Re: VTT Working Draft, second wide review

Ok, thank you for the update. I understand now.
Best Regards,
Silvia.

On 4 Aug. 2017 5:58 pm, "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> Le 03/08/2017 à 23:38, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>
>> 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/ ?
>>
>
> Yes of course it will, once the webmaster has done publication.
>
>>
>> (I'll make sure to copy it into our code repository also.)
>>
>
> OK. Only the SotD was changed.
>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Right I know.
>
> The publication is not done yet. It will on tuesday. Currently only the
> files have been uploaded to their final destination.
>
> I have uploaded yesterday the changes-FPWD.html file and the server went
> wrong. Now the file is like locked and I can't update it.
>
> Therefore when I have sent the publication request yesterday to the
> Webmaster, I asked him to fix this file issue.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Ok so we should track those commenter approval, and have links to the
> commenter approval message, as we will need to show this to the director
> when transiting to CR.
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>