W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: new draft XML Core charter [was: rechartering - please check your new charter SOON]

From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:04:53 -0600
Message-ID: <50B62815.6060203@paulgrosso.name>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
I took another look at the latest
http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/xml-core-charter.html

The lead in sentence under Scope talks about "consider[ing]
comments on ... existing specifications", so I don't feel
that MicroXML belongs in that list.

Also, under Deliverables, MicroXML is listed with no
qualifications.  My understanding (of at least Henry's
comments) was that we would allow but not require us
to work on MicroXML, and John's suggested wording at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Nov/0019
also reflects this.

I suggest the MicroXML bullet be removed from the list
under Scope and that John's suggested wording be added
as a separate paragraph under the bulleted list.

Then remove the MicroXML bullet from the list under
Deliverables and add below that list a paragraph saying
something like:

  The Working Group also plans to consider taking a MicroXML
  specification to Recommendation.

I don't know if we should modify or qualify the mention
of MicroXML under the Timeline View Summary section or
the mention under section 7.  What do others (especially
John and Henry) think?

paul


On 2012-11-27 21:12, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 08:33 -0600, Paul Grosso wrote:
>
> [helpful and detailed review]
>
> I've incorporated all of your comments - thank you!
>
> I made a guess at microXLM to be in last call in Spring of next year,
> based on having a reasonable start already, although James' error
> recovery impelemntation may lead to changes.
>
> Liam
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:05:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:05:24 GMT