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 17:50:23 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090121152829.0395d250@localhost>
To: "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Thanks for all the help.  I assume then that you will take care of the 
cover page:  date, "This version", ZIP file link, and SoTD.

Publication date:  how about week from Friday?  (30 January)

Frozen:  I consider it frozen.  Today I updated 3 HTML files, a new ZIP, 
and uploaded all to the "..current-editor-21/.." directory [1].
** WebCGM21-DOM.html, WebCGM21-Appendix.html, Overview.html (which you will 
further update);
** WebCGM21-20090121.zip

[1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/

So ... over to you now.  I will keep hands off till you do your bits and 
move it away for publication.

Thanks,
-Lofton.

At 07:15 PM 1/21/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:


> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > In it is not a big problem, then let's go ahead and publish relatively
> > soon.
>
>OK. Thanks for your editor's work on the document.
>
> >
> > Do we need a WG resolution to do that?
>
>No we don't. This is not a Transition, only a new publication of an
>ordinary draft.
>
> > Document needs:
> > 1.) validate (DONE)
>Good
> > 2.) pub rules check (needed)
>
>I will do it
>
> > 3.) SoTD, including unique sentence about this version (needed)
>I will also do it
>
> > 4.) Other?
>
>I will check broken links, CSS, etc.
>
>And I will request Publication.
>
>We should decide a publication date. (give a least 5 days for the
>publication Team).
>
>
>Let me know when the document is ready and frozen on your side and I will
>make the necessary changes.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Thierry
>
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>Thierry Michel
>W3C
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 00:51:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 January 2009 00:51:35 GMT