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

RE: Reference Checker

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:59:54 -0500
Message-ID: <815E07C915F39742A29E5587B3A7FA192854CB58@lk0-cs0.int.link2exchange.com>
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

Great, the less overhead the better, so this is a meeting of consenting adults, in private ...

... I'll mail the list, as you suggest.

Regds

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dom
> 
Received on Friday, 2 February 2007 14:00:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:02 GMT