OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[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]