Re: new editor's draft available

Lofton,


Checking carefully the document,  I see 3 broken links here


    http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html


See:
http://validator.w3.org/checklink?url=http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html

createWebCGMRect() 
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-DOM.html#createWebCGMRect%28%29>: 
129
Contents 
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html#Contents>: 
628
TR15 
<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Intro.html#TR15>: 
362


Could you please fix those ?

Thanks,

Thierry.

Thierry Michel wrote:
>
> Lofton,
>
> I have updated the overview page [1]
>
> -  changed date and this version URI
> - Added previous version
> -  changed zip file URI
> - Updated "Status of this Document" section for an ordinary Working 
> Draft.
>
> Let me know if you are OK with the new wording in the SotD.
>
>
> "This is a Public Working Draft of "WebCGM 2.1".
> This WebCGM 2.1 specification was initially based on a work by the 
> same name, WebCGM 2.1 an OASIS Committee Specification. This W3C 
> Working Draft version of the WebCGM 2.1 specification incorporates 
> requests for changes from comments sent during the Last Call Review, 
> as agreed with the commenters (see Disposition of Last Call comments 
> for WebCGM 2.1). The WebCGM Working Group, plans to issue a second 
> Last Call from more implementation experiences."
>
>
> It is link checked, HTML validated and passes the Publication rules.
>
> Therefore we are ready to publish on friday Jan 30th.
> I will request publication to the Webmaster today.
>
>
> When I have tyour approval for publication I will generate the Zipfile
> WebCGM21-20090130.zip
>
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html
>
>
> Thierry.
>
>
>
>
>
> Henderson wrote:
>> 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 16:49:20 UTC