W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

Status of issues/findings I 'own'

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:38:43 +0100
Message-ID: <1786589480.20050228163843@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Hello www-tag,

The TAG f2f this week marks the close of my three year participation on
the TAG. I took an action to summarize the "items I own" and suggest
ways to deal with them.

charmodReview-17:
  Request to review "Character Model for the Web" Last Call document
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#charmodReview-17

this is now closed.

RFC3023Charset-21:
  Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply? [
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#RFC3023Charset-21

I'm co-editor of the ID that will replace RFC 3023. Some improvements
have already been made there, and it was recently republished. There is
still disagreement among the editors about implementing some of the
charset-related material that the TAG has agreed to. Discussions are
ongoing. For TAG purposes, this issue is pending on successful
publication of an RFC to replace RFC 3023 that implements TAG policies
as given in Webarch.

IRIEverywhere-27:
  Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs?
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27

I am still involved in some spin-off tasks, such as ensuring that
Interaction domain specifications IRI as a normative reference and that
test suites test for this. But for TAG purposes and in terms of my
involvement, I'm not critical path here.

fragmentInXML-28:
  Use of fragment identifiers in XML
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#fragmentInXML-28

This is all agreed, documented in AWWW, I should write a draft finding
and then have someone else take over further development.

binaryXML-30:
  Standardize a "binary XML" format?
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#binaryXML-30

I sent in a summary, earlier on. The ball has passed to the XBC WG, I do
not consider myself to be critical path on this one. XBC is nearly
completed, TAG has said it will review their deliverables. I suggest
inviting Robin Berjon to a TAG call to discuss this.

xmlIDSemantics-32:
  How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in
  XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#xmlIDSemantics-32

I wrote a finding which was approved, work started n the ML activity
which is now well advanced. The issue is being solved at a technical
level outside TAG, TAG should track this to ensure it concludes
succesfully, but apart from a minor update to the finding to point to
the eventual W3 Rec I don't see too much work here from a TAG
perspective. I'm happy to make small updates to this finding as
appropriate.

mixedUIXMLNamespace-33:
  Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33

I had offered to have a discussion on this at the TP Wednesday, but
there were insufficient slots. I'm meeting with Ed Rice this week to
discuss the draft finding. The plan is that he and I jointly edit
revisions to this, as it still falls within the scope of my current
work.

mediaTypeManagement-45:
  What is the appropriate level of granularity of the media
  type mechanism?
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#mediaTypeManagement-45

I owe a draft finding on this one, which was supposed to summarize some
current threads on this area (versions in media types, codec parameters
for audio/video media, and impact of compound documents) without in fact
proposing a solution, just collecting the relevant evidence to
facilitate discussion.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 28 February 2005 15:38:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:32 GMT