Re: [MM] action16: Move editor's draft to TR space

At 03:28 PM 3/9/2006 +0100, Jacco van Ossenbruggen wrote:
>Ralph,
>
>You and Raphael have an action item [1] to move the MM draft to TR space.

yes.  There is a [3]formal process for doing this.  In that process, I have
the "Document Contact" role.  For SWBPD I have also been filling-in
for the Chair in sending transition requests.  We are currently at that
stage of the process (i.e. I have to generate a transition request).

I had interpreted Mike's review comment in [4] as supporting
publication of the Image Annotation draft thereby completing the
dependency in our resolution of 6 Feb. Mike's followup [5] after
our Monday WG telecon, however, made me wonder whether
he'd in fact intended to give the green light to publishing.  Your
message of today [6] confirms that the Task Force is expecting
a final confirmation.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transition
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0093.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0026.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0032.html

>Could you have a look at the current/previous/latest links in [2]?

Those are fine for the Editor's Draft and should remain that way in [2].

>- this is the first public version, so maybe the previous link should be removed?
>- the current one should be replaced by the final URL in TR space

I will update both of these in the copy that is put in /TR space.

>- I'm not sure about the latest version link.  I want to have somewhere
>in the document a link to the latest editor's draft (with a changelog with changes wrt
>the latest public draft).  I'm not sure what the best place for this link is. 

Our practice in the official /TR version is not to link directly to
(possibly newer) editor's drafts.  Rather, we provide a link to
the Working Group home pages -- and to the MM TF page in
this case -- where interested readers can expect to find
information about more recent work.  Including a changelog
in newer editor's drafts (also linked from the WG and TF home
pages) will be most appreciated, I'm sure.

>Apart from the link section, I think the current version could be moved to TR space,
>so feel free to make any changes you seem fit.  Also feel free to change the relative
>src link to the image (images/examples/Personal.jpg) with anything you might prefer
>over this link.  We've checked all other relative links and removed all references to the
>editor's draft of the second deliverable.

great; thanks.  I had to make several entity changes (see cvs log)
to be able to process the draft through the required tools.
(I also updated the copyright date in the process).

Looking at a quick scan of a run of the editor's draft through the
[7]pubrules checker, all I see left to do is the normal changes
that are part of the TR copy versus the editor's drafts.

The [8]Namespaces Checker pointed out that there was one
URI  that was incorrect; 

  http://www.w3.org/2003/12/exif/ns/
  should be
  http://www.w3.org/2003/12/exif/ns#

The [9]Link Checker shows two broken links and several
broken fragments; could you look into those, please?
(That will save me some time later, thanks.)

[7] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
[8] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/nschecker
[9] http://validator.w3.org/checklink


>Thanks, Jacco
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action16
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html

Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 14:48:26 UTC