Larry Masinter wrote:
> I think the F2F agenda is pretty full, and that the document
> produced:
>
>
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/>
> is an early draft. While there may well be architectural issues
> that the TAG could discuss, I think they will be difficult to uncover
> without more preparation, and suggest postponing TAG discussion
> on the topic.
The widget URI scheme draft is not scheduled for separate discussion, but
it is listed as optional reading in preparation for the discussion [1] of
naming. If TAG members refer to it in discussion, then it will come up,
otherwise not. We don't at the F2F have a specific goal of responding to
the widget: proposal.
Actually, for the record, your email appears to refer to the editors'
draft, while the agenda refers to the dated published copy that's current
as of now.
Noah
[1]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda#naming--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Larry Masinter <
masinter@...>
Sent by:
www-tag-request@...
06/20/2009 08:01 PM
To: Robin Berjon <
robin@...>
cc: www-tag <
www-tag@...>, (bcc: Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: prefer to defer "widget:" discussion
The Widget URI scheme was also discussed on a mailing list
actually set up for the purpose
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/And in reply to a comment I made, Robin produced:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/2009Jun/0000.htmlI think the F2F agenda is pretty full, and that the document
produced:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/is an early draft. While there may well be architectural issues
that the TAG could discuss, I think they will be difficult to uncover
without more preparation, and suggest postponing TAG discussion
on the topic.
Larry
