- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:38:16 -0700
- To: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:24 AM, Vincent Quint wrote: [...] > 3.5. Issue XMLVersioning-41[36] > > Pending actions: There are a couple more, I think; did we lose track of them? ACTION: Vincent to Write to www-tag about CSS versioning being a problem "levels" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html and TV was going to write about namespaces, DTDs, and mime types. Hmm... I don't see that recorded as an action, but I was hoping it would get incorporated into the versioning finding, or at least discussed along with it. Maybe that's setting the bar too high. Hmm. > * DO, accepted on 22 Sep 2005[44]: with NM continue and > extrapolate > the versioning work DO et al have been doing already, > updating the > terminology section. Reconfirmed 5 Dec 2005[45], 14 Feb > 2006[46], > 12 Jun 2006[47]. > * HT, accepted on 22 Sep 2005[48]: make sure that what he is > doing > with ontology of XML infoset fits with what DanC is doing on > ontology of Language etc. Reconfirmed on 12 Jun 2006[49]. > * VQ, accepted on 3 Mar 2006[50]: Write to www-tag about CSS > versioning being a problem "levels". Reconfirmed 12 Jun > 2006[51]. > * DC, accepted on 3 Mar 2006[52]: Look at the document and see > if it > is good for informing on this SMIL problem of multiple > namespaces. > Reconfirmed 12 Jun 2006[53]. I tried to recover the context, but I can't figure out what "this SMIL problem" is. I wonder if it's better to withdraw it or if I should ask www-tag to remind me/us. > * DC, accepted on 8 Aug 2006[54]: Review definitions of partial > understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible. > Progress report[55]. More on that separately. I see the definitions have been elaborated significantly since I took that action. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 05:38:21 UTC