RE: Eating our own dog food (Was: Generic Change Tracking draft spec)

Yes, of course, although I am not clear what I should take away from the HTML5 example [;<).

Is there a template and required content for a Community Group Specification that is intended to be appealing for Working Group take-up while satisfying the non-confusion requirements of such specifications?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Liam R E Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 13:55
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'JoAnn Hackos'; public-change@w3.org
Subject: Re: Eating our own dog food (Was: Generic Change Tracking draft spec)

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 08:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> The difference between Community Group products and W3C Working Group
> products (and other aspects) are summarized nicely at
> <http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/>.
> 
> Community Groups do not produce W3C Specifications or other Standards Track documents.

The idea is that community groups can provide input to Working Groups,
so that if there was enough traction - e.g. several W3C Members or (more
excitingly to the W3C staff perhaps) several companies or organizations
that would join to do the work :-), we'd charter a new Working Group.

But that Working Group could start with what was done here, and might be
able to proceed quickly.

Useful things to consider - relationship of the work to HTML 5/HTML.ng;
relationship of the work to Efficient XML Interchange (EXI); whether
changes to XPath would be appropriate, like the experiments with a
revision history / time XPath axis presented at XML Prague a year or two
ago.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml

Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 00:28:02 UTC