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

[Minutes] WebCGM Telecon 2009-05-20

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:30:27 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

WebCGM WG --

The minutes of the teleconference are at


and also available as text, below.


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        WebCGM WG Teleconference
                               20 May 2009



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/20-webcgm-irc


           Lofton_Henderson, Don_Larson, Stuart_Galt, dave





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]roll call 11:00am ET,
          2. [6]Text for 2nd LCWD
          3. [7]WG timeline
          4. [8]next F2F: Ann Arbor
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> scribe: stuart



    regrets Benoit

roll call 11:00am ET,

    Lofton_Henderson, Don_Larson, Stuart_Galt, dave, plh

    <lofton> (Philippe (plh) said he'd lurk on IRC in case we have

Text for 2nd LCWD

    The text at
    iew.html has incrporated approved changes


    There were also a couple of errors in the ecmascript and in the ACI

    that were also fixed.

    <lofton> as usual, look here for specifics of changes:



    This version of the draft uses styling that indicates changes since
    the previous last call.

    It is worrysome that there were errors found in chapter 9 and the
    DTD at this late time.

    Rob, Dave and Stuart were assigned to look for errors in the DTD

    <lofton> That's about as good as we can do ... we'll have to assume
    we have got right for this round.

    <lofton> Resolution: The WebCGM WG wants the WebCGM 2.1
    specification (reference [$1\47]), with possible further pubrules
    alignment, to go forward for 2nd Last Call Working Draft review.

    All present approve

    <lofton> Plus Benoit approved by email:



    <lofton> When to start review?

    <lofton> I had thought 1st June, Monday, about 10 days from now.

    Does the last call review need to be completed before the Oasis TC
    takes the version to use as a seed for a committee draft?

    <lofton> According to the MoU, it goes back to the TC after we
    complete CR phase, which we now anticipate around Aug-Sept

    <plh> how long will the review be?

    <lofton> Thierry said it should be 4 weeks.

    <plh> LC review I mean

    <plh> that's a minimum indeed

    <plh> but it's not necessarily a maximum

    <lofton> Given the very light external (outside of the WG)

    <plh> which group need to review the document?

    <lofton> we think 4 weeks will suffice.

    <plh> ok

    <lofton> Groups: I'll need to check it again. Fairly low number on
    the 1st LCWD review.

    <plh> and then CR during Aug-Sep?

    <lofton> Aug-sept CR is our current thought. It depends on...

    <lofton> ...progress by implementors, some of whom are in the TC but
    not the WG.

    <lofton> So far...

    <lofton> ...progress looks like Aug-Sept is an achievable goal for

    <plh> will we have a test suite for WebCGM 2.1?

    <lofton> (Test Suite: work has been completed in the WebCGM TC, who
    has responsibility for the TS, for a first public release.) Here's
    one other detail, about your "Groups" question...

    <lofton> ...From the Charter:


      [14] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html#coordination

    <lofton> The only group that gave us significant feedback on...

    <lofton> ...1st LCWD was I18N. We satisfied their comments. Thierry
    says that...

    <lofton> ...2nd LCWD Review should be limited to differences from
    1st LCWD. Therefore...

    <lofton> ...we expect very little dependency-related stuff. There
    are few differences...

    <plh> sounds appropriate to me

    <lofton> from 1st to 2nd, and they are pointed out in the Change Log
    and styled with yellow highlighting.

    <plh> did we check with SVG during the 1st period that they were ok
    not reviewing?

    <lofton> We need Thierry to answer that. But ...

    <lofton> ...he did send a reminder near the end of 1st LCWD review,
    to all

    <lofton> "dependencies" and the Chair's list in general, IIRC.

    <lofton> As I said, "outside" interest, or critical feedback, seems
    low outside of the WG.

    <lofton> Question for Philippe:

    <lofton> Is 1st June a reasonable goal, given that Thierry is just
    returning then? He typically does lots of the...

    <plh> well, if he does a lot, no, it is not

    <lofton> ...process stuff for us -- notifications, permissions,
    arrangements with pubs-team, etc...

    <lofton> ...Plus he reverifies my initial work on pubrules
    alignment, with which...

    <plh> I thought you were doing the pubrules

    <lofton> ...as you know, we are now having a link-check mystery.

    <plh> I could help verifying

    <lofton> What do you think would be a reasonable goal, if not 1st

    <plh> link checker needs to be fixed. I expect it to be reparied
    today, it's a major issue for us.

    <plh> June 4

    <plh> assuming you and I keep looking into the pubrules issue

    <lofton> Okay. We can say June 4th. However...

    <lofton> I will be travelling starting June 4th, back in the office
    on Monday 8th. Is that a problem?

    <plh> I don't believe so

    <plh> if Thierry has questions for you, we'll kae sure he is aware
    of your departure date

    <lofton> Okay, let's say June 4th.

    <lofton> Thierry has been very helpful in the process parts that

    <lofton> ...requesting permission to publish, arranging with
    pub-team, announcing to...

    <plh> biggest burden on process in the pubrules item

    <plh> our webmaster can publish any time with a 2 days advance

    <lofton> ...Chairs list, etc. Who should take the action of those
    process items?

    <plh> can you prepare a draft to be sent to the Chairs list?

    <lofton> (I.e., non-pubrules process -- I'll try to continue working
    on pubrules alignment, in consultation with you.)

    <plh> a short one is enough

    <lofton> I could look up the draft from 1st LCWD. But if I
    understood Thierry...

    <lofton> ...we are also going to point out that this review is on
    differences from...

    <lofton> 1st LCWD.

    <plh> and you can point this out in the status of the document

    <lofton> If these tasks become too much (along with the other stuff
    that I have to do), then...

    <lofton> ...we might consider slipping till the 11th June (for 4
    weeks), to get Thierry's help when he's back. ...TBD...

    <lofton> So summarize: we'll try for 4th, fall back to 11th if need

WG timeline

    we have been talking about it already :)

    <lofton> Right. Actually the adjusted timeline of reference



    <lofton> ...shows Aug timeframe for CR, which is what we just said.
    (Tho' May timeframe for 2nd LCWD Review.)

    <lofton> So that [$1\47] proposed adjustment is realistic for the CR

next F2F: Ann Arbor

    It looks like the timing is still good for the second half of
    August. We will continue to verify this with those producing

    The next telecon will be 3 June 2009

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([17]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/05/20 16:23:53 $

      [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 16:54:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:41 UTC