RE: UC&Req document way forward and comments from Raphael

Yes Wonsuk, you are right…

 

Daniel

 

------

Soohong Daniel Park

Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D

http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00 

 

From: 이원석 [mailto:wslee@etri.re.kr] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:32 PM
To: Soohong Daniel Park
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: UC&Req document way forward and comments from Raphael

 

Dear Daniel,

 

+1 for this proposal.

In conclusion, we will publish the third WD until next month in terms of
publication schedule. Right?

 

Best regards,

Wonsuk.

 

From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Soohong Daniel Park
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:24 PM
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: UC&Req document way forward and comments from Raphael

 

After call, I had a small talk with Raphael in IRC. 

I think it’s very reasonable way for the UC&Req document publication. 

===========================

TOPIC: LC for the UC&Req document

His comments:

UC&Req is a technical note. In this case, we can safely publish the final
version when the other documents will be RFC, so no rush for this document.
I suggest you publish a new WD. It’s useless for this document to be a
note now since there is a risk it is outdated when the RFC will be
published. Better, improve the document now, publish it and freeze it until
the others are REC, when others documents are REC, take this one, and
publish it as an note with small changes depending on the final REC.

===========================

What do you think ?

Daniel

------

Soohong Daniel Park

Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D

http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00