- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:48:00 -0600
- To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
WebCGM WG -- At 08:18 AM 10/5/2007 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >At 09:38 AM 10/5/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >>[...] >>For WebCGM20 errata, the WebCGM needs to decide if he wants to use the >>same simple process or issue a Call for Review of an Edited >>Recommendation) for WebCGM20 second release. > >Now that the options are clear, let's discuss them at the 11-october >telecon. Also affecting our decision will be whether or not OASIS and W3C >decide to pursue a small, fast WebCGM 2.1 (handful of additions to WebCGM >2.0). That topic will be on the agenda. Since the WG charter expires on 30th November -- about 6 weeks after the telecon -- it is timely to start discussing this. If there were to be no work on a new WebCGM version (2.1 / 3.0), then it is probably appropriate that the WG expire. However, the results of discussion in the WebCGM TC over the last several months indicate that there are requirements and vendor support (implementation pledges) for at least a small handful of additions to 2.0 -- at least, there is a handful of loose ends from 2.0. Unfortunately, the completion of that (TC) preliminary requirements assessment is taking some weeks longer than planned, but I think most of the users and vendors believe there will be at least some follow-on work to define a 2.1 upgrade. Regarding the 2.0 errata, then ... if we were to start a quick 2.1 upgrade, it is unclear that it would make sense to republish WebCGM 2.0 Edited Recommendation with errata enfolded. Regards, -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 14:48:16 UTC