W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Minutes from April 26 TAG Telcon

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:42:38 +0200
Message-Id: <4376CA3C-7346-47F2-9E68-EAF17165968B@berjon.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Available online at:

And in plain text below:


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

26 Apr 2012

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-irc


          darobin, jar, ht, Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra,
          JeniT, Yves

          Peter, Larry




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Approve minutes of prior meeting(s)
         2. [5]Administrativia
         3. [6]XML-ER
         4. [7]TAG Election Procedures
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   NM: probable regrets on the 10th

   JT: probable regrets on the 10th from me too

   NM: Jeni, can you scribe next week?

   JT: yes

Approve minutes of prior meeting(s)

   f2f minutes [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda

   NM: Objections?


   HT: I note that there are still a bunch of editorial red marks
   in my sections
   ... people haven't gone back and made the necessary changes —
   none of them are serious
   ... not objecting to approval

   RESOLUTION: Minutes from the f2f are approved

   [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/12-minutes -> 12/04

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/12-minutes

   NM: freshly arrived, people can ask for time
   ... objections?


   RESOLUTION: Minutes from the 12/04 are approved

   [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes -> 19/04

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes

   NM: look good to me

   RESOLUTION: Minutes from the 19/04 are approved


   NM: I believe that people need more discussion on XML-ER, so
   it's put to you
   ... and Robin has asked about election procedures
   ... hearing no changes to the agenda

   <noah> ACTION-687?

   <trackbot> ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for
   opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB
   about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to
   expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due
   2012-05-01 -- OPEN


     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687

   <noah> Proposal e-mail:

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes

   NM: seemed convoluted, sent email, made a proposal based on

   <noah> Proposal e-mail:

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.html

   NM: can send a note to the AB without further discussion

   <noah> ACTION-687?

   <trackbot> ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for
   opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB
   about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to
   expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due
   2012-05-01 -- OPEN


     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687

   JAR: believe further iteration is needed. The iteration might
   lead to a decision to do nothing, that would be ok

   NM: would like to handle this in email

   NM: some time ago the TAG agreed that the work on HTML Data had
   been successfully completed
   ... I was tasked with recording that in the product page


     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0148.html

   <noah> On 18 January:

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/19-minutes.html#item05

   <noah> <noah> RESOLUTION: The draft product page at
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/htmldata.html is agreed
   as the basis on which the TAG closes out it's work on
   Microdata/RDFa coordination

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/htmldata.html

   NM: this email points out that on 20120119 we resolved the
   ... my view was the TAG passed a resolution, I took an action,
   announced it, and propose to close
   ... but today, LM emailed about it

   <noah> Larry asks to take this to Rec:

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0209.html

   JT, AM: Robin pushed back


     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0209.html

   RB: push back was on XML, not HTML Data

   YL: I think it would be difficult for the TAG to have the
   cycles to move everything to REC
   ... we know that there's a good start in both cases
   ... it's fine for the TAG to say it did its share
   ... without necessarily push to REC
   ... pushing these documents to REC can be done later, I think
   that closing the action and the product is in order

   JT: in the HTML Data work there were two notes produced with
   the intent that they could be turned into something more solid
   ... especially the microdata to RDF conversion

   NM: TAG needs to be involved?

   JT: not necessarily directly, but W3C needs to find a good home
   for it

   NM: action to check up on whether W3C is doing the right thing
   there, possibly in a few months?

   close ACTION-664

   <trackbot> ACTION-664 Announce completion of TAG work on
   Microdata/RDFa as recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/htmldata.html and to
   finalize the product page and associated links closed

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/htmldata.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Jeni to check that W3C has found a good home
   for the output of the HTML Data TF, especially microdata/RDF
   conversion - due 2012-10-26 [recorded in

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-699 - check that W3C has found a good
   home for the output of the HTML Data TF, especially
   microdata/RDF conversion [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-10-26].

   NM: I think that's an appropriate resolution in the particular
   case of Microdata/RDFa. If Larry (or anyone) wants to ask the
   TAG to consider whether, in general, more of our work should be
   REC-track, that would be a separate discussion for them to



   <trackbot> ACTION-656 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion
   of possibly getting W3C to invest in technologies for liberal
   XML processing (e.g. XML5) -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656

   NM: JT framed the proposal


     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0169.html

   NM: LM specifically asked that the TAG's work on HTML/XML
   should go on the Rec track
   ... would like not to discuss that now, we will see Norm in
   June, and can discuss in preparation for that

   NM: would like to focus on XML-ER CG, goals, use cases, etc.

   JT: HT asked me to go through the minutes from f2f and pull out
   areas that we had raised as concerns
   ... put those in email
   ... I think that we should engage positively with the XML-ER CG

   JT: looking perhaps to drop them an email suggesting changes in
   their charter

   <noah> [25]http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/wiki/Charter

     [25] http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/wiki/Charter

   JT: focusing on what we would say if we spoke to them
   ... concern from the minutes are listed in my email, refer to

   <noah> Concerns raised by TAG members during the F2F discussion

   <noah> * restricting XML-ER processing to non-safety-critical

   <noah> * ensuring that any error recovery is reported noisily

   <noah> * error recovery causing a race to the bottom and
   evolutionary drift

   <noah> * potential security problems with the same file being
   interpreted in different ways by different processors

   <noah> * interactions with media-type sniffing

   JT: if I were to communicate with them, I would need help to
   provide more detail on some of the concerns

   NM: some question in my mind as to what the level of interest
   the TAG has in dealing with this

   <jar> XML-ER if it exists should have its own media type

   NM: fine for me to dive in, but want to make sure that people
   are really interested
   ... we don't owe it to anybody to do more

   <noah> RB: Would it be simpler if people would bring concerns
   directly to the community group?

   <JeniT> +1

   YL: some concerns in JT's email are already in the charter

   <jar> "Backwards compatible with XML 1.0." requires error

   YL: critical apps would simply reject ER, backwards compat is
   taken into account

   YL: I agree with RB that if there are specific issues they can
   be taken directly to the CG

   HT: I think that this is close enough to a number of essential
   architectural issues that I don't want to leave it to just CG
   ... we should discuss this as the TAG

   <noah> Henry, can you give an example of something the tag
   >might< want to say?

   HT: I'm sufficiently concerned about this at the architectural
   level that I want to keep it on our agenda
   ... I'm not saying that we should be tossing bombs over the
   parapet to them

   <noah> To motivate your "outlier" view that we keep it on the

   JAR: I agree with that, it seems that we've been talking about
   extension points and the such for years and we're closer to
   that now

   NM: some in the group seem to think we can just interact with
   the CG
   ... henry would like to keep it
   ... JAR thinks it's useful to discuss

   NM: HT do you have examples of TAG level concern

   HT: several points in the discussion where JT|RB said "we
   agree, I expect it will turn out that way"
   ... but if it doesn't, we have a problem
   ... I would like to capture and ensure those

   NM: YL asserted that processing critical applications is
   covered by the charter
   ... I don't think that's the only way of looking at it
   ... the scope is set, but if software is confused it will have
   a flag

   <JeniT> it's w community group, not a working group

   <noah> NM: Yves makes the case that, because the charter
   mandates a warning on fixed up output, we're OK on the
   "critical apps" front. Not necessarily. There's still reason to
   question whether the charter should have mandated a style of
   fixup that would have been suitable for a broader range of

   <noah> NM: Of course, Anne's done a wonderful service by moving
   ahead to meet what he (and others) see as the goals, and we'd
   lose that if the goals changed a lot.

   YL: first I wanted to reply to HT that having people
   contributing to the CG directly is not incompatible with
   finding issues and working on those
   ... I think it will be faster if people comment directly to the
   ... 2nd point is that it's a CG, it's not tasked to produce a
   Rec, I wouldn't worry too much about small details

   <jar> wiki has no pointer to mailing list

   <JeniT> jar, the home page for the CG has the link on the left

   <noah> I'm not saying what the WG is doing is wrong or bad. I'm
   saying that the goals weren't debated as broadly as we do for
   some other work.

   YL: in the charter and such — I think the fact they added that
   errors are surfaced at the application level is a sign that
   they want to tackle applications possibly rejecting content

   <noah> In practice, going down this path is probably the right
   thing for now.

   YL: taking into account security-critical applications
   ... but I thikn it's a good indication, and we can trust the
   process of the CG
   ... and monitor it

   <jar> [26]http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/

     [26] http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/

   <noah> Right Robin...but the point you're not addressing is
   that the fixups themselves are designed for interactive browser

   <noah> RB: I think it will be faster to bring concerns to the
   CG directly. It's a CG, not a WG. Doesn't formally need a
   charter. That was done to be a helpful point of reference.

   <noah> RB: It's not aimed at "error recovery" it's designed to
   take any input and produce a parse. Not sure the concerns about
   critical apps apply

   <noah> I note that the group is titled XML-ER

   <noah> RB: XML-ER naming is the result of my bad joke, now

   <jar> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-er/

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-er/

   HT: maybe RB did just say so, but thanks for reminding us that
   this is not a WG which changes the dynamic
   ... the charter is just a convenience and isn't binding
   ... but it's an indication of direction
   ... we may be headed towards a situation in which apps can
   opt-out of ER
   ... but I'm not sure I want it that way, I think I want it
   ... nobody is ever going to see fixed up output unless they
   take steps to
   ... it shouldn't be the default

   NM: isn't that somethign that different processors e.g.
   browsers might default differently
   ... ?

   HT: I don't think so, but we'll have to see how it develops

   AM: really any inpuyt?

   <jar> This is very interesting… very similar to sniffing

   RB: yes

   HT: he did, which is reasonable so long as it's deterministic

   NM: this is similar to HTML5 where it does that
   ... this can include some complex parsers for HTML
   ... but I don't think that this is reasonable for e.g.
   importing to a DB
   ... but you can imagine that some fixups are low-risk
   ... e.g. upper/lowercase

   JAR: that doesn't sound good for XML

   NM: right

   JAR: XML assigns errors to some strings
   ... this is incompatible with XML

   NM: this will operate successfully with a lot of apps that
   expect XML
   ... we're talking about when this is appropriate
   ... do I ever want to import broken XML to XML tooling?

   JAR: this is exactly the same question about authoritative
   metadata and sniffing

   NM: there's a move in teh community that XML is not successful
   on the Web because it is too strict
   ... XML-ER builds a tree for "broken" content

   JAR: not arguing the merits, the TAG has been here several
   ... why would we say something different?

   NM: the community is asserting that XML, which is important to
   W3C, is having far more limited impact than we wanted
   ... trying to be helpful to a broader range of things that
   people are doing
   ... without crashing airplanes

   JAR: just saying that we shouldn't take this in isolation,
   should use the context of authoritative metadata

   HT: JAR's question made me realise that I'd like to hear how
   this sits with the notion of media type
   ... as JAR pointed out, the XML spec says that a string of
   characters which doesn't satisfy the condition for WF
   ... is not XML, it's just characters
   ... it's not XML with errors
   ... delicate but relevant point
   ... people would be comfortable with saying "this is Fortran
   with a bug", but people don't say that about XML

   NM: what usually happens is that for programming languages, the
   spec is strict but they can resync

   HT: I deny that — they define sync points so that the compiler
   can give errors
   ... main point is where does this fit in the space that we know
   about in terms of media types
   ... content type but also accept headers
   ... unlike text/html which is being redefined, the jury's still
   out on what they say
   ... but they might say that any content might legitimately be
   served as text/html
   ... several people have made clear that they hope the goal of
   the XML-ER is not to redefine the application/xml media type

   <noah> I hope they don't say that any content is validly served
   as text/html. I hope/expect they will make a massive
   application of Postel's law, and say legally served content
   MUST validate, but clients may be liberal in what they process.

   <noah> RB: I think the media type question is very much open in
   the CG.

   <noah> I think Henry was talking about the likely registration
   of text/html

   <noah> Not anything to do with the CG

   <noah> RB: The question was how to make XML usable in various
   situations without breaking things.

   <noah> RB: Nobody has yet looked in detail at whether to
   recommend use of application/xml, which would be a significant
   change the registrarion

   NM: also a question about whether text/html will sets a

   HT: we're still waiting on that one, but we'll have to look at

   JAR: regardless of what the CG decides to do, this is a very
   interesting question, I see parallels with other issues
   ... we should keep this going

   <ht> We need a Postel's Law issue

   JAR: maybe we should wait until someone has something to say
   about it
   ... but shouldn't close

   +1 on a Postel issue

   <jar> +1

   <noah> ACTION-696?

   <trackbot> ACTION-696 -- Jeni Tennison to frame discussion of
   XML-ER goals and use cases -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/696

   <noah> ACTION-656?

   <trackbot> ACTION-656 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion
   of possibly getting W3C to invest in technologies for liberal
   XML processing (e.g. XML5) -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656

   NM: this action dates from before the CG, my work is done
   ... close both?
   ... to keep this on the table, what's the next step?

   JAR: someone to think about this
   ... I see big parallels with httpRange-14

   NM: I was hoping you wouldn't say that

   HT: I agree with JAR, and agree it's going to be hard to find
   something to say about this

   <jar> issue-20?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- What should specifications say about
   error handling? -- open

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20

   HT: we have an issue similar to hr14 which keeps coming up: is
   Postel's Law of any use?
   ... if not, should we write an obit?
   ... if it is, can we state so?
   ... if we have something different what's the delta?

   NM: I'm not sure that's as fraught as hr14

   Scribe notes famous last words

   NM: seems close to authoritative metadata indeed
   ... Postel's law is out there to advocate in favour of
   robustness over safety
   ... trying to get to the ongoing effort about HTML/XML
   ... tempting for me to say that the bits that are specifically
   about XML should go to that TF, and anyone is welcome to do
   ... HT is saying that we could invest in the deeper quesiotn of
   Postel's Law and its relationship with authoritative metadata
   ... anyone want to do the work?

   HT: want to yes, but can is a different question

   <jar> ditto

   NM: this is significant if done well, but we need commitment

   <noah> close ACTION-696

   <trackbot> ACTION-696 frame discussion of XML-ER goals and use
   cases closed

   <noah> close ACTION-656

   <trackbot> ACTION-656 Schedule discussion of possibly getting
   W3C to invest in technologies for liberal XML processing (e.g.
   XML5) closed

   NM: if someone wants to bring this up again, I'll be
   sympathetic so long as they can point out what's changed

   <noah> NM: To sum up, the XML-specific part of this may come up
   again in the context of the HTML/XML unification effort, which
   is ongoing.

   <noah> NM: Otherwise, asking to reopen focus on XML-ER is in
   order >if< someone steps up to move it forward and do real
   useful work on it.

   <jar> error handling and extension points are very closely

   <noah> NM: Likewise, starting a major effort on the tension
   between authoritative metadata and Postel's law sounds very
   cool ( to the chair anyway ), but only if someone is ready to
   do months of work on it.

   and versioning!

TAG Election Procedures

   NM: framing from the chair
   ... number of emails flying in various quarters about changing
   the TAG and all that
   ... before Sophia I asked if we wanted to talk about that, but
   it was rejected

   HT: for discussion at the f2f

   NM: it may be better to talk of this f2f though, can have lunch
   discussions and the such
   ... first of all, it's been noted several times that changes to
   the process are not things that we drive
   ... but we can ask for them
   ... received objections to having this discussion at all
   ... so for this afternoon, the scope is strictly about election
   ... if people have other suggestions, please send them in email
   ... these are time-consuming so please set the bar high
   ... I get nervous when we get too far in proposals for change
   without being clear about what we are trying to change


     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0105.html

   <noah> RB: I sent some feedback to the member list, felt
   encouraged by the response, so wanted to bring it forward for
   wider discussion. Two of these are just to practice, vote
   counting is a change to process.

   <noah> RB: E.g. to vote counting

   <noah> (Hmm...I thought the counting procedure was at least
   implicitly part of the process)

   <noah> RB: Ideas:

   <noah> RB: 1) Make nominee list public (don't think it is)

   <noah> RB: 2) Avoid tactical voting, probably as embodied in
   WBS (to avoid tactical voting...perceive that members avoid
   casting second vote when first choice is at risk)

   <noah> RB: 3) Have a public mailing list on which people can
   discuss the election with the candidates, get answers from the

   <Ashok> I think the recommendation is to use preferential
   voting -- i.e. first, second, etc.

   HT: I strongly endorse the change to Process to avoid tactical
   ... I'm conscious that it's awkward to say so
   ... but I will say that in every election I have stood in I
   have voted only for myself
   ... and I think that's broken

   s/but I will say that in every election I have voted in I have
   voted only for myself/but I will say that in every election in
   which I stood I have voted only for myself

   JAR: I think that we need to look at the broader problem and
   wonder if election reform will solve that
   ... the problem is that we want abilities we don't have
   ... I don't think that this solves that

   <ht> Oh yes, and I meant to say contra LM in email that it's
   precisely when the number of candidates is just larger than the
   number of seats that tactical voting is most tempting

   NM: I don't want to pull in the entire scope of changing the

   <jar> the problem is getting constituencies represented, and
   getting expertise in areas where we're weak

   <JeniT> RB: I've spoken to people who have wanted to run, but
   didn't bother because they didn't feel they had a chance of

   <noah> RB: Don't focus just on counting. Right now, people who
   aren't well known in the AC don't run, because they perceive
   that without name recognition in the AC they can't win

   NM: two or three separate things that may be in contradiction
   ... one is that I think that RB is making good points in
   ... tactical voting bad, people telling their story good
   ... two, be careful. If you look at who's running, there are
   some issues that aren't being discussed here
   ... as chair I feel tension between what we need to deliver and
   the notion that people put themselves to run
   ... but ACs don't ask if people can write
   ... but writing skills are really important for the TAG
   ... three, the TAG is a funny group
   ... I have an opinion about it, but others see it differently
   ... see its goal as making people happy
   ... but it seems that if you're going to do more than very
   small fixes to the process then you're going to have to look at
   broader questions
   ... one point of view is lets at least fix the small things,
   put the bigger things on the table later
   ... but there's the risk that people will perceive that we're
   fixing the bigger issues
   ... one thing I will fight against is backing into revisiting
   what the TAG is about
   ... it's important, but it's something that needs to be done
   with care
   ... to some degree the TAG was chartered in part to be
   ... and look at inconvenient things
   ... it's really hard for me as chair to know when we're doing
   our job and when we're just being stupid

   <jar> RB, do you agree with what I said (that process changes
   are a means to an end), do you agree with what I said the end
   was, and how far do you think the process changes go toward
   achieving that end, 10%, 50% 90%?

   <noah> NM: You mean the particular 3 changes you proposed.

   <noah> JAR: Yes.

   <noah> RB: What means to what ends?

   <noah> JAR: The one I said.

   <noah> JAR: Bringing better constituency representation and
   more expertise.

   <noah> RB: That's what I meant by better candidates

   <noah> RB: Chances of success are hard to judge. One "better"
   person out of 5 might be good.

   NM: there are TAG members who in retrospect turn out to be
   stronger and that's great
   ... but at times we need several, it may be better to have
   several people on one topic at times
   ... no corporation would appoint us in the way we are
   ... I think Tim's appointees are often the strongest

   <jar> RB ventured 40%, I think… I'm satisfied with that kind of
   answer, but note that in future we need to talk about the other

   NM: and I think that he uses his vision for that
   ... I'm not convinced that the AC takes that into account
   ... the time investment is pretty significant
   ... it's good that independents are willing to stretch
   ... but it's hard without deep corporate pockets
   ... if you're willing the grant that there were problems
   implicitly solved in RB's proposal
   ... I think there's agreement that these are small steps in the
   right direction
   ... but should the TAG do something with this?
   ... individuals can go to the AB directly
   ... TAG aware of issues, point out sympathy on the TAG for
   solving this
   ... point the AB to these minutes

   <Yves> if the TAG says "yes it should be fixed in a way" it
   would be a good indication that individual claims are valid

   JAR: I see LM's point that the TAG doesn't do process
   ... but that's not the end of the story
   ... in order for the TAG to address its charter the TAG needs
   specific people
   ... RB's proposal is about helping with that

   NM: it would take weeks and months for the TAG to discuss the
   broader issues
   ... but it would take months and we haven't done it yet
   ... trying to suggest that people here approach Team and AB
   pointing to these minutes
   ... it does not the question about are we staffing the TAG

   <jar> if it did 40% that would be huge

   NM: if it's the only change we make in ten years, I don't want
   it to happen
   ... but if it's a small tweak we can do without any presumption
   that no further changes and debate will happen, then it could
   be taken to the AB/Team

   RB: happy to go to the AB and point to these minutes

   NM: if you want, draft a note, send it to the member list, and
   give us a chance to review
   ... and let me as chair draft another note giving context and
   larger issues
   ... capture informal feeling that there are concerns

   <scribe> ACTION: Robin to send note to tag@ that he will send
   later to the AB (as himself) proposing the changes to electoral
   proceedings [recorded in

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-700 - Send note to tag@ that he will
   send later to the AB (as himself) proposing the changes to
   electoral proceedings [on Robin Berjon - due 2012-05-03].

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to follow up with Robin on election
   reform [recorded in

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-701 - Follow up with Robin on
   election reform [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-05-03].

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to follow up with Robin on election reform
   proposals [recorded in

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action04

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-702 - Follow up with Robin on
   election reform proposals [on Noah Mendelsohn - due

   action-702 closed

   <trackbot> ACTION-702 Follow up with Robin on election reform
   proposals closed

   NM: remind me of what you'd like discussed


   trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeni to check that W3C has found a good home for
   the output of the HTML Data TF, especially microdata/RDF
   conversion - due 2012-10-26 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to follow up with Robin on election reform
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to follow up with Robin on election reform
   proposals [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Robin to send note to tag@ that he will send
   later to the AB (as himself) proposing the changes to electoral
   proceedings [recorded in

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   [End of minutes]

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 10:43:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC