[foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft
henry.story at bblfish.net
Thu Dec 16 10:48:30 CET 2010
On 16 Dec 2010, at 00:17, peter williams wrote:
> "1.2 Out of Scope
> Making the protocol complex by attempting to solve all problems. "
> Enumerate the classes of things that are out of scope: e.g.
> Interoperability considerations with operational or historical https
Not sure. Don't see why one should put that out of scope.
> Worrying about the implications for export grade ciphers
Did not even think about that.
> Mappings onto API frameworks
People mean so many different things by API frameworks, that this is a bit dangerous.
> Tracking IETF TLS I-Ds (focus only on RFCs)
> Consideration of must/should/ topics, for such as FOAF document notations
I think that could be in scope. But I am not sure what you mean.
> Applicability Statements
> Coherency analyses with web architecture
No I think we might do that.
> The above are not hard to formulate. They are basically what IETF/IESG does
> for a standards track efforts, that we don't do in an incubation exercise.
I think it is better left vague what is out of scope. An XG is a very light weight
process, and I think we all pretty much understand here where we want to go. So
out of scope will be pretty much anything that sidetracks us from getting there.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Henry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:18 PM
> To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft
> So I tried to apply the suggestions put forward by everyone on this list.
> Here they are.
> With github changes here
> As previously, Feedback is welcome.
> We can then start the process tomorrow hopefully.
> Social Web Architect
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Social Web Architect
More information about the foaf-protocols