W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2007

Re: path to last call for GRDDL; agenda sync?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:40:31 -0600
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1171392031.7497.1095.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 13:13 -0500, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:48 -0500, Harry Halpin wrote:
[...]
> >> I think all the tests in the critical path have more or less worked out
> >> and issues are closed - it's a matter of editing the spec text, so I'm
> >> going to press for Last Call this telecon.
> >>     
> >
> > (a) Jeremy Carroll just blew that idea out of the water with
> > his security considerations text; I can't claim we have
> > no open issues now.
> >
> >   
>     I'd just add his text in with minor modifications.

That involves adding a conformance label for "GRDDL processor"
or "GRDDL-aware agent". That's not something I think we should
do in a hurry.

I think we should publish what we have now, noting a few
outstanding issues. And then go to last call after working
them out.


> > (b) going to PR on the same day we exit last call is
> > a 0-probability event. It's not impossible, but it's quite
> > unlikely; it has never happened in the past.
> >
> >   
> OK. Therefore, we need to go into Last Call now. If not on the Spec, at
> least on Primer/Use-cases doc.
> > (c) what happened to discussion of a two month CR while we wait
> > for the IETF to register Profile:? The "feature at risk"
> > process is a CR thing.
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#at-risk-feature
> >   
> Two month wait? I thought you said you could get this sorted out by
> March 31st.

No. I said, and repeated for the record:

Feb 09 10:36:01 <DanC>	CG concurs with DanC's advice to do CR with
feature-at-risk, waiting up to 2 months for IESG response

Evidently we got our wires crossed.

> ..Ivan did not wait to wait past end of 1st Quarter...as the
> IETF liason, if you have a proposal for this send it to semweb-coordination.

I think we should work this out between ourselves before bringing it
back to the semweb-cg, though as indicated by the cc to www-archive,
you're free to share this thread with anyone you'd like.


> >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/#sched 
> >>>       
> >>>>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 18:40:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:02 GMT