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

Re: URGENT: ACTION-627: Should we review publishing and linking draft at the F2F?

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:20:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4EFA44C4.5000008@arcanedomain.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: Dan Appelquist <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
OK, that's just the guidance I need. Some personal commitments make it
unlikely that I'll be back to the agenda before Thursday afternoon, but I
will make the change then if not before.

Please let the group know whether having the 27 Oct draft as required 
reading still makes sense.

Thank you, and Happy Holidays!

Noah

On 12/27/2011 3:33 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Noah,
>
> We had a conversation with Rigo just before Xmas during which we agreed
> to remove the parts of the document that were opinion rather than fact,
> and manage the desire to make those stronger statements (eg 'right to
> link') through some other publishing mechanism (eg blog post, press
> release, something W3C can get behind).
>
> IIRC, we agreed in the telcon on 15th December to have a brainstorm at
> the F2F on what strong statements we want to make and how best to make
> them. This would be a lot better use of the time at the F2F than a
> line-by-line review of the document, which is currently out of whack
> with the direction that Dan and I believe we should be taking.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeni
>
> On 26 Dec 2011, at 18:33, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>
>> Jeni and Dan:
>>
>> At our Friday meeting at the end of TPAC 2011 [1] I took:
>>
>> ACTION-627: on - Noah Mendelsohn - Schedule very detailed line-by-line
>> review of Pub&Linking draft at January F2F - Due: 2011-12-23 - OPEN
>>
>> Do we still want to do this? I haven't seen much discussion lately,
>> but if Jeni or Dan can prepare us to do a walkthrough, I'll try and
>> find the time. We do need to give TAG members warning ASAP if the
>> draft [3] is to be on the required reading list, as it's substantial.
>> Also, please make sure [3] is the latest version (and if you have
>> time, please fix the broken "Latest version" [4] link in the draft).
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/11/04-minutes.html#item02 [2]
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/627 [3]
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2011-10-27.html
>>
>>
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb/
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2011 22:21:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT