- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:10:53 +0200
- To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi all again, Am 16.08.13 08:33, schrieb Felix Sasaki: > Hi all, > > today I got the confirmation that it is OK to publish another LC WD > with NIF as the non-normative reference, that is: Option 1). The RDF > working group might still have comments on our draft, but it is OK to > discuss these during the last call period. > > The new timeline then is > > 1) publish a new LC draft 20 August (Tuesday next week) > 2) go to PR around September > 3) got to REC early November > > Please find proposed edits as a PDF with change marks at > > http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/File:Its20-edits-20130815-all.pdf > The HTML and XML source is now updated. See http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.odd and the TR layout version at http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/TR-version/ The TR layout version should make the change we made clear http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/TR-version/#status Enjoy your weekend :) Felix > > I will now start integrating the edits into the XML source. Please > comment on this thread until Monday 4 p.m. UTC. I will then send the > draft for publication. > > The main reason why the last call publication will work with option 1) > is your work. The discussion around > https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/18 > and the thread we had for preparing yesterday's call > obviously document clearly that the working group knows the issues > around RDF modeling very well, and that the decision to go for option > 1) has our consensus. > So despite the issues we have faced, let me express that I am very > happy that we have within one group experts from the HTML / RDF / XML > realm. Without contributors from all three communities, the proposed > solutions would not have been developed well - or at all. > > Best, > > Felix
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 16:11:22 UTC