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: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/08-tag
- 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: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/infoset/xmlContent-diagram.svg
- 18:55:37 [Norm]
- Interesting...
- 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]
- +Ian
- 18:57:12 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 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]
- +DanC
- 19:01:37 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:02:12 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 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]
- +ChrisL
- 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]
- -TBray
- 19:08:00 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 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]
- +??P5
- 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]
- [None]
- 19:10:01 [Ian]
- Next meeting: 15 July. No regrets.
- 19:10:14 [Ian]
- Accept 1 July minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/01-tag-summary
- 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]
- Summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jul/0012.html
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 19:44:05 [Stuart]
- ack Stuart
- 19:44:06 [Ian]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 19:45:02 [Zakim]
- PaulC should now be muted
- 19:45:07 [Stuart]
- q?
- 19:45:13 [TBray]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q-
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist.html#RFC3023Charset-21
- 20:08:49 [Ian]
- CL's text:
- 20:08:50 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0090.html
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
- 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]
- q?
- 20:12:15 [Ian]
- q?
- 20:12:17 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:12:30 [PaulC]
- q+
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
- 20:15:13 [Stuart]
- ack PaulC
- 20:15:15 [DaveO]
- q+
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
- 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]
- q+
- 20:20:45 [Ian]
- Email from Hakon: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0120.html
- 20:20:56 [Ian]
- CL: CSS WG wanted previous good behavior mentioned in the finding.
- 20:20:59 [TBray]
- q+
- 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]
- Closed.
- 20:26:26 [Ian]
- =============
- 20:26:32 [Ian]
- augmentedInfoset-22
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- URIMediaType-9
- 20:29:31 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0095.html
- 20:29:33 [Zakim]
- - +1.425.653.aaaa
- 20:29:46 [Ian]
- ADJOURNED
- 20:29:54 [Ian]
- RRSAgent, stop