New charter [was Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2011 January 26]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Monday, 2011 January 24 9:13
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2011 January 26
> 
> Grosso, Paul scripsit:
> 
> > Charter renewal
> > ---------------
> > Charters are pretty much set.  The latest draft is at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/10/xml-core-charter.html
> 
> I note the utter absence of any mention of performance or MicroXML.
> Were these rejected in some transaction I wasn't party to?

The WG never really discussed it.  Note that we haven't had
a WG telcon since December 15.

Mohamed sent his performance email on November 24 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Nov/0011

The minutes from the telcon of December 1 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0000
(Mohamed was not present) record:

 Regarding performance, Liam said it probably wouldn't fall under 
 this group.  Parts of XML performance fall under EXI, maybe others
 under XQuery/XSLT.

Mohamed sent more email about the charter on December 2 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0001
There was no more email about the charter until the
telcon of December 15 where the minutes at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0006
record under the Charter renewal item:

 In the absence of both Liam and Mohamed, we felt there was nothing
 more to say here.

You sent email on December 20 at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0008
saying:

 I'd like to make sure that the Core WG can do
 MicroXML or something like it by adding language such as "consider the
 development of a standardized subset of XML for use cases where full
 XML is inappropriate."

I replied at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0009
saying:

 Although you don't quite say it, that sounds like a request to augment
 our upcoming new charter--am I reading you correctly?

 I have no problem with adding such a "consider" statement if it isn't 
 too late and Liam is willing and no other WG member objects.  It does
 certainly seem like our WG would be best placed to do the actual spec
 that would define any such subset.

 But at least at first, I would expect the discussion, use cases, and
 initial design would occur in the TF, and our WG should contribute to
 that effort (optionally as individuals, but also as a WG).  So I
 wouldn't expect the WG to do any work on something like MicroXML
 until after the TF has run its course.

You replied in this affirmative to my first question, but then
there was no more email.  On December 28, in my status message at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0011
I said:

 We need to consider what we want for our charter for 2011
 and 2012.  Liam has drafted one at
 http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/10/xml-core-charter.html

 Mohamed has suggested that XML Performance could become in the
 scope of XML Core.  He also sent email at
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Nov/0012
 and follow-up at
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Dec/0001

 John has requested that we add language such as "consider the
 development of a standardized subset of XML for use cases where 
 full XML is inappropriate" so that we can do something like MicroXML.

There was no more discussion of charter (beyond a repeat of the
above text in several more Status/Agenda messages from me) until
January 12 when our telcon was not possible due to snow/MIT IT
problems when, in response to the cancellation, I wrote at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2011Jan/0005

 If either John or Mohamed wants to press for changes to our
 new charter, I recommend you make specific suggestions in
 email to restart the discussion before it is too late to make
 any such changes.

Other than my Status email of January 17, that brings us to today.

paul


> 
> > I'll be asking Liam for a status update.
> 
> Please.
> 
> > 4.  XML Test Suite.
> 
> As a result of MicroLark work, I now have two new test cases:
> an empty document (not well-formed) and a document consisting solely
> of whitespace (also not well-formed).  There will probably be a bunch
> more in a few weeks or so.
> 
> --
> John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is
> dramatically overdescribed.  Still other languages are simultaneously
> overdescribed and underdescribed.  Welsh pertains to the third
> category.
>         --Alan King

Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 15:48:24 UTC