Re: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-10-25

Which documents do you mean?

I'm also willing to put in more effort.  

It does seem to me that it would be good to put out a simple ontology
and rules that describe what can be inferred from an HTTP interaction.
That seemed to me to be one of the most agreed-upon goals of the group,
but we have gotten tangled in so many offshoots, we haven't really
addressed that yet.  Nothing clarifies like running code.

David



On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 23:25 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> I trust your judgement and will +1 whatever you think is best.
> 
> The documents produced are very good and in my mind, nice and clear. My 
> only concern is with being GET 200 specific, so I'd be happy to have a 
> final drive through to the end of the year to try to make it method, and 
> potentially protocol, agnostic advise. If anybody else is up for it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
> > Quorum is 3.
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> > Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM
> > Subject: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-09-27
> > To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> > 
> > Agenda:
> > We need to just declare victory and shut the group down.
> > It's clear that given the low level of interest we're not going to
> > solve any more problems so let's just figure out what to report to the
> > TAG.
> > 
> > Jonathan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 12:57:28 UTC