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 14:27:11 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Okay, I think we're on the same page.

One additional comment in line...

At 06:50 PM 11/29/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>  responses in line
>  Henderson wrote:
>>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
>>>>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?
>I have no idea, I have never experience this process and I am not sure
>anyone else has in W3C.
>I guess Chris should give advise here.
>Also I am not sure if we need to involve Rigo, I think he was involve in
>the Mou.
>>When do we anticipate that we should start this process step, to get the 
>>signatures on such a simple annex?
>I guess this can be done in parallel with the charter renewal review.
>>>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 steps.
>>This worked smoothly for 2.0.  This is what I anticipate for 2.1.  Is 
>>this what you had in mind?
>Yes it is. As I said in my previous email, we should adopt the same
>process as we have done with 2.0. (apart from the Submission to W3C).

We talked about this a little bit on the morning telecon.  None of us quite 
understands how the work, started in the TC, comes into the WG without a 

Chris can probably clarify this also.


>In april we will release a document, call it a first WD or requirement
>document or status report (but this latter one does not really exist in
>So yes I think we have the same process 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 
>>>- SVG WG
>>That makes sense.
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 21:27:32 UTC

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