- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:49:43 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
We can publish a new Working Draft. What's the process for that? I would prefer to just wait a week and go for Last Call though. Otherwise we'll lose momentum. Why not just incorporate Jeremy's suggestions, substituting "GRDDL-aware agent" for GRDDL processor. The text to me seems informative, not normative. I mean, if people are in a hurry to write a GRDDL client and want to make unsecure GRDDL clients that's their problem, as long as they are aware of known security issues. OK, I can wait 2 months - that doesn't put us too much behind schedule - just instead of requesting to go to PR on March 31 we wait till April 9th. Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 13:13 -0500, Harry Halpin wrote: > >> Dan Connolly wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:48 -0500, Harry Halpin wrote: >>> > [...] > >>>> I think all the tests in the critical path have more or less worked out >>>> and issues are closed - it's a matter of editing the spec text, so I'm >>>> going to press for Last Call this telecon. >>>> >>>> >>> (a) Jeremy Carroll just blew that idea out of the water with >>> his security considerations text; I can't claim we have >>> no open issues now. >>> >>> >>> >> I'd just add his text in with minor modifications. >> > > That involves adding a conformance label for "GRDDL processor" > or "GRDDL-aware agent". That's not something I think we should > do in a hurry. > > I think we should publish what we have now, noting a few > outstanding issues. And then go to last call after working > them out. > > > >>> (b) going to PR on the same day we exit last call is >>> a 0-probability event. It's not impossible, but it's quite >>> unlikely; it has never happened in the past. >>> >>> >>> >> OK. Therefore, we need to go into Last Call now. If not on the Spec, at >> least on Primer/Use-cases doc. >> >>> (c) what happened to discussion of a two month CR while we wait >>> for the IETF to register Profile:? The "feature at risk" >>> process is a CR thing. >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#at-risk-feature >>> >>> >> Two month wait? I thought you said you could get this sorted out by >> March 31st. >> > > No. I said, and repeated for the record: > > Feb 09 10:36:01 <DanC> CG concurs with DanC's advice to do CR with > feature-at-risk, waiting up to 2 months for IESG response > > Evidently we got our wires crossed. > > >> ..Ivan did not wait to wait past end of 1st Quarter...as the >> IETF liason, if you have a proposal for this send it to semweb-coordination. >> > > I think we should work this out between ourselves before bringing it > back to the semweb-cg, though as indicated by the cc to www-archive, > you're free to share this thread with anyone you'd like. > > > >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/#sched >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda >>>>>>> > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 20:49:53 UTC