- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:24:35 +0100
- To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>
I think two points are well made. I have created two new issues (and two new products) to track discussion of them. The issues are ISSUE-20 and ISSUE-21 (for tracker). So please respond against the ISSUE rather than this note. [the products are API and Core Vocab - classifying issues and actions by product allows easier maintenance and review] Jo > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti > Sent: 10 September 2007 16:27 > To: public-ddwg@w3.org > Subject: DDWG Core Vocabulary updates > > > I did some work on the Wiki. I have revamped the Submissions page [1] > so that now it only lists candidates for inclusion in the Core > Vocabulary document. This means that there are no duplications, in > case of multiple submissions for the same property or something that > was very similar, I tried to summarize into a single property and it > is listed so. > > All the submissions are still available in a new page [2]. > > Today the group agreed to define a deadline after which a decision > will be made about which of the properties submitted so far should be > included in the first draft. This is a very good time for you to > review and comment. > > I think that the group needs some feedback about all the properties > in general, but I think that two topics are particularly hot: > 1) some properties such as image formats can be described in at least > 2 ways, either as a number of single properties (gif_support, > jpeg_support, png_support, etc) or as a single property > (image_support='gif, jpeg, png'). > 2) degree of support. We will have properties that will tell the > developers if, for example, a markup is supported, but we all know > that very rarely 100% support is achieved, nevertheless it is > possible that a markup is considered to be supported by a browser > even if it supports 95% of the specification. The question is how > could we decided if and when something is considered supported even > if not the full specification is supported? > > We, as a group, are aiming for a first public draft of the document > around the first week of October and this means that all comments > should be sent before the end of September and possibly earlier so > that we can discuss them on this list. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularySubmissions > [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularyAllSubmissions > > > Andrea Trasatti > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 08:25:07 UTC