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

Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:30:01 +0000
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1190212201.23800.318.camel@localhost>
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:21 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
> Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:19 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 10, 2007, 5:51:47 PM, Lofton wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> LH> To summarize the below-linked minutes, our recommended strategy is to get
> >> LH> 4-week W3C/public review and publish the approved 1.0 errata document, but
> >> LH> to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0 Third Release
> >> LH> document (Edited Recommendation).
> >>
> >>> Today's minutes:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
> >> I heard that the 'approved errata' option was being removed due to not being used. i have copied Ian Jacobs for an authoritative statement on whether that can still be used or not.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian, this is a publicly archived list.
> > 
> > The option still exists; we have not yet modified the Process Document.
> > We plan to propose to the AC to remove that option (as it has not been
> > used).
> 
> So how should we process here ?
> 
> We have currently a draft errata page approved by the WebCGM WG.
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20070621
> 
> We should have a 4-week W3C/public review ?
> How is such reviewed organized, What is the prcess ? (I have never done 
> this for SMIL). To which Mailing list this review request should be sent ?

We have not done this before, so I would need to look into this.

> Once it is reviewed we should publish it at its final destination
> http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM10-errata.html
> 
> Can we just skip the 4-week W3C/public review as most of the W3C Groups 
> seem to proceed and publish it at its final destination
> http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM10-errata.html

If you skip the review, then you're not using the process to make
then normative.

> > 
> > I see above "to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0
> > Third Release document" Please note that the process for approved
> > corrections does require publication within 6 months. Can the group
> > confirm here their intention to publish within 6 months after
> > the end of the formal review period?
> 
> The WebCGM WG does not plan to publish a third release of WebCGM 1.0.

Then it is inappropriate to use the process that expects such a
publication [1]:

  "In order for the corrections to remain normative, the Working Group
   MUST incorporate them into an edited Recommendation."

As a reminder, the purpose of this piece of process was only to postpone
publication, not eliminate the need for it.

 _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-corrections

> The current version is
> WebCGM 1.0 Second Release
> 2001http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-WebCGM-20011217/
> and the errata page should suffice.
> 
> WebCGM 1.0 functionality is a subset of WebCGM 2.0 functionality. While 
> the WebCGM 1.0 Recommendation published on 17 December 2001 remains a 
> valid specification, primarily to support existing data and 
> applications, use of WebCGM 2.0 viewers and authoring tools is encouraged.
> 
> WebCGM 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
> 
> > 
> >  _ Ian
> > 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 14:30:04 UTC

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