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

RE: Status of issues/findings I 'own'

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:28:26 -0800
Message-ID: <33D970235519324D988AFFDE7EA2E24C056F83DD@RED-MSG-41.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

I have no outstanding action items/issues/findings that have not already
been taken over by another TAG member.

/paulc

PS: This email completes the following action item:

>    [NEW] ACTION: PC to send a summary of the items he "owns" [recorded
in
>    http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-tagmem-irc /tmp/28-tagmem-irc]

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> Chris Lilley
> Sent: February 28, 2005 10:39 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Status of issues/findings I 'own'
> 
> 
> 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, 7 March 2005 18:28:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:33 GMT