IMPORTANT items before this week's call

Hi Guys,
We need to raise two issue on the list before this week's mlw-lt call.

1) ITS2.0 Call for Review; Those of you who are AC reps for you 
organisation should have received on the ~25th Sept a 'Call for Review' 
email from Coralie Mercier from the W3C.

This is a formality, but it is important to declare your support for the 
ITS2.0 spec to advance the process, which you can do by filling in the 
form at:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/ITS20PR2013/

2) You have seen via thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Sep/0057.html

that an inconsistency has been found between the schema in the spec and 
the wording in the spec about the use of NEL.

We think that since this change doesn't impact any implementations, we 
can just say that this was an editorial issue (i.e. fixing an 
inconsistency). Leroy has already updated the test suite to remove 
instances of NEL (which we missed because the of inconsistency in the 
schema). See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-tests/2013Sep/0012.html

Jirka has fixed the schema already, but made the point that it is not 
clear, in the case of such inconsistency, which takes precedence: the 
normative text or the schema (which is also marked normative but not 
mentioned in the conformance clause).

Now, there could be a view here, that as the schema was marked 
normative, changing it substantive change (which would trigger another 
last call). We need to resolve how to address this ASAP, definitely by 
the call Wednesday. So could you address the following on the list 
beforehand:

1) If you use any of the affected test files, please run the tests again 
if you have not done so already AND could you confirm to the list that 
there was no implementation changes required, just so we have a record.

2) comment on whether you regard the fixing of this inconsistency in the 
schema as an editorial change or not

3) comment on whether we should do anything about having the schema 
marked as normative (though perhaps changing that classification may 
itself be substantive?)

many thanks,
Dave

Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 12:57:52 UTC