- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:15:15 +0100
- To: "'swbp'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Mike, 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? Thanks, Jacco -------- 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. Mike -----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 [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 Friday, 17 March 2006 09:15:31 UTC