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: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:05:30 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090122180308.038ff678@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Okay, I have fixed those broken links.  I have updated the file:

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html

(I did *not* change the ZIP file in that directory.)

Thanks,
-Lofton.

At 05:48 PM 1/22/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:


>Lofton,
>
>
>Checking carefully the document,  I see 3 broken links here
>
>
> 
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html
>
>
>See:
>http://validator.w3.org/checklink?url=http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html
>
>createWebCGMRect() 
><http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-DOM.html#createWebCGMRect%28%29>: 
>129
>Contents 
><http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html#Contents>: 
>628
>TR15 
><http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Intro.html#TR15>: 
>362
>
>
>Could you please fix those ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Thierry.
>
>Thierry Michel wrote:
>>
>>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 Friday, 23 January 2009 01:06:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 January 2009 01:06:38 GMT