W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2006

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

From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:55:19 +0100
Message-ID: <44154F97.8010008@cwi.nl>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
CC: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Christian Halaschek-Wiener <halasche@cs.umd.edu>, "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>

Ralph R. Swick wrote:
> I had interpreted Mike's review comment in [4] as
> supportingpublication 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
>   
I was under the impression that
- Mike still had some stuff he wants to see improve but that
- he also understood the position of the MMTF that early publication and
thus early feedback from a wider audience is too important to further
delay the publication, and that
- he was OK if we continued working on the remaining issues after
publication of the first public draft

Mike, please speak up if my impression was wrong!

In the mean time. I was just trying to use the time in between the
teleconf and the actual publication to get as many of Mike's comments
addressed, but I did not intend to delay the publication by doing so. 
Apologies if this caused confusion.

>> 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].
>   
OK
>> - 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.
>   
OK, thanks.
> - 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.
>   
OK, that is fine with me.  As long as people can find the editor's draft
if they want to.
>> 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).
>   
Thanks!
> 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#
>   
Fixed in CVS (Chris, please speak up if you do not agree).
> 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
>
>   
Raphael and I fixed all the broken links we could find, and [9] Link
Checker seems to be happy too. 

Jacco
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 10:55:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:18 UTC