- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:33:41 +0100
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton, I have updated the overview page [1] - changed date and this version URI - Added previous version - changed zip file URI - Updated "Status of this Document" section for an ordinary Working Draft. Let me know if you are OK with the new wording in the SotD. "This is a Public Working Draft of "WebCGM 2.1". This WebCGM 2.1 specification was initially based on a work by the same name, WebCGM 2.1 an OASIS Committee Specification. This W3C Working Draft version of the WebCGM 2.1 specification incorporates requests for changes from comments sent during the Last Call Review, as agreed with the commenters (see Disposition of Last Call comments for WebCGM 2.1). The WebCGM Working Group, plans to issue a second Last Call from more implementation experiences." It is link checked, HTML validated and passes the Publication rules. Therefore we are ready to publish on friday Jan 30th. I will request publication to the Webmaster today. When I have tyour approval for publication I will generate the Zipfile WebCGM21-20090130.zip [1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html Thierry. Henderson wrote: > 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 16:34:15 UTC