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: <>
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.
>>>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:
>>>*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?)

Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 13:10:03 UTC

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