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

Re: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 29 November 2007

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:17:07 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry, Chris --

At 08:59 AM 11/29/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>See responses in line.

I have some further questions in line, for both of you...

>  Henderson wrote:
>>Hello WebCGM WG,
>>If you can't attend this week's WG teleconference, please reply (to list) 
>>with "regrets".
>I will be out of the office this afternoon, and will not be able to join.
>Btw, I will likely be unable to teleconference
>>next Thursday (6-dec), so we ought to have at least a brief one tomorrow.
>>Main topic: WG Re-charter.  We should get a status report about where 
>>rechartering stands (Thierry), and some input from Chris on loose ends in 
>>the draft charter.
>>WebCGM, Thursday, 29 November 2007, 11:00am-12:30pm ET
>>(logistics below, following agenda)
>>Chair:  Lofton
>>Scribe:  tbd
>>[0]  http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Group/scribing-guidelines.html )
>>Previous minutes:
>>roll call 11:00am ET, membership, agenda
>>2.) routine WG business
>>         - any?
>>3.) Recharter:
>>         - status report (Thierry)
>Here is what I have to report:
>- I have talked to Chris about WebCGM rechartering. He is supporting our 
>As the new WebCGM WG will still be hosted by the Graphics Activity, Chris 
>has sent an Advance Notice of work in Progress on Graphics Activity 
>charters: WebCGM and SVG
>Once our charter is finalized, we will submit it to W3M and then to ACs 
>for review (Usual W3C process).
>In parallel (if needed) we should work on this annex as mentioned in 
>Section 5 of the Mou [1].
>"OASIS and W3C reserve the right to employ the process and agreement 
>established with this MoU for future versions of WebCGM, by providing an 
>annex with the reserved name and version, signed by the President of OASIS 
>and W3C's chairman or Chief Operating Officer."

Will that annex be anything more than one sentence, specifying the project 
along with the reserved name and version?

When do we anticipate that we should start this process step, to get the 
signatures on such a simple annex?

>We will use the same process as for WebCGM 2.1 (a part that there will be 
>no submission to W3C. The work will be done jointly with OASIS and there 
>will a W3C first Working Draft by 15 April 2008, followed with a Last Call 
>WD by 01 July 2008 from an initial OASIS Committee Draft.

Here I have a substantive question/comment.

At our last teleconference, we decided that the 15 April "heartbeat" 
milestone should not be a W3C WD, but rather a "status 
report".  Reason:  as with 2.0, the OASIS TC is doing the initial work, and 
will not likely be finished by then.

So this raises the same question of coordination that Chris and I dealt 
with for 2.0.  The TC and the WG should *NOT* try to do technical 
development on the spec in parallel.  As with 2.0, it would be nearly 
impossible for both groups to work at the same time and coordinate their 
changes -- i.e., it would be chaotic to try to feed each group's resolved 
changes over to the other group, while the other group is going through its 
process trying to effect its own changes.

Therefore for 2.0 we did this:  TC works for a while and brings the spec to 
some level of maturity (like LC).  Then WG begins work, TC "hibernates" and 
does not work on technical spec development (could work on test suite, 
etc), and the WG brings the spec through CR to the stage of PR.  Then both 
groups take the spec simultaneously through their last respective process 

This worked smoothly for 2.0.  This is what I anticipate for 2.1.  Is this 
what you had in mind?

>Finally about the dependencies in the Charter:
>we currently have:
>- Hypertext Coordination Group
>- Document Object Model (DOM) IG
>- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>- Internationalization Working Group
>- Web API Working Group
>- QA Interest Group
>We should probably remove
>- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>- Internationalization Working Group
>- Document Object Model (DOM) IG

Okay.  I'd like Chris's opinion on this as well, in case we're overlooking 
something -- some dependency or sensitivity.

>and say that we will solicit feedback from the groups on the *new* 
>functionalities introduced in WebCGM 2.1.
>for declarative animation we should probably add WGs using animation technos:

That makes sense.


>[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/01/w3c-oasis-cgm-final-051215.pdf
>>         - Thierry's draft [4]
>>         - Lofton's updated draft [5]
>>         - Next steps?  [6]
>>         - finish dependencies in [5] (Chris, Thierry)
>>4.) Status of AI to investigate MIME update (Dave) [1], [2], [3]
>>5.) Next telecon -- 13 December 2007
>>6.) Adjourn
>>[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/image/cgm
>>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Sep/0020.html
>>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Sep/0021.html
>>[4] _http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html__
>>[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Nov/0016.html
>>Zakim bridge +1 617-761-6200 (US) or + (France)
>>code: 932246 ("WEBCGM")
>>IRC, channel #webcgm
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 14:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC