- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:20:01 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Benjamin Schaaf <ben.schaaf@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
David, see my responses in line. >> Le 02/08/2017 à 01:15, David Singer a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Thierry >>> >>> I think the TT group has now had a month to complain or comment on the >>> disposition, so I think we can/should take them as OK. See >>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2017Jun/0109.html> >>> >>> We have a new WD, thank you. I think we should formally re-request Wide >>> Review with the hope of a CR transition soon. I have edited a new WD for the wide review ending sept 22nd. https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-webvtt1-20170808/ I will prepare the wide review request message and send you a draft. The previous Wide Review is >>> extensively documented <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review> as you >>> know. This documents looks a bit like a disposition of comments for the first wide review in 2014. It is edited in a wiki (there is no formal document required for this by the W3C process). All comments seems to have been processed. - One is resolved but probably not incorporated "2.3- Done - CG resolution". - Some are resolved and incorporated into the specs (marked as "2.4- Done - CG resolution and spec update"). - Some are resolved but rejected : "2.7- Done but comment Rejected" In all cases, did the commenters agreed to these CG resolutions? If yes, could you provide links to approuval message? If no, we must go through a regular process to contact commenters and get their approuval, and the TTWG could then change the status to the following. 3.1- CG resolution approuved by WG 3.2- Approuved and Response drafted 3.3- Response send to commenter 3.4- Response agreed by commenter 3.5- Response rejected by commenter (need more discussion - back to step 2.5) 3.6- Response partially agreed by commenter (need more discussion - back to step 2.5) Thierry
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2017 17:20:15 UTC