See also: IRC log
<noah> scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
<noah> scribenick: noah
VQ: notes that attendance is limited
... suggests we have a short telcon with the five of us who are on the call
... need to ramp up ASAP in anticipation of Sept. F2F
The agenda is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/08/23-agenda.html
VQ: Regrets for next week?
Noah: at risk for next week
VQ: Roy, can you scribe? next week?
Noah: Please let Dan know he's not needed for scribing next week
VQ: will do
VQ: Dave Orchard was the scribe for 12 July.
Anyone know where the minutes are?
... will try and contact Dave.
HT: Making arrangements for dinner with
principal and dean of college at University.
... need headcount for catering ASAP.
Norm: what day is the dinner?
HT: Tuesday the 20th, the first day of our meeting.
<Norm> For anyone who cares http://norman.walsh.name/2005/itinerary/09-18-tagxsl
David Orchard joins the call.
VQ: Dave, you were scribe for 12 July. Do we have them?
DO: I responded in email.
... Norm sent me a capture and I asked Henry yesterday if he could publish for me.
HT: uh oh...
... missed it. Will do tomorrow morning.
VQ: Would like draft agenda ASAP. Please think about it. Send proposals please.
<dorchard> WS-Addressing would be a good topic
VQ: Any proposals to discuss now?
Norm: would be nice to get closure on namespace issue that Henry and Dave and I have been discussing, and also namespacedoc-8
DO: WS Addressing. I took an action to write up material leading to finding around stateful vs. stateless services. The two might be related. Hoping for progress soon.
Noah: suggest we keep in mind schemeProtocols-49. Given feedback I got in June, I don't think we yet have a sense of whether TAG members think this issue is a good use of time. Sooner or later we'll have to either up the priority or drop it. For now, I'd leave it off the F2F agenda, maybe add later.
VQ: will send note to group asking for agenda items.
Scribe notes that Vincent's action is recorded below in the "Grid" section because we forgot to start rrsagent.
VQ: should we find another date for discussions of Grid? If so when?
Norm: before or after F2F? That leaves 3 possibilities.
VQ: Right, and notice for next week is short.
Norm: day after US Labor Day may be risky
VQ: Aim for the 13th?
Noah: will we have time for grid and pre-F2F planning?
VQ: well, we're expecting at least 2 experts,
... 45 mins would be tight
RF: it's fine
Norm: seems fine. We could use as little as 1/2 hour for last minute f2f planning, rest for grid.
Noah: sounds good
VQ: confirmed. We'll invite the experts. Need some help from Noah getting Jay.
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent to contact grid experts for 13 Sept. Telcon. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/23-tagmem-irc]
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent Quint to prepare first draft of F2F agenda for 30 August telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/23-tagmem-irc]
Norm to scribe while Noah gives update on 2717bis/2718bis (http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt).
<scribe> scribenick: Norm
Concern about discouraging things like the DAV scheme with only a single protocol
Noah: Draft says, "new schemes should have
general utility" and such
... Basically: the overall drafts are pretty good, they kind of hint at the issue but they don't hit it very hard
... Question: do any of us want to write back and say "you could make this point a little more storngly" explaining the history &c, and webarch has good practice and deeper explanation
... I don't have a strong feeling, but that's as far as I got
RF: I've been following it, but not since the
most recent release of it
... I'm sure advice to the effect of "please insert something to the effect of never do what dav did again" will go over well
... at the time we advised them against it, and made a lot of noise, and they still went ahead and did it
<scribe> scribenick: noah
RF: they might be receptive to suggestions that
doing things like 'dav' should be more strongly discouraged
... some of the history was that this was done before xml namespaces were fully baked.
... suspect most authors of WebDav know this was a bad approach
DO: Now they'd use XML namespaces?
RF: it had nothing to do with reluctance to use http: in principle. They wanted something that would operate whether or not namespaces were approved.
Noah: who if anyone should comment on behalf of the TAG or otherwise?
VQ: several people on TAG seem interested. If it's OK per IETF procedures, we could respond as the TAG.
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to draft text for review by the TAG on discouraging proliferation of schemes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/23-tagmem-irc]
Noah: points out that the drafts seem to take a
position pretty close to: a scheme name is associated with a particular
protocol and a specific set of operatoins.
... I myself don't feel well enough informed to pursue this, but suggest other concerned tag members take a look.
RF: I'll take a look when I get back next week.
VQ: Norm, I've seen your responses on selected
... I've seen 4 actions you claim to close, and am making the pertinent changes on the pending actions list
Norm: I'll try and get to my others soon
Noah: suggest you change my action on
schemeProtocols-49 from "do a new draft" to "figure out what to do next"
... also, need email input from tag members on whether you think there's a good core issue in which we should continue to invest, or whether we should put this one down
VQ: We are adjourned unti next week