W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > December 2009

RE: Extending the Media Fragments WG

From: erik mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:24:27 +0100
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Thierry Michel'" <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002601ca7a3b$5ab37550$101a5ff0$@mannens@ugent.be>
Dear Silvia,

The end-of-year moratorium [1] starts at the 18th of December (which is next
Friday), so you can work on Section 5 over the weekend (as suggested ... no
worries :); we can have our phoneconf next Wednesday to discuss final points
& have resolution on publication. Then, I'll make the pub request on
Thursday.

Sincere greetings,

Erik

[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009AprJun/0076

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-fragment-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-fragment-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: vrijdag 11 december 2009 3:08
To: Thierry Michel
Cc: fantasai; public-media-fragment@w3.org
Subject: Re: Extending the Media Fragments WG

I'll have the changes ready by Monday. Can we publish by then?
Honestly, I don't want section 5 published as it is.
Silvia.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
> Yes I agree the WG should publish a FPWD, it does not need to be totally
> finalized. Yves and I have explained that already to the WG.
> Better to have multiple draft publications instead of publishing a FPWD
and
> LCWD.
>
> Thierry
>
> fantasai wrote:
>>
>> Thierry Michel:
>>>
>>> During the Interaction Domain telecon yesterday, we have discussed the
>>> extension of the Media Fragments Charter, which ends in January 2010.
>>>
>>> Philippe would like to see the Media Fragments WG publish a Last Call WD
>>> version of Media Fragments URI 1.0 before requesting this extension to
W3M.
>>>
>>> This would definitively ease the process for rechartering.
>>>
>>> When are we targeting the LC publication of this specification ?
>>
>> How about publishing a FPWD first? I keep looking through your logs,
>> and you keep pushing back the publication date because there's still
>> issues with the spec.
>>
>> You don't have to solve all issues in the spec to publish FPWD!
>>
>> You don't even have to *identify* all the issues; it is expected that
>> a FPWD will have issues. But if you've identified some issues, you
>> can put
>>  <p class="issue">There's an issue here that needs to be resolved,
>>  [some more details on what the issue is]</p>
>> style .issue { color: maroon; } and then publish.
>>
>> It would be much more helpful to other WGs and to other people who
>> want to comment on your spec (and give you more issues to work on!)
>> if you would publish an official Working Draft. Release early, release
>> often. I cannot think of a single reason why you should not publish
>> asap. Your work is not a secret: your draft is already public. But it
>> is relatively hard to find and other WGs cannot reference it. Please,
>> just put it up in /TR already and address the issues in the next
>> working draft. It is very disingenuous of you to keep a public working
>> draft (in official Working Draft regalia!) and refuse to actually
>> publish it through the official channels.
>>
>> ~fantasai
>>
>
>


http://www.ibbt.be/en/disclaimer
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 08:25:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:35 GMT