Re: Organizing further TAG work on deep linking

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Noah Mendelsohn <> wrote:
> Reviewing the minutes of the TAG's 17 March 2011 call I note [1]:
> LM: I feel pretty strongly that we need to take this through broader review,
> by putting it on the REC track... so it gets community review
> ...followed by discussion that seemed generally sympathetic with that
> approach. Investing in rec track work is a fairly serious commitment for the
> TAG, and the minutes don't quite capture whether there was formal consensus
> to do that.

In fact, they don't capture that at all, as there was no formal
consensus. I don't even remember an informal one (although personally
I think LM could be right). It seemed to me the sort of question we
could mull over and pursue as the project matures; and if we forgot
that we were thinking about rec track, then rec track probably wasn't
very important to anyone, and forgetting would be no loss. So I don't
consider it to be a problem that there is no particular followup on
this idea at this time.

> I personally have no problem at all doing this as rec-track, but my concern
> is that, for the moment, we have nobody committed to pulling something
> together in that form, and no actions assigned that will cause me to
> remember to push us in that direction. So, I worry that this will fall
> through the cracks.

I don't, as I said above.

> I do see ACTION-541 [2], which is fine as a next step, but if we're serious
> about doing this as rec-track, we either need someone to take an action to
> prepare a FPWD (possibly in steps leading to that), or at very least,
> someone to draft a TAG product page, scoping the effort, clarifying success
> criteria, and clearly indicating that rec-track is the intended path. Is
> anyone willing to step up to doing either of those? If you want to try a
> product page, rough examples can be found using CVS in the directory [3]
> (W3C Team can access the directory through the Web -- other TAG members will
> have to use CVS due to access controls).

As a matter of procedure, can't we just wait to see what Dan and Jeni
come up, and talk about it then? Or do we have to talk about whether
it's headed for FPWD before it's even written? I'd rather focus on the
substance than the form right now.


> Thank you.
> Noah
> [1] file:///C:/Noah/Web/TAG/CVS/WWW/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes#item04
> [2]
> [3]

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 16:13:27 UTC