W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Re: CSVW WG meeting agenda Nov 19th?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:50:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6QDSDcCAyB+4SO58pxR4Fi+1q5_4DreLS9ji_TtOpKPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "public-csv-wg@w3.org" <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 18 November 2014 16:07, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
> All - there are no new issues pending discussion for the mapping documents
> at this time. At this point I am yet to update the GitHub issues from last
> week (shame!) but promise to do so!!!

Thanks. At this stage in the WG's life we really need to be focussed
around the editorial work, and the Github issues are probably the best
tool we have for trying to share that workload and keep a wider group
aware of our efforts.

> However, I wonder if it might be worth looking once more at the data-format
> issue ...
>
> I have been trying to determine if the number and date formatting functions
> from 'XPath & XQuery Functions and Operators 3.0’ are workable. Also I have
> found Java and JavaScript implementations of ‘simpledateformat’ that might
> also provide some clear insight. See ISSUE 54 for details.

https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/54 (featuring scary ascii-art from Gregg...)

> Basically, I would like to know what others think (re the complexity) before
> I plough on an spend time developing this further.
>
> Also keen to hear what JeniT has determined re the number formats.

Jeni has send regrets due to a conflicting commitment. I suggest we
skip the formal WG call this week but those of us interested have an
informal discussion on date formatting, functions/operators etc.

Also we should note that next week is thanksgiving in the USA which
usually means no US attendance. I suggest we dedouble our efforts to
be github focussed and try to keep things moving along in email.

cheers,

Dan


> Jeremy
>
> On 18 Nov 2014, at 13:51, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
> We have agreed to drive our meetings from the Github issues list.
>
> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/labels/Requires%20telcon%20discussion/decision
> doesn't show any different issues to those which we discussed in some
> detail last week (http://www.w3.org/2014/11/12-csvw-minutes.html).
>
> Are there good candidate topics to discuss tomorrow?  I don't mind
> chairing if editors have topics they want to discuss, but equally
> let's not have a meeting for meeting's sake. Jeni, editors - any
> views?
>
> Dan
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 11:51:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:45 UTC