- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:38:48 +0900
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- CC: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Hi Giuseppe, Please see inline below. On 09/24/2010 08:39 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: > Kazuyuki, all > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:23:35 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> > wrote: > >> 2. Classification/Clarification of items to do >> ----------------------------------------------- >> > I agreee with this categories and I have only one request for > clarification: > >> Category3: Liaison work that goes on outside W3C. We should just >> document this for the record but should not try to re-create >> existing standards within W3C. >> > > Should the IG identify/promote liaison with other groups and even handle > them or just identify already active liaisons between W3C and other groups? > IMO the IG should at least do an analysis and promote potentially > interesting liaisons. Actually, my understanding is the latter, i.e., the IG should just identify which topic is already done by other organizations outside W3C. Actual liaison to clarify/resolve the relationship with those organizations should be handled by the expected WG :) If it's difficult and/or time consuming for the IG to identify which topic/feature should be done by which organization, maybe we can classify that topic into the Category4 (=uncertain) and leave it to the WG's decision. Regards, Kazuyuki
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 12:40:17 UTC