See also: IRC log
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0025.html
<Stuart> scribenick: DanC
RESOLUTION: to approve http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-tagmem-minutes
<timbl> Ac meeting ....
<timbl> ... Internet properties?
PROPOSED: to meet again Mon, 2 Apr
RESOLUTION: to meet again Mon, 2 Apr, TVR to scribe
SKW: note focus next week is XMLVersioning-41 , then passwordsInTheClear-52 16 Apr
<scribe> ACTION: HST to circulate a candidate description to firstname.lastname@example.org [to frame a distinct topic/issue on CURIE] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/26-tagmem-irc]
HT: by way of progress, I have been in communication with the editor [of the curie spec]
DanC: I prefer www-tag
ht: that might slow me down a bit, but ok
HT: two things about this document get me stuck:
HT: (1) the parts don't fit together well... the part I wrote and the part Dave wrote
... (2) reasons people do these myIRI things [?]
... I'm getting conflicting feedback: (a) there are too many little details (b) it doesn't make the opposition's case credible enough
... we might ask "who is this section for"? it has too much for the already-convinced, and not enough to convince others
HT: So do we want a simple overview such as this [section 2] attempted to do? and then: are sections 3 to 5 enough to answer "so, OK, I'm convinced; what do I do?"
SKW: I just read the document today, and I find section 2 pretty good, though I have a lot of detailed comments scribbled on it
... I wonder about persistence...
SKW: do people seek a persistent binding between a URI and a particular representation? or between a URI and a resource?
HT: coming back to this document, I'm a bit more comfortable with it; I find the ARK paper really helpful, but it's [N] pages of dense PDF, so we shouldn't be surprised that the few pages of HTML we've done don't cover everything
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask are we closer to the start or the end on this one?
HT: perhaps citing the ark paper to provide a detailed case study will do it
NM: I have some detailed comments, but I wonder... is this document working at a big-picture level? does it facilitate dialog with people exploring this issue?
HT: I have been re-energised to work on this doc., and provided the group is happy with the overall thrust, then I'm ready to accept detailed input
<noah> Recently, however, a number of proposals have emerged to create new identification mechanisms for the Web. They propose new URN (sub-)namespaces or URI schemes and provide registries for instances thereof, in order to allow them to be used to identify and retrieve information resources. This would appear to be incompatible with [AWWW]'s simple positive recommendations. In this finding we enumerate the arguments given in favor of these new proposals, which ofte
<noah> point the way constructively to alternative designs which do in fact make use of http: URIs.
<timbl> sentence ike [mised]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that the big picture should be evident in boxes etc, and to suggest a round-the-table straw-poll
DanC: I'm pretty thumbs-up; time to start polishing
NM: I'm in the middle; I'd like to validate it with more interactions a la the HCLSIG
+1 gather experimental evidence
NDW: I'm inclined to do a detailed review.
... I mostly like it, as I recall
(Rhys, when did you read it? I'm curious)
Rhys: I mostly like it; I look forward to another draft
<Rhys> on a flight to new york last week
SKW: I remain to be convinced on some points. [missed some?]
<ht> Note that this draft is 8 months old at this time. . .
TimBL: I hope we're close to finished. I don't expect hard-core developers of naming schemes to be convinced by one document, or even one conference etc.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to answr Staurt's question and to say that basically this persistence is the msapping from the idntifier to the abstract resource, where what you get back
TimBL: re persistence, I think the point here is the binding between a URI and a conceptual thing; the relationship to the representation(s) is separate; see the generic resources finding
SKW: the question is whether that's what others mean by "persistence"
ht: I intend to elaborate on persistence of representations as opposed to identifier/identified
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to point out interested parties
DanC: another interesting audience is people who aren't advocates of myIRIs, but have been asked to endorse myIRIs and are looking for a big picture
<timbl> Well, The LSID people did get, and may still be, very bogged down over the distinction between persistence of the URI->thing maping and the th persistence of a bit string returned.
DaveO: yes, I have had some comments/discussion with people in that position
<scribe> ACTION: SKW to send comments on urnsAndRegistries draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/26-tagmem-irc]
NM: [not sure how to summarize]
TVR: yes, I sent a draft... handed to Dan
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0402.html Doctypes and the dialects of HTML 5 Daniel Schattenkirchner (Friday, 23 March)
DanC: there's a thread in the HTML WG, though I haven't read it; it seems to be relevant
TVR: rather than write this whole thing, I'm inclined to listen to community discussion and summarie in this document
TimBL: I'm interested to enumerate forms of deviation from XHTML in HTML documents.
... I'd rather say "missing / in img element", to phrase it in terms of XHTMl
TVR: I'm not sure that approach is responsive to where the community is just now
DanC: cases that both HTML and XML communities care about: (a) logout markup (b) contact and calendar info ... [a few others; darn; they already leaked out]
NM: the biggest point is centralized vs decentralized extensibility.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask how we generate real value from the XML story
DanC: is there anything architecural about forms? there's a big organizational question about forms; does the TAG want to be part of that organizational equasion?
TVR, NM, Rhys: sorta.
SKW: next steps?
DanC: pause until HTML WG has a ftf meeting, or issues a WD, or something
TVR: yes, let's wait a bit
DanC: I'm not ready to close the IRIEveryWhere-27 issue; I'd like to study the axioms more. Plus, I gather there's XMl Core work on "XML Resource Identifiers" that we should consider before closing this issue
NDW: in particular, spaces are allowed in href="" attributes, but not in IRIs.
... the spec for this has lived in the XLink spec; we were going to factor it out a while ago, but we didn't; now we need to for [xml base?]
... XML Core is aiming for an RFC on XML Resources Indentifiers
<ht> (XRI)rock on => (IRI)rock%20on ==> (URI)rock%20on
<Stuart> wrt http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0008 IRIEverywhere-27 addressed by XQuery and other recent W3C Recommendations?
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to ask TimBL whether XQuery and XML Namespaces 1.1 address IRIEverywhere to his satisfaction, noting Mappings and identity in URIs and IRIs. [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/26-tagmem-irc]
<ht> The IRI spec (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt) specifies the mapping in a very simple way
<ht> "The mapping is also an identity transformation for URIs
<ht> and is idempotent;
Rhys: I've done seme writing; as I'm new, I'm interested in early feedback
HT: I'm interested to take a look
DanC summarizes recent IETF liaison discussion of link relationships in HTML and in Atom, which is related to our issue 51 (standardizedFieldValues)
TimBL: there has been quite a bit of discussion in the US about whether, once party A has paid an ISP to connect to the Internet, and party B has paid an ISP to connect to the Internet, A and B can then communicate, or whether they might have to do further negotiation or pay some other party
... MIT doesn't lobby the U.S. government, but laws aside, there are properties of the Internet that the Web relies on
poll on whether to make this a tag issue and/or discuss at an upcoming W3C Advisory Committee meeting...
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0016.html properties of the Internet as foundation of the Web Tim Berners-Lee (Wednesday, 7 March)
poll... 0, ~1, 1, 1, -1, ...
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to note that e.g. the N.A.T. box problem is anothr example of IP supply