[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting
At 10:43 AM 7/20/2004 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote: >Dave, > >all is fine with one exception: > > >11 August (telecon): WebCGM 2.0 feature freeze: >I agree with this as far as DOM and Companion Files go, however, no >real work has been done yet on the rest of WebCGM 2.0, i.e. the >graphics stuff. Good point. I would support working on this stuff for one more telecon cycle -- finish all AIs (several people currently have related AIs), have email discussion from 11 Aug through 8 Sept, deal with it and freeze it around the 8 Sept telecon. More embedded... >We should have a clear understanding soon what we want to change: >- changes that will eliminate differences with GREXCHANGE as much > as possible >- graphic changes as discussed in Cologne >- structural changes > (1 picture per file only, no continued APS ID) >- intelligent content > expand fragment syntax > agree on object behavior matrix > new APS ATTR interactivity (was behavior) > >Questions: >- who is going to work on this? Several items that you enumerate (but not all) have related action items (see the two AI lists that Dave circulated [1] just before the last telecon). >- when will we have a complete list of changes? I would propose: mid-Sept be a target to freeze the list of changes; a complete list of candidate changes by mid-Aug (right after next telecon). Who should make the list of candidate changes? (Possibilities: Dieter, the 'vision' doc originator, and proposer of many of 'em; Dave, the TC chair; Lofton, the PD). Regards, -Lofton. [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200407/msg00024.html >- we discussed that several issues would be treated as defect > resolutions for WebCGM 1.0 in Cologne > (remove ambiguities around normative sections (DTD etc), > names on para/subpara) > Lofton had an action item here > >I find it ambitious to plan for a feature freeze for all this on >August 11 given the current status. > >What do you think? > >Regards, >Dieter > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com] > >Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 10:53 PM > >To: Lofton Henderson > >Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC > >Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting > > > > > >I'm proposing we adopt Lofton's proposal for a timeline on > >implementation. If there are no comments to the contrary we will > >work to this schedule. I'll put together something with > >milestones when I get back from vacation on the 23rd. > > > >thx...Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:39 AM > >To: Cruikshank, David W > >Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC > >Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting > > > > > >At 08:36 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote: > >>[...]November might work best with shedule for vendor implementations > >>and currently my November looks pretty empty. [...] Week of > >Nov 8 might > >>be good? > > > >That week, in Houston, would be fine with me. > > > >About coordination with WebCGM 2.0 schedule, here are my thoughts. A > >proposal, for your consideration and feedback... > > > >11 August (telecon): WebCGM 2.0 feature freeze: > >========== > >At the end of that telecon, all major issues should be closed, and WebCGM > >2.0, DOM, Events, XML Companion, etc should be functionally complete. > > > >Between now and August 11, everyone should look closely at the > >functionality. Especially, implementors, have your implementation teams > >looking at it and giving feedback. (e.g., feature too expensive, wrong > >details, missing critical feature, feature not worth the effort, etc) > > > >mid-August thru mid-November: write 2.0 spec > >========== > >Refine and draft the document through next two telecons and a F2F, resolve > >issues arising from implementation, etc. At least three significantly > >complete drafts produced for review and discussion -- one per month. > > > >mid-August thru mid-November: vendor implementations > >========== > >Concurrently, the vendors should work on the implementations. > >(Actually, I > >think we know enough about the final shape to start implementation > >projects > >*now* ... except we don't have a JavaScript binding yet!). By mid- or > >late-October, all committed implementations should be fairly advanced -- > >major stuff done, maybe some details and minor stuff remaining. > > > >The implementation phase is critical. The spec won't progress and get > >needed refinement feedback without it. It will essentially position us at > >the "CR" phase in the W3C REC track if we do this successfully. > > > >early-November > >========== > >Next F2F. Before "final" (third) 2.0 draft. Before effective completion > >of implementations. > > > >This is very coarse, but what do people think about it? Is it > >realistically achievable? > > > >(We can refine and get some intermediate milestones if the overall shape > >looks okay.) > > > >Regards, > >-Lofton. > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]