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

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

From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <441A7E23.1040405@cwi.nl>
To: "'swbp'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


Assuming that your mail was intended for the list, and not only for me, 
I hereby forward it to the list :-)
Thanks for clarifying this!

Ralph, is there anything else blocking publication?



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [MM] action16: Move editor's draft to TR space
Date: 	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:05:07 -0800
From: 	Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
To: 	Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>

This is correct.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen [mailto:Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl] 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:55 AM
To: Ralph R. Swick
Cc: swbp; Christian Halaschek-Wiener; Uschold, Michael F
Subject: Re: [MM] action16: Move editor's draft to TR space

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
>> - 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).
> 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. 

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 09:15:31 UTC

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