Hi,
I checked the first option: "support publication as a REC"
Regards,
Serge
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Dr. David Filip
Cc: Serge Gladkoff; Des Oates; Ankit Srivastava; John Judge; Nicoletta Calzolari; oreste.signore@isti.cnr.it; Clemens Weins; Yves Savourel; Georg Rehm; Tadej ©tajner; "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"; Serge Gladkoff; Daniel Grasmick; Jan Nelson; Milan Karasek; Lieske, Christian; dave lewis; Jirka Kosek; Phil Ritchie; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: Moving ITS 2.0 forward - your action needed by 21 October latest
Am 24.10.13 13:25, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
Felix, Serge,
Not sure if I understand Serge properly, but did he not say that he inadvertently filed a formal objection?
No, I checked (the check page is W3C staff confidential) his vote and it was no formal objection - but just saying "support publication as a REC".
Is there a way to verify what kind of vote Serge actually did cast? Is there a URL where members can see the results of the ballot?
Sorry, I can't share them with you, they are only avail. to the staff.
Best,
Felix
Thanks
dF
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie<mailto:david.filip@ul.ie>
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org<mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
Hi Serge,
no worries about this, I think this should be ok - otherwise I'll come back to you. Thanks for the follow up and sorry for disturbing you during travel.
Best,
Felix
Am 24.10.13 01:19, schrieb Serge Gladkoff:
Dear Felix,
I was travelling this and the previous weeks extensively with occasional WiFi access from public locations, and I cast Logrus vote in a hurry choosing the option which is not quite correct.
I would like to fix it, if at all possible.
Specifically, in question 6, I should have been choosing "suggests changes, but supports publication as a W3C Recommendation whether or not the changes are adopted (your details below)."
In explanation I wanted actually to note that: "We need to publish, but make changes, since an inconsistency was found between the schema and the specification about the values allowed for the lineBreakType attribute. In Logrus opinion, the fix in the schema is only an editorial change. The list of allowed values for that attribute has been discussed and set a while back. The change does not affect implementations. In addition, we suggest to make the schema non-normative to avoid issues like the above in the future. This also will not influence implementations since the schema is not referenced normatively from the section of conformance."
Would it still be possible to change Logrus vote on this - it's minor change, I guess.
Regards,
Serge Gladkoff
Logrus LLC
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 7:32 AM
To: Des Oates; Ankit Srivastava; John Judge; Nicoletta Calzolari; oreste.signore@isti.cnr.it<mailto:oreste.signore@isti.cnr.it>; Clemens Weins; Yves Savourel; Georg Rehm; tadej.stajner@ijs.si<mailto:tadej.stajner@ijs.si>; "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"; Serge Gladkoff; Daniel Grasmick; Jan Nelson; Milan Karasek; Lieske, Christian; dave lewis; Jirka Kosek; Dr. David Filip; Phil Ritchie; Lieske, Christian
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org<mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Subject: Moving ITS 2.0 forward - your action needed by 21 October latest
Dear ITS 2.0 supporters,
I had mentioned that we can move ITS 2.0 to PR, and your help would be very helpful.
For organizations that do not implement ITS 2.0 but having your AC rep filling in this form
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/ITS20PR2013/
by 21 October would be great. NOTE: this is a hard deadline, but filling in the form will take only 5 minutes.
For the implementers (for the others this is optional): it is important that you state the following in the form:
- in question 6, choose "suggests changes, but supports publication as a W3C Recommendation whether or not the changes are adopted (your details below)."
- as an explanation say something like:
"An inconsistency was found between the schema and the specification about the values allowed for the lineBreakType attribute.
In our opinion, the fix in the schema is only an editorial change.
The list of allowed values for that attribute has been discussed and set a while back. The change does not affect implementations. In addition, we suggest to make the schema non-normative to avoid issues like the above in the future. This also will not influence implementations since the schema is not referenced normatively from the conformance section"
Above is taken from an existing AC review and adapted - if needed please re-do the review by filling in the form again.
Doing the above is quite important to express that our group is definitely OK with the change.
Thanks again for all the support,
Felix