RE: processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues

At 03:37 PM 12/3/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
>Either option work for me. Keep in mind that I will continue to send 
>comment while implementation work moves forward.

Exactly.  We want and anticipate implementation feedback, probably for at 
least another couple months.

Hopefully you will be joined by the other implementors, as they progress 
their work.

-Lofton.


>
>----------
>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 
><<mailto:lofton@rockynet.com>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.
>