See also: IRC log
<timbl> I'm afraid I wil be late .. I'm on a bu boun d for harvard, t Mt Aburn cemettery
<timbl> bus
<timbl> I thought I the garage woudl look at my car, but they kep it.
<timbl> Hi Stuart, sorry i am running late.
<timbl> I miht grab a cab if we pass a suitable poit
<DanC_> stuart doesn't seem too worried
<DanC_> we're trying to scare up Norm too, timbl
<timbl> Did Henry and Noah get there yet?
<timbl> Good
<scribe> Scribe: Rhys
<scribe> ScribeNick: Rhys
<DanC_> we had a little tracker gripe session, which went ok, I think.
<DanC_> try an ETA, timbl?
<timbl> 15 or 40 mins
<timbl> Start witout me
<DanC_> agenda review... need norm for ns8 ...
<timbl> If we stp at Mt Auburn Hospital, I'll hop out and hope they have cabs
<DanC_> DanC invites some tag input to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/nov07 , which can be done with whoever is here
SW: need Dave for xmlversioning-41
... Explains the meeting for this afternoon and that httpRange-14 is topic. 2pm to 4pm
HT: I'll have to timeshare for that
SW: xmlFunctions-34
HT: No new draft
SW: TV has an action against that. Can we have a new due date for that?
TVR: End of november
<DanC_> TVR gives end-of-Nov due date for ACTION-25 on T.V. Raman to summarize history of DTD/namespace/mimetype version practice, including XHTML, SOAP, and XSLT.
SW: Updates Action 25
<DanC_> (tracker RFE: relay updates from the web interface to this channel)
<DanC_> DO, DC request some meeting time to discuss the Weds URI based extensibility panel
<DanC_> SKW: 1, 3, 6
SW: httpRedirections-57 might be subsumed by this afternoon's meeting and Binary XML
<DanC_> DO: somebody has requested to participate by video
SW: We should cover agenda items 1, 3, 6 this morning
<DanC_> several advise against trying to add video to the mix at this late stage
DO: Describes the latest state of the URI extensibility panel for Wednesday.
<Stuart> Tim... do you know when you're are likely to arrive.
<DanC_> know... or can you estimate?
HT: There was also a proposal to give Dan some time on HTML
DO: The summary of feedback was that I could not tell whether or not they had met the bar they set themselves
<DanC_> (I think it was: the bar we set)
DO: I even downloaded different JDKs and ran the test harness on my laptop, and did not see anything particularly interesting
... It was easy to get the harness working, by the way
<DanC_> (yes, always nice when results have been written up to the point that the're reproducible!)
DO: reviews the comments he made in his note to the TAG
NM: Generally like what it says, but it seems like it could be shorter
DC: I thought this too, but when I looked in detail, I couldn't see how
NM: Maybe it just needs a summary at the top
... Some of the comments need to be phrased a little differently.
DO: We can work on that off-line
SW: They produced a lot of data and measurements and seem to have done a good job
DC: The message in Dave's note is an attention getter, and it is out there now. I don't think that redrafting it now is a good use of time
SW: Just on process, should we generally publish drafts on the member list?
NM: It said draft at the top, so I'm less concerned about the fact that it went on the public list
HT: This response follows up the TAG's original concern. We think that EXI will happen, and the question is whether or not W3C needs to try and ensure interoperability
... They have come out with a consensus position, which is that EXI is worth standardising
... My concern has been what this might mean for the future of XML. In the past we've said that we should deal with EXI in the same way as other character encodings. Originally came up in TP 3 years ago
... I originally was persuaded, but more recently have been less happy with this approach. I've looked at other approaches.
... I've looked at the true content-encoding in HTTP. SVG already does this. It describes how to serve compressed SVG.
... But now I don't think either of these is correct. I found 5 approaches in use.
... There are languages with media types. At the other end of the spectrum are general compression techniques, like gzip. These are indicated by content encoding
<DanC_> (HT is clearly reading from something; he will please mail it to us for the record)
HT: There are general purpose content transport languages, like ASN.1 and JSON. They tend to have little presence in the content type space.
... Then there are audio, video, image etc. containers that have content types, like png, jpeg, mp3, mpeg etc.
... Finally I concluded that application-specific content transfer languages, like PDF, MS word, etc. seem to be the right thing
... PDF seems to have the right model. PDF is to PS and EXI is to XML.
... Neither the char set nor the content type are the right model because the are concerned with character sequences, but this is not the relationship that EXI has
... My feeling is that we should welcome this and bless it. We could say that although what you did is not what you said you were going to do but its still useful.
<timbl> "You have done something different from what soem of us thought you were doing"
<Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to say ok, the PDF/postscript analogy makes sense; it suggests a marketing effort for EXI that dominates XML
HT: And as a result, although Dave's analysis is correct, it is not necessarily relevant to the current results
... I conclude that we need a new media type.
DC: The relationship between PDF and PostScript is valid, but will take a marketing effort. PDF displaced PS
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to mention schema-specific encodings.
NM: The EXI proposal had two parts. Certainly the media type covers part of this. But also, there is a schema-aware version. Not convinced that the media type applies to this latter case
... It needs a media type, but that type doesn't encode the XML syntax. This is differnet from the non-schema aware version.
SW: So there are two flavours?
<DanC_> (indeed, the schema out-of-band stuff has a very odd feel to it.)
NM: Yes, one transfers the entire info set, the other optimises the traffic by not doing that.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to mention it seems that the EXI working group seems to assume that their solution will be, for reasons other than performance, better than gzip. So they had to
TBL: Support Henry's analysis. The difference between the two flavours is whether or not it is self describing
<DanC_> (aha! Zakim lost its marbles.)
TBL: The working group felt that gzip had issues because of memory usage. My impression is that they didn't need to show that they had higher performance.
<DanC_> (why is it good enough to be in the ballpark? I'm lost)
TBL: Would like to see a scatter plot comparing performance with gzip
... We thought they needed to show that there was an improvement in performance or compression, but it seems as though they felt that there were other trade-offs where they could show improvements
<ht> Noah, I'm confused by your remarks about the schema-informed stuff: "Schema-informed grammars accept all XML documents and fragments regardless of whether and how closely they match the schema. "
<ht> [from the WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-20070716/#informedGrammars
TVR: The PDF MIME type let's you hand off the content to a PDF processor. So I think that a MIME type of EXI would be the right thing
... That would allow a processor to decompress the XML. The problem then is to work out who gets to process the results of the decompression
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to come back on PDF analogy
TVR: The group decided that they needed something. We run the risk, if we say that they don't need this, that they will create something outside W3C.
HT: Dan pointed out the question of marketing this. I don't think this is any more of a threat to XML than is the semantic web.
<DanC_> (yes, I agree the story-telling tension is similar to the Semantic Web/XML tension.)
HT: Maybe the begining of this is to change the EXI acronym to be (and this isn't my suggestion) the efficient exchange of Infosets
<DanC_> (ah... so EXI is the modern FASL where XML is the modern s-expr?)
HT: It compresses object models, not character streams. It becomes a machine only syntax.
... The difference is that you don't hand-author postscript. However, people will continue to hand-author XML
... Dan is correct, in that we will need to be careful how we position this. I've concluded that it doesn't threaten conventional pointy bracaket XML
... People have argued that if you want to exchange structured data, you are better to create an OWL schema than an XML schema.
... This might be a similar situation.
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to look at .ps vs .pdf wrt big companies.
SW: Summarising, I sense a possible feeling that we may want a more supportive response. I'd like to test that after draining the queue
<DanC_> (I'm not ready for a poll yet; I'm still swimming in options)
DO: The problem I have is that they haven't addressed my concerns. I don't know which constituents are being helped or hindered by this.
... The example of gzip being a problem on memory-constrained devices. Will that go away soon, or not? This kind of concern has not been addressed.
... I'm not yet ready to know where I stand on the issue
... The PS vs PDF issue is a good example. There are vendors who have not accepted PDF. Could we be in the same situation with this?
HT: I'm much happier that we have PDF than if we hadn't
TBL: I'd have been happier if PDF had been, for example, in W3C
<DanC_> (we didn't point out the PDF/ps difference in "the rule of least power?" we should.)
TBL: Sometimes having 2 things can be ok.
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to agree with Dan that the branding and marketing of this thing is crucial to understanding its impact
<dorchard> and would we better to have still angle brackets than angle brackets + binary without "big vendor" support
NM: Expectations and positioning for this are crucial. The amount of stuff that would be affecte by this is orders of magnitude more than for postscript
<DanC_> ... view source. big.
NM: There has been work on optimised versions of XML from one vendor for three different situations. Suggests that one size does not necessarily fit all
... I haven't seen a demonstration of the proposal being able to fit all the scenarios.
... In the web services world commercially, there is a lot of optimisation actually going on right now that might not addressed by EXI
... Henry pointed out that EXI is likely to happen anyway, so we should put our stamp on it. I'm ok with that as long as its positioned that it may work in some kinds of use cases
<DanC_> "they might give you a floppy disk and say 'I did it the new way.'" -- NM
NM: It does affect people's investment, because if people send you this stuff, you have to read it
<DanC_> (let's get that in our blog ^ )
NM: So the suggested name change is crucial, because it's not XML
<Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to test this analogy: s-expr:FASL :: XML:EXI ? and to sympathize with DO's "who is the constituency?" question and to report an initial answer I'm getting: mobile
NM: If it is positioned as another general purpose XML it will be an issue
DC: The constituency is unclear. People have said that mobile was the constituency, but I've not seen evidence. So if we are going to get seriously behind it, we need to understand that.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to protest that HT's suggestion that the sem web - xml relationship is similar ignores a huge diggerence in level
NM: I don't think it solves the majority of use cases, so I would not want to see a big push behind this. If it helps prevent lots of different private compressions, then that's fine but I don't want to promote it until people understand the use cases to which it applies
TBL: The picture that has emerged from Henry is that it is an alternative to XML. What is different is what comes out. Sometimes it is complete, and sometimes it requires context. But it is equivalent to the whole of XML rather than the semantic web
... I can't see the TAG needing to get in the way of this.
<DanC_> (apple plists are headed for sqlite, which is wonderful.)
TBL: The folks involved feel they need it, and as long as they don't misrepresent what it is for.
... Agree about the MIME types
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to say IT IS XML! and to say 1) it is XML; 2) we wouldn't use it for our application of binary; 3) what about non-mobile cases? and to say 1) it is XML; 2) we
<DanC_> (sqlite is wonderful. whether going from plists to SQL I'm ambivalent about)
DO: Henry, you said it was not XML, but it is. It's XML infoset. I feel sure it will be marketed as a replacement for XML. The danger is that there will be a tendency to diss XML
<ht> John Schneider is EXI's example of how your friends can be your worst enemy. . .
DO: Vendors tend to have internal formats used to save having to reparse as material is shipped around internally
... We looked at this and decided that there was no benefit to switching our internal format to EXI.
<ht> HST has always assumed that Mobile is the main client
DO: Are any of the big vendors going to take this up as a replacement. For example, would Adobe switch, would Nokia build this into their phones?
<DanC_> "would nokia build this into their phones?" is a very good question.
NM: We might, but it would probably be for engineering reasons, rather than the interoperability reasons.
... With XML, we do it because of the interoperability. Everyone else does it.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to confirm that I don't know whether this will fly for the WG
HT: There is a real question about what the WG thinks it has achieved. I think that the mobile space is the one they've been eyeing.
... We could frame this as a question to the group. We don't think this is a general purpose replacement for XML. It would be dangerous to promote it as a general archival format. There could be a place for this but not as a general purpose replacement for traditional XML
<Zakim> raman, you wanted to point out that technical merits are very different from what people will use to market a given position --- I'll once again point to the html vs xhtml
DO: I like the general thrust of what Henry says
<dorchard> I like the points that HT is making, and I do think there is tag agreement on that.
<DanC_> (can you write it down, DO?)
TVR: If there is a strong proponent of EXI then we won't be able to control attempts to market it as the alternative to XML. It could become a marketing buzzword fight
<Stuart> q Rhys
RL: I'm not aware of any pressing issues in the mobile space concerned with a need for new ways of compressing XML content on the way to the device
... Typically, mobile networks are doing compression under the covers anyway.
NM: Are there issues of battery life>
RL: I've not heard that, but maybe I'm not talking to the right people
<Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to elaborate on the role of the TAG in the attention marketplace
DC: I'm not sure I heard Raman correctly. Did you say that if it's only a marketing issue we have nothing to say?
TVR: Not quite, just that we might find we don't have influence
DC: I think we can play a role
NM: We can, as the TAG, help W3C position this.
DC: Also TAG members are well respected in the XML world.
... Tim, can you clarify what you said about the process?
TBL: We should not 'prevent' work like this progressing
DC: It is a decision that could be in the TAG space. It's a bet on where we think the technology is heading
<DanC_> ("mostly harmless" ;-)
<DanC_> ("mostly harmless" is my 2-word summary of NM's suggestion here. works for me.)
NM: I think it should come out, and from W3C, but as an interesting spec that supports some subset of use cases. It's around the edges of the stack, and is there for the people who can take advantage of it.
... We need to help people understand that this is not a replacement for XML and doesn't require everyone to have a deserialiser for EXI
SW: What would the impact of this be on XML
<Stuart> acj dorchard
NM: If it became pervasive it might influence how easy or hard future extensions might be
DO: Overall, there is a stack of XML specifications. Maybe its getting to the stage where its no longer possible to roll out point solutions within the stack, because of interactions
<DanC_> (good point; EXI could fit into DSIG that way. hmm.)
DO: Maybe EXI is a kind of canonicalisation, in the example of signing XML.
... So EXI might actually help integration like this.
<Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to think out loud about "mostly harmless"... which suggests closing this issue without further discussion, except perhaps to wish the EXI WG good luck. and to say
NM: So that means that you'd have to freeze the EXI specification to see how well it's going to integrate with the rest of the XML stack
DC: So, a summary of this might be 'mostly harmless'. Dave mentioned EXI and Signature, another approach could be to add a CR criterion to make sure consistency with signature
NM: My understanding is that there is an issue in the space of performance around canonicalisation for signature but that was not even in the EXI use cases
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to say what should the Technical Architecture Group say on this?
DO: We've brought up a number of issues. I don't want to close this with no action. I think we should take a look at the technical proposal and to see how that affects aspects of the architecture of the web
TBL: Concerned that architecture for canonicalisation for signature may be wrong. The approach is based on worries that the signed version will be disrupted in transmission
<dorchard> I think there's a whole aspect of "binary" that result that is very interesting
<dorchard> Maybe have binary through more levels..
TBL: The other approach is to put the signature outside the document, which might solve the canonicalisation problem
NM: I think the issue might be that you have to touch all the bits.
DO: Part of the problem is associated with extensibility and namespaces.
HT: Actually, the problem is that canonicalisation is underspecified. It's not a performance problem. It has been an interoperability problem.
... Canonicalisation has been trying to serve not only checksum creation, but also to be a way to compare XML documents
... You would think that these would be the same. However, people have concluded that it would be better for a canonicalisation not to be constrained to have to produce well formed XML
... People have suggested that EXI might be a better target.
... Also people have suggested that a better approach might be to design something specifically for producing a byte stream for checksum creation
SW: What should our next aciton be? What do people think.
HT: We need to understand more about where the working group is before we can conclude what the best thing to do would be.
SW: Could we return to this on Friday.
<scribe> ACTION: ht to liase with his contact in the EXI working group to get a sense of the group's current feeling [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-morning-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-71 - Liase with his contact in the EXI working group to get a sense of the group's current feeling [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-11-12].
SW: Henry could you summarise where we are?
<ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
HT: We discussed the draft while we were in Southampton. Feeling that it was almost complete, apart from two editorial notes
... First note: Namespaces are namespace documents, and we can return a representation from the ns URI. Other assertions are found by GRDDL/RDDL
... Another position is that the namespace and the document are completely and fundamentally different and so we should use 303
<DanC_> ("217 -- these are not the resources you're looking for" -- SKW)
HT: The third position is that sometimes puns are in everyone's interest and that we will use the same URI for both things
TBL: Agree with Henry that philosophically, the document and the namespace are different, but we are focussing on engineering.
HT: Tim is advocating the pun.
TBL: No, I'm saying that the URI is only the URI of the document.
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to clarify my position on difference between namespace and document
HT: We have a significant collection of published documents that imply that the namespace URI does not reference a document
<timbl> I am not advocating a pun position. I amadvocating the namespace document position, which does not put any of the putative sets of names into the ontology.
NM: I believe that a namespace should be used as an information resource. I also believe that there is an ontological difference between this and the namespace
<DanC_> (this "french press release" story merits a blog article too.)
NM: Consider a press release. I access it and get it in French. I might conclude that the URI is for the press release in French. That might be the case, but it might not. This is the stuff we talked about in the generic resources finding
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to protest that thi style does not apeal to me at all
NM: The namespace URI is similar and we could apply the same approach, so there should be a URI for the generic resource.
DC: Could we use a specific example?
TBL: I want to talk about the namespace question, not the generic resources question.
... We don't have any systems that use the concept of a namespace in their operation
NM: I could create a system today that might want to ask question about the namespace, for example, what is the set of names in the namespaces
TBL: An OWL ontology allows you to get an answer to the question about what names are defined in an ontology. Why do we need another mechanism for namespaces?
SW: There was another use case for namespace documents, concerning other resources associated with the namespace.
... Seems as though there are two use cases here. There seem to be two sorts of characteristics for namespace documents
<Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask for a specific example; can we talk about the usps example? or would somebody suggest another?
DC: Can we pick an example to work on and walk through it?
HT: Let's try the post office example first.
DC: There is a real ontology, and the namespace URI has a # on the end. The one in the draft does not have that.
HT: So does that mean that the RDDL is off?
... I'm not at all sure now that I want to assert that validation is against this document, its the elements and attributes in the namespace.
... There is an implication that we are using the # vs. bare name when we want to distinguish between the document and the namespace
DC: Yes
HT: But the already published namespaces have the 'wrong' URI on this basis.
<ht> s/published namespaces/published XML language namespaces, e.g. http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema,/
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to remind us of the difference between a namespace and a language
TBL: The RDF and XML arch are different. In RDF the ns is used to abbreviate the URIs.
HT: It's not namespaces that give meaning to the names that are defined in the namespace, it's the language.
<DanC_> (indeed; it's _languages_ that relate meaning to syntax, as per versioning discussion.)
<DanC_> (my tiny brain needs it projected)
HT: I think that for a namespace document what you want is references to other documents that contain the defintions for particular language versions, for example
<DanC_> (I think s/a/b/ needs a / at the end)
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to talk about XML and RDF being differnet
s/exmple/example/
NM: I don't think we've quite nailed the difference between the way that RDF and XML use namespaces
... XML ns gets you to a pair. RDF namespaces get you an expansion of a URI
... Maybe need to be careful to distinguish the two cases. One possible issue is that one serialisation of RDF is XML
... Maybe we need to answer the questions twice, once for RDF and once for XML.
... The namespace definion from the XML namespaces document.
<DanC_> (I'm sympathetic to NM's suggestion that separate stories for XML and RDF might be worthwhile.)
HT: I propose to take Noah's proposal away and produce a new draft.
NM: Do we have the cart before the horse.
HT: I don't want to boil that ocean in this document. There will be differences in these two cases.
NM: There is a danger that you will tell the engineering story, and gloss over the interesting architectural question in the introduction
SW: Displays the webarch definition of namespace.
HT: We wrote a finding about this.
<Noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
HT: Reads out the part of section 1 that covers the two perspectives
SW: The question this answered was if you add an element to a namespace should you use a different URI for it.
TBL: W3C has said that you can choose whether or not to use a new URI if you change a namespace
<scribe> ACTION: ht to produce another draft of the namespaces document taking into account the difference between namespace usage in RDF and XML [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-morning-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-72 - Produce another draft of the namespaces document taking into account the difference between namespace usage in RDF and XML [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-11-12].
scribe notes that the due date should be the end of the year.
<ht> ... to state what those two ways are, and to bless both of them in their appropriate spheres
<ht> So the compromise I have in mind to try is to say that we observe that the relationship between a namespace and namespace document may be understood in one of two ways, which in practice line up pretty well with the RDF and XML usages of namespaces
DC: NVDL is becoming increasingly important, so maybe we should do something on Action-16
SW: Action-48: Henry presented an expose of the work on modularisation
DO: I think Henry took an action to talk to schema 1.1 wg
<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/10/25-minutes
<DanC_> ACTION-51 is done, then, yes?
SW: There has been feedback on Dave's document from Noah.
NM: There has been feedback from outside the TAG. We need to look at it.
DO: I could incorporate Noah's comments by Friday.
SW: How far did Noah get through the document?
NM: I got through most of the sections where Dave had made the main changes.
DC: I won't be there and would want to be there for this.
SW: We have the room for tomorrow morning.
Discussion about when to discuss this.
SW: 10:30 tomorrow morning
<DanC_> Tue, Nov 6 10:30am for versioning is in my calednar
RL: Have to give regrets for that session, have committments to MWI BP
SW: So we'll come back to this at 10:30 tomorrow.
Discussion about why there were no actions from the October 25th meeting on the modularisation work that Henry has done
HT: It sounds as though the XHTML 2 WG has the ball on this. I need to discuss this with Steven to judge the level of interest
SW: The modularisation has not been published yet has it?
HT: No, because I'm not sure what form it shoud be in.
<scribe> ACTION: ht to contact the XHTML 2 WG about the fact that the TAG has been experimenting with modularisation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-morning-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-73 - Contact the XHTML 2 WG about the fact that the TAG has been experimenting with modularisation [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-11-12].
<DanC_> (I'm happy for this subgroup to start, provided (a) Alan is among the leads/chairs, and (b) TimBL can recruit another TAG member to participate. I'm not available, as much as I'd love to play.)
TBL: Maybe we should document what HTTP does, to try and provide a crisper definition for the semweb community.
... The HTTP-bis group is starting up to document behaviour. Also some people would like to reinstate the link header
... Could be dangers of incompatibility if we had different groups working in this area.
<DanC_> (-1 XG; XGs are for stuff that doesn't involve staff coordination.)
TBL: Would be good to discuss an appropriate way forward. Perhaps we could coopt people. Might be done in the sem web activity, perhaps as an XG or in the interest group.
SW: What is their main interest?
TBL: In terms of the interpretation of response messages, the only thing that could be used to infer interesting information is the response code.
... telling the story that for a given method the response contains particular things that can be used in specific ways for RDF
... There will be things that apply to multiple methods
SW: Do you see this as as document of some kind?
TBL: Depends on where it is done. Could end up being a note for a WG or a TAG finding.
SW: So would that be something normative
... The impression I get from sem web is that they are looking for something with normative force.
TBL: I'm a bit sceptical about basing any description on an ontology. I suspect that we'll end up explaining most of it in English
... Also interesting that 303 was introduced for POST
<Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to re-iterate that WAI ERT has work in this area, and to note my own work in the area http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/178
NM: Sometimes, Roy has noted a draft update to HTTP. Is there something coming
DC: I've been modelling HTTP in RDF for a long time. Long term interest, but I don't have time to participate
Discussion about what the forum for work on this sort of thing should be
TBL: How far did you get modelling this (HTTP caching)
DC: I wrote a talk on this. Shows a formal definition in Larch for the caching model
<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i70
SW: Suggestion from Dan about leadership and some activity.
<DanC_> (I'm willing to take an action to talk to jonathan reese (sp?) about this)
TBL: Were the tech and society domain decide to pursue this, who else in the TAG would be interested in this?
<DanC_> (toe-in-the-water from SKW works for me)
SW: I would be interested in theory, but have to check commitments
<DanC_> trackbot-ng, status
NM: I'm wondering about this, but I'd have a lot to learn and I'm not convinced about the overall benefit
<DanC_> ACTION: Stuart to explore TAG liason role to Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-morning-minutes.html#action04]
<DanC_> ppht
<DanC_> ACTION: Stuart explore TAG liason role to Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-morning-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-74 - Explore TAG liason role to Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-11-12].