- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:05:30 -0700
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Okay, I have fixed those broken links. I have updated the file: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html (I did *not* change the ZIP file in that directory.) Thanks, -Lofton. At 05:48 PM 1/22/2009 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote: >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 Friday, 23 January 2009 01:06:37 UTC