– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

scribenick annette_g

admin

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌07/‌30-dxwg-minutes

proposed: accept last week's minutes

<PWinstanley> +1

+1

<ncar> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<kcoyle> +1

Resolved: accept last week's minutes

PWinstanley: list of open action items. Can we close 350?

close 352

close ACTION-352

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-352.

PWinstanley: issue 354

kcoyle: it's an editorial decision
… not a w3c publication rule

close ACTION-350

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-350.

PWinstanley: if it's not normative, the usual requirements don't apply

PWinstanley: two update chunks: DCAT and Conneg. Anything else?

kcoyle: publishing moratorium

<kcoyle> https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Member/‌chairs/‌2019AprJun/‌0062.html

<kcoyle> August 5-9: No publications August 13: Publications resume

kcoyle: this week, no pubs will go through because the w3c staff is on retreat.
… I believe they can still be requested, but nothing will move forward.

DCAT

DaveBrowning: we had a useful in-depth w3c process conversation with Phillippe. He confirmed that we can still make editorial changes after starting the candidate rec process.

But we need to be very clear in our own minds about what we're going to do for implementation evidence, and we should talk to Ralph Swick about versioning and RDF files.
… we'll ask if he has any concerns about what we propose to say.
… our southern hemisphere co-editor is busy on travel.
… we do need to decide one thing. If we believe there are features we are not going to be able to prove implementation of, we probably need to mark them as "at risk".
… That's a conversation that hasn't happened yet due to holidays. Maybe next week.
… Andrea is out til the end of August.
… looking at the timeline, I suspect we can start the process but then will get caught up in TPAC.

PWinstanley: there are still some normative discussion, like the range of ByteSize

<kcoyle> more moratoria: sep 12 last pubs before TPAC; 16-20 no publications; 24 pubs resume

DaveBrowning: yes, there are some little things like that. Let's discuss that offline. If we change things like that, we can end up messing up backward compatibility.

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌1025

DaveBrowning: to Nick's question, we may not have enough evidence for implementation but didn't go into the detail.

Conneg

ncar: according to our milestones, we're down to 12 open issues. At the current rate, I think we're approximately on track to complete most or all in the next week or two. That lines up nicely with the publishing moratorium.
… the major work has been around a couple of the finer points. There's a bunch of editorial changes coming through. No major frontiers of work going on at present. We're on track.

kcoyle: Is the doc in shape for people to start reviewing it? we haven't seen it in a while.
… how do we want to do that? email?

ncar: please wait until another couple of meetings, so we can handle some pull requests addressing issues from Antoine. That should be in about a week and a half.

PWinstanley: Can you outline the QSA issues?

ncar: the issues about the relevance have been long resolved. Another issue is that with conneg, there is always one clear way to do something. Because of the flexibility of the QSA realization, there are multiple ways of doing it. Instead of using the word profile, it could be something else, like view. We need a higher order function to tell users how it works. This could be relevant in other realizations as well.
… we've always known this higher-order function would be relevant. There always has to be a default response from the server that tells you how it works. Using QSA, we can have the http fallback for this. There is another way of doing it, too.

PWinstanley: timetabling of the next PWD. Are we looking at the last week of the month or so?

ncar: by the 15th, the subgroup plans to ask for review. Assuming it's okay, we could request it the week after that.

PWinstanley: we need time to put out a poll, to deal with holidays. It's unlikely we'll have sufficient numbers to vote at the plenary.

ncar: if we hand over our draft by the 15th or so, it will come down to the chairs as to when the poll should go out.

PWinstanley: anything else to discuss?

PWinstanley: thanks all