W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2012

Fwd: Re: Publication Request for a FPWG "Web Audio Processing: Use Cases and Requirements"

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:42:23 +0200
Message-ID: <506CB13F.4010304@w3.org>
To: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
CC: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
Olivier,

FYI, I had to agree to add the text 'this is an informative
document". see following.

thierry.


-------- Original Message --------
Message-ID: <506CB09D.3090704@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:39:41 +0200
From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>


Denis,

OK, if it is mandatory then please add the text 'this is an informative
document"

But If that is the case i don't understand why pubrules does not report
such issue.

Thierry.

On 03/10/2012 23:36, Denis Ah-Kang wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 05:03 PM, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/10/2012 21:42, Denis Ah-Kang wrote:
>>> Hi Thierry,
>>>
>>> Usually, use cases documents are marked as informative which is not the
>>> case here. See [1] for instance.
>>> Can you confirm the document is normative?
>>
>> I don't think it is normative, like any other UC doc.
>> But I would not want to change that now, without the WG approval.
>> And the document will be published as a Note for a next publication. We
>> will update to say informative.
>
> Thierry, I don't think we can publish this document without the right
> patent policy text. Being a normative or informative document has an
> impact on IPP.
>
> Please check with the WG whether or not it is normative. Let me know
> if it's informative and I will add the sentence to the document.
>
> Denis
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 21:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:14 UTC