See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
PROPOSED: to meet 2 May, NDW to scribe. at risk: DO
RESOLUTION: to meet 2 May, NDW to scribe. regrets DO
<DanC_> minutes 18 Apr
VQ observes "DRAFT" at top and diagnostics at the bottom
RESOLUTION: to approve minutes 18 Apr
VQ: agenda adjustments?
DC: June ftf... at the end?
VQ: after Vancouver ftf discussion
<noah> Oct 4 and 5 is OK for me in Vancouver
PROPOSED: to meet in Vancouver 4-5 Oct 2006
DO: price update: opus hotel looks like 229 CAD, around USD 200. looks like I can get a meeting room in that hotel
VQ: can you send me details? DO: yes, I've got all the hosting details on a page that I'll send presently
RESOLUTION: to meet in Vancouver Wed/Thu 4-5 Oct 2006
TBL: so that's 2 days...? VQ: yes, 2 days.
DanC: hmm... security workshop follow-up... perhaps invite some security experts from the BOS/MIT area?
NDW: I can accomodate a few
NM: an expert from MIT with practical experience sounds interesting
VQ: more on this later in the
... the preparation for the AC meeting seems to have converged, after some punctuated discussion
... moderator and panelists seem to be pretty much all set
... one more admin item... quarterly update... I'll draft something, tomorrow, I hope...
... then I'll send it out after a couple days of collecting comments from tag
VQ: hmm... this agendum was requested by TV...
<scribe> ACTION: TVR, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: summarize history of DTD/namespace/mimetype version practice, including XHTML, SOAP, and XSLT [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<timbl> my action 27 Feb
<scribe> ACTION: TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point, i.e. XML extensbility: Possible only with a framework providing some form of semantics [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
point being: that extensibility with a framework such as CDF makes sense, but extensibilXML extensbility: Possible only with a framework providing some form of semanticsy in general does not. [?]
<ht> http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri is in an odd state
<ht> it says "A new version of this document is available. "
TBL: one comment was that "Namespace Changes over Time" doesn't make sense
<noah> From the finding: "Colloquially, we often speak of “adding a name” to a namespace. Here we prefer to speak of “defining a name” or otherwise licensing the interpretation of a name."
NM: section 4 could cite the
finding more locally
... section 4 i.e. http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri#Policy
<noah> Suggestion (rough not exact): a) leave title of section 4 b) In that section, say something like "The TAG finding 'The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace' explains how the use of a particular namespace may evolve over time. At the W3C, it is important for a group to state clearly its expectations for how namespaces it controls will..."
<noah> ...and the continue with the text already in the doc, edited if necessary.
<noah> In that section, say something like "The TAG finding 'The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace' explains how the use of a particular namespace may evolve over time. At the W3C, it is important for a group to state clearly its expectations for how use of the namespaces it controls will..."
<noah> Dan if you commit this, you'll need to create a hyperlink for the TAG finding.
<Vincent> Hi Ian
<Ian> I was pinged on the topic of nsuri...
<Ian> I heard:
<Vincent> Dan is updating the nsuri document to add a reference to the TAG finding in section 4.
<Ian> 1) TAG ok with http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri
<Ian> 2) Add a ref
<Ian> +1 to adding ref.
<Ian> The document has already been announced as "en vigeur" to the chairs.
<DanC_> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri#Policy 1.52
<Ian> Bjoern had expressed some concerns.
<Ian> Would you like to see them?
<timbl> Ian, would you like to join the call for a bit?
Ian, wanna dial in? or not bother?
<DanC_> http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri v 1.63 2006/04/25 17:54:40 is obsolete
<noah> Responding to Dan's request that I hatch yet a bit more text:
<noah> The draft currently says:
<noah> Groups SHOULD document those expectations in [or clearly linked from] the Namespace Document.
<noah> How about putting after that: "Draft TAG Finding Associating Resources with Namespaces provides additional guidance on the creation of such namespace documents."
<DanC_> bumper sticker from finding: "Specifications that define namespaces SHOULD explicitly state their policy with respect to changes in the names defined in that namespace."
HT: not sure about "this specification" indexical in the examples..
<ht> "The definitions of names in this namespace will not change from those given in the June 13 2007 version of the Foonly spec [ref. dated URI]"
<DanC_> yes, that's an improvement to example 1, HT
<ht> ... "Subsequent versions of thte Foonly spec which make any substantive changes will do so in a new namespace"
<timbl> For example, the namespace document could contain text along the following lines.
<DanC_> 1.53 $ of $Date: 2006/04/25 18:05:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri
<DanC_> 1.54 $ of $Date: 2006/04/25 18:08:34
<DanC_> Ian, 1.54 is it. pls let Bjoern know.
<Ian> Would you think that your changes will satisfy him?
<Ian> (He'll let us know, certainly)
<DanC_> I do hope these changes address his comment
<Ian> Ok, thank you.
<scribe> ACTION: TBL to accepted on 8 Mar 2005, provide a draft of new namespace policy doc (http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri). in progress. tbl would like to confirm with Ian that there's nothing pending on Ian's side [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
RESOLUTION: that http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html and http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri 1.54 address namespaceState-48
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to announce that the TAG has resolved namespaceState-48 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
VQ: I'll update our report to the AC to show we've closed another one
<DanC_> draft state finding
DO: Ed did a thorough review; I
think I addressed his comments...
... I reorganized some stuff, moving some stuff before examples so that I could refer to it in discussion of pros/cons
(is this changelog in email somehwere? or do I need to record it?)
DO: I compared/constrasted
approaches to getStockQuote a bit...
... I have considerable comments from Baker and Nottingham; haven't started addressing those yet
... I'd like to talk about this 9 May; I'm not avaiable 16 nor 23 May
NM: I see an opportunity to reduce the text in the early sections quite a bit
DO: yes, I can imagine a shorter "letter" given longer time
TBL: I like abstracts that make the relevant points in one paragraph
<DanC_> (I think that's a high bar; I raraly meet it myself.)
<noah> +1 to Tim's comment.
TBL: is this a summary? There are
several types of app ... state... client... server...
... cookies is an example of the 1st; @@ is an example of the 2nd; $ZZZ is always bad
<DanC_> (I'm not asking for less text, btw. I haven't read it closely enough to judge whether there's a lot of redundancy. I'm asking for the thesis statement(s) to be highlighted)
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to review draft state finding for 9 May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
<timbl> (Dave, a two-level essay: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/Japan/Lecture.html )
VQ: and I suppose Ed is another reviewer
DanC: (a) community service work
on passwords in the clear...
... (b) specific investigation of decentralized auth ala OpenID/SXIP
... anybody interested to spend time on this in the June ftf meeting? a few: yes.