- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:09:47 -0600
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>,Don <don@cgmlarson.com>, David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>
At 09:19 AM 8/29/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >Lofton Henderson wrote: >>Hi Thierry, >>Embedded below please see questions / suggested changes from me for >>pre-announcement. I think I should send this Friday morning, since the >>Chairs have already seen the publication request. >>-Lofton. >> >>>_____________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>>Dear chairs and colleagues, >>> >>>The WebCGM WG plans to publish WebCGM 2.1 to a First Public and Last >>>Call Working Draft. >>> >>>A publication request will be sent shortly (we're targeting September >>>15th 2008). >>s/will be sent shortly/has been sent/ >> >>>We plan on having a 2 months review period, ending on November 15th >>>2008. Does any WG request more time than that? >>s/a 2 month/an almost 2 month/ >> >>>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 >>See questions in my earlier mail. (That SVG and SMIL in the Charter >>specifically were about "animation", and in Requirements declarative >>animation was a MAY requirement, and it has now been dropped from 2.1.) > >Right I know that the charter mentions dependencies for SVG and SMIL for >animation and that its been dropped from 2.1. > > >This is why I had dropped the wording from the charter "The Working Group >coordinates with this group on animation issues." > > >Therefore I see two possibilities: >- we only list the 3 WGs (as above) without specifically mention of >dependency about animation. >- We say something like: The animation features have been dropped from >WebCGM 2.1. therefore dependencies with SVG and SMIL about animation >are meaningless. We still encourage these WGS to review the document ... >(I sure you will have a better wording ;-) I think I favor the latter approach. We list the dependent groups ("...in the Charter.") We add after the listing something like: "Note that the Charter identifies the principal dependency with SVG and SMIL as concerning (declarative) animation, which is effectively a MAY in the requirements. It is now dropped from the scope of 2.1. The WebCGM WG of course still welcomes input from all groups." What do you think? (Comments anyone?) -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 13:10:03 UTC