See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0007
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0011
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2007/12/12-er-minutes#item04
saz: alternatives: 1. drop whole DOM-in-RDF for now, 2. do it completely, 3. find easier solution
cv: drop it, because ...
... too much work, EARL is more important now
ci: postpone, maybe play around with an easier version
jk: it's not really needed now, DOM can be serialized into XML, the use XMLContent
saz: postpone until EARL is finished
RESOLUTION: don't include DOM into "Content-in-RDF"
jk: what about the "Representing content ..." "title?
saz: we need some more prose before we ask EO
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0008.html
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Nov/att-0013/WD-Content-in-RDF-20071107.xhtml
saz: January: WCAG2 review
... plan a F2F (polish documents before publication)
ci: F2F at FIT?
saz: next phone meeting Jan 9th 2008
<shadi> HTTP-in-RDF -> editorial work by SAZ
<shadi> EARL 1.0 Schema -> updated draft by SAZ
<shadi> Content-in-RDF -> editorial work by CV
<shadi> Pointers -> updated draft by CI
<CarlosI> guide?
cv: HTTP-in-RDF depends on Content-in-RDF
<shadi> EARL 1.0 Guide -> updated draft by CV & JK & SAZ
hmm
ci: hopefully I can continue work on pointers in January
<shadi> 9th January -> review "Content-in-RDF"
<shadi> 9th January -> WCAG 2.0 review
saz: only the guideline doc itself, this one is
in last call
... and the conformance section in the "Understanding" doc
(which is not in last call)
<shadi> ACTION: CV send updated "Content-in-RDF" to the mailing list before 9 january telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-er-minutes.html#action01]
<shadi> ACTION: SAZ send updated "EARL 1.0 Schema" to the mailing list by 14 january [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-er-minutes.html#action02]
saz: cannot attend Jan 16th
... other participants may meet on Jan 16th
... F2F proposed date Feb 21/22?
Feb 20/21
saz: confirm F2F date in Jan 9th phone call
... we could publish a (non-LC) draft end of January
cv: are we planning to put HTTP-in-RDF on REC track?
saz: a bit more work (e.g. implementations)
... ideally each feature must be implemented in two independent
implementations
jk: do we need a publicly available reference implementation?
saz: no, we have to document that a feature is
implementated in two implementations
... when we move EARL to CR we need EARL implementations, maybe we can then
move HTTP-in-RDF to REC track