See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: stuart
minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009May/0005.html
regrets Benoit
Lofton_Henderson, Don_Larson, Stuart_Galt, dave, plh
<lofton> (Philippe (plh) said he'd lurk on IRC in case we have questions.)
The text at http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/Overview.html has incrporated approved changes
There were also a couple of errors in the ecmascript and in the ACI DTD.
that were also fixed.
<lofton> as usual, look here for specifics of changes:
<lofton> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Appendix.html#webcgm_changelog
This version of the draft uses styling that indicates changes since the previous last call.
It is worrysome that there were errors found in chapter 9 and the DTD at this late time.
Rob, Dave and Stuart were assigned to look for errors in the DTD
<lofton> That's about as good as we can do ... we'll have to assume we have got right for this round.
<lofton> Resolution: The WebCGM WG wants the WebCGM 2.1 specification (reference [1]), with possible further pubrules alignment, to go forward for 2nd Last Call Working Draft review.
All present approve
<lofton> Plus Benoit approved by email:
<lofton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009May/0006.html
<lofton> When to start review?
<lofton> I had thought 1st June, Monday, about 10 days from now.
Does the last call review need to be completed before the Oasis TC takes the version to use as a seed for a committee draft?
<lofton> According to the MoU, it goes back to the TC after we complete CR phase, which we now anticipate around Aug-Sept
<plh> how long will the review be?
<lofton> Thierry said it should be 4 weeks.
<plh> LC review I mean
<plh> that's a minimum indeed
<plh> but it's not necessarily a maximum
<lofton> Given the very light external (outside of the WG) commenting,
<plh> which group need to review the document?
<lofton> we think 4 weeks will suffice.
<plh> ok
<lofton> Groups: I'll need to check it again. Fairly low number on the 1st LCWD review.
<plh> and then CR during Aug-Sep?
<lofton> Aug-sept CR is our current thought. It depends on...
<lofton> ...progress by implementors, some of whom are in the TC but not the WG.
<lofton> So far...
<lofton> ...progress looks like Aug-Sept is an achievable goal for CR.
<plh> will we have a test suite for WebCGM 2.1?
<lofton> (Test Suite: work has been completed in the WebCGM TC, who has responsibility for the TS, for a first public release.) Here's one other detail, about your "Groups" question...
<lofton> ...From the Charter:
<lofton> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html#coordination
<lofton> The only group that gave us significant feedback on...
<lofton> ...1st LCWD was I18N. We satisfied their comments. Thierry says that...
<lofton> ...2nd LCWD Review should be limited to differences from 1st LCWD. Therefore...
<lofton> ...we expect very little dependency-related stuff. There are few differences...
<plh> sounds appropriate to me
<lofton> from 1st to 2nd, and they are pointed out in the Change Log and styled with yellow highlighting.
<plh> did we check with SVG during the 1st period that they were ok not reviewing?
<lofton> We need Thierry to answer that. But ...
<lofton> ...he did send a reminder near the end of 1st LCWD review, to all
<lofton> "dependencies" and the Chair's list in general, IIRC.
<lofton> As I said, "outside" interest, or critical feedback, seems low outside of the WG.
<lofton> Question for Philippe:
<lofton> Is 1st June a reasonable goal, given that Thierry is just returning then? He typically does lots of the...
<plh> well, if he does a lot, no, it is not
<lofton> ...process stuff for us -- notifications, permissions, arrangements with pubs-team, etc...
<lofton> ...Plus he reverifies my initial work on pubrules alignment, with which...
<plh> I thought you were doing the pubrules
<lofton> ...as you know, we are now having a link-check mystery.
<plh> I could help verifying
<lofton> What do you think would be a reasonable goal, if not 1st June?
<plh> link checker needs to be fixed. I expect it to be reparied today, it's a major issue for us.
<plh> June 4
<plh> assuming you and I keep looking into the pubrules issue
<lofton> Okay. We can say June 4th. However...
<lofton> I will be travelling starting June 4th, back in the office on Monday 8th. Is that a problem?
<plh> I don't believe so
<plh> if Thierry has questions for you, we'll kae sure he is aware of your departure date
<lofton> Okay, let's say June 4th.
<lofton> Thierry has been very helpful in the process parts that involve...
<lofton> ...requesting permission to publish, arranging with pub-team, announcing to...
<plh> biggest burden on process in the pubrules item
<plh> our webmaster can publish any time with a 2 days advance notice
<lofton> ...Chairs list, etc. Who should take the action of those process items?
<plh> can you prepare a draft to be sent to the Chairs list?
<lofton> (I.e., non-pubrules process -- I'll try to continue working on pubrules alignment, in consultation with you.)
<plh> a short one is enough
<lofton> I could look up the draft from 1st LCWD. But if I understood Thierry...
<lofton> ...we are also going to point out that this review is on differences from...
<lofton> 1st LCWD.
<plh> and you can point this out in the status of the document
<lofton> If these tasks become too much (along with the other stuff that I have to do), then...
<lofton> ...we might consider slipping till the 11th June (for 4 weeks), to get Thierry's help when he's back. ...TBD...
<lofton> So summarize: we'll try for 4th, fall back to 11th if need be.
we have been talking about it already :)
<lofton> Right. Actually the adjusted timeline of reference [4]...
<lofton> ...shows Aug timeframe for CR, which is what we just said. (Tho' May timeframe for 2nd LCWD Review.)
<lofton> So that [4] proposed adjustment is realistic for the CR milestone.
It looks like the timing is still good for the second half of August. We will continue to verify this with those producing implementations.
The next telecon will be 3 June 2009
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: stuart Inferring ScribeNick: Stuart Present: Lofton_Henderson Don_Larson Stuart_Galt dave Regrets: Benoit WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2009May/0005.html Got date from IRC log name: 20 May 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/20-webcgm-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]