RE: [Proposal] Re: Should we have a teleconference 5 July?


Denis Anson, MS, OTR/L
Assistant Professor
College Misericordia
301 Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Ian B. Jacobs
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: [Proposal] Re: Should we have a teleconference 5 July?

"Ian B. Jacobs" wrote:
> Hello,
> Please indicate whether you will or will not be able to attend a 5 
> July teleconference. This will affect whether we skip a week.
> I am able to attend a 5 July teleconference, though I wouldn't mind a 
> break. I don't want too long a break since we have to finish up the 
> SVG WG teleconference.

I propose the following. All in favor say "aye".

 1) We next meet on 12 July

 2) Since we will skip 5 July, everyone is REQUIRED to
    read the proposed replies to the SVG WG [1] (and should read
    the minutes of yesterday's teleconference as well once
    I have sent them to the list).

 3) Everyone MUST make some kind of statement about the proposed
    responses, such as:
    a) I love them and no changes are required.
    b) Please add the following rationale to this section.
       [I would like those types of comments a lot.]
    c) I do not agree with this specific response and would 
       like to discuss it at the 12 July meeting. And here
       is my reasoning by email as fodder for discussion.

The SVG comments stand between us and Candidate Recommendation (a few
trifles must be handled as well, but our first responsibility is to
respond to the SVG WG). Therefore, it is very important to send our
responses as soon as possible. 

It is the beginning of the summer, and there's a risk of losing momentum
as we prepare for Candidate Recommendation. Please help us maintain
momentum (despite skipping a meeting) by being responsive on the list
(and sending comments before the 12 July meeting so that we have a
chance to read them).

I will be talking with Dean Jackson next week to gather more information
about some of the technical comments made by the SVG WG.

I would note that after the teleconference from yesterday, I think we
have two proposals forming, so please consider these as you read the

Proposal 1, for comment A.3

 - Clarify in the document that conformance icons only indicate
   a claim and not a certified claim (as we have not certification
   mechanism at this time).

 - I think that we should not change the meaning of the icon
   later on, should we develop a certification mechanism for some
   reason. Thus, the meaning of the icon is fixed with the spec,
   and if we want to assign a new meaning, we publish a new spec.

Proposal 2, for comment A.2

 - Clarify that the requirements to slow, stop, pause, etc. (checkpoints
4.4 and
   4.5) apply to all instances of audio and animations. 
 - Add a sufficient technique: if the timing of the animation is
   by some 'master' element such as a parent time container in SMIL, 
then it is
   sufficient to provide the required control for the master only. User
   may provide control for the 'dependent' content as well.

Thank you,

 - Ian
Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 09:40:02 UTC