PLEASE PROOF: [DRAFT] Minutes of the Teleconference, 2014-08-21

[Arms, Caroline]

Rex,

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. 

1.  On Metadata, I think we can say that the consensus was that introducing a specific new part for arbitrary rich metadata would be problematic, but that introducing a new relationship type might be appropriate.  Francis offered to do a test. [ Aside: he then reported on a test to the email list within a day or two of the call.]

2.  On IRIs and WhatWG.  I think it would be fairer to say that it was news to "some" members or that" members on the call have not followed these developments in detail."  Also add a final sentence. " As in Murata-san's current draft, we will use RFCs 3986 and 3987 as the basis for specification of the syntax for part names and for the pack: scheme."

Apologies again for the delay.

   Thanks.    Caroline

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:08 PM
To: SC 34 WG4
Cc: TC45
Subject: PLEASE PROOF: [DRAFT] Minutes of the Teleconference, 2014-08-21

We did not close any DRs.

Rex