Re: [agenda} Web Annotation WG teleconf Agenda (2014-11-12)

Hey Rob–

On 11/11/14 11:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications, Ivan!
> If we had one multi-part specification, we could still have multiple
> documents, though?
> For example, TR/CSS/ is just a table of contents... meaning we could have
> documents on the pattern of:
> ?  Or does that imply that we'd need to take everything through in one go,
> rather than in pieces?
> Apologies for the newbie chair questions :)

No problem.

Multi-page versions of smaller specs are out of vogue right now, mostly 
because it makes it harder for the reader to search terms, read 
intra-references, print, and so on.

So, yes, we can have a multi-page version, but I'd suggest we not do so.

> Assuming that we do want different short names for every document...

I like your systematic approach.

> My personal preferences for names:
> annotation-model
> annotation-protocol
> annotation-interface
> web-anchoring

I can live with those.

Hopefully, if we do our job right, we will trick the Social Web WG into 
doing the protocol/server-side API for us. :)

Also, there may be more than one robust anchoring spec, the first of 
which may be a find-text API (which combines with other selector types 
to collectively serve as a full-featured robust-anchoring solution). But 
I don't think we need to quibble about the name of a spec that hasn't 
yet been written. :)


Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 06:09:46 UTC