- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:23:02 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 09:23 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote: [...] > > My reasoning for formally asking for review would be that we have only > > so far formally asked for review from groups that mentioned such in our > > charter. > > This looks like a formally perfect argument. Hmm... yes, when presented as such, it does look quite reasonable: [[ Dependencies with other groups As mentioned in our charter, we have requested and received explicit approval from the XML Schema WG, approval from DIWG Working Group, comments we have resolved from the XSL and XQuery WG, approval from the microformat community, approval from the Semantic Web Deployment WG, and have sent request for comments to both the XHTML and HTML WG. We also notified the TAG that we believe our work helps their decisions as regards: RDFinXHTML-35, fragmentInXML-28, rdfURImeaning-39 ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/prrequest.html#dependencies Actually, some small parts of the negotiation with the XQuery WG are still ongoing, but that's a separate discussion. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 22:23:07 UTC