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

RE: The TAG teleconference of 10 May 2012 is cancelled - start working toward F2F please

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 01:45:05 -0700
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: Amy van der Hiel <amy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AE47434@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
If anyone wants an informal teleconference tomorrow, I'll dial in. 

# fragment identifiers
By which you mean the document Jeni was working on. Yes, I'd like to help with that.

# ISSUE-57/httpRange-14,
I would rather not participate in discussions of ISSUE-57/httpRange-14 as the issue is currently described, so please schedule these at the end of meetings.  If there were some task force that went off and came back with an agreed position among them, I'd reconsider.

# APIs 
?? Is this the 'privacy by design' discussion?  Yes, I'd like use cases.

# storage (which we really need to get focused I think). 
If it's focused.   I'm willing to work in a small group, but I don't think we're making rapid enough progress on this.

#  Norm Walsh will also be available at some point to help us make progress on the XML/HTML unification work
Norm did a great job on the task force, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to be responsible for future TAG XML/HTML unification work. The TAG accepted the task force report; it's ours now.

The most recent question we'd discussed was XML-ER, and I've raised questions about XML-ER and haven't understood the answers. I think we could talk about XML-ER and its relationship to XML/HTML unification, can't we?

Other topics:
-- Triage existing findings and drafts
I would like, as a group, for us to review the TAG findings and draft findings, and get the group's opinion on each as to whether it is

A. worth bring to Rec (as an Architectural Recommendation)
B. should be marked obsolete, abandoned, historical, no longer authoritative

If there is any document that doesn't fit into one of those categories, I'd claim it would need a strong reason.

-- Semantic web foundations:
 I'm increasingly convinced that the linked data community has "moved on" from the (unworkable) W3C recommendations, and its time to consider resetting on ISSUE-57/httpRange-14.  In any case, I think the TAG needs to move on, and stop worrying about an architecture that only applies to small, collaborating communities of mutually trusting organizations. Small, mutual trusting components are typical fodder for distributed system design, but what is unique about the web is the _lack_ of trust.

-- Trust infrastructure
DANE and other methods.

-- Extensibility & CSS vendor prefixes
I think we should become familiar with the vendor prefix issue and its lesson for extensibility and deployment of standards. 

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 08:45:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC