- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 00:51:45 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
On Thursday, May 4, 2006, 11:45:23 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Chris Lilley wrote: >>>>BH> I would rather learn such details from the mandatory public status >>>>BH> report. You don't happen to know where I can find it? >>Are you looking for a rationale, or a public status report? You asked >>for the latter. Searching the latter for the former would seem to be a >>bizarre undertaking. BH> I apologize [] Your curious apology is accepted BH> When I said "the mandatory public status report" I meant the mandatory BH> public status report as required by the W3C Process, not some informal BH> editor drafts. Oh, I see! I thought you were interested in finding out progress in integrating comments on the draft, which is what the public editors drafts were for. I hadn't realized that you were disinterested in technical progress and instead were just engaging in a debate on process issues, given a four month gap rather than the expected three month one. BH> Public progress reports are also important when a Working Group does BH> not update a technical report within three months (for example, when BH> the delay is due to a challenging technical issue) or when a Working BH> Group has no active technical reports (for example, because it is BH> developing a test suite). Now, if reports on the TR page were the only form of progress report, then it would not be possible to have "a progress report" and simultaneously "not update a technical report", would it? -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 22:51:54 UTC