Re: Getting ready to publish our documents (pubrules etc.)

Query:

HTML generated and put in
pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-query-201120105/

* Status done.
* No text yet say it's "LC"
   I'm assuming we will have some common text
   I'm not sure where in SOTD it goes,
* No text about possible skipping CR.

 >>>      "Given that sufficient implementation experience has already 
been reported by the time of the
 >>>       next publication round, the SPARQL Working Group is 
considering to skip Candidate Recommendation
 >>>       phase and advance this specification directly to Proposed 
Recommendation with its next version."

Is this true for all docs or only some?

?? s/Given that/If/


	Andy

On 02/01/12 08:42, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> We should probably aim for Jan 5.
>
> Alright so, then let's fix/discuss the details in tomorrow's call.
>
> Happy new year, everyone!
> Axel
>
> On 2 Jan 2012, at 01:55, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 20:13 +0100, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Following the resolutions from the last telco before christmas, I started to prepare docs for publication - starting with the Update doc -
>>> with publication date Jan 2nd and comments period until Feb 2nd.
>>> I am not really sure we can really achieve Jan 2nd as publication date,
>>
>> Yeah, also, it turns out to be a holiday around here ("New Years Day
>> Observed").   We should probably aim for Jan 5.
>>
>>       -- Sandro
>>
>>>   but here are the steps summarized again which we need
>>> to do for all other docs as well ...
>>>
>>>   1) I have followed the steps from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Pub-Process...
>>>   2) ...I have copied the final version to the following pub folder on CVS: WWW/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102,
>>>      example file: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-update-20120102/ (pubrules checked)
>>>   1) In addition to the points mentioned at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Pub-Process, I have added a red wgNote box
>>>      (this uses local.css, also committed in the pub folder) which says the following in the Status section:
>>>
>>>      "Given that sufficient implementation experience has already been reported by the time of the
>>>       next publication round, the SPARQL Working Group is considering to skip Candidate Recommendation
>>>       phase and advance this specification directly to Proposed Recommendation with its next version."
>>>
>>>   4) Important: For all documents, we need to update particularly the Status section... Unless the changes to
>>>      previous version are up-to-date (.e. if they still refer to the one but last version),
>>>      I would by default simply remove such comments on changes from the previous version.
>>>
>>> So, @alleditors: Let me know if you can do the same for your respective docs, ideally by tomorrow COB...
>>> if not, and if we want to stick with Jan 2nd, I will just try to proceed likewise with the other docs myself,
>>> not sure if I manage before Monday, but let's see, will sort out the earliest pub date otherwise with Lee
>>> and Sandro.
>>>
>>> If I don't hear back from you, let me wish @all a great coming year 2012 already!
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 11:43:23 UTC