- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:35:46 -0600
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 15:22 -0800, Chris Wilson wrote: > Sorry, question wasn't clear. > > Actually, NO, I don't think the charter should be amended; I DO think a revised charter > should be reviewed; I don't understand the difference. The process for amending the charter, as I understand it, is to send a revised charter to the membership for review. Again: "Should a revised charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section 5.3 Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document?" -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq2 > if the WG is to take on this work, however, I believe it must be > in the charter. OK, what words do you want in the charter? > I would prefer immediate-mode 2D graphics to be part of the graphics effort. Even in that case, there would be some words in the HTML WG charter about the relationship to the graphics effort. If you'd like to propose wording for the charter of something in the graphics effort, that would help too. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 23:35:53 UTC