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: <5.1.0.14.2.20060606180912.0457ad40@localhost>
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?

-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 00:13:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:08 GMT