Re: Definitions of standardisation and specification Re: Colloquial Tidbits

On Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Dave Pawson wrote:

> On 18 September 2011 16:31, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote:
>  
> > > Any favourites yet? further proposals?
> > My personal interests are in markup usage:
>  
> > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama/
>  
>  
> <personalNote>
>  I find this one intriguing. Open to automation too I think.
> Who/how many users are writing pages with html5 markup?
> Who is ... using html 3 in a DOCTYPE decl.
> etc.
Tracking semantic mutations over time in the use of markup would also be kinda cool… Like seeing how the meaning of <small> has changed over time (by looking at archive.com or something).  
> </personalNote>
>  
> My gut reaction is that we'd run into trouble making any sort of a
> statistically significant sample?
>  Would the results be of interest? To this group? To W3C? To others?
I think this is absolutely valid. We should have a "business case" first. I.e., help a working group or provide evidence for the need for a spec.  
>  
> Just a thought.
>  
> A scoping statement for this group is what I'm looking for,
> if anyone has ideas?
I would be in favor of having a working group Charter. The i18n WG works in a similar way: their charter states that they help other groups.  

Keen to hear what others think…  



--  
Marcos Caceres

Received on Sunday, 18 September 2011 21:02:56 UTC