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: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:34:08 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090121102848.03921db0@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

In it is not a big problem, then let's go ahead and publish relatively soon.

Do we need a WG resolution to do that?

Document needs:
1.) validate (DONE)
2.) pub rules check (needed)
3.) SoTD, including unique sentence about this version (needed)
4.) Other?

Thanks,
-Lofton.


At 11:19 AM 1/21/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
>Well it would not be problematic, but W3C recommends to publish every 3
>months (which a lot of WGs don't do).
>I am fine with option 2, to publish a new Working Draft and then publish a
>second  last Call in a few  months.
>
>Sorry for my previous emails, my emailer went wrong and sent multiple message
>Sorry for the buzz.
>
>--
>Thierry Michel
>W3C
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 17:46:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 January 2009 17:46:04 GMT