W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Reminder: POWDER Document Suite: Second Last Call Working Draft

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:15:02 +0000
Message-ID: <49872A16.3090102@philarcher.org>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
CC: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>

Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> [Trimmed Cc' to just www-tag@w3.org and Ralph]
> Hello Phil, Matt,
> We discussed your request on yesterday's TAG call, draft minutes at [1] (about halfway through the referenced item).
> The net of our discussion was that whilst there was a (small) number of particpants with an interested in the POWDER drafts and who may make individual comments, the TAG is not intending to formally review the drafts. Those individuals may make comments in their own right, though I cannot be certain that they will be timely wrt your intended schedule.

Thank you.

> FWIW: there was considerable confusion on the call centred around what draft to in-fact review (as is evident in our minutes) - so we focussed our attentions on the call on the 14 Nov 2008 Last Call Draft [2]. 

Sensible. Sorry for the confusion. Basically I'm trying to avoid people 
spending valuable reporting things that have already been noted and 
fixed in updated versions that are already in existence if not published.

On topic of interest to the TAG, particularly given our preceeding 
discussion of the IETF Link header draft and link relations registry was 
quite is the intended relation between the POWDER describedBy relation 
and the putative IETF relation with the 'same' short name. Whilst I'm 
not making this as a comment from the TAG, personnally I hope that that 
will be clear in the next set of working drafts.

It was me who made the registration request for describedby. This is one 
of the things that is a lot clearer in the most up to date version of 
the doc available on w3.org [1]. One of my 'to do' items this week is to 
chase this up as it's all gone ominously quiet (as has the MIME type 
registration but I know that need help from PlH for that).

> If there are specific issues aspects of the drafts that cause you to believe there are architectural questions that would benefit from TAG review, I'm sure that we'd be happy to respond to a focussed request.

Not as far as I know. The really 'controversial' stuff has long been 
flagged (semantic extension to allow reg ex matching to confer class 
membership, HTTP link).

Thanks, as ever, for your help Stuart,



[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#appD

> Stuart Williams
> Co-chair W3C TAG (... until Sunday)
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-tagmem-minutes.html#item02
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/
> Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: chairs-request@w3.org [mailto:chairs-request@w3.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Phil Archer
>> Sent: 26 January 2009 15:02
>> To: chairs@w3.org
>> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; Daniel Appelquist; Jo Rabin; 
>> team-rif-chairs@w3.org; schreiber@cs.vu.nl; 
>> baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de; Ralph R. Swick; Shadi 
>> Abou-Zahra; shawn@w3.org; jbrewer@w3.org; dsr@w3.org; Matt Womer
>> Subject: Reminder: POWDER Document Suite: Second Last Call 
>> Working Draft 
>> Hello Chairs, and the chairs of MWIBP, RIF, WAI, SWDWG, UWA, and XML 
>> Activity, as well as the TAG and PICS IG,
>> On 17 November 2008, the POWDER WG announced a second Last 
>> Call on its 
>> suite of documents [1]. Comments were duly received and have been 
>> answered, however, we failed to send a formal notice to the 
>> recipients 
>> of this reminder.
>> Therefore, I must ask whether any WG would some time to carry out a 
>> review of our work. If so, please let me or Matt Womer know. If not, we 
>> will continue our preparations for a transition request to Proposed 
>> Recommendation (in the absence of any further comment, this 
>> is expected within the next 2 weeks or so).
>> The POWDER Working Group has been developing a suite of documents that 
>> specify a protocol for publishing descriptions of Web resources.  The 
>> POWDER Working Group agreed [2] to publish the three Recommendation 
>> track documents in this suite as Second Last Call Working Drafts. Since 
>> that time, updated versions have been created that are not formally 
>> published but that do reflect the comments already received.
>> * POWDER: Formal Semantics
>>   http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-formal/20090113.html
>> * POWDER: Description Resources
>>   http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html
>> * POWDER: Grouping of Resources
>>   http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-grouping/20090121.html
>> The Working Group has also published two Working Drafts that are 
>> expected to become Working Group Notes:
>> * POWDER: Primer
>>   http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-primer/20081217.html
>> * POWDER: Test Suite
>>   http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-test/20090116.html
>> We welcome feedback on these important publications as well.
>> A recent blog post gives an overview of the current state of the POWDER 
>> WG including links to various pieces of running code [3].
>> Phil Archer
>> POWDER WG Chair
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item190
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-powder-minutes.html (it's in the 
>> summing up notes at the end)
>> [3] 
>> http://www.w3.org/blog/powder/2009/01/16/situation_report_16_j
>> anuary_2009
>> -- 
>> Phil Archer
>> w. http://philarcher.org/


Phil Archer
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 17:15:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:00 UTC