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

Re: ACTION-754: F2F discussion of fragids work

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:43 -0400
Message-ID: <513F3F1F.8000909@arcanedomain.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Terrific, this is just what I need.

BTW, for our many new TAG members, Jeni's note is typical of the input 
that's helpful to me in preparing agenda items, especially for ongoing 
efforts. Specifically, this gives a succinct accounting of goals for the 
session and background material, along with guidance on prioritizing 
discussion (actions are helpful with you know them).

Thank you.

Noah

On 3/12/2013 5:21 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Noah, All,
>
> The goals of a session on the fragids work would be to:
>
>    a. work out whether the TAG should continue on course to Rec with the fragids document
>    b. if so, work out what the CR exit criteria should be
>
> For background reading:
>
>    1. email from me about context of fragids work
>         - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Feb/0021.html
>    2. current editor's draft
>         "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"
>         - http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-03-12.html
>
> I do not want to spend time reviewing the draft (it's not changed significantly since it's last been reviewed, and there's been plenty of time for other comments), and propose in answer to the above:
>
>    a. that we do continue on the Rec track
>    b. that the exit criteria are to have one structured suffix registration, two media type registrations, and one fragid structure specification that follow the best practices outlined in the document
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this is just finishing up work, so I don't expect that it will be worthwhile for us to spend lots of time on it. Consequently, I would expect this to take 45 mins. Of course if people want a longer session that's fine too.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeni
>
> On 10 Mar 2013, at 15:45, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeni: I'm starting to do detail work on our F2F agenda. Fragids seems to me one of the ongoing projects on which we ought to be able to make good progress, and I note that your action was due this week:
>>
>> ACTION-754: on - Jeni Tennison - With Larry work out what the exit criteria from CR for fragids best practices should be - Due: 2013-03-05 - OPEN
>>
>> I would like to schedule a F2F discussion with the goal of establishing exit criteria, and if possible an exit schedule. We will also allow time for general discussion of this work first, as new members may not be familiar in detail or may have concerns about it.
>>
>> Please let me know if there is anything specific you suggest for the agenda, please update the TAG "product" page at [1], and also please clarify exactly which drafts should be required reading (I.e. the published version at [2] or the editor's draft at [3]).
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-fragid-best-practices-20121025/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 14:44:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 12 March 2013 14:44:28 GMT