W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > October 2007

Please request REC transition for XForms 1.0 Third Edition using these documents

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:02 -0700
To: steven.pemberton@cwi.nl
Cc: Forms WG (new) <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF931E0495.CC032FBF-ON88257373.007ACE5E-88257373.008161E0@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Steven,

In accordance with the transition request and publication request 
requirements at [1], I have now prepared the documents you need to make 
the transition request of the director.  Please make the transition 
request using [2] as soon as you can.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=rec-tr

[2] 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.0.ThirdEdition/index-all.html

I propose a publication schedule of October 29, 2007 to allow time for the 
directors' call and then the time required for the publication request. 
Again, if these two things take less time and the pub team wants a closer 
date, then I can rebuild the errata and Rec documents according to the 
schedule they desire.  But first, let's get the director's approval to 
transition!

Note that [2] passes all pubrules checks except for three problems, none 
of which I believe are problems with our documents.

The first issue is a warning under Part 3 Front Matter, Subpart "Document 
Identifiers, Point 4.  It claims that the document linked by "Previous 
Version" does not match the document of the current latest version. 
However, I think this is something that Ian has to fix because Part 5 
Document Status Section, Point 7 requires me to make the previous link be 
the PER and to link to the prior REC (which is the current latest version) 
in the status section.

The second issue is under Part 5 Document Status Section, Point 11.  I 
think this is also an issue for Ian Jacobs to work on and not an error in 
our document.  The problem is that the patent policy text is correct, but 
pubrules does not understand why we are publishing a document under CPP 
when our working group is under the W3C Patent Policy.

The third issue occurs in Part 7 Document Body, Point 4.  A broken link is 
reported for our "this version" link.  However, this is because the 
documents are not installed in their final location, which I cannot do. 
This error will correct itself upon actual publication.

The second issue is a problem that we need Ian Jacobs to work on.  The 
patent policy text I placed in the status section is correct, and the 
pubrules checker acknowledges this because I check off the correct 
settings for a document under CPP as amended by is correct (so says 
pubrules) because I h, but the IPP system thinks the Forms WG is on IPP, 
so it does not understand why we are trying to publish something under 
CPP.  This is despite the fact that I have clicked the correct buttons on 
checker is having a problem with the document.  The patent policy text is 
correct, but the IPP

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2007 23:33:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:45 UTC