- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:57:43 -0600
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 13:55 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote: > Apologies, I won't be able to make the meeting either. > > Re. - > > > > * ACTION: Danja to suggest wording changes in light of > > > recent comment on cross-document introduction > > I've gone over the original text and the comments several times, but > haven't yet come up with any convincing replacement text. I'll try and > make an hour or two this afternoon to come up with something, but am > sure it will need further non-realtime review. Thanks for giving us an action update along with your regrets, Danny. That can help a lot. We're pretty clearly below quorum, with regrets from Chime, Danny, BrianS, Ian and Harry. Harry, last week's meeting agenda lacked an explicit proposal to meet again 29 Nov; I remembered to recruit a scribe at the very end, but it's probably worth while taking a minute or two while we convene to have people think a week ahead so we can do a better job of predicting whether we'll have critical mass. Taking a quick pass over the agenda... 2. Test cases for GRDDL with XML documents Chime, I'm interested to chat with you in #swig sometime this week about testlist1#projectsSpreadsheet etc. I just sent mail about my progress on putting approval info in the manifests. 3. [#issue-output-formats] The fat lady is warming up to sing on that one; the Atom/turtle test case is working, to my satisfaction, and I'm content with what the spec says about this issue. I want a test for when an alternative serialization doesn't work out eventually, but I might be willing to decide the issue before we have that in hand. 4. GRDDL and (non-XML) HTML I hope Fabien calls in briefly; I'd like to chat your action, Fabien. Oops; I see Fabien threw in the towel too. 5. Cross-document Introduction Danja has the ball, as noted above. 6. [#issue-mt-ns] Murray, you've been quiet this week; please share your thoughts on Xinclude and "the truth" and all. Ian has the action, formally, on the content negotiation case, but as I said in a reply to Brian, I intend to work on the rules in the spec for this case too. 7. [#issue-base-param] Though I have the ball on that one, I think it's the sort of thing that many of us could make progress on. Brian, maybe you can I can brainstorm about it today. 8. Primer Document On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 13:06 +0000, Brian Suda wrote: > I have to send regrets as well, i have a big project this week and > next, but then i am back in action and can devote as much time as > needed to GRDDL. 9. GRDDL Spec: General issues The normative view is in progress; while anybody is welcome to review http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_lean and comment, I need to finish formalizing the rules before I'll declare victory and push for review. I made some progress on the sample implementation appendix as discussed in the Atom/turtle thread. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 16:00:15 UTC