W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2015

RE: [apps-discuss] [arcmedia] Proposed charter for arcmedia

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 01:23:17 +0000
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
CC: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "arcmedia@ietf.org" <arcmedia@ietf.org>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR0201MB0960C87FF61C5B46306257DEC35B0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
I didn’t want to quibble about the verb – “observed” is ambiguous, but so is “considered”. I was hoping not to have to define precisely what coordination is being mandated, but “will be looked at for informational purposes” isn’t strong enough.

If the W3C TAG work were instead in an IETF working group chartered to produce it, would the IETF even charter another group? If so, what coordination would be expected?

The way the IETF commits to do work is by chartering working groups; the way the IETF commits to coordinate is by putting the promise in working group charters (or, in APSAWG the document mini-charter).  I don’t want to wordsmith the charter and have the intent get lost. I want to avoid seeing IETF standardize arcmedia while W3C standardizes an arcmedia format which isn’t compatible. This may be simple or may require active coordination on both sides.

If we agree to the sentiment, we can decide how to say it in the charter.

(bcc public-ietf-w3c re arcmedia working group charter)

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



On 1/2/2015 11:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com<mailto:dev+ietf@seantek.com>> wrote:
> "The W3C TAG work on packaging and archives, currently in progress, will also be observed.”

“observed” has two definitions: “will be looked at for informational purposes”, and “will be followed (respected = treated as normative)”.

Since the thing being observed is a work-in-progress outside of the IETF, I guessed that wouldn't be taken normatively.

How about "considered"?

"considered" is ok.

Received on Sunday, 4 January 2015 01:23:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:09 UTC