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

Re: Fwd: [Draft] Pre announcement for WebCGM 2.1 to a First Public and Last Call Working Draft.

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:09:47 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080829070338.03586290@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>,Don <don@cgmlarson.com>, David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>

At 09:19 AM 8/29/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>Hi Thierry,
>>Embedded below please see questions / suggested changes from me for 
>>pre-announcement.  I think I should send this Friday morning, since the 
>>Chairs have already seen the publication request.
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear chairs and colleagues,
>>>
>>>The WebCGM WG plans to publish WebCGM 2.1 to a First Public and Last 
>>>Call Working Draft.
>>>
>>>A publication request will be sent shortly (we're targeting September 
>>>15th 2008).
>>s/will be sent shortly/has been sent/
>>
>>>We plan on having a 2 months review period, ending on November 15th 
>>>2008. Does any WG request more time than that?
>>s/a 2 month/an almost 2 month/
>>
>>>WebCGM has dependencies with the following working groups, as mentioned 
>>>in its charter:
>>>http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html
>>>
>>>*Internationalization Core Working Group
>>>* Synchronized Multimedia Working Group
>>>* Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group
>>See questions in my earlier mail.  (That SVG and SMIL in the Charter 
>>specifically were about "animation", and in Requirements declarative 
>>animation was a MAY requirement, and it has now been dropped from 2.1.)
>
>Right I know that the charter mentions dependencies for SVG and SMIL for 
>animation and that its been dropped from 2.1.
>
>
>This is why I had dropped the wording from the charter "The Working Group 
>coordinates with this group on animation issues."
>
>
>Therefore I see two possibilities:
>-  we only list the 3 WGs (as above) without specifically mention of 
>dependency about animation.
>- We say something like: The animation features have been dropped from 
>WebCGM 2.1. therefore dependencies with SVG and SMIL about animation 
>are  meaningless. We still encourage these WGS to review the document ...
>(I sure you will have a better wording ;-)

I think I favor the latter approach.  We list the dependent groups ("...in 
the Charter.") We add after the listing something like:  "Note that the 
Charter identifies the principal dependency with SVG and SMIL as concerning 
(declarative) animation, which is effectively a MAY in the 
requirements.  It is now dropped from the scope of 2.1.  The WebCGM WG of 
course still welcomes input from all groups."

What do you think?  (Comments anyone?)

-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 13:10:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 August 2008 13:10:03 GMT