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

> On 12 Nov 2014, at 07:09 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation/documentName.html
>> 
>> ?  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.

I agree, for all the listed reasons...

> 
> 
>> 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.

I can, too, although the names are a little bit long... But that may be the nature of the beast.

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

Heh:-)

> 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. :)


+1

Ivan

> 
> Regards-
> -Doug
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 08:01:44 UTC