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

Re: new editor's draft available

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:48:47 +0100
Message-ID: <497F02AF.1060508@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton

I have generated and uploaded the Zip file.

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-20090130.zip

TM.


 Henderson wrote:
>
> 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 Tuesday, 27 January 2009 12:49:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 January 2009 12:49:26 GMT