- From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:24:10 -0400
- To: ot@w3.org
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
Olivier, We appreciate the comments that you have given, we have processed them some time ago. Included are descriptions of what actions were taken regarding each comment. The most recent editor's drafts can be found at: Compound Documents by Reference Framework 1.0 http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml WICD Core 1.0 http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd.xhtml WICD Full 1.0 Profile http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-full.xhtml WICD Mobile 1.0 Profile http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-mobile.xhtml > General Comments - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0016.html We have discussed organization and have resolved to have 4 specifications as listed above. > Specification naming - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0017.html We have taken your comments into consideration, see the 4 specifications (and their naming) above regarding actual outcome. > Scope of the framework - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0018.html We have rewritten the scope sections taking these comments into consideration, see http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml#scope > Conformance section - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0019.html We have rewritten the conformance sections taking your comments and reviewing the qa-framework spec, see the new conformance sections at http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/cdf.xhtml#conformance > Normative versus informative - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0020.html We have updated and verified that normative/informative sections are properly and consistently indicated, see editor's draft. > Give (even) more definitions, or references to definitions - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0021.html We have provided more definitions and updates our references to other specifications, per comments like this one, see editor's draft. > Split the specification - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0022.html Split done, see 4 specifications above. > Define ?compound document? earlier - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0023.html The abstract, scope and introduction have been updated to reflect this (and other) concerns, see latest editor's draft. > Typos - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0024.html Thanks for pointing these out, they have been taken care of. See latest editor's draft. > Definition of ?root document? - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2005Aug/0025.html As these specifications only deal with the "by reference" case, definitions were omitted. There are "by inclusion" definitions within the latest Use Case and Requirements public draft http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/specs/CDI/usecases/2.0/cdf-use-cases-reqs.xml#terms Let us know within two weeks if these do not satisfy your comments. Regards, Steve Speicher on behalf of the CDF WG ACTION-234, LC#9, LC#10, LC#11, LC#12, LC#14, LC#15, LC#16, LC#17
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 17:22:36 UTC