Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[meta] Publish Proposed Recommendation #130

Open
5 of 15 tasks
anssiko opened this issue Dec 20, 2019 · 6 comments
Open
5 of 15 tasks

[meta] Publish Proposed Recommendation #130

anssiko opened this issue Dec 20, 2019 · 6 comments

Comments

@anssiko
Copy link
Member

anssiko commented Dec 20, 2019

This meta issue tracks progress toward the Remote Playback API Proposed Recommendation (PR) publication. Editor: @mounirlamouri

You see many tickboxes below, but fear not. Almost all of them are administrative in nature and we'll bite that bullet for you with @tidoust. In fact, only the following needs explicit input from the group:

TL;DR: before advancing to PR the group needs to identify whether any of the issues raised since 2017-10-19 are substantive and address them, or whether they should be deferred to the next version of the API.

Please provide your feedback by 2020-01-17.

The general requirements for advancement:

  • must record the group's decision to request advancement.
  • must obtain Director approval.
  • must provide public documentation of all substantive changes to the technical report since the previous publication.
  • must formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous maturity level.
  • must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections.
    • none
The general should requirements aka nice-to-haves
  • should provide public documentation of changes that are not substantive.
  • should report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
  • should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
  • should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group.

The PR-specific requirements for advancement:

  • The status information must specify the deadline for Advisory Committee review, which must be at least 28 days after the publication of the Proposed Recommendation and should be at least 10 days after the end of the last Exclusion Opportunity per section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy.
  • must show adequate implementation experience except where an exception is approved by the Director,
  • must show that the document has received wide review,
  • must show that all issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period other than by Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC representative role have been formally addressed,
  • must identify any substantive issues raised since the close of the Candidate Recommendation review period,
  • may have removed features identified in the Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without republishing the specification as a Candidate Recommendation.
    • No feature has been identified as being at risk.
@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jan 20, 2020

Thanks to your contributions, we were able to reduce the number of open issues blocking Proposed Rec publication significantly.

The remaining Proposed Rec blockers and their current status are the following:

Process quirk: #92 proposes to add new API surface that requires us to publish a revised CR (incl. conduct wide review for this delta prior), before PR. (WebDriver extensions not added to the specification at this time.)

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Nov 10, 2020

With #125 closed, the only remaining Proposed Rec blocker is #92 Remote Playback API test automation.

@Honry is no longer working on this task, so per TPAC discussion @louaybassbouss took an action to figure out a way forward.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Aug 23, 2024

Status update on the publication blockers #130 (comment):

To show adequate implementation experience and advance the spec to its next maturity stage, the group is expected to create a manual implementation report. Following up on that in #92.

@FritzHeiden
Copy link

All tests have been run, results are merged in the test-results repository: https://w3c.github.io/test-results/remote-playback/all.html

Here is a legend of what the headers mean:

  • ED29: Edge 129
  • SF17: Safari 17 on macOS
  • SO18: Safari 18 on iOS
  • SP18: Safari 18 on iPad OS

@FritzHeiden
Copy link

FritzHeiden commented Sep 27, 2024

Added results for Chrome 129 (Ch29) und Chrome Android 126 (CA26): w3c/test-results#226

We noticed that opening the device selection prompt in the tests does not work in any Chrome browser. Chromecast is detected by the browser (e.g. casting works on YouTube), but selecting device in the tests does not work.

@markafoltz
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I also noticed that the prompt is not shown in Chrome. Do the tests verify that the watchAvailability callback is being invoked with true before prompting?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants