W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

Re: [SE] ODA Editors Draft - For Group Review

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:10:59 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF6A172455.1B62A5A0-ON80256FB0.005622BC-85256FB0.0057C882@uk.ibm.com>





Jeremy,

The intention is to publish as soon as possible, but that does not mean
that we are not willing to undertake a process of further significant
revision.

Regards

Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328


                                                                           
             Jeremy Carroll                                                
             <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.                                             
             com>                                                       To 
                                       Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB            
             22/02/2005 09:48                                           cc 
                                       SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>       
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [SE] ODA Editors Draft  - For   
                                       Group Review                        
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Phil Tetlow wrote:
>
>
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Many thanks for your kind offer. Our aim is indeed to seek direction for
> this, and similar notes, at the F2F, but  I am, however, unsure if the
> outcome of group note review is supposed to be as clinical as a 'yes' or
> 'no' answer. I look to Guus and Ralph for direction here.


Of course more detail is required ... but publication ends up as a
yes/no decision - a typical review ends up as a 'yes but ...'

It's helpful to know whether the editors believe this is ready for
publication, or in other words is the question of publication on the
agenda for the F2F.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:07:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:15 GMT