Re: PFWG request for abstract and introductions

2014-09-30 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 9/4/14 8:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi Michael, All,

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm _really_ sorry for the delayed reply [this 
email was accidentally moved to my Back Burner folder where I just 
noticed it)!


Although I will check all of WebApps' specs and ask Editors to update 
their documents accordingly, are there any specs that are of high/keen 
interest to you? (WebApps' spec list is 
https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus.)



Hi Michael, All,

Yves and Cindy agreed to take the lead to followup on your request. My 
expectation is they will check all of WebApps' specs and if/when a spec 
could be improved, they will file a Bug/Issue accordingly.


Again, if you and/or your colleagues have specific specs that concern 
you, please do let us know.


-Thanks, Art



On 6/20/14 10:33 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:
The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group has looked at a number of 
specifications published by the Web Applications Working Group 
recently. Our process is to note the publication of documents and 
take a quick look to determine if they need a closer review. However, 
many of the documents we have looked at recently have extremely brief 
abstracts, and no introductions. This makes it very difficult for us 
to figure out the nature of the specification, and in turn to 
determine what our interest in it might be.


We request that you add more complete abstracts to the 
specifications, to provide a high-level but more complete idea of 
what the specification does. We also request that you add 
introduction sections to the specifications, to explain what problem 
the technology solves and how (in general terms) it addresses that. 
We think this will aid our own review and will also greatly help 
other reviewers to make useful comments.


Michael Cooper
PFWG staff contact








Re: PFWG request for abstract and introductions

2014-09-04 Thread Arthur Barstow

Hi Michael, All,

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm _really_ sorry for the delayed reply [this 
email was accidentally moved to my Back Burner folder where I just 
noticed it)!


Although I will check all of WebApps' specs and ask Editors to update 
their documents accordingly, are there any specs that are of high/keen 
interest to you? (WebApps' spec list is 
https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus.)


-Thanks, ArtB

On 6/20/14 10:33 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:
The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group has looked at a number of 
specifications published by the Web Applications Working Group 
recently. Our process is to note the publication of documents and take 
a quick look to determine if they need a closer review. However, many 
of the documents we have looked at recently have extremely brief 
abstracts, and no introductions. This makes it very difficult for us 
to figure out the nature of the specification, and in turn to 
determine what our interest in it might be.


We request that you add more complete abstracts to the specifications, 
to provide a high-level but more complete idea of what the 
specification does. We also request that you add introduction sections 
to the specifications, to explain what problem the technology solves 
and how (in general terms) it addresses that. We think this will aid 
our own review and will also greatly help other reviewers to make 
useful comments.


Michael Cooper
PFWG staff contact






PFWG request for abstract and introductions

2014-06-20 Thread Michael Cooper
The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group has looked at a number of 
specifications published by the Web Applications Working Group recently. 
Our process is to note the publication of documents and take a quick 
look to determine if they need a closer review. However, many of the 
documents we have looked at recently have extremely brief abstracts, and 
no introductions. This makes it very difficult for us to figure out the 
nature of the specification, and in turn to determine what our interest 
in it might be.


We request that you add more complete abstracts to the specifications, 
to provide a high-level but more complete idea of what the specification 
does. We also request that you add introduction sections to the 
specifications, to explain what problem the technology solves and how 
(in general terms) it addresses that. We think this will aid our own 
review and will also greatly help other reviewers to make useful comments.


Michael Cooper
PFWG staff contact