- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 07:38:58 +1000
- To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, 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>
comments inline On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > 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/ Should it be living at https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/ ? (I'll make sure to copy it into our code repository also.) BTW: the linked Changes page at https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-webvtt1-20170808/changes-FPWD.html loads as empty. Did something go wrong during publishing? > 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". If you go find that one, its this table line: I-1 in 6.2.1 line heights bug 28269 works for me, accepted by author (use CSS) ed 2.3 So, the author has accepted the resolution. Kind Regards, Silvia. > - 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 21:39:43 UTC