- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:19:59 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 3/27/12 8:20 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > The agenda > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-iri.txt > reasonably gives 10 minutes to talk about the current documents, and > that's always a good idea, but there are some meta topics that > I think we can cover, because the time allotted isn't really long > enough to get into individual issues on documents. I agree that we've been making good progress on most of the documents. It might make sense to "level set" on each document in case there are major issues we need to discuss in person. > Some things I'd like to cover: > > * RFC format: There is ongoing developing some tooling and workflow which will allow us > to generate versions of our internet drafts and RFCs which have HTML and > PDF alternatives. This is an experiment, and important for working group members > who are reviewing documents. It's necessary not only to review the PDF > with Unicode editions, but also (ultimately) the ASCII-only edition in which > the examples are encoded. > > 10 minutes That seems out of scope for the IRI WG. However, WG participants might want to participate in the RFC Format BoF later today. > * Test cases: I have heard of ongoing developing of IRI test cases, and > hope that we can develop a record of IRI implementations and test > cases. > > The IRI documents have been at "Proposed Standard". If we are going to > go to "Internet Standard" (now or later) we need to verify independent > interoperable implementations of EVERY FEATURE. > > I'd like to have some discussion about testing. > > 10 minutes That sounds like a good idea. > * 4395bis and Happy Iana > Making registration easier > 10 minutes I have no objection to discusion, but I also think that the "happiana" work is still gelling so it might still be early to change 4395bis because there's nothing else to align with. IMHO that will change in the near future (I hope in the next few weeks). However, folks can see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana/ for some ideas about where the community is heading. > * "Processing Spec" > Filling the gap between IRI and HTML (in charter, no action) > 10 minutes Well worth discussing, I think. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:20:50 UTC