W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > September 2007

RE: DDWG Core Vocabulary updates

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:24:35 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B46ABE5A@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

I think two points are well made. I have created two new issues (and two
new products) to track discussion of them. The issues are ISSUE-20 and
ISSUE-21 (for tracker). So please respond against the ISSUE rather than
this note.

[the products are API and Core Vocab - classifying issues and actions by
product allows easier maintenance and review]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
> Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> Sent: 10 September 2007 16:27
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: DDWG Core Vocabulary updates
> I did some work on the Wiki. I have revamped the Submissions page [1]
> so that now it only lists candidates for inclusion in the Core
> Vocabulary document. This means that there are no duplications, in
> case of multiple submissions for the same property or something that
> was very similar, I tried to summarize into a single property and it
> is listed so.
> All the submissions are still available in a new page [2].
> Today the group agreed to define a deadline after which a decision
> will be made about which of the properties submitted so far should be
> included in the first draft. This is a very good time for you to
> review and comment.
> I think that the group needs some feedback about all the properties
> in general, but I think that two topics are particularly hot:
> 1) some properties such as image formats can be described in at least
> 2 ways, either as a number of single properties (gif_support,
> jpeg_support, png_support, etc) or as a single property
> (image_support='gif, jpeg, png').
> 2) degree of support. We will have properties that will tell the
> developers if, for example, a markup is supported, but we all know
> that very rarely 100% support is achieved, nevertheless it is
> possible that a markup is considered to be supported by a browser
> even if it supports 95% of the specification. The question is how
> could we decided if and when something is considered supported even
> if not the full specification is supported?
> We, as a group, are aiming for a first public draft of the document
> around the first week of October and this means that all comments
> should be sent before the end of September and possibly earlier so
> that we can discuss them on this list.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularySubmissions
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularyAllSubmissions
> Andrea Trasatti
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 08:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:14 UTC