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

Re: TAG issue review - JAR

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:36:37 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE1708132.F3B9B283-ON85257654.00660666-85257654.00663BAD@lotus.com>
Thank you. Just going over backlogged email, I'm reminded of your interest 
in CORs.  If you want to see the TAG pursue this, please either make a 
proposal, or find the shepherd for whichever issue(s) you consider 
pertinent and work with him. 

Jonathan's note reminds me:  while I'm trying to use the shepherds as 
focal points for each issue, what I really want is to be sure we're not 
dropping the ball on anything.  If you know of something that you feel the 
TAG should be working on in coming weeks/months, please work with the 
appropriate shepherd to be sure we're tracking it, or else alert me that 
you couldn't find a suitable issue/shepherd.  Thank you.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
10/18/2009 06:57 PM
        To:     Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
        cc:     "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, 
"www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        TAG issue review - JAR

Following Larry's lead, I'll report on my TAG issues...

AFAIK the only issue I'm supposed to be supervising is ISSUE-57, and I
already wrote a summary of its condition:


Nothing much has changed since then, although I should mention a
couple of things:

- The HTTP semantics ("AWWSW") work is being tracked under this issue
(and the group has worked on redirection semantics from time to time,
with little convergence)

- The question of correct use of content negotiation (especially
around RDF) is hanging, and we've been asked to make a determination
on it. I think this is being tracked under ISSUE-57, probably because
we didn't want to open an issue for it (we probably should)

- I think the TAG ought to take httpRange-14 forward, as Roy's cryptic
email has numerous bugs in it and I don't consider the SWEO note to be
an adequate specification. I'd be happy to work on a SHORT finding on
the subject - if today's TAG can manage to stand by some form of the
2005 decision, which seems to be in question.

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 18:37:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:04 UTC