W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > June 2015

Re: Regrets for this week's call

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:06:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_2A-N6WabUp9-LMFco+iJEfb85YbDfNW75ymCKR2XbRSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Hi- I am still in Australia and the wifi in the hotel is horrible (not to
say that the call would start at midnight local time) ... so regrets from
me. I'm back in the UK next week. Agree that a push is needed to close out
the remaining issues. Apologies for being out of the loop for the last
2-weeks. Jeremy

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 at 16:38 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > On 23 Jun 2015, at 17:06 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> <skip>
>
> > We also need to approve the tests.
> >
> > Regarding .well-known, it seems unlikely that the TAG will officially
> change it’s position, and I don’t think that much else has changed.
>
> Yes. I must say I am really worried that this discussion will drag on
> indefinitely. I must admit that the flexibility offered by .well-known is
> also appealing to me, which is an argument that did not come up on the TAG
> list (but I do not want to interfere). There is a point when we have to
> make a decision…
>
> > @mot suggested adding some wording about caching of .well-known/csvm in
> the absence of specific caching instructions.
> >
> > I went through the change log and updated metadata & model document
> change sections as I thought appropriate.
> >
>
> Wow. Thanks.
>
> Ivan
>
>
> > Gregg
> >
> >> As a further difficulty, this is a LCCR. This means we have to do some
> admin: we have to find the time to get a telco set up with Philippe and
> Ralph, plus at the minimum Jeni, Danbri, and I, but preferably Gregg and
> Jeremy, too. W3M has a F2F meeting July 1-3; I guess the earliest time we
> can reasonably schedule something may be the week of the 6th of July with
> the hope to publish on the 14th, and also have a charter extension accepted
> on the 15th. Hm… I plan to be on vacations some day and I thought of going
> away on the 13th, this may go down the drain:-(
> >>
> >> Bottom line: we have to do some serious planning. I think that if this
> is not done on the week of the 6th, we might as well postpone until after
> the vacations. The caveat is that if we do not have LCCR, and with a very
> low activity in the group (meaning that the activity is reduced the five of
> us) it will not be easy to get the W3M approval for an extension (though
> probably doable).
> >>
> >> Of course, this can be done by email.
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> P.S. B.t.w., although this is not urgent we will also have to decide on
> the extension length. I would propose to ask for more than we feel we need,
> taking into account Hofstadter's Law[1]. Asking for a 2nd extension is much
> tougher, and we may be forced to close the work by issuing some WG notes
> and dismantling the group… I would hate if that happened.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jeni
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Ivan Herman, W3C
> >> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >> mobile: +31-641044153
> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 23:07:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 23 June 2015 23:07:13 UTC