RE: processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues

Either the proposal or the alternative works for me.  I think it might
be cleaner to go with the proposal
if we expect for comments to be made for some time to come.
 

--
Stuart Galt
SGML Resource Group
stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
(206) 544-3656



 


________________________________

	From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:21 AM
	To: WebCGM WG
	Subject: processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues
	
	
	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.