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

Re: Response to WebCGM 2.0 comments sent by Kentarou

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:46:13 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110404c11de728c7f3@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

At 6:33 PM -0600 8/31/06, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>Although we don't consider this a part of Last Call Review, it would 
>probably be helpful if you could give some indication before our CR 
>transition meeting next Tuesday Sept 5th- 11 am EST.

I think what I can give you before Tuesday is my concurrence, as 
chair of PFWG, that you have
appropriately applied the process and that

a) these comments came in long after the close of LC, too late to 
impact the CR draft, and hence
b) these issues should not impact the CR transition one way or the other.

On the content of the Appendix, or the sufficiency of this approach 
to address these
issues, I don't think I can speak ex_cathedra for the group; and I 
would like to accept
you offer to take a little more time (that is to say after the 
[presumedly positive decision])
CR transition meeting on Tuesday.

Is it OK with you that I continue the process I have started to find 
a date and time for
a special call [7]?

Please let me thank the WebCGM WG at this point for your diligent 
pursuit of accessibility
feedback far above and beyond the requirements of the Process, and 
your proactive
approach to the issues that have been raised by the development of 
this draft appendix.

Al

/chair, PFWG

>Hello Al,
>
>The WebCGM WG thanks you for the comments on WebCGM 2.0 sent by 
>Kentarou Fukuda <KENTAROU@jp.ibm.com> on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:38:59.
>
>The WG wants to make a proposal for resolution, but to set context 
>for the proposal, first a review of the LC history.
>
>A.) About our LC history:
>----------
>
>1- The Web CGM WG did a *pre announce* of the LC review with our 
>intended schedule [1], asking the chairs if this schedule would fit 
>them, especially these groups for coordination for which we 
>specifically seek feedback from (Hypertext CG, DOM IG, WAI project, 
>I18N WG, Web API WG, QA IG.)
>--> There was no response from WAI indicating that this schedule did 
>not fit them.
>
>2- The Web CGM WG has sent the Last Call Review [2] on 26 Jun. The 
>Last Call Review  ended on July 30th (allowing more than one month 
>of review period).
>
>3 - The Web CGM WG has reminded the chairs and groups especially 
>requesting feedback from those listed for coordination in the WG 
>Charter like Hypertext CG, DOM IG, WAI project, I18N WG, Web API WG, 
>QA IG. [3]
>--> There was no response from WAI
>
>4- Chris has also reminded a couple of times for WAI to send 
>comments, and especially before our F2F.
>
>5- A WebCGM F2F meeting occurred on 23, 24 and 25 Aug 2006. The goal 
>of this meeting was to resolve WebCGM 2.0 Last Call comments and 
>advance the specification. By Friday Aug 25 (end of meeting), we 
>still had received no late comments.  Friday morning, we resolved to 
>request CR based on the current issues resolutions and CR text just 
>posted, and the meeting adjourned at 12:30pm.
>
>6- After its meeting, the WebCGM WG sent its CR Transition Request 
>-- Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:53:37.[4].
>
>Unfortunately, the WAI comment sent by Kentarou  [5] arrive very 
>late -- a couple hours after the F2F meeting adjourned, almost 4 
>weeks after Last Call review period ended.  Therefore the WebCGM WG 
>could not consider it as a LC comment, and will not be able to 
>incorporate it into the upcoming WebCGM 2.0 CR version.
>
>B.) Proposal
>----------
>
>The WebCGM WG believes that these comments are valuable and has 
>discussed these during its telecon today.  The Group has drafted an 
>Appendix document [6], which we hope will be a mutually satisfactory 
>accommodation of your issues for WebCGM 2.0.  This informative 
>Appendix will be incorporated into the WebCGM 2.0 PR version.
>
>At this juncture, for an initial step, we would like to request your 
>agreement with this way forward for WebCGM 2.0, based on an 
>informative appendix such as [6].  Although we don't consider this a 
>part of Last Call Review, it would probably be helpful if you could 
>give some indication before our CR transition meeting next Tuesday 
>Sept 5th- 11 am EST.
>
>Then the PF and WebCGM WG will consult to finalize the exact wording 
>of the new informative Appendix, to be added into WebCGM 2.0 PR 
>version.
>
>Best Regards,
>Lofton Henderson
>Chair WebCGM WG
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006AprJun/0171.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006AprJun/0204.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006JulSep/0016.html
>[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006JulSep/0105.html
>[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/0064.html
>[6] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2006/wai-appendix.html

[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Aug/0086.html
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 13:49:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:09 GMT