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

Re: Use Cases and Requirements , First Public Draft.

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:58:15 +0900
Message-ID: <494B37F7.6010204@w3.org>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com, Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>

Thierry Michel さんは書きました:
> 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 ;-)
>   

Great. Since the editors have access to the dev.w3.org server, let's
keep the document at the moment here, and continue with XML Spec. I
would propose that I take care of the publication preparation in January
as probably my last action item as staff contact. After that feel free
to use whatever setup / server(s) that fit your , the editors, the
chairs needs.

Best,

Felix

> 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 Friday, 19 December 2008 05:59:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 December 2008 05:59:03 GMT