W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Status of TAG work on Publishing and Linking on the Web

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:35:02 +0100
Cc: Dan Appelquist <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <614D57D0-7F8F-4076-AD1D-B26E27A474D2@jenitennison.com>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Noah,

Our discussion of that draft at the F2F preceded our later discussion about priorities. Based on that later discussion, since the last F2F I have prioritised work on microdata/RDFa and fragment identifiers and mime types, and I'm afraid I haven't made progress on this work as a consequence.

From what I recall of the F2F discussion, Dan had some good ideas about who might be able to provide some legal review...

Jeni

On 27 Aug 2011, at 04:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> Jeni and Dan,
> 
> In preparation for the Sept. F2F, I've been looking at our work on Publishing and Linking on the Web [1]. Please verify that this reconstruction of the "state of play" is correct, and suggest next steps.
> 
> The latest draft of a report [2] has a date of 8 June 2011, which was the last day of our F2F meeting, and as best I can tell, it's not significantly different than the 28 May Draft [3] that we reviewed at the F2F (log of discussion at [4]).
> 
> Crucially, at the end of the discussion it was noted:
> 
> > dka: we need a live legal review, don't think we can do it just by > sending the document out
> 
> > goal is to get legal feedback before next F2F
> 
> The pertinent action appears to be ACTION-541, and I note that on 23 June Jeni bumped the due date on that to 26 July.
> 
> We did mention this briefly on 11 August [5], and Henry at that time said:
> 
> >HT: We need to do something that gets into the public media
> 
> Probably I should have been tracking all this a bit more closely, but I doubt we've moved on the legal review yet. Would it be possible to:
> 
> 1) within the next few days, at least try to get some proposals together for who would do the review, with respect to what specific questions & concerns, and when the review might be done?
> 
> 2) Consider whether it makes sense to further review [1] ahead of the F2F, or whether we should put it off? It's such good substantial work that I hate to lose a F2F review cycle on it, but worse would be spending time if there's nothing new to do.
> 
> Also: I'm concerned that with the microdata/RDFa work, Jeni is spread thin. If we should be bringing someone else up to speed on this, let's think about it ahead of the F2F if possible.
> 
> Any suggestions on all of this would be much appreciated. Thank you.
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PublishingLinking.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2011-05-28
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/08-minutes.html#item01
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/08/11-minutes#item04
> 
> 
> P.S. Tracker, this relates to ACTION-541.
> 
> 

-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Saturday, 27 August 2011 09:38:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:39 GMT