W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2011

Fwd: Re: HTTP status codes for API spec to CR.

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:28:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4EB90450.1010302@w3.org>
To: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
For archives

-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: HTTP status codes for API spec to CR.
Date : Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:29:35 -0700
De : Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Répondre à : tmichel@w3.org
Pour : Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Copie à : Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>,  Daniel Park 
<soohong.park@samsung.com>, "Joakim.Soderberg@ericsson.com" 


If you want to join the MAWG F2F, you can call in tomorrow at 9h300
pacific which is 05:30 p.m in Nice. I will be on IRC and we can set a
last minute bridge on Zakim or will give you a tel number of the room
where we meet.

Else if you don't show up to the meeting, we will consider that you
agree with our latest spec proposal on this status codes issue and will
request Transition to CR.


Le 02/11/2011 09:15, Yves Lafon a écrit :
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>> Yves,
>> This is a follow up to your last email about the HTTP status codes for
>> API spec to CR.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Oct/0064.html
>> We now need to come to an agreement ASAP on this issue which is
>> blocking our spec to move to CR. (and the Ontology spec to PR)
>> I have learned that you will not participate at TPAC. The Media Annot
>> WG was planing to discuss this F2F during our WG meeting.
>> Could you join remotely the meeting? We meet on Thursday and Friday.
>> Thursday would be best.
> I don't think I'll be able to join because of the time difference but I
> won't stand in the way.
> As I said in my last email to the group, I have reservations about the
> way the pecs might be implemented (based on email thread), but the API
> itself does not call for bad implementation, so by itself, it's OK to go.
>> If you are unable to join in could you please explicitly say by email
>> that no have no objection for the MAWG to proceed to CR as is and we
>> will request Transition again.
>> Thanks,
>> Thierry
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 10:29:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:44 UTC