<edit> Date: 6 Nov 2007

<edit> Scribenick: none

<edit> Scribe: groupscribe

XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41) http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/issues/41

<dorchard> tbl: #2. Any extensions in a text of the language should have a well-defined default meaning.

<dorchard> #2. Any extensions in a text of the language should have a well-defined default meaning (which often is that the extension has no meaning and can be ignored)

<dorchard> Any extensions in a text of the language should have a well-defined default meaning (which often is that the extension conveys no information and can be ignored)

<raman> so "text of the language" i.e. it needn't not be well-formed?

<dorchard> #2. Any extensions in a text of the language should have a well-defined default meaning (which often is that the extension conveys no information and can be ignored)

<timbl> I can live with that

<Stuart> All present can live with:#2. Any extensions in a text of the language should have a well-defined default meaning (which often is that the extension conveys no information and can be ignored)

<dorchard> if the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then there is a set of unknown version identifiers that can be treated as if the version identifier was known

<dorchard> #3: if the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then there is a set of unknown version identifiers that can be treated as if the version identifier was known

<timbl> If the texts of teh language cont version identifiers, then for any version version there are a set of future versions whose texts can they were of that version.

<timbl> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then for any version there is a set of future versions whose texts can be treated as though they were of that version.

<timbl> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then for a given version there is a set of future versions whose texts can be treated as though they were of that version.

<dorchard> If the ..., then for a given version there is a set of future version identifiers that can be treated as known version identifiers

<dorchard> If the ..., then for a given version there is a set of future version identifiers that have well-defined default meaning (which is often to allow)

<dorchard> if the..., then for a given version there is a set of future version identifiers that are allowed

<dorchard> if the..., then for a given version there is a set of future version identifiers that are acceptable.

<ht> I'm happy with either of the last two formulations

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then for a given language version there is a set of future version identifiers that are acceptable.

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then for a given language version there is a set of future version identifiers that are compatible

<raman> my reaction as I listen to this conversation is: "what problem are we solving, and how will the world benefit from this discussion"?

<ht> "Version identifiers can signal intended compatibility relationships between versions of an extensible language: "

<raman> Let's actually ask the following questions: "How can we get this document out to the world for wider review and feedback"? and "How can this document help the W3C's various language design woes, starting with the html vs xhtml issue.

<ht> "Version identifiers for use in the texts of a language can signal intended compatibility relationships between versions of an extensible language: "

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then for a given language version there is a set of compatible future versions.

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then for a given language version there is a set of compatible future versions identifiers.

<Stuart> #2. Any extensions in a text of the language should have a well-defined default meaning (which often is that the extension conveys no information and can be ignored)

<Stuart> "if the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then specify a mechanism such that the intended forward compatibility of (future?) version identifiers can be determined inspection/comparison a text's versions identifier."

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then the language defines a set of compatible future versions identifiers.

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then a given language version defines a set of compatible future versions identifiers.

<dorchard> #3: If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then a given language version defines a set of compatible future versions identifiers.

<dorchard> If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then a given language version should define a set of compatible future versions identifiers.

<dorchard> #3: If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then a given language version should contain a set of compatible future versions identifiers.

<dorchard> #3: If the texts of the language contain version identifiers, then a given language version should define a set of compatible future version identifiers.

<dorchard> All present can live with the previous text.

passwordsInTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52) http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/issues/52

<edit> Joint meeting with WSC-WG full meeting record included in WSC minutes at http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-wsc-minutes

<dorchard> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52

<ht> what channel are we on?

<dorchard> argh

<dorchard> I was on #tagmem when I should have switched

<tlr> please join #wsc if you are in the passwordsInTheClear session

<tlr> ACTION: stuart to ask Norm to be point person for passwordsInTheClear-52 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/06-morning-minutes#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-75 - Ask Norm to be point person for passwordsInTheClear-52 [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-11-13].