W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Next last call publication & question on todays meeting

From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:10:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CANw5LK=sYWxECzObYoS3SV9qx9-fmmYP9=t7GrS21D1wyCLhew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Thanks Felix, my responses inline

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


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

>  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.
>
As per minutes, changes regarding extensibility
*both in spec and schema.*
*Spec changes are pending consensus on action-527*
*
*
Also the changes regarding <script> should be implemented, there seems to
be consensus in the discussion thread with Silvia and others. So this
should not be an issue.
*
*

>
>
>
>  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.
>
I just reacted to those

>
> 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
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Felix Sasaki <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
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 09:11:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC