Sending Docs to Rec?

During the telecon today, there was a definite feeling that only the
GRDDL spec itself should go Rec track. The reason was given was resources.

However, without the chair's hat on, I do think it would, if we have the
resources, we should send  docs besides the  Spec doc, and I'd like
others who have significant connections to non-W3C communities.

Primarily because they serve different audience: the primer clearly
serves people who aren't implementing GRDDL clients, but people who just
want to GRDDL-enable their web-pages or, say, microformats or XML
dialects. To me, this is actually a much *larger* audience than those
who will implement GRDDL-aware clients. Also, the writing should be less
technical and more easy-to-read, see
complaints about readability already from the microformat-community [1].

Furthermore, a lot of people who we want interested in GRDDL won't even
be editing HTML or XML themselves. Instead, these people will be
administrators and CTOs who will just want to know on a high-level how
GRDDL benefits them and whether or not they should tell their staff to
"GRDDL-enable" their web-pages. Again, this a *different* audience than
that which reads the Primer and the Spec, and arguably an important one.

So, we should if at all possible take the GRDDL Primer to Rec track,
since that signals to both adminstrators and your desperate HTML hacker
on the street that we care about them, and take their concerns seriously.

If all we produce is a technically sound implementation spec with test
cases, then we'll get GRDDL-aware agents implementations in all major
RDF products, but we might not get the possibility of massive uptake
that I think makes GRDDL crucial to actually deploying the Semantic Web.

So, since I think the Primer and Use-Case scenario documents are
relatively stable and unlikely to be controversial, the benefits of
putting them through Rec track outweighs the cost. While it appears
Fabien has returned, I do think it would be good if the Primer could
have another editor (I seem to be the defacto editor if IanD isn't
around, since he's often busy actually deploying RDF with Talis).

I  think the test-cases will be more expensive, and needs someone taking
primary responsibility for taking care of them as an editor, and would
be happy to send them through Rec track if a single editor besides Dan
could take responsibility for them.

And assuming we get to a relatively non-controversial Last Call and most
comments are of the "Good job!" flavor, we really need to devote more
time to deploying GRDDL, especially among the microformat community and
with large and well-deployed XML dialects. But, a good solid spec comes
first!


[1]http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-October/006190.html

-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 20:45:28 UTC