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

Amending httpRange-14

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:04:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CACHXnaofmOw5RSwHuiZ8vmkhuUz_+tbsu21YB7aBuhmXN9WOMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Here's the process I'd like to have followed regarding amendment
of httpRange-14, to give people a chance to comment on the process and
make suggestions. (N.b. I would consider withdrawal to be a kind
of amendment.) Most of this has been discussed in TAG meetings and
is on the product page, but it hasn't really surfaced on the
discussion list before.

I'd like to ask that if you a have particular amendment in mind, or
other technical comment, please hold that for a different thread so that
we can focus here on process.

Here's what I've done so far:
- gotten my head around the issues, positions, tradeoffs, philosophy,
etc., mostly
- obtained TAG agreement to using issue-57 as the place to track the work
- created a TAG 'product' page
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
- written a series of documents recording what I've learned.  Here's
one; it references some of the others:
     http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html

Next steps (not necessarily in this order):
1. I will prepare a call for 'change proposals' and post it - before
the end of 2011 I hope (action-624)
2. wait for change proposals come in, then discuss and refine them on www-tag
3. determine track and venue for document development; tentative: use
Architectural Recommendation track
4. push forward on that track.
5. keep open the option of some kind of 'town meeting' (telcon or
F2F) on the subject, if it seems to be both needed and having
potential for general benefit

When rec track came up at a F2F (March? June?) TAG members were
amenable to rec track, as recorded on the product page. But I could
see doing it as a finding, or moving the work to some other venue. Two
reasons for rec track: 1. one criticism of the httpRange-14 resolution
is its peculiar non-standard status, 2. rec track means higher
visibility and therefore might help get a stronger consensus. The
choice of track may depend on the outcome of change proposal review.

If this has been going slowly it's mainly because .. well, I have other things
to do, but also I'm trying hard to prevent another series of tedious flame
wars. I know that's impossible, but I think there are some preventive
measures that can be taken in the way the call for change proposals is
framed. To that end the change proposal call itself may go through
review and revision.

Thanks
Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 21:11:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:40 GMT