W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

F2F planning and next steps on fragids and media types

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 14:52:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4FC27803.8020704@arcanedomain.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

I'm working on the F2F agenda. From the as yet unpublished IRC log of the 
24 May telcon (see especially the highlighted lines):


        <noah> ACTION-690?*
        <trackbot> ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on
        Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-05-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
        *<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690
        <noah> ACTION-672?*
        <trackbot> ACTION-672 -- Jeni Tennison to work with PLH to create
        W3C-sponsored registry of HTML extensions, and get that referenced
        from HTML media type registration, per
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html --
        due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN*
        <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672
        <noah> I thought the ball was in my court to mark the product page
        jt: Re fragids and mime types, I did a product page, needs to be
        revised per comments
        nm: I thought we had approved the product page & that NMM was
        supposed to do clerical work. Happy with product page
        <noah> Jeni will mark product page as "not draft".*
        <noah> close ACTION-690**
        <trackbot> ACTION-690 sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and
        Mime Types closed**
        jt: I've done an initial draft that's currently with Larry. /_I can
        take an action to provide it for F2F_/*_/*
        */_lm: I'll try to get back to you [JT] by this weekend, otherwise
        just go ahead and publish
        nm: On the master work plan page we sometimes pull out 1-2 next
        steps, pls check that*
        jt: Re action 672, let's talk about that when it's done*



  * I will put Fragids and Mime types on the agenda, with a placeholder for
    a new draft as required reading. If you have any other "framing"
    material you'd like in the agenda text, please let me know.
  * Should we have opened a successor action to 690, per the underlined
    note above?
  * Do you expect to want discussion of action-672 at the F2F?

Many thanks!

Received on Sunday, 27 May 2012 18:53:24 UTC

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