W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Reference Checker

From: James G Pearce <jpearce@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:13:52 -0500
Message-ID: <815E07C915F39742A29E5587B3A7FA192854CA33@lk0-cs0.int.link2exchange.com>
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>, "Ignacio Marin" <ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org>

MOMO Dublin is when this F2F is (assuming it's a Monday!) - we haven't set a date yet, and anyway, it's more likely at first to be an informal gathering of the Dublin mobilati in a pub than anything big and glitzy.

Are we looking at something like the week of the 26th Feb or the 5th March?

Is the key required for read-access? CTO's don't code (apparently) :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Sent: 02 February 2007 09:08
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org; Ignacio Marin
Subject: RE: Reference Checker

Le vendredi 02 février 2007 à 03:44 -0500, Jo Rabin a écrit :
> I think it would be good if we did some light-weight specification of 
> the scope e.g. that we are building a bunch of Java classes rather 
> than an HTTP accessible API, for example and draft up an outline 
> requirements. Including Nacho, are we sure that everyone we'd like to 
> include is on this list?

I think I've invited explicitly everyone in the BP group during the F2F meeting; that said, it may be worth reiterating the invitation to the member list, or even maybe to the public list (public-bpwg) in case others are interested.

> Having done that bit of scoping I do think it would be useful to get 
> together, travel budgets permitting. And as I mentioned before, 
> dotMobi would be pleased to host in Dublin, which I suppose would 
> technically be a F2F of the BPWG (with agenda limited to this topic) 
> plus other invited observers?

Actually, at this time, I don't think the work on the checker itself is in scope of the current checker of BPWG; it mentions work on a set of requirements for a validation tool, not the production of a reference implementation.

Which means we're more or less free to do this in an informal fashion as a collaborative work outside the BPWG.

>  And so needs a minimum period of notice of ... to conform to all the 
> relevant protocols?

If we keep the idea that this is a BPWG F2F, the notice must be sent 8 weeks in advance, per the W3C process...

>  Or would it be an editorial meeting of the putative editors of the 
> relevant document, in which case I think there is a less stringent 
> requirement on notice periods?

Or if this is just a meeting of people who want to work together, the minimal period of notice is the one sufficient to get all the people interested around the table :) 

> James tells me that we could make this coincide with MoMo Dublin 
> inaugural event, if that holds any appeal!

When is that?

Also, as a reminder, if we're to use the CVS repository on dev.w3.org, I'll need a ssh2 key of all the persons that expect to be able to commit files on that repository.


Received on Friday, 2 February 2007 09:13:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:17 UTC