W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: webCGM 2.1 first draft

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:46:11 +0200
Message-ID: <48ABD9D3.5060901@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton Henderson wrote:

>> we only need to
>> 1- request a new short name to the Director
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm21/ (1 occurrence)
> 
> You will do this, right?  (Or is this something I should do?)


Yes I will do it.

> 
> 
>> 2- specify an end  date for the Last Call review (format DD Month 
>> YYYY) in the SOTD.
>> I would suggest to write 10 November 2008 (just before our F2F)
> 
> That is probably a good choice -- it leaves 2 weeks before the F2F.

Right

> 
> I wonder ... is it a better idea to start later (than mid-Sept) and have 
> LC review be closer to 4 weeks?  Or is it a better idea to start in 
> mid-Sept and have it be 6-8 weeks?
> 
> (This is something we might talk about.)

I would favor start in mid-Sept and have it be 6-8 weeks.
It is better to allow more time, especially as it does not change our 
milestones.


>> I have not yet read the all document, but just a first comment:
>>
>> I suggest to better highlight what is new in webCGM 2.1, as we would 
>> like people to comment during Last Call review only about new features 
>> introduced in *2.1*.
> 
> Good idea!  It will take a little work, but worth it I think.
> 
> 
> 
>> This could be done for example with a background styling color for new 
>> sections/paragraphs introduced in webCGM 2.1. (Of course we could 
>> remove it latter on, in CR if needed).
> 
> Hmmm... I need to try to remember now, about how much significant 
> new/modified text there is.  I guess one could run an HTML comparison 
> tool, but it would mark way too much stuff.  We really only want the 
> significant / substantive changes.
> 
> So maybe a combination of:  I could use the Change Log to guide me, 
> where to manually apply the "whats-new-2.1" style; and/or we could run a 
> comparison and eliminate the trivial differences (and mark the 
> significant ones).

seems like a good path.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html#webcgm_changelog 
> 
> 
> 
>> Or have links to new sections in the [4] "what is new" Appendix.
> 
> Yes, that Appendix needs work.  It was put together hastily.  Needs more 
> detail, and links would be good.
> 
>> I would also have in the  "1. Introduction to WebCGM" chapter a "What 
>> is new in WebCGM 2.1" section with at least a link to the "what is 
>> new" Appendix. for people reading the intro to have a quick glance of 
>> what's new.
> 
> Good idea also.

OK
TM.
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 08:46:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 August 2008 08:46:57 GMT