W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2011

issue-57 process (or, amending the httpRange-14 resolution)

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:30:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnaoF=tZ41xWb1hRtAa-C-FTDZWCGU96DU4DARcKN7uFLGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-archive@w3.org
DRAFT DRAFT

I wanted to record the process I'd like to follow regarding amendment
of httpRange-14, to give people a chance to comment on the process and
make suggestions. Most of this has been discussed in TAG meetings and
is on the product page, but it hasn't really surfaced on the
discussion list before.

I'd like to ask that if you a have particular amendment in mind, or
other technical comment, please hold that for a different thread.

Here's what I've done so far:
- gotten my head around the issues, positions, tradeoffs, philosophy,
etc., mostly
- obtained TAG agreement to using issue-57 as the place to track the work
- created a TAG 'product' page
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
- written a series of documents recording what I've learned.  Here's
one; it references some of the others:
      http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html

Next steps:
1. I will prepare a call for 'change proposals' and post it - before
the end of 2011 I hope (action-624)
2. wait for change proposals come in, then discuss and refine them on www-tag
3. determine track for document development; tentative: use
Architectural Recommendation track
4. push forward on that track.

When rec track came up at a F2F (March? June?) TAG members were
amenable to rec track, as recorded in the product page. Bbut I could
see doing it as a finding, or moving the work to some other venue. Two
reasons for rec track: 1. one criticism of the httpRange-14 resolution
is its peculiar non-standard status, 2. rec track means higher
visibility and therefore might help get a stronger consensus. The
choice of track may depend on the outcome of change proposal review.

If it's going slowly it's mainly because .. well, I have other things
to do, but also I'm trying to prevent another series of tedious flame
wars. I know that's impossible, but I think there are some preventive
measures that can be taken in the way the call for change proposals is
framed. To that end the change proposal call itself may go through
review and revision...

Thanks
Jonathan
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 22:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:40 GMT