Draft transition request for 2.1 CR:

[DRAFT]  Transition request for 2.1 CR to be sent to  timbl@w3.org, 
steve@w3.org, chris@w3.org, cc'ing w3t-comm@w3.org and chairs@w3.org

This document may help us during the F2F meeting. Let's discuss it.

----------------------------------------

This is a request for a Transition to CR.

* Title: "WebCGM 2.1"
* URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-webcgm21-2009090@@/
* Estimated publication date: @@ Sept 2009
* Document Abstract: see below
* Status section: see below

* Record of the decision to request the Transition:
During its WG F2F meeting in Ann Arbor - MI - USA, the WebCGM group has 
resolved to request Transition to CR. See
      http://www.w3.org/@@@

* Report of important changes to the document:

The WebCGM WG has released two Last Call Working Drafts:
- a WebCGM 2.1 (First public and Last Call Working Draft) [17 September 
2008]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-webcgm21-20080917/

followed by a WebCGM 2.1 (second public Working Draft) [30 january 2009]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090130/
incorporating requests for changes from comments sent during the first 
Last Call Review, as agreed with the commenters (see Disposition of Last 
Call comments for WebCGM 2.1)

- a WebCGM 2.1 (second Last Call Working Draft) [04 June 2009]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/
incorporating requests for changes from comments sent during the first 
Last Call Review, as agreed with the commenters and changes following 
implementation experiences from the Working Group.

The changes that this version introduces from the Last Call Working
Draft are available at Appendix D. Change Log
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webcgm21-20090604/WebCGM21-Appendix.html#webcgm_changelog

* Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements:
The group's initial requirements have not changed. The WG has fulfilled
all requirements. See initial WebCGM 2.1 Requirements at
      http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM21-requirements.html

* Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not):
WebCGM 2.1 has no normative references to W3C specifications that are
not yet Proposed Recommendations.
Dependencies with other groups have been explored and ensuing issues
resolved during the First and Second Last Call period.
See the Disposition of Comments document at
      http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html

* Evidence that the document has received wide review:
Last Call Review announcement was sent to the chairs@w3.org list and to
the public-webcgm@w3.org list on 18 Sep 2008 for the first last Call
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Sep/0000.html

and on 04 June 2009 for the second last Call.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2009Jun/0000.html

We have especially requested review from WGs those listed for
coordination in the WG Charter :  I18N WG, SVG WG and SYMM WG.
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html

We received responses from the I18N WG and from individuals.

Review from other organizations:
   - OASIS has reviewed the Last Call version, through their monthly 
meeting.
   - Peter Zimermann representing Technical Publication Specification
Maintenance Group (TPSMG) of ASD, who maintain the S1000D Standard
   has reviewed the LC document.
   - Air Transport Association (ATA) has reviewed the LC document.


* Evidence that issues have been formally addressed.
All comments have been formally addressed.
See the Disposition of Comments document.
     http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2008/WebCGM21-LC-comments.html

* Objections:
No objections have been received.

* Implementation information:

The CR exit criteria, as decided by the group and mentioned in the
specification, are: @@@ [TBD]
" 1. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been gathered
to demonstrate that the WebCGM 2.1 features are implementable and are
interpreted in a consistent manner. To do so, the Working Group will
insure that all features in the WebCGM 2.1 specification have been
implemented at least twice in an interoperable way. This defines this as:
      * the implementations have been developed independently,
      * each test in the WebCGM 2.0 test suite has at least two passing
implementations.

2. The Working Group releases a public test suite for WebCGM 2.1 along
with an implementation report."


The WG expects the CR period to be 1 month (the minimal CR ending date
is set to @@ October 2006). The WG expects Transition to PR early November.

During the CR period, the WebCGM WG will finalize and release a WebCGM
2.1 test suite.
A preliminary WebCGM 2.1 test suite is available at
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/2009/WebCGM21/testsuite21.html

There is already a good amount of products implementing WebCGM 2.1, from
Viewers and Printers Browser plug-ins and standalone viewers, Editors,
Filters and Converters, WebCGM capable printers, etc.
See @@@ [TBD]

There has been an "interoperability day" during the WebCGM WG F2F
meeting in Ann Arbor, MI, USA 24-26 August 2009.
A preliminary implementation report with detailed matrix shows which
software implements each feature of the specification.
See 
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/2009/WebCGM21/implementation-report.html

The Working Group has identify specific features of the technical report
as being "features at risk":
          * @@@ [TBD]

* Patent Disclosures:
No patent disclosures have been made for any specifications of this group.
See WebCGM WG Patent Policy Status
        http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/39256/status

* Abstract:

@@@ [TBD]


* Status section:

@@@ [TBD]

-------------------------------------
For Lofton Henderson, WebCGM Working Group Chair,
Thierry Michel, WebCGM staff contact.
-- 
Thierry Michel
W3C

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 13:33:54 UTC