W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: about WebCGM_21_Requirements.html

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:07:25 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070816084852.02b808e0@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Oops!  The danger of auto-completion.  I intended this to go to the WebCGM 
TC.   The TC has been working for a while on discussing "2+" 
requirements.  It has a F2F next week in Seattle.

My feeling is that it would be slightly premature to start discussions in 
the WG as well.  At the time of charter extension, we anticipated this -- 
that the TC would take the lead and would have some sense of the support 
for and scope of 2+ work after late-summer F2F.

On the other hand, the WG *will* be moving forward on the 1.0 errata -- 
this is solely the WG's responsibility.  Altho' the gathered TC+WG members 
might discuss them next week also.  (By TC+WG members, I mean those TC 
members who are also WG members, which includes all WG members except you 
and Chris).

I will be sending more comments about the 1.0 errata later today or 
tomorrow.  It is possible that we could have a Thursday AM telecon about 
the 1.0 errata next week.

-Lofton.

At 11:21 AM 8/16/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>Lofton,
>
>We should probably schedule a telecon to talk about this.
>
>Maybe next week on Thursday or the week following.
>
>What do you think ?
>
>Thierry.
>
>  Henderson wrote:
>>WebCGM TC --
>>I have tried to summarize the state of our requirements considerations 
>>for WebCGM 2+.  I have culled all of the relevant emails, documents, and 
>>minutes that I could find.
>>I'd like feedback.  Have I missed anything?  Have I misrepresented any 
>>status?  Could the document itself be improved (structure, linking, etc)?
>>This is a very preliminary draft, but one thing does emerge ... we 
>>haven't actually CLOSED the status of any of the requirements, neither 
>>accepted (with concise scope definition) nor rejected.  In some cases 
>>we're close, in some cases we're awaiting input from the constituents, 
>>and in some cases we have not discussed the item at all yet.
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>>Date: 14 Aug 2007 22:15:15 -0000
>>>To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>From: lofton@rockynet.com
>>>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - WebCGM_21_Requirements.html uploaded
>>>
>>>Very preliminary draft!  Feedback requested.  A version of this could 
>>>help organize requirements work at F2F. -- Lofton Henderson* The 
>>>document named WebCGM_21_Requirements.html has been submitted by Lofton 
>>>Henderson* to the OASIS CGM Open WebCGM TC document repository. Document 
>>>Description: View Document Details: 
>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/document.php?document_id=24980 
>>>Download Document: 
>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/download.php/24980/WebCGM_21_Requirements.html 
>>>PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email 
>>>application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able 
>>>to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your 
>>>web browser. -OASIS Open Administration
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 15:07:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:59:24 UTC