W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Wednesday's scheduled WG telecon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:22:13 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 05:11 PM 12/16/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>Actually I am already back. If you want we can do the telecon now on the 

Okay.  Let's call it now.


>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>Thierry -- Instead of the regular telecon, I will await your call 2 hours 
>>later, 13:00 ET (11:00 MT).
>>All -- does anyone have anything they want to discuss in the regular 
>>telecon slot, in 20 minutes (at 11:00 ET)?
>>At 11:06 AM 12/16/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>>This afternoon I have an appointment, I may be back for the telecon but 
>>>not 100% sure.
>>>I suggest that I call you latter today (18:00Z) (2 hours after the 
>>>normal telecon slot) if that is doable for you.
>>>Or let me know a slot today after 18:00Z that fits you.
>>>Also please remind me your tel number.
>>>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>Thierry -- If you are able to dial in, I think it would be a good idea 
>>>>if at least you and I converse during the telecon slot (11am ET), just 
>>>>to firm up the PR-advancement plan and make sure we haven't overlooked 
>>>>something. Does that sound okay?
>>>>All -- you are welcome to join; it is mainly going to be a matter of 
>>>>deciding the action items for Thierry and I, with dates, etc.
>>>>Zakim bridge +1 617-761-6200 (US) or + (France)
>>>>code: 932246 ("WEBCGM")
>>>>IRC, channel #webcgm
>>>>_Answering the rest of your questions, in-line...
>>>>At 07:19 PM 12/15/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>>>>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>All --
>>>>>>My bad, we did already resolve to advance:
>>>>>OK, we are all set then. So we need to work on the final PR document
>>>>It is all finished except that I need to move your cover page into the 
>>>>directory with the rest of the files (../current-editor-21/..)
>>>>>Here is the cover page I had edited.
>>>>>Please check the removed features.
>>>>The "removed features" is correct.
>>>>>Does this conforms to the matrix of implementation.
>>>>I have not yet removed the associated tests from the matrix.  (I need 
>>>>to do so.)
>>>>>Is tha matrix up to date ? any new testcases passed ?
>>>>I updated the matrix last week.  It accurately reflects the current 
>>>>status of the implementations, according to the implementors.
>>>>>Are these features removed from the spec ?
>>>>Yes, I have already removed them.
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 16:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:42 UTC