W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > January 2010

[Minutes] WebCGM Telecon 2010-10-27

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:35:41 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20100127152730.0652e510@localhost>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

WebCGM WG --

The draft minutes of the 2010-10-27 WG teleconference are at

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2010/01/27-webcgm-minutes.html

and also available as text, below.

    [1]W3C

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

                             WebCGM Teleconf
                               27 Jan 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2010Jan/0007.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/27-webcgm-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Stuart_Galt, Lofton_Henderson, Don_Larson, BenoitB, DaveC,
           Thierry

    Regrets
    Chair
           lofton

    Scribe
           stuart

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]roll call 11:00am ET
          2. [6]do we want a joint press release for 2.1?
          3. [7]PR review / ballot
          4. [8]What about a schema note?
          5. [9]future of the WG
          6. [10]Next scheduled WG telecon: ???
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: stuart

    minutes:
    [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Nov/001
    0.html

      [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009Nov/0010.html

roll call 11:00am ET

do we want a joint press release for 2.1?

    2.1 is a minor edition and it will be difficult to get timely
    testimonials from some of the larger users.

    The general consus is that it does not seem to be worth it to do a
    press release this time.

PR review / ballot

    the ballot can be found at

    <tmichel> [13]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webcgm21-201001/

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webcgm21-201001/

    <tmichel>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webcgm21-201001/results

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webcgm21-201001/results

What about a schema note?

    It isn't very hard to produce a WG Note. Because it is not
    REC-track, it is not a problem under our chartered deliverables, nor
    for an extension of that Charter. There are three possibilities: XML
    Schema (aerospace favorite); RelaxNG (popular); both. "Both" is
    still easy, as the schemas are pretty small and simple. ("Both"
    tentatively.)

    Lofton asked three questions of the six telecon attendees:

    Question 1: Is it a good idea, should we produce a schema Note?
    (Answers: yes-5; indifferent-1)

    Question 2: Would you contribute to the work? (Answers: yes-6)

    Question 3: Would you participate in a 1-year extension of the WG?
    (Answers: yes-5; conditionally-1)

future of the WG

    The charter expires in April 2010.

    We should ask to recharter for another year or so to handle
    maintenance items and tie up loose ends.

    Such as a schema Note.

Next scheduled WG telecon: ???

    Tenatively schedule it for the 10th of February. We can cancel it if
    we don't have agenda

    <lofton> question to consider and answer: is there use for schema
    for ACI, as well as XCF?

    <lofton> (Take it to email discussion.)

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([16]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/01/27 22:40:31 $
      _________________________________________________________

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

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 22:36:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 January 2010 22:36:28 GMT