W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

RE: GRDDL spec ready for release?

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:32:42 -0500 (EST)
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-wg Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0702060927090.17754@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.org>

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, McBride, Brian wrote:
> Have we drained the comments list of comments that, if they came in
> again after last call, would force a second last call?
>
> How would folks feel about not taking all three docs rec track?  The
> requirements doc has done its job.  Does publishing as a rec accomplish
> anything?  The primer isn't normative - so doesn't need to go through
> the rec process and could be published as a note.  This might reduce our
> workload a bit.
>
> I'm feeling this timescale is a bit optimistic, but that's because I'm
> feeling pushed to do the review of the spec I'd like to do before voting
> positively for last call.

I must say, I'm feeling the same concern about the time crunch of making 
all three documents published recommendations.  Considering the charter of 
this working group spans various arenas: XHTML, Web 
architecture, Semantic Web architecture, informative use of rules, XML processing, etc - I think 
it is not realistic to expect to take all three documents through the 
recommendation track under the current time constraints.

>
> Brian
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin
>> Sent: 02 February 2007 06:27
>> To: Dan Connolly
>> Cc: public-grddl-wg Group
>> Subject: Re: GRDDL spec ready for release?
>>
>>
>> Thanks so much for all the hard work on the Spec! I'd like at
>> least one more reviewer besides Ron to give a good read
>> before we release it as a Last Call. However, I do plan to
>> propose all 3 docs go to last call after
>> 2 more telecons to  discuss the 2 remaining outstanding
>> issues (#issue-http-header-links and #issue-mt-ns).
>>
>>   On
>> Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's been over 3 months since we released the GRDDL spec as a WD on
>>> the http://www.w3.org/TR/ page.
>>>
>>> I added a couple significant chunks of normative material
>> tonight. I
>>> have maybe one more to do (the HTML profile analog of the XML
>>> namespace transformation rules).
>>>
>>> The biggest editorial TODO is to fix the diagrams.
>>>
>>> My inspiration on the appendix about a sample implementation is
>>> declining, now that Chime and Jeremy and Dave Beckett are
>> passing most of the tests.
>>>
>>> So I'm just about ready to ship this thing. I wonder
>> whether to ship
>>> it this week or hold off and do a last call WD in a few weeks.
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
>>> Revision 1.198  2007/02/02 03:32:53
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>  				--harry
>>
>>  	Harry Halpin
>>  	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>>          http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
>>
>>
>
>

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 14:33:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT