Re: VTT Working Draft, second wide review

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