Re: agenda: GRDDL WG weekly telcon 29 Nov

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