W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > June 2006

Re: process and milestones for moving WebCGM 2.0 to LC.

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:13:51 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
I realize that this might have been a little hard to parse and understand...

At 03:27 PM 6/6/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>I was just about to hit 'send' on the "WebCGM 2.0 Last Call Review 
>Schedule" to Chairs and dependency WGs.  But then I'm thinking... should 
>that (LCWD) follow the FPWD Transition Request, which is also Cc: to 
>Chairs?  Or maybe, to preempt confusion, should I put a note in LCWD 
>message (then send it) acknowledging the odd order of things when FPWD and 
>LCWD coincide, and preview that FPWD Tr.Req. message will follow soon?  Or 
>not worry about it at all?

So what I was proposing in the 2nd option ("to preempt confusion") is 
augmenting the 3rd paragraph of the letter, which currently reads:

This LC Working Draft is based, in large part, on a work by the same name, 
WebCGM 2.0 an OASIS Committee Specification [2] submitted to W3C as WebCGM 
2.0 Submission[3]. This Member Submission is related to the previous W3C 
work on WebCGM 1.0 [4], and draws on experiences with that format from 
implementors and users over five years. This Working Draft incorporates 
feedback and discussion following the Submission.

by adding for example, "(Note.  Because of the relatively unusual way that 
this entered the W3C Process, you will also soon be seeing a First Public 
WD Transition Request.)"  Then send it without waiting for the telecon, 
resolution, minutes, and FPWD request.

Yes?  No?  Other?

Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 00:13:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC