On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >On 12/10/12 5:12 PM, ext Joshua Bell wrote: >> Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an >> editor has bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution >> of the issues and implementations are already sufficiently >> interoperable so that adoption is not being hindered by the state of >> the spec, but should still be corrected in this version before moving >> forward. > >Joshua, Jonas, Adrian, All, > >If we go ahead with LCWD #2 for v1, which [Bugs] do you consider showstoppers >for LC #2? > >Does anyone object to a v1 plan of LC#2 as the next publication (after the >showstopper bugs >have been fixed)? (Of course we will have a CfC for any publication proposals >so I'm just looking >for immediate feedback). > >Joshua, Adrian - can you (or someone from your company) help with IDB editing >(at a minimum >to address the showstopper bugs)? > >-Thanks, AB
Art, My apologies for the silence! We don't see the need to go back to LC. Most of the feedback was editorial. The other feedback we received, seems to have been agreed on by the iplementers & WG but not documented in the spec. We believe that addressing the bugs till the end of July is reasonable to move forward to CR. In December Eliot and I put together a plan to address the LC comments and catalog the bugs that came after the LC deadline. We're already have addressed many of them. Unfortunately, the holidays slowed us down a bit. We'll put something together and send it to the WG if that makes sense. Would that work? Israel
