- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:42:38 +0200
- To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Available online at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/26-minutes.html
And in plain text below:
----------------
[1]W3C
[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
Attendees
Present
darobin, jar, ht, Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra,
JeniT, Yves
Regrets
Peter, Larry
Chair
Noah
Scribe
Robin
Contents
* [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?
[none]
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
minutes
[10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/12-minutes
NM: freshly arrived, people can ask for time
... objections?
[none]
RESOLUTION: Minutes from the 12/04 are approved
[11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes -> 19/04
minutes
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes
NM: look good to me
RESOLUTION: Minutes from the 19/04 are approved
Administrativia
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
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687
[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
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes
NM: seemed convoluted, sent email, made a proposal based on
responses
<noah> Proposal e-mail:
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.ht
ml
[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
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687
[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
<noah>
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0148.ht
ml
[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
[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
above
... 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.ht
ml
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0209.html
JT, AM: Robin pushed back
<JeniT>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0209.ht
ml
[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]
[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
request.
XML-ER
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
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656
NM: JT framed the proposal
<JeniT>
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0169.ht
ml
[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
that
<noah> Concerns raised by TAG members during the F2F discussion
included:
<noah> * restricting XML-ER processing to non-safety-critical
applications
<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
reporting
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
discussiojn
... 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
table
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
applications...
<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
CG
... 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
applications.
<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
regretted.
<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
opt-in
... 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
times
... 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
precedent
HT: we're still waiting on that one, but we'll have to look at
it
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
<trackbot>
[28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/696
[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
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656
[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
unification
... tempting for me to say that the bits that are specifically
about XML should go to that TF, and anyone is welcome to do
that
... 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
related
<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
procedures
... 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
<JeniT>
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0105.ht
ml
[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
candidates.
<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
voting
... 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
TAG
<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
winning
<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
isolation
... 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
unpopular
... 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
60%
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
right
<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]
[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]
[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]
[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
2012-05-03].
action-702 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-702 Follow up with Robin on election reform
proposals closed
NM: remind me of what you'd like discussed
[adjourned]
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
[35]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to follow up with Robin on election reform
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to follow up with Robin on election reform
proposals [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[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
[38]http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[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