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: Status of proposed joint approval process WebCGM 2.1


   Congratulations on your approval of the first Committee Draft of 
WebCGM v2.1 at today's meeting.  We would like to confirm some 
matters regarding the transmission of the work for joint processing 
by W3C.
   As you know, your team recommended to us that we simply extend 
the original W3C-OASIS MoU (which set out the joint development 
track for WebCGM v2.0) to apply the same arrangements to WebCGM 
v2.1.  I have recommended this to our interim President, and do not 
anticipate a problem or long delay.  Informally we also have some 
indications that W3C is fine with this approach.
   Still, there is one timing matter I'd like to confirm.  If I 
understand correctly, Lofton and my colleague Mary McRae, the TC's 
staff contact, both advised that the path used for last round's 
submission can work again, in the same way.  (Thus, as Lofton'd 
suggested, we can use a very short "just do the same thing again" 
MoU amendment, instead of a substantial alteration of the agreed 
sequence.)
   But that assumes that the same timing & sequence of approval 
levels as for v2.0.  Among other things, the OASIS TC artifact would 
complete its 'committee specification' approval, including the 
public review phase, before being sent over to the W3C Graphics 
Activity.  Here's why I mention it:  the first v2.1 Committee Draft 
was approved today.  If  it;s the last CD, and sent for public 
review immediately, the public review starting now would end no 
sooner that late May and, assuming no substantive changes, a CS 
approved no sooner than early June .. which is when it would be 
officially transmitted to W3C for its work to commence.
   If that's NOT correct, we'd need to hear from you, and (now, up 
front) we would need to alter the MoU before signing, after 
understanding it and stating exactly at what phase(s) the doc is to 
be crosscontributed.
   Thanks and regards.   Jamie

~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]