RE: processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues

Either option work for me. Keep in mind that I will continue to send
comment while implementation work moves forward.
 
Benoit

________________________________

From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Cruikshank
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:51 PM
To: Lofton Henderson
Cc: WebCGM WG
Subject: Re: processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues


Agreed...I think we should accept your proposal and continue refining in
anticipation of a 2nd LC.

Dave


On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
wrote:


	All --
	
	So far I think we have agreed to a couple things in the
getObjectExtent (gOE) clarifications:
	
	1.) fixing the sentence that has the unclear reference to Style
Properties, which ones are allowed and which are not;
	2.) deleting the word "abstract" and linking "locus" to a
glossary entry.
	
	In the current DoC draft document there is an item for each of
these.
	
	Now we're starting to discuss specific detailed cases, and more
questions are arising as we go on.  It seems to me that these
discussions could go on for a while.  In the end, we will probably at
least include some detailed-case clarifications.   Conceivably, we could
reverse or modify some earlier decisions.
	
	Proposal:  close the 1st Last Call DoC, negotiate resolutions,
and carry these on as further intra-WG development and refinement.  We
would then endorse any further changes (to gOE and as well as other
expected implementor-discovered stuff) in a quick 2nd LC. (We
anticipated progression like this in our schedule.)
	
	The alternative is to leave the 1st LC processing open as we
sort through all the gOE details, and incorporate all gOE resolutions in
a single lump.  I have a slight preference for the "Proposal", as it
let's us wrap up 10-12 1st LC issues (including I18N) and publish a new
WD or editors draft.  
	
	Thoughts?  
	
	-Lofton.