W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > October 2007

RE: POWDER WG timeline (hoped for)

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@t-online.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:05:59 +0200
Message-ID: <398533C370C23441981074C456AA3BDD02141FF0@QEO00226.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Hi Phil,

That sounds fine, but is a best case plan.

We'll have to see how the LC period plays out.

Thanks
Kai



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: Public POWDER
> Subject: POWDER WG timeline (hoped for)
> 
> 
> I've had a couple of folk asking me for this so let me put it 
> in the public domain on this list.
> 
> I believe the following is a realistic timeline for the POWDER WG.
> 
> This week (w/c 8 Oct 2007) the Grouping of Resources Document 
> [1] will be updated. Subject to group resolution on Monday 
> 15th, I hope this will go to Last Call and that we'll be able 
> to review comments during the Boston f2f w/c 5 November.
> 
> Also during that f2f meeting, I hope we can resolve remaining 
> issues in the Description Resources doc [2] and advance that 
> to LC, closing around early December.
> 
> Several WG members are already planning test implementations 
> and I believe it is realistic therefore to have some 
> implementation reports by the end of the year. Thus the 
> Candidate Recommendation (call for
> implementations) may be relatively brief so that we can hope 
> to move to proposed Rec in January - it's a bit hard to be 
> precise when the dependency is on other people's work schedules!
> 
> Now is the time to plan to carry out test implementations 
> before the end of the year.
> 
> Based on feedback received so far, and discussions within the 
> group, the biggest issue in the DR doc - the relationship 
> between the resource Set and the descriptors that describe 
> resources in that set -  is, I believe, likely to be resolved 
> soon (in favour of RS -> hasDescriptors 
> ->Descriptors, not, as at present, DR -> hasRS and DR -> 
> hasDescriptors. 
>   Of the other main open issues, rel="powder" - seems to be 
> covered well by simply creating an HTML profile as defined in 
> HTML 4 (although we need to lobby alongside GRDDL and others 
> to ensure that it is retained for HTML 5).
> 
> The harder issue is the HTTP Link Response Header - that may 
> require work to lobby for its reintroduction and we may have 
> to work around it in the Rec Track documents.
> 
> I know many group members share my determination to get the 
> work done within our charter period which means full Rec 
> status for both documents, plus a primer and the vocabulary 
> namespace documents by the end of March 2008.
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> Phil.
> 
> --
> Phil Archer
> Chief Technical Officer,
> Family Online Safety Institute
> w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
> 
> Register now for the first, annual Family Online Safety 
> Institute Conference and Exhibition, December 6th, 2007, 
> Washington, DC.
> 
> Go to: http://www.fosi.org/conference2007/ today!
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:06:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:11 GMT