- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:11:55 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Many thanks for your response, Ian. As I have said the W3C has made a great step with TAG and I'm glad it is where it is. On Thursday, July 19, 2001, at 04:01 PM, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: >>> W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and Internationalization >>> Activity are already producing Architectural Recommendations in >>> the areas of accessibility and internationalization, >>> respectively. >> Can you elaborate more on how their relationship with the TAG? > Like the TAG, they are producing Architectural Recommendations. > The TAG is not the only body within W3C to be doing so. And > there are bodies outside W3C doing so as well. This paragraph > is here to show that the TAG does not "control" Web Architecture. Do you think there will be an official liason between the groups? >>> Issues may be brought to the TAG by a variety of parties: >>> Working Groups, the public, the W3C Team, as part of an appeal >>> to the W3C Director, the TAG itself, etc. >> Why not just say "Anyone may bring an issue to the TAG"? As >> written, it implies that W3C Members are not allowed to raise >> issues, since they aren't members of the "public". > No, that's not implied. This is a list that includes some > examples, but also "etc.". The parties in the list > are noteworthy, but don't exclude Members. So is there anyone who cannot bring an issue to the TAG? >>> The TAG is expected to evolve with experience, and its charter >>> may be revised as its role and W3C change. The Director must >>> propose any non-editorial changes to the TAG charter for a >>> four-week review by the Advisory Committee. After the end of >>> the review, the Director must announce the new charter to the >>> Advisory Committee. >> The public should be able to propose changes to and have to >> ratify the TAG charter. See the discussion of voting. > Anyone can propose anything at any time. Good ideas will be > retained. But there are benefits to Membership. Are you > suggesting that we eliminate the Proposed Recommendation > review as well? We could. But we might not have any Members > left.... No, I'm not suggesting any such thing. Having more eyes looking over Proposed Recommendation is probably a good thing. But even if you did get rid of it, I think you'd still have quite a few members left. Something tells me that people don't join so that they can vote down specs. >>> The deliverables of the TAG are its Architectural >>> Recommendations, review reports, and issue resolutions. The TAG >>> may publish a variety of materials (e.g., short-term >>> resolutions to issues that arise)... >> These resolutions must all be public and really should be >> publicly appealable. Will these resolutions be public? > Thanks for sending comments, Thank you for answering them, -- "Aaron Swartz" | ...schoolyard subversion... <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://aaronsw.com/school/> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Friday, 20 July 2001 15:11:58 UTC