- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:21:57 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>, David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>, Don <don@cgmlarson.com>
Lofton, >> We plan on having a 2 months review period, ending on November 15th >> 2008. Does any WG request more time than that? > > We will of course have to adjust the start and finish somewhat, after we > sort out our startup schedule. But one initial thought: I think we > should close a bit earlier, if we anticipate a f2f Nov.19-21. I think > that 10-14 days before would be better. For example, if the f2f were > Wed-Fri, then close something like Friday Nov.7, which is a > week-and-a-half earlier. > > Reason. It gives us a chance to clarify and pre-negotiate any other > WG's comments. And maybe will help avoid a situation like last time, > where we got comments just before the end of the Cologne F2F! OK. > > More... > > >> WebCGM has dependencies with the following working groups, as >> mentioned in its charter: >> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html >> >> *Internationalization Core Working Group >> * Synchronized Multimedia Working Group >> * Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group > > Looking at the charter, the motivation for SMIL & SVG are tied to > animation. We had declarative animation in the requirements as a > "maybe". But we flagged it as probably beyond the scope of 2.1, and > indeed that is how we are progressing. > > Question. How does the postponement of declarative animation affect the > SVG and SMIL dependencies? (Should the pre-announce mention it?) Note > that there are some "hooks" that have been put into 2.1 that allow DOM > script writers to more easily produce certain kinds of simple animation > effects. > > Comments anyone? I had not mention on purpose, the type of dependencies for each working group, for that specific reason ;-).
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 15:22:46 UTC