W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Agenda items for next conference call

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:28:45 +0000
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8A8FC7E2AC104A05A8CC671FD3DA3EBD@marcosc.com>


On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 19:32, Alex Russell wrote:

> Noah,
> 
> Thanks for the reminder about adding agenda items via mail. One of these days I'll get the hang of our process.
> 
> For the next phone meeting, I'd like to see discussion of: 
> 
> Fragment Identifiers. Jeni and I were able to discuss this off-list last week and I feel as though the TAG could make note about this that contains architectural guidance in both the XML/RDF area and the HTML in a way way that can make everyone happy. Short story: the XML/RDF difficulties spring from an inability for RDF to replace the behavior of xpointer. This arises because the XML processing algorithm does not specify any such extensibility point (nor define itself in terms of such a thing). Tension arises when higher-level semantics must use a low-level representation. The same arises with ad-hoc application-level semantics and HTML; as HTML has not provided a way for changes in fragment identifiers to be handled by "higher level" applications that use it as a representation and wire format, fights break out when apps want to implement a higher-level than "scroll to element" behavior. In both cases, explaining the problem in terms of a lack of extensibility point provides a wa
y to think about the solution
I'm wondering if it's possible to extract an Web Dev friendly version of this document? There seems to be potentially good guidance there that Web developers could benefit from, but the current document is inaccessible to the laydeveloper (i.e., me) at the moment - I guess this is because it covers such a wide range of applications of fragment identifiers (most of which most web developers won't ever see or simply don't work in web browsers).  
> 
> Shorter meetings. I'd like to move that we have either fewer standing phone conferences (half) or keep the same number but halve the time. I suspect this might lead to an increase in ad-hoc or topic-specific meetings, but that feels a better use of our scarce interrupts.

This would be good once we have some actual work items - particularly if we can vary the frequency based on topic.  

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 12:29:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 February 2013 12:29:15 GMT