- From: Raphaël Dard <Dard@intracen.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:47:41 +0100
- To: "Stephane Boyera" <boyera@webfoundation.org>
- Cc: <public-mw4d@w3.org>
My apologies, Steph and the group. I was indeed planning to be there today, as indicated earlier, got stuck into traffic and 30' late.. Thanks for postponing the meeting. Any week day, this week, at the same time will be fine with me. Regarding the distinction between content and container, Renjish's suggestion to separate service from channel seems indeed valid. In this case "Bearer" can be the word for "channel". I guess that "protocol" would also be an option, but bearer sounds less technical. Regards, Raphaël >>> Stephane Boyera <boyera@webfoundation.org> 26/10/2009 13:16 >>> Dear All, Unfortunately i was alone on the call today (with Renjish on IRC only), so i canceled the call after 15mn. I would like to organize another call this week, as we really need to be 3 or 4 people to gather and take the decision to publish the document. This is a formal mandatory step in the W3C process. Could those who are usually attending let me know what are their availability this week ? I would be happy also to get people's opinion on the last point we have around defining the different type of services on a mobile networks as different bearer. From Renjish: ""In the content and infrastructure part, a better usage for the three types of channels is to call them as "bearer" services since these are bearers for other services and therefore a distinction has to be made between the channel and the services that are offered over them...." I'm personaly ok to add bearer here and in the definition section, though this is a notion very specific to those in the telecommunication world. other opinions welcome. Cheers Stephane -- Stephane Boyera boyera@webfoundation.org Web Foundation +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08 http://www.webfoundation.org
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 13:48:21 UTC