W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publishingbg@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

From: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:35:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CADExNBOMfRYApuZH=8TU=3RuUdVGDL9LBxKXfGfpsQ3ez0R=_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: public-publishingbg@w3.org, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Okay, got it.

I'll leave our Charter Master Extraordinaire, Ivan, to propose any
clarifying language.  :-)

Best,
   Garth

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> Le 19/04/2017 à 14:52, Garth Conboy a écrit :
>
> > We could, as you suggest in your other mail, decide to find another name
> > for the input document or deliverables but we all know that such
> > discussion could lead to a long bike-shedding match -- I fear that.
> > Instead, if necessary, we can add to the charter something making it
> > clear that the WG has the possibility (as all WG-s have by default) to
> > change the terms used in the deliverables and/or completely ignore the
> > input documents, if that makes things clearer.
>
> I have no religion here. Only thing I know if that even a geeky reader
> like myself found "Web Publications" and "Web Publications" on one hand,
> "Portable Web Publications" and "Portable Web Publications" on the
> other, rather confusing. Your reading of the prose, where documents
> are different and WG ones are not supposed to be the REC track of the
> IG ones, was 100% unclear to me. If it was unclear to me, it's probably
> unclear to some others too...
>
> </Daniel>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 13:36:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 April 2017 13:36:34 UTC