- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:20:20 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org, www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF1D4427F1.F86DAF5F-ON882572B9.007754C8-882572B9.007AB71A@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Bjoern, You objected to advancing XForms 1.1 to last call. You quoted requirements that pertain to advancing XForms 1.1 to candidate recommendation, so I believe your objection is ill-founded on that ground alone. Observe, for example, that neither the director nor the AC are involved in the last call phase of advancement, so a formal objection to a last call has no meaning. Moreover, please carefully review the definition of "formal objection" [1] to ensure you are eligible [2] to raise a formal objection and what are an eligible individual's obligations related to doing so [3]. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews A formal objection is raised about a working group decision made within the technical report by an eligible individual who wants the director to review the technical decision as part of the consideration for advancing the technical report to the requested next stage. It is not clear that your prior email objection meets any of these requirements either. This is why it would be better to focus on improving XForms 1.1 by breaking down your comments into parcels of technical feedback (last call comments) about XForms 1.1. In particular, I am interested in your review of the updated submission module in combination with the new XPath functions such as encode(), decode(), random(), digest() and hmac(). If these satisfy your concerns, please say so. If not, please explain what you feel is missing. If you have other issues that you would like to raise about XForms 1.1, please also send those as separate last call comments to www-forms-editor@w3.org betwee Feb. 22, 2007 and the new extended date of April 30, 2007. In accordance with the W3C Process document, your last call comments will be addressed prior to the working group seeking advancement to candidate recommendation. John M. Boyer, Ph.D. STSM: Workplace Forms Architect and Researcher Co-Chair, W3C Forms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org 04/10/2007 12:29 PM To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA cc www-forms-editor@w3.org, public-forms@w3.org Subject Re: Formal Objection: publication of XForms 1.1 as LCWD * John Boyer wrote: >If your last call comment is not answered, then your W3C AC Rep has the >opportunity to object to advancement to candidate recommendation. If that >isn't done, then the issue becomes an element of the past. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#transition-reqs In preparation for advancement to Candidate Recommendation or subsequent maturity levels up to and including publication as a Recommendation, the Working Group MUST: ... 6. Formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous step. ... http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#formal-address In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an issue when it has sent a public, substantive response to the reviewer who raised the issue. A substantive response is expected to include rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). The adequacy of a response is measured against what a W3C reviewer would generally consider to be technically sound. >In the meantime, although I will be putting your email and this response >on the agenda for discussion and review by the Forms WG, I want to be >clear that I currently do not perceive your objection as being appropriate >to the XForms 1.1 last call process nor to any current efforts of the >Forms WG, and as such I will not be speaking to the director about your >objection ... http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#transition-reqs In preparation for advancement to Candidate Recommendation or subsequent maturity levels up to and including publication as a Recommendation, the Working Group MUST: ... 7. Report any Formal Objections. ... Thank you for making my point. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 22:20:27 UTC