W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > February 2007

[Minutes] WebCGM Telecon 2007-02-22

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:57:26 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070222165337.03081150@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>


WebCGM WG --

The minutes are at

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/02/22-webcgm-minutes.html

and also available as text, below.

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        WebCGM WG Teleconference
                               22 Feb 2007

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0013.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-webcgm-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Lofton_Henderson, Dieter, BenoitB, ChrisL, stuart

    Regrets
           Thierry

    Chair
           lofton

    Scribe
           Benoit

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]routine WG business
          2. [6]WebCGM 2.0 Errata
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <ChrisL> trackbot, start telcon

    <trackbot> Date: 22 February 2007

    <lofton> scribe: Benoit

    <ChrisL> scribenich" bbezaire

    <ChrisL> scribenick: bbezaire

    absent: Don

routine WG business

    nothing to talk about for that topic

WebCGM 2.0 Errata

    in the process document:
    [8]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata

    [9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0012
    .html

       [9] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0012.html

    LH: class 1 or 2 seem to imply a relatively simple process

    bug in DTD email:
    [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/000
    2.html

      [10] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0002.html

    LH: on the OASIS side there is a 4 step process
    ... probably takes about a month to do the 4 steps

    <ChrisL> 1. No changes to text content

    <ChrisL> These changes include fixing broken links or invalid
    markup.

    CL: is this a class 1 or 2?

    <ChrisL> 2. Corrections that do not affect conformance

    <ChrisL> Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the
    technical content of the specification.

    <ChrisL> in fact, it "turns non-conforming agents into conforming
    ones, or"

    CL: if that's true it would make it a class 3
    ... from the OASIS perspective; this is not a substantive change
    ... makes an argument that only the DTD itself needs to be changed
    but not the spec.

    LH: states that a two lines (snippet of DTD) also need to be changed
    in the spec

    BB: is it really a class 3, implementations will not change?
    ... class 2

    CL: I'll go with the group

    LH: class 2

    DW: class 2

    <ChrisL> i change to 'concur'

    DC: class 2

    SG: class 2

    <ChrisL> A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A
    correction becomes normative -- of equal status as the text in the
    published Recommendation -- through one of the processes described
    below. An errata page MAY include both proposed and normative
    corrections. The Working Group MUST clearly identify which
    corrections are proposed and which are normative.

    <ChrisL> A Working Group SHOULD keep their errata pages up-to-date,
    as errors are reported by readers and implementers. A Working Group
    MUST report errata page changes to interested parties, notably when
    corrections are proposed or become normative, according to the
    Team's requirements. For instance, the Team might set up a mailing
    list per Recommendation where a Working Group reports changes to an
    errata page.

    <lofton>
    [11]http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-200
    70317-example.dtd

      [11] 
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-20070317-example.dtd

    <DW> quit

    <ChrisL> [12]http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html

    LH: when is the next call?
    ... in two weeks

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.127
     ([14]CVS log)
     $Date: 2007/02/22 23:55:33 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03
Check for newer version at [15]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/

      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/few lines/two lines/
Found Scribe: Benoit
Found ScribeNick: bbezaire
Default Present: Lofton_Henderson, Dieter, BenoitB, ChrisL, stuart
Present: Lofton_Henderson Dieter BenoitB ChrisL stuart
Regrets: Thierry
Agenda: [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Fe
b/0013.html
Found Date: 22 Feb 2007
Guessing minutes URL: [17]http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-webcgm-minutes.h
tml
People with action items:

      [16] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0013.html
      [17] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-webcgm-minutes.html

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

    End of [18]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 23:57:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:10 GMT