W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Use Cases and Requirements , First Public Draft.

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:59:11 +0100
Message-ID: <494A572F.1080602@w3.org>
To: fsasaki@w3.org
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, Joakim S?derberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>

Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
>> Felix,
>>
>> The Use Cases and Requirements for Media Ontology 1.0 is currently
>> published at
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html
>>
>> What is the rationale for using http://dev.w3.org/ and not usual
>> http://www.w3.org/ ?
> 
> I am using dev.w3.org for drafts, just since I'm used to do that from
> other Working Groups, e.g. Web Services Policy
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/ws/policy/
> and I like to separate directories for drafts vs. Working Group directories.

I don't really understand the difference between directories for drafts
vs. Working Group directories.

My experience is that we have in W3C.
- drafts which are editors copy,under development, available within the
WG space.
- drafts which are public and published on TR space


> 
>> http://dev.w3.org/ does not seem to be available through jigedit, and
>> Amaya, nor Webdav. therefore not very convenient to work on. (except if
>> you are using XML spec).
> 
> We are using XML spec.

OK

> 
>> Also no validator tools provided on this server.
> 
> That's right. However you usually don't need these tools then you use XML
> spec.

Well in this particular document, it shows that XMLspec outputs none
valid HTML and broken links. Therefore the validating tools are needed.
And these only work on http://www.w3.org/

> 
>>
>> Therefore I have moved the document to
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-req/mediaont-req.html
>>
>> and have done the following edits on it
> 
> Many thanks for these edits and checking! However, it seems that you did
> not edit the XML spec source. Since you will be staff contact of this WG
> soon, I propose that the chairs, editors and you decide whether to edit
> the HTML directly or continue to work with XML spec. XML spec has the
> advantage that the TOC and various links and numberings, with targets like
> sections, figures, bibliographical items etc., are generated
> automatically, and I personally have a high preference for it. So that's
> up to you.

I agree that XML spec is very useful for large specs. No sure it is such
a great value for a one page document like this requirement document.


> 
> For now, that is for the upcoming publication, I would like to continue to
> work with XML spec. Would that be fine with you?

That is fine with me, I am not the editor ;-)
The goal is to provide a document which fulfills publication rules, no
matter how we generate it (HTML editing, scripts, XMLspec, etc)


Thierry
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 14:00:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 December 2008 14:00:15 GMT