recently stumbled upon a number of use case and requirements docs (such as MediaStream Capture Scenarios[1] or HTML Speech XG[2]) that were published as officially looking W3C documents (for whatever that means, at least, it's not a page on a Wiki). I think that's tremendously useful, especially for authors who can have a much better understanding of the purpose of a specification that way (and therefore use it the right way and for the right purpose). It's also a smart way to get authors involved without corrupting them into thinking like spec writers or implementors. What are the WebApps WG's plans with regards to that (if any)? I think our [Charter] sets a clear expectation that our new specs will have some type of requirements and use cases and as a spec transitions to Last Call, the group should identify the requirements the spec addresses. There a number of ways to document the UCs and reqs. For example, Bryan is using a wiki for the Push API. Anne included requirements and use cases directly in the CORS spec (although I think they were moved out before CR). Marcos took the higher overhead route of publishing widget requirements as a TR. I don't think anyone has done so but a text file in Hg could also be sufficient as would be an email (thread). Which mechanism is used largely depends on how much time the protagonists are willing to spend. If anyone wants to go the TR route, we can certainly do that and we'd use the normal CfC process to gauge consensus. -Thanks, AB [Charter] http://www.w3.org/2012/webapps/charter/#others
Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs
* Tobie Langel wrote: Hi, (Starting a new thread by replying to a mail and then changing the subject and quoted text is not a good idea; just start a new mail.) I recently stumbled upon a number of use case and requirements docs (such as MediaStream Capture Scenarios[1] or HTML Speech XG[2]) that were published as officially looking W3C documents (for whatever that means, at least, it's not a page on a Wiki). Only documents under http://www.w3.org/TR/ are official publications as far as Working Group's Technical Reports go. The documents above should follow policy http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html for unpublished drafts, like not using Working Draft branding, but currently don't. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs
On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: (Starting a new thread by replying to a mail and then changing the subject and quoted text is not a good idea; just start a new mail.) Guilty as charged. Sorry, won't happen again. I recently stumbled upon a number of use case and requirements docs (such as MediaStream Capture Scenarios[1] or HTML Speech XG[2]) that were published as officially looking W3C documents (for whatever that means, at least, it's not a page on a Wiki). Only documents under http://www.w3.org/TR/ are official publications as far as Working Group's Technical Reports go. Can't WG release notes? --tobie
Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs
* Tobie Langel wrote: On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: Only documents under http://www.w3.org/TR/ are official publications as far as Working Group's Technical Reports go. Can't WG release notes? Working Groups can publish Working Group Notes as Technical Report, they would go under http://www.w3.org/TR/ aswell. And it can publish postings on a blog or publish some position statement on a mailing list and so on my point was mainly that if an address is not under http://www.w3.org/TR odds are you have stumbled on something that's long since been forgotten and links and dates and other things in and on them might be misleading. (The same is sometimes true for documents under http://www.w3.org/TR but there you should at least be able to follow the latest version links to discover the current status of the work, if that has been published re- cently.) -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs
On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Tobie Langel wrote: On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: Only documents under http://www.w3.org/TR/ are official publications as far as Working Group's Technical Reports go. Can't WG release notes? Working Groups can publish Working Group Notes as Technical Report, they would go under http://www.w3.org/TR/ aswell. OK, but the process is lighter, no? --tobie
Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote: OK, but the process is lighter, no? Yes, there is no process besides the WG agrees to publish it. ~TJ
