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

Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:45:31 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070919083714.02ede530@localhost>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>,Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>,WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

One comment about Ian's reply to Thierry (with whose assessment I agree)...

At 02:30 PM 9/19/2007 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>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 I pointed out, a little earlier in the Process errata section the 
rationales were given, and we believe that they do nor pertain.  So should 
we spend the valuable resources anyway, to bring a very old document up to 
current pubrules and republish?

Regards,
-Lofton.


>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 14:45:21 GMT

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