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

Re: new editor's draft available

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:52:32 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090120074623.051f2a40@localhost>
To: "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Thierry,

I think option #1 is ruled out.  The test suite is incomplete and 
implementations are very incomplete.  I guess we could actually have a very 
long CR, but we would surely return to LC thereafter (then maybe go 
straight to PR).  And ... I don't think anyone believes that the spec is 
stable yet.

I think #2 sounds best.  We would publish a new WD to incorporate the LC 
feedback, then continue with spec development in the WG (and have a 2nd LC 
"in a while").

If we did option #3, then it would be almost 6 months between publishing 
1st LC and the next publication (2nd LC).  Would that be problematic to 
have no publication for that long?

-Lofton.


At 10:26 AM 1/20/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This draft [1], I believe, correctly implements all resolutions of Last
> > Call comments, per our now-fully-approved DoC [2].  See the "Change log"
> > [3] for a complete list of all changes.  You can download the document as
> > a
> > ZIP file [4].
> >
> > What next?
> >
> > I think we should resolve at next telecon to publish this in /TR/ as a
> > Working Draft (after validating, fixing SoTD, etc).  As we discussed, the
> > "heartbeat requirement" suggests that we should publish now (4 months
> > after
> > the LC was published), rather than accumulate more fixes.
> >
> > Thierry, does this sound like the right next step?
>
>3 possibilities to move forward:
>
>1- exit LC (as we currently fullfill the exit criteria) and move the doc
>to CR (but my undersatnduing is that you want to wait for move
>implementation experiences). We could change the doc during CR if needed,
>but if we introduce substantial changes, we will need to move back to a
>second Last Call WD.
>2- Return to a Working Draft (We will need to issue a second LC in a few
>months)
>
>3- issue a second Last Call in a couple of months.
>
>So this really depends what kind of ch
>
>
>
>
> >
> > This will be the end of our (1st) LC phase and the beginning of our
> > planned
> > intra-WG spec development phase, while implementations catch up.
> >
> > (Btw, it might not be a bad idea to have some quality control before WD
> > publication-- each WG member take 3-4 DoC issues and verify correct
> > implementation in the spec. text.  What do you think?)
> >
> > -Lofton.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html
> > [3]
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html#webcgm_changelog
> > [4]
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-20090119.zip
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>Thierry Michel
>W3C
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 14:53:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 January 2009 14:53:40 GMT