- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:30:30 +0200
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
On 24/09/2014 18:04, Nigel Megitt wrote: > On 24/09/2014 13:28, "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > >> Pierre, >> >> I would like to start preparation of the publication of IMSC1 [1] as CR. >> >> >> We are targetting mid october for this publication. I propose Oct 14th, >> if that is OK with you. Following that week there is a publishing >> moratorium for TPAC 2014. > > Can we stick with October 15 as agreed and published, or is there a > day-of-the-week constraint? There is indeed a day-of-the-week constraint: publication only on tuesday and thursday. > >> >> Here is a list of the remaining tasks: >> >> 1-Finalyse the draft >> - finish the editor updates. >> - draft a new "Status of This Document". I will provie the wording, if >> you would like. In this section we should provide the CR exit criteria >> (I will draft also a baseline). >> - have the draft compliant with pubrules >> >> 2- Once the draft is done and frozen, we should have a resolution for >> the TTWG to agree to transition to CR. >> >> 3- We will need to achive the following according to the new W3C process >> [2] and therefore must organize a call with the director to move to CR. >> We should reserve now a meeting slot with the Director. >> >> - must show that the specification has met all Working Group >> requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been >> deferred, > > At the current time we have no documentation of requirements for IMSC 1. I don't see any requirements neither in the charter http://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html > >> - must document changes to dependencies during the development of the >> specification, >> - must document how adequate implementation experience will be >> demonstrated, >> - must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least four >> weeks after publication, and should be longer for complex documents, >> - must show that the specification has received wide review, and >> - may identify features in the document as "at risk". These features may >> be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a >> requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation. >> >> >> And then we will be ready for CR publication ... >> >> Thierry >> >> [1] >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml-ww-profiles/ttml-ww-profiles >> .html >> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#last-call >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 16:30:49 UTC