IRC log of tagmem on 2002-07-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:35:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:35:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:42:48 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:43:45 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: TAG teleconf:
18:46:14 [Norm]
yvw. My craving for power and world domination is so easily satisfied
18:46:16 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #tagmem
18:46:43 [Norm]
Hi DanCon
18:47:14 [Norm]
Heh. He's faking it pretty well
18:48:38 [DanCon]
I'm investigating tools... dia, maybe
18:50:24 [DanCon]
Norm, take a look at:
18:55:37 [Norm]
18:56:03 [Norm]
zakim, list conferences
18:56:04 [Zakim]
I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM, PP_PPWG()11:30AM
18:56:07 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
18:56:08 [Norm]
zakim, this is tag_weekly
18:56:09 [Zakim]
ok, Norm
18:56:13 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
18:56:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm_Walsh
18:56:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stuart, DanCon, Norm, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, TimBL
18:56:21 [Norm]
zakim, Norm_Walsh is Norm
18:56:22 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
18:56:24 [Stuart]
Just Dialing
18:56:28 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
18:56:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm
18:56:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stuart, DanCon, Norm, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, TimBL
18:56:45 [Zakim]
18:57:12 [Zakim]
18:57:23 [Ian]
zakim, P2 is Stuart
18:57:24 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'P2'
18:57:28 [Ian]
zakim, ??P2 is Stuart
18:57:29 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:01:21 [Zakim]
19:01:37 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:02:12 [Zakim]
19:02:30 [TBray]
er what does it say this one's called?
19:02:33 [Ian]
zakim, ??P4 is TBray
19:02:34 [Zakim]
+TBray; got it
19:02:51 [Zakim]
19:03:30 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:03:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Stuart, DanC, TBray, ChrisL
19:03:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Stuart, DanCon, Norm, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, TimBL
19:04:17 [Ian]
Confirm scribe: IJ
19:04:24 [Ian]
zakim, mute ChrisL
19:04:25 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
19:04:35 [Ian]
zakim, unmute ChrisL
19:04:36 [Zakim]
ChrisL was not muted, Ian
19:04:40 [Ian]
zakim, mute DanC
19:04:41 [Zakim]
DanC should now be muted
19:04:47 [Norm]
zakim, mute stuart
19:04:48 [Ian]
zakim, unmute DanC
19:04:48 [Zakim]
Stuart should now be muted
19:04:49 [Zakim]
DanC should no longer be muted
19:04:55 [Norm]
zakim, mute tbray
19:04:55 [Zakim]
TBray should now be muted
19:05:10 [Norm]
zakim, unmute tbray
19:05:11 [Zakim]
TBray should no longer be muted
19:05:13 [Ian]
zakim, mute Ian
19:05:14 [Zakim]
Ian should now be muted
19:05:15 [TBray]
sounds kinda cool
19:05:17 [Stuart]
zakim, unmute me
19:05:17 [Norm]
zakim, unmute stuart
19:05:19 [Zakim]
Stuart should no longer be muted
19:05:19 [Zakim]
Stuart should no longer be muted
19:05:24 [Ian]
zakim, unmute me
19:05:25 [Zakim]
Ian should no longer be muted
19:05:44 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
19:05:45 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
19:05:53 [Ian]
Norm is the man.
19:05:58 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
19:06:00 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
19:07:16 [PaulC]
PaulC has joined #tagmem
19:07:38 [Zakim]
19:08:00 [Zakim]
19:08:02 [TBray]
our telecom provider just went into Chapter 11 :)
19:08:16 [Ian]
zakim, ??P4 is TBray
19:08:17 [DanCon]
why is my action " 1. ACTION DC 2002/06/17: Talk to XML Schema WG" still on the agenda?
19:08:17 [Zakim]
+TBray; got it
19:08:26 [Zakim]
19:08:27 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:09:16 [TBray]
zakim, ??P5 is PaulC
19:09:17 [Ian]
Roll: Missing DO, RF. Regrets from TBL.
19:09:17 [Zakim]
+PaulC; got it
19:09:24 [Ian]
Agenda changes?
19:09:49 [Ian]
19:10:01 [Ian]
Next meeting: 15 July. No regrets.
19:10:14 [Ian]
Accept 1 July minutes:
19:10:34 [Ian]
CL: Regrets for 15 July.
19:11:05 [Norm]
zakim, mute me
19:11:06 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
19:11:07 [TBray]
zakim, mute me
19:11:09 [Zakim]
TBray should now be muted
19:11:15 [Ian]
Topic of quorum for making decisions.
19:11:20 [Norm]
zakim, mute chrisl
19:11:21 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
19:11:32 [Norm]
Chris: note that I muted you to get rid of echo!
19:11:35 [Ian]
SW: We have no chartered quorum policy. I'd be willing to regard 1 July meeting as a real meeting.
19:11:41 [Chris]
wondering about the widespread muting
19:11:52 [Norm]
Chris: bad echo
19:11:58 [Ian]
SW: Therefore, in light of that I would declare last week's meeting as a real meeting.
19:11:59 [Chris]
well, please stop it
19:12:06 [Chris]
I object to being silenced
19:12:13 [Ian]
TB: I would support that, given our mature group of participants.
19:12:14 [Norm]
zakim, unumte chrisl
19:12:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unumte chrisl', Norm. Try /msg Zakim help
19:12:18 [Norm]
no offense intended
19:12:28 [Norm]
zakim, unmute chrisl
19:12:30 [Zakim]
ChrisL should no longer be muted
19:12:34 [Ian]
SW notes no dissent among those present that last week's meeting was a real meeting.
19:12:54 [Ian]
DC: Therefore, 1 July minutes ok with me.
19:13:09 [Chris]
I am happily muting and unmuting myself, as needed, but object to attending if when i speak, no-one can hear me
19:13:10 [Ian]
Resolved: 1 July minutes accepted.
19:13:23 [Ian]
Accept summary of TAG activity in June?
19:13:26 [Chris]
especially since we just decided there is no quorum rule ;-)
19:13:29 [Ian]
19:13:33 [Ian]
Resolved: Summary ok.
19:13:36 [Ian]
Action IJ: Send to AC.
19:13:57 [Ian]
Confirmed completed actions.
19:13:59 [Ian]
19:14:04 [Ian]
Quorum rules?
19:14:12 [Norm]
zakim, unmute me
19:14:14 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
19:14:22 [Ian]
SW: I hope we can avoid this. I think it relies on trust and willingness to review decisions.
19:14:27 [Ian]
DC: I'm happy to leave this decision to the chairs.
19:14:34 [TBray]
agreed - don't write rules
19:14:36 [Ian]
PC: We need to do a good job at predicting our availability.
19:14:59 [Ian]
CL: I agree with PC; send regrets well in advance (e.g., as we do at beginning of our meeting)
19:15:33 [Chris]
at the beginning of the meeting *for the next weeks meeting* that is ....
19:15:48 [Ian]
SW: Conclusion: Apply common sense to notions of quorum. We should give DO an opportunity to comment as he raised the question.
19:15:53 [Ian]
19:15:56 [DanCon]
(or even 2 weeks in advance (for regrets). shudder)
19:16:00 [Ian]
Prioritizaton of issues.
19:16:42 [Ian]
SW: Moved httpRange-14 to top since important to moving forward in consensus.
19:16:44 [PaulC]
19:16:59 [DanCon]
isn't 14 assigned to timbl? oops; I guess not. "Assigned to None"
19:17:07 [Ian]
CL: I think we should try to make progress on formats issues, so we can advance on arch document in that section.
19:17:22 [TBray]
zakim, mute me
19:17:23 [Zakim]
TBray should now be muted
19:17:24 [Ian]
SW: Three areas:
19:17:28 [Ian]
1) Resources and ids
19:17:32 [Ian]
2) Namespaces and languages
19:17:35 [Ian]
3) Miscellaneous
19:17:57 [TBray]
zakim, unmute me
19:17:59 [Zakim]
TBray should no longer be muted
19:18:24 [Ian]
TB: Some are easier than others (e.g., formatting issues). Everything else is pretty tough. I see nothing on our issues list than making progress on the arch document.
19:18:34 [PaulC]
Stuart, can you see the queue?
19:18:41 [Ian]
TB: Want to ensure that it continues to be on our technical agenda.
19:18:44 [DanCon]
is anybody taking the editor role in the www-tag discussions? saying "er... interesting point, but how should we change the document as a result"?
19:19:01 [Ian]
ack PaulC
19:19:03 [Stuart]
19:19:28 [Ian]
PC: When are we going to publish the arch doc in a more formal sense?
19:20:27 [Ian]
TB: No sense that we have to finish open issues before we publish as WD.
19:21:50 [Chris]
I believe so yes, Dan
19:22:08 [TBray]
I think we're under 1.10, prioritization of issues
19:22:19 [DanCon]
19:22:38 [Ian]
PC: I think we should have public draft available to AC before November AC meeting.
19:23:16 [Ian]
PC: I thought some had in our mind that we expected to publish this as a WD by end of summer (North America) .
19:23:24 [DanCon]
wow... summer is ending? I think of end of August as end of summer
19:24:32 [Ian]
TB: Important to publish, even if document pared-down substantially.
19:24:56 [Ian]
SW: At our ftf meeting in September, we should do a substantial review at that meeting, in order to publish as a WD after that.
19:25:05 [Ian]
PC: That's too late. I want to publish twice between now and November.
19:26:29 [Ian]
PC: I propose to aim to have a public WD for early September.
19:28:57 [Ian]
IJ: I have other commitments and go on vacation mid August.
19:29:02 [Ian]
DC: I think we have enough to go with today.
19:29:22 [Ian]
TB: I think doc needs fleshed out more before we publish with WD label.
19:29:38 [Norm]
I plan to be in Cambridge on 18 July for a f2f with Ian and I'll plan to shake loose some cycles to work on the document
19:30:09 [Chris]
Yes, aiming for a big improvement over three weeks sound sgood
19:30:11 [Ian]
Set goal of 30 August for first WD.
19:30:25 [Ian]
Action IJ: Research whether publishing moratorium in August.
19:32:07 [Ian]
Summary: Aim for publishing as a WD early-to-mid August. Drop dead date of 30 August.
19:32:43 [Ian]
19:33:03 [Ian]
1. Architecture document
19:34:16 [Ian]
1. ACTION IJ 2002/03/18: Integrate/combine one-page summaries (Revised 1 July)
19:34:21 [Ian]
IJ: I Integrated DO comments.
19:35:02 [Ian]
TB: Not aware of other pieces.
19:35:06 [Ian]
Action closed.
19:35:27 [Ian]
TB: Section 1.1
19:35:32 [Ian]
URI Schemes.
19:35:38 [Chris]
can anyone hear me when I speak?
19:35:52 [Ian]
TB: What do we do to make 1.1 work?
19:35:54 [TBray]
can't hear
19:35:58 [Stuart]
19:36:05 [Chris]
hmm 60# 61# seems to be broken
19:36:19 [Ian]
TB: Some of the things in the list under schemes are duplicates.
19:36:34 [Ian]
TB: Bullet one would apply to all URIs if we took RF's wording.
19:37:14 [Chris]
19:37:20 [Ian]
TB: Are other people happy with 1.1?
19:37:35 [Ian]
DC: I think the list is interesting, but I'm not satisfied that it works.
19:37:47 [Stuart]
19:37:51 [Ian]
ack Chris
19:38:20 [Ian]
CL: Not sure what I would write in Section 2...
19:38:39 [Ian]
CL: Section 2 is the big bleeding piece for me.
19:39:09 [Ian]
TB: I think the meat is in section 2. All it needs is to invest time to wrap text around each issue.
19:39:15 [Ian]
..seems mostly editorial.
19:39:42 [TBray]
zakim, mute me
19:39:43 [Zakim]
TBray should now be muted
19:39:51 [Ian]
DC: One principle I've heard about formats is to separate presentation from structure is an arch principle as well.
19:40:15 [TBray]
zakim, unmute me
19:40:17 [Zakim]
TBray should no longer be muted
19:40:45 [Ian]
TB: You could build short sections for 2, as done for current 1.4.1.
19:40:51 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:41:03 [Ian]
TB: I think we have consensus on format properties as well.
19:41:21 [Ian]
CL: You can put a list of alternatives around issues as well.
19:41:33 [Norm]
Hakon replied to fp19 but it got lost in my spam trap. I need at least to reply to that msg
19:41:52 [Ian]
CL: I can write up some text for section 2.
19:42:01 [Stuart]
19:42:20 [Ian]
19:42:32 [Chris]
confirmed, deadline is 30 July
19:42:35 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to mention 1.1 scheme-agnostic.
19:42:50 [Ian]
SW: What about a table of schemes and properties?
19:43:21 [Chris]
19:43:36 [Ian]
SW: Section 1.1.1 is about persistence, also a property in the table. Should we have prose for each of the properties we identified?
19:43:38 [TBray]
dave you there?
19:43:52 [Chris]
DaveO is on irc it says here
19:43:56 [Stuart]
19:44:05 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
19:44:06 [Ian]
19:44:28 [Ian]
Action TB: Propose alternative to 1.1.
19:44:34 [Ian]
Action DC: Propose alternative to 1.1 in parallel.
19:44:37 [Ian]
Action SW: Propose alternative to 1.1 in parallel.
19:44:47 [PaulC]
Paul has to step out for a moment.
19:45:00 [PaulC]
Zakim, mute paulc
19:45:02 [Ian]
19:45:02 [Zakim]
PaulC should now be muted
19:45:07 [Stuart]
19:45:13 [TBray]
19:45:24 [TBray]
chris you on q?
19:45:26 [Chris]
yes i am really on the q
19:45:26 [Ian]
ack Chris
19:45:32 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:45:34 [Ian]
q- DanCon
19:45:39 [Chris]
19:45:52 [Chris]
Stuart, please look at IRC occasionally
19:45:56 [Stuart]
mute Chris
19:46:28 [DaveO]
I'm here, just in a meeting that I can't leave..
19:46:38 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:46:44 [Ian]
IJ: I think scheme properties are a useful entry point for other issues we encounter later on.
19:47:06 [Ian]
CL: I have a problem with 1.1.2 (central registries).
19:47:43 [Ian]
CL: Centralized registries of formatting properties is also useful. As is the W3C /TR page.
19:48:08 [Ian]
DC: /TR is not a centralized registry. It's not necessary for every party who does Web business to consult /TR to continue in life.
19:48:16 [Ian]
DC: /TR is not central to the operation of the Web.
19:48:18 [Stuart]
19:48:32 [Ian]
CL: So what about browsers making up HTML?
19:48:47 [Ian]
TB: There's a qualitative difference between DNS and /TR.
19:48:54 [Ian]
DC: There is a central registry for MIME types.
19:49:16 [Ian]
CL: You don't have to look up IANA registry each time as a user.
19:49:28 [Ian]
TB: But browser developer needs to have hard-coded.
19:49:33 [TBray]
19:49:46 [Ian]
CL: Is the definition "You looked up once in one place" or "You have to look up each time."
19:49:53 [PaulC]
zakim, unmute paulc
19:49:54 [Zakim]
PaulC should no longer be muted
19:50:01 [Ian]
CL: Having single points of failure is something else.
19:50:13 [Stuart]
19:50:21 [Ian]
DC: As written, the text doesn't make the case why central registries are bad.
19:50:28 [Stuart]
ack Ian
19:50:35 [Ian]
DC: There are at least two: URI schemes, list of MIME types.
19:50:47 [Ian]
DC: I would still claim these are exceptions.
19:51:09 [Ian]
CL: Is 1.1.2 for the whole document or just 1.1?
19:51:30 [Ian]
DC: I think in context. We like anyone to be able to make up names. But there are exceptions (e.g., DNS).
19:51:57 [Ian]
CL: Then we should say that 1.1.2 only applies to naming.
19:52:11 [Ian]
DC: But naming is the only place where central registries would come up.
19:52:15 [TBray]
19:52:39 [Ian]
CL: Why is 1.4 part of section 1, not formats?
19:52:43 [Ian]
SW: Part of a URI reference.
19:52:59 [Ian]
DC: Good point, though. Maybe it could move to 2 (with link to it from chapter 1)
19:53:05 [Stuart]
ackl Chris
19:53:14 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:53:31 [Ian]
TB: On central registries - I think we are telling spec writers "Don't assume a central registry at W3C must be required in order for your spec to work."
19:53:49 [Ian]
TB: Given that principle, DNS is arguably unfortunate, but we're stuck with it.
19:54:02 [Ian]
TB: I think DNS different from getting a MIME type definition (since everyone does this all the time).
19:54:25 [Stuart]
ack TBray
19:54:36 [Ian]
TB: I think that the intent of 1.1.2 is fine. I support the principle as stated and I think it applies to issues outside of URIs. Applies to protocols and formats as well.
19:54:54 [Ian]
SW: Just before 1.1.2, we do some URN-bashing.
19:55:25 [Ian]
SW: What should we say about IETF efforts to make URNs dereferenceable?
19:55:40 [TBray]
19:55:45 [Ian]
DC: This came up under Media type rubrique. I hope this is still on todo list.
19:56:20 [Ian]
DC: Michael Mealing has made points about IETF decisions regarding single points of failure. I was not aware of that decision. I would like to track down how decisions are made in that area.
19:56:26 [Ian]
DC: Three points:
19:56:50 [Stuart]
zakim, mute Chris
19:56:51 [Zakim]
ChrisL should now be muted
19:57:14 [Ian]
a) TBL was out of line saying on the list that URNs are not dereferenceable.
19:57:29 [TBray]
but in fact URNs are *not* dereferencable
19:57:36 [Ian]
b) MM and TB seem to agree on fact that we should use dereferenceable URIs, whatever scheme.
19:58:01 [Ian]
TB: I think we agreed that dereferenceability is a useful characteristic and that it's a good thing to call that out.
19:58:22 [Ian]
DC: My issue with URNs is that they just recreate HTTP. HTTP has administrative hierarchy, and you get to do whatever you want in your HTTP space.
19:58:45 [Ian]
DC: As far as I can tell, URN technology doesn't change that - login, then search, then one TCP transaction.
19:58:55 [Ian]
DC: There should be an arch principle on not reinventing the wheel.
19:59:42 [Ian]
DC: Process question - how can TAG and IETF parties communicate better?
19:59:43 [Stuart]
19:59:58 [Ian]
TB: Principle - Persistence is a matter of policy, not technology.
20:00:25 [Ian]
TB: Nothing in HTTP prevents you from managing your space well.
20:00:40 [Ian]
TB: Perhaps we should just drop URN reference unless we take up DC's point that harmful to reinvent wheel.
20:01:02 [Norm]
I think we'd be hard pressed to argue that URN is a new scheme
20:01:46 [Ian]
TB: Please add a boxed principle: "Persistence is a key characteristice in URI design."
20:02:17 [Ian]
DC: A comment I made on the phone with IJ - a lot comes down to "economics". Value to having name agreed by people. If it changes, then the value goes down.
20:02:18 [Stuart]
20:02:27 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:02:34 [Ian]
TB: We say "there are strong social expectations..."
20:02:39 [Ian]
DC: It doesn
20:02:49 [Ian]
DC: doesn't say what the expectations are.
20:03:22 [Ian]
DC: Two decisions:
20:03:30 [Ian]
- DDNS documents proposed standard; I tracked down.
20:03:40 [Ian]
- Decision not to use HTTP URIs; don't know where that decision was made.
20:05:02 [Ian]
Action CL: Write up some text for Section 2 (on formats).
20:05:04 [Chris]
yes you confirmed that already
20:05:20 [Chris]
and assigned a date of 30 July
20:05:43 [Ian]
Action DC: Ask Michael Mealing when IETF decided not to use HTTP URis to name protocols.
20:05:56 [Ian]
20:06:07 [Ian]
# Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use'
20:06:31 [Ian]
ACTION DC: research the bug in the svg diagram. There are two votes to remove the diagram (DC and TB).
20:06:53 [Ian]
TB: I saw the picture and I don't think it adds much. My vote to remove stands.
20:07:17 [Ian]
CL: Remove it.
20:07:18 [Ian]
PC: Neutral.
20:07:35 [Ian]
DC: I'm happy to do without TBL since Martin said I18N folks would do something with it if TAG doesn't.
20:08:04 [Ian]
TB: Finding not done since issue # RFC3023Charset-21
20:08:09 [Ian]
20:08:49 [Ian]
CL's text:
20:08:50 [Ian]
20:09:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.653.aaaa
20:09:46 [Ian]
Action CL: Send proposal "RFC3023 charset (draft)" to www-tag.
20:10:23 [TBray]
Finding is at
20:10:45 [Ian]
Current text:
20:10:52 [Ian]
"If so, the IETF registration forms MUST be part of the language specification, and SHOULD be part of the specification starting at Candidate Recommendation status (or Last Call if the Working Group plans to have sufficient implementation experience to bypass Candidate Recommendation). "
20:11:10 [Ian]
DC: IETF area directors didn't say you had to have the mime type in registry before you could use it.
20:11:59 [DaveO]
hmm.. seeming less and less like an architectural principle and more like w3c process issue.
20:12:06 [Ian]
IJ: The text must be in spec, but isn't required to be registered.
20:12:15 [Stuart]
20:12:15 [Ian]
20:12:17 [TBray]
20:12:30 [PaulC]
20:12:41 [Ian]
DC: Area directors said "Don't want to put in the registry until it goes to Rec."
20:12:52 [Ian]
DC: They prefer to just have internet draft published every 6 months.
20:13:03 [Ian]
DC: They would rather your type not be in registry but not in internet draft index.
20:13:20 [Ian]
CL: What can we point to when people tell us we are doing it wrong?
20:13:22 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:13:54 [Ian]
TB: I agree with DO's point that this is a process issue. Let's rewrite finding to say that registration process must proceed in parallel with w3c process, and documents must be readily available from w3c specs.
20:14:08 [Ian]
DC: Water down more: Registration information is relevant and needs to be reviewed along with everything else in your spec.
20:14:33 [Ian]
IJ: Please note current best practice as we understand it:
20:14:34 [Ian]
20:15:13 [Stuart]
ack PaulC
20:15:15 [DaveO]
20:15:16 [Ian]
TB: if we write a strong arch principle saying "You have to get this work done" then that is enough for the Director to stand on.
20:15:54 [Ian]
PC: I think we need a cookbook for chairs on what to do.
20:15:58 [Ian]
20:16:18 [Stuart]
ack DaveO
20:16:31 [Ian]
DO: I'd rather us spend more time on arch principles on our issues list.
20:16:48 [Stuart]
ack Ian
20:17:10 [TBray]
particularly given that the TAG has substantial consensus... it's irritating that we have to keep investing time on this. If we want a cookbook, how do we get it?
20:17:48 [Ian]
DC: I agree that this is process, but who do we hand this to?
20:18:14 [Ian]
PC: Our finding should say "here lie alligators" if uncertain process.
20:18:31 [Ian]
Action PC: Propose alternative wording for finding.
20:18:41 [Ian]
20:19:03 [Ian]
Resolved: Remove SVG diagram from the finding. DC's action and NW's action closed.
20:19:07 [Ian]
20:19:12 [Ian]
# Qnames as identifiers
20:19:19 [Ian]
Action NW 2002/06/24: Follow up on Rick Jelliffe comments/proposal.
20:19:34 [Ian]
NW: I started some threads this morning on this issue. Would like to review next week.
20:19:54 [Ian]
[For next week's agenda.]
20:19:57 [Ian]
20:20:02 [Ian]
# Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values, and Semantics
20:20:14 [Ian]
NW: I see Håkon's reply only now.
20:20:15 [Chris]
20:20:45 [Ian]
Email from Hakon:
20:20:56 [Ian]
CL: CSS WG wanted previous good behavior mentioned in the finding.
20:20:59 [TBray]
20:21:05 [Ian]
ack Chris
20:21:42 [Ian]
DC: HWL's message suggested a central regisry. Are we saying "no thanks" to that suggestion?
20:22:05 [Ian]
TB: Our finding is correct. Hakon suggested writing down a process. I don't think this changes the finding.
20:22:16 [Ian]
CL: In other words, we don't care how you get it right as long as you do?
20:22:21 [Ian]
DC: Works for me.
20:22:45 [Ian]
NW: I will make another stab that mentions good behavior and presumably we can call it done at that point.
20:22:55 [Ian]
20:23:02 [Ian]
Are we done with whenToUseGet-7?
20:23:22 [Ian]
DC: Not to my satisfaction. I haven't seen message to or reply from WSA WG.
20:23:44 [Ian]
DO: In my court. I've had discussions with various people.
20:24:16 [Ian]
DO: I'm still working on what possibly we should try to say to them. Certainly dealing with SOAP 1.2 is an issue before WSDL. I think we should go to them with something more refined.
20:24:34 [Ian]
TB: I think that the news is good, however, notably on WSDL front. It's now on their radar.
20:24:51 [Ian]
TB: My understanding is that they will build machinery to handle it.
20:26:02 [Ian]
ACTION DC 2002/06/10: Send note to WSA WG expressing concern about normative binding for GET.
20:26:04 [Ian]
20:26:26 [Ian]
20:26:32 [Ian]
20:26:32 [Ian]
1. ACTION DC 2002/06/17: Talk to XML Schema WG about PSVI. Report to tag, who expects to decide whether to add as an issue next week. Done (email to Schema WG).
20:26:37 [Norm]
20:26:41 [Ian]
DC: I don't think we should close until we've heard back from them.
20:27:44 [Ian]
NW: Schema WG tried to consider DC message at meeting 2 weeks ago. I don't think it was clear what we were asking them.
20:28:07 [Ian]
DC: They need to tell me how they are confused.
20:29:11 [Ian]
DC: Please mark as open Tim's action regarding communication with IETF about media type names as URIs.
20:29:15 [Ian]
20:29:31 [Ian]
20:29:33 [Zakim]
- +1.425.653.aaaa
20:29:46 [Ian]
20:29:54 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop