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

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

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:49:43 -0500
Message-ID: <45D22467.1030409@ibiblio.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org

We can publish a new Working Draft. What's the process for that? I would
prefer to just wait a week and go for Last Call though. Otherwise we'll
lose momentum.

Why not just incorporate Jeremy's suggestions, substituting "GRDDL-aware
agent" for GRDDL processor. The text to me seems informative, not
normative. I mean, if people are in a hurry to write a GRDDL client and
want to make unsecure GRDDL clients that's their problem, as long as
they are aware of known security issues.

OK, I can wait 2 months - that doesn't put us too much behind schedule -
just instead of requesting to go to PR on March 31 we wait till April 9th.


Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>               
>
>   


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 20:49:53 GMT

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