Re: Next last call publication & question on todays meeting

Hi David,

Am 15.05.13 23:23, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
> Felix, I do not have an issue with your proposed publishing 
> date,*provided that all spec and schema changes discussed today are 
> implemented by that time.*

Could you please list in this thread what you mean by "all spec and 
schema changes", so that we are sure we are in sync? I am happy to do 
the edits, but need to know which one.

>
> However, I do not agree that introducing extensibility and changing 
> schema is not a substantive change. Anyway, I would hardly call it 
> editorial. Extensibility in this sense has not been discussed before 
> and we do not have a stable spec change to reflect it by now.

For this one see the mails from Jirka and Yves. Could you provide 
feedback on these by Friday EOB? Otherwise I would go ahead with the 
publication.

The botttom line for this "response deadline" is that we only should 
delay the draft publication of people are able to take the time to discuss.

Best,

Felix

> My opinion is that it is better to lose one week now than many weeks 
> later on if the change is pushed into the second last call.
>
> Rgds
> dF
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie <mailto:david.filip@ul.ie>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org 
> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I read in today's raw meeting minutes
>     http://www.w3.org/2013/05/15-mlw-lt-minutes.html
>     "skipping topic: Consensus to publish Last Call"
>     Why is that? Because of the extension change which is not
>     normative? If that's the case I propose to do the following:
>
>     - If there is no disagreement on action-527
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0139.html
>     by Friday EOB
>     and no other substantive issue comes up, I will prepare the
>     publication, to be done Tuesday 21 May.
>
>     Wrt to the HTML reference for "elements within text": changing
>     just the pointers to groups of elements in HTML5 (e.g. "phrasing
>     content") and list elements explicitly (e.g. "script") won't
>     warrant a last call delay. Of course, if the HTML references are
>     resolved by Monday EOB next week (that would be needed for
>     publication on Tuesday), that's even better.
>
>     If you disagree with this approach and esp. if you see other
>     issues, please state that in this thread asap.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Felix
>
>