W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Candidate message to TAG re httpRange-14 resolution

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:13:03 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimrcqb8SvoQLEDgT80A4pB4gTCofR3k7C_bj8dO@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:27 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> I think one should also consider the potentially serious consequences of
> re-opening the httpRange-14 discussion on the TAG list, as the original
> discussions involved hundreds (if not thousands) of messages over
> several years.  Time spent by the TAG on this will be time not spent on
> other issues.

I agree completely. Of the current TAG members only two have a stake
in this issue, although one more is interested generally in metadata
architecture (TAG-ISSUE-63), and one or two others like to pipe in now
and then. Nonetheless the TAG owns the issue. I suggested delegation,
which would not be much work. A decision *not* to take it up would
also be not much work. TAG review is a variable amount of work and
there may be ways to manage the load.

The issue is not the same as it was 6 years ago. We now have six more
years of experience, a concrete, consequential engineering question to
answer, and an answer to the question, namely what people are already
doing. Having codified this, it will be easier for others to make
decisions about incompatible changes and solutions to related problems
such as ease of semweb deployment and reference reliability, but these
are not issues we need to address immediately.

> I think I would be a bit afraid to suggest that the TAG opens the issue
> unless we have a strong, concrete proposal to make.  But I think it
> would be okay to give the TAG a status report on our work.

You mean, don't mention the httpRange-14 problem to the TAG until we
have a mature document ready for review? Maybe so, but I think we
might write the document somewhat differently, or with different
content, or on a different schedule, depending on the nature of the
TAG's involvement (or lack thereof), and what it (different "we")
states as requirements. Better to figure out the relationship up front
to the extent possible, I think.

I agree that a report on AWWSW work is a different beast. Noah gave me
a time slot to cover both. I intend for the httpRange-14 part to just
be a non-technical heads-up (the technical part being provided only in
the reading materials), with maybe some kind of quick procedural
decision if possible, and the technical content would be what AWWSW
has been talking about.

Anyhow how about if we talk about procedure and framing at the telcon.

Your comments have helped me get clarity so thank you.

Jonathan
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 14:13:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 January 2011 14:13:37 GMT