W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vision-core@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Maintenance Case: MathML

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:20:12 -0700
Message-ID: <4C504AAC.2060606@oracle.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: public-vision-core <public-vision-core@w3.org>
> Would we consider recommending a simpler to be able to do option 3,
> without doing a full AC review?

Yes, we could do that.  We could also try to make the AC review less
onerous.  For example, could we get AC approval via a Web Ballot?

All the best, Ashok


Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> We talked about maintenance of existing specifications 2 weeks ago and
> I'd like to come back to it with a concrete case: MathML. 
>
>
> The Working Group will probably release MathML 3.0 as a REC
> mid-September and doesn't plan a new version at the moment. However, the
> Group wishes to stay around to maintain the document and also to
> continue to be a formal forum to defend MathML interest with regards to
> HTML5 (HTML5 includes MathML by reference).
>
> We have 3 choices at the moment:
> 1- close the Group and reopen if a new edition becomes useful.
> 2- keep the Group around by simply extending the charter
> 3- keep the Group with a new charter making it clear they're around for
> maintenance and coordination
>
> 1 doesn't seem an option here since the Group wants to keep some formal
> status.
>
> 2 would work but, unless you're in the known, you wouldn't guess that
> the Group is only around for maintenance
>
> 3 would work, except that the Director cannot substantially modify the
> charter without an AC review. So, trimming down the existing charter to
> only keep maintenance would require a round with the AC
>
> Would we consider recommending a simpler to be able to do option 3,
> without doing a full AC review?
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:22:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:47:24 UTC