- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:50:23 -0700
- To: "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for all the help. I assume then that you will take care of the cover page: date, "This version", ZIP file link, and SoTD. Publication date: how about week from Friday? (30 January) Frozen: I consider it frozen. Today I updated 3 HTML files, a new ZIP, and uploaded all to the "..current-editor-21/.." directory [1]. ** WebCGM21-DOM.html, WebCGM21-Appendix.html, Overview.html (which you will further update); ** WebCGM21-20090121.zip [1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/ So ... over to you now. I will keep hands off till you do your bits and move it away for publication. Thanks, -Lofton. At 07:15 PM 1/21/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote: > > Hi Thierry, > > > > In it is not a big problem, then let's go ahead and publish relatively > > soon. > >OK. Thanks for your editor's work on the document. > > > > > Do we need a WG resolution to do that? > >No we don't. This is not a Transition, only a new publication of an >ordinary draft. > > > Document needs: > > 1.) validate (DONE) >Good > > 2.) pub rules check (needed) > >I will do it > > > 3.) SoTD, including unique sentence about this version (needed) >I will also do it > > > 4.) Other? > >I will check broken links, CSS, etc. > >And I will request Publication. > >We should decide a publication date. (give a least 5 days for the >publication Team). > > >Let me know when the document is ready and frozen on your side and I will >make the necessary changes. > >Thanks, > >Thierry > > > > > > > Thanks, > > -Lofton. > > > > > > At 11:19 AM 1/21/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote: > > > >> > Thierry, > >> > > >> > I think option #1 is ruled out. The test suite is incomplete and > >> > implementations are very incomplete. I guess we could actually have a > >> > very > >> > long CR, but we would surely return to LC thereafter (then maybe go > >> > straight to PR). And ... I don't think anyone believes that the spec > >> is > >> > stable yet. > >> > > >> > I think #2 sounds best. We would publish a new WD to incorporate the > >> LC > >> > feedback, then continue with spec development in the WG (and have a > >> 2nd LC > >> > "in a while"). > >> > > >> > If we did option #3, then it would be almost 6 months between > >> publishing > >> > 1st LC and the next publication (2nd LC). Would that be problematic > >> to > >> > have no publication for that long? > >> > > >> > -Lofton. > >> > >> > >>Well it would not be problematic, but W3C recommends to publish every 3 > >>months (which a lot of WGs don't do). > >>I am fine with option 2, to publish a new Working Draft and then publish > >> a > >>second last Call in a few months. > >> > >>Sorry for my previous emails, my emailer went wrong and sent multiple > >> message > >>Sorry for the buzz. > >> > >>-- > >>Thierry Michel > >>W3C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >Thierry Michel >W3C
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 00:51:34 UTC