IRC log of tagmem on 2002-12-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:33:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:33:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:33:12 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
19:33:13 [Zakim]
ok, Ian
19:37:38 [timmit]
Agenda: h1 is out o fdate
19:44:44 [Ian]
19:45:20 [Ian]
19:54:46 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:54:59 [Stuart]
Good evening
19:55:44 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:57:00 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:57:07 [Norm]
I'll be dialing in shortly...
19:57:30 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:57:33 [Chris]
so will I
19:57:36 [Zakim]
19:57:54 [Chris]
dialback only allows dialing after the clock has passed the hour
19:57:54 [Zakim]
19:57:57 [Zakim]
19:57:59 [Zakim]
19:58:26 [timmit]
aaaagh ... tim gets dialout from zakim... hmmm...... wonder who he'll get connected to
19:58:32 [Zakim]
19:59:05 [Zakim]
19:59:10 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P2 is me
19:59:12 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:59:13 [Zakim]
19:59:54 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: Agenda
19:59:58 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #tagmem
20:00:17 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
20:00:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Stuart, Chris, TimBL
20:00:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanCon, Norm, Chris, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, timmit
20:01:07 [Zakim]
20:01:08 [Zakim]
20:01:18 [DanCon]
20:01:40 [Zakim]
20:02:36 [DanCon]
hmm... no particular color for "pending" issues? (re get7)
20:03:05 [Zakim]
20:03:22 [Zakim]
20:03:54 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:03:56 [Chris]
perhaps lightwheat?
20:04:09 [Ian]
20:04:14 [Zakim]
20:04:15 [Ian]
20:04:20 [Chris]
or palegoldenrod
20:04:30 [Ian]
zakim, ??P7 is Paul
20:04:31 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
20:04:39 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
20:04:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Stuart, Chris, TimBL, DanC, Tim_Bray, DOrchard, Paul
20:04:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, DanCon, Norm, Chris, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, timmit
20:04:56 [Norm]
or nottoodarkskyblue
20:04:58 [Ian]
Roll call: Norm, Ian, Stuart, Chris, TimBL, DanC, Tim_Bray, DOrchard, Paul.
20:05:00 [Ian]
Missing: RF
20:05:03 [Ian]
Scribe: IJ
20:05:13 [Ian]
Accept 18 Nov minutes?
20:05:14 [Zakim]
20:05:18 [Ian]
20:05:25 [Ian]
zakim, ??P8 is Roy
20:05:26 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
20:05:31 [Ian]
TB, DC: 18 Nov ok.
20:05:39 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 18 Nov minutes.
20:05:47 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 25 Nov minutes.
20:06:06 [Ian]
IJ: Can we review draft summary?
20:06:09 [Chris]
summary for last month looked good to me
20:06:22 [Ian]
20:06:29 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:06:31 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:06:34 [DanCon]
we're reviewing the agenda still.
20:07:12 [PaulC]
PaulC has joined #tagmem
20:07:52 [Ian]
Agenda accepted.
20:08:00 [Ian]
Next meeting: 9 December?
20:08:09 [Ian]
CL, RF: Regrets.
20:08:40 [Roy]
will be in Zurich
20:08:58 [Chris]
will likely be on a plane to xml 2002 usa
20:08:59 [DanCon]
20:10:11 [DaveO]
20:10:45 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:12:51 [TBray]
20:13:24 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:13:36 [TBray]
9 lines of markup
20:13:38 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:13:54 [Ian]
DC: Can we fix slides before XML 2002?
20:14:12 [Ian]
NW: I am likely to present this.
20:14:20 [Ian]
DC: I'm happy if NW and TB review this before it gets presented.
20:14:41 [Ian]
TB: Clearly minor things can be fixed without review.
20:16:24 [Chris]
20:16:28 [TBray]
20:16:49 [Ian]
CL: I'd like to see the example shortened, with links to larger examples.
20:17:39 [timmit]
q+ to suggest both slides
20:18:14 [Ian]
ack Chris
20:18:32 [Chris]
multiple links on one element is the number one thing that HTML WG asked for and XLink did not provide
20:19:42 [timmit]
I suggest that the argument is much over what the argument is. Both slides should be shown, to show these two argments, so thaey can be argued separately. I disagree taht hte argument is only one.
20:19:48 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:19:51 [Ian]
ack Timmit
20:19:53 [Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to suggest both slides
20:20:54 [Chris]
its not the longdesc problem, as such
20:21:07 [Chris]
its more the object with thtree uris and two bases
20:21:08 [Ian]
TBL: I suggest splitting into two slides - show an example indicating straightforward approach and also lengthy example.
20:22:18 [Ian]
TBL: There is a valid argument that most things that people do with href and images is straightforwardly done in xlink.
20:22:28 [Ian]
TBL: That's been lost; it's only fair to show both sides of the story.
20:22:38 [PaulC]
20:22:56 [Chris]
seconded, dan
20:23:16 [Ian]
Proposal: Accept NW's offer to edit slides to the satisfaction of CL and TB.
20:23:27 [Ian]
PC: Does this mean editing slides in place?
20:23:45 [Ian]
DC: I'm happy to edit these post-hoc. These are supposed to be a summary.
20:23:56 [Ian]
DC: It seems constructive to me to edit them in place.
20:24:44 [Ian]
DC: Can we at least amend the AC slides with a pointer?
20:24:56 [PaulC]
20:25:19 [Ian]
[Seeming agreement to not change slides in place silently.]
20:26:25 [Ian]
PC: (1) TB should document his lament to (2) we should update slides with pointer to that lament (3) NW creates new copy of slides with corrected slides (4) we link from old slides to new slides.
20:26:52 [Ian]
TB: I agree to send email to TAG.
20:27:15 [DanCon]
stuart, the "we" I need instantiated is in (2), not (1)
20:27:18 [Ian]
TB: I will include a proposal for an improved example.
20:27:31 [Ian]
IJ: I am happy to update the slides.
20:27:59 [Ian]
Action TB: Send proposed changes to
20:28:16 [Ian]
Action IJ: Update AC slides with link to TB's comments and email to NW's slides.
20:28:28 [Ian]
Action NW: Create updated slides.
20:28:38 [TBray]
20:29:46 [Chris]
design alternatives works for me
20:30:07 [Ian]
[No process established for slide review.]
20:32:17 [Ian]
Action IJ: Add draft finding to:
20:32:20 [Ian]
20:32:31 [DanCon]
it has lots of relevant buzzwords.
20:32:49 [Ian]
Action IJ: Mention this in summary of TAG activity in last month.
20:33:41 [Ian]
20:34:02 [Ian]
SW: Yes, send summary to AC with additions from this meeting.
20:34:05 [Ian]
2.1 Possible New Issues
20:34:08 [DaveO]
20:34:13 [Ian]
ack PaulC
20:34:37 [TBray]
20:34:50 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:35:05 [DanCon]
yes, please; I don't want to take this up until the XMLP WG has responded to a "don't subset XML" request.
20:35:12 [Ian]
New issue? 1. SOAP and XML Internal Subset (see message from Paul Grosso
20:35:33 [Stuart]
20:35:38 [Ian]
DO: I think this is an important arch issue. I think it should have been sent earlier to XMLP WG. But having said that, the topic of subsetting has come up before.
20:36:01 [timmit]
q+ to agree we should take up issue
20:36:03 [Ian]
DO: I'm on the record of wanting a next generation of profiles. I think the TAG ought to bring up this issue and consider the arch ramifications of profiles of XML specs.
20:36:08 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:36:25 [Ian]
TB: I agree with DO. The IETF's BCP says "don't do this."
20:36:46 [timmit]
q+ to suggest that original WG should be heavily involved and/or in charge when a profile is made of any spec.
20:36:51 [Ian]
TB: For the case of SOAP, I think they have overwhelming technical arguments for their design choice (namely, avoid risk of denial of service attacks).
20:37:11 [Ian]
TB: I think that in general, subsetting XML is probably not wise for the reasons cited by the IETF authors.
20:37:24 [timmit]
ack tim
20:37:25 [Ian]
TB: There is a recurring desire of some groups to do this; that signal should be looked at.
20:37:25 [Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to agree we should take up issue and to suggest that original WG should be heavily involved and/or in charge when a profile is made of any spec.
20:37:36 [Ian]
TBL: I agree we should accept the issue.
20:38:02 [Ian]
TBL: While there is a WG that is responsible for this work, I think it's important that that WG do the work.
20:38:23 [Ian]
TBL: We should not establish the precedent that one group can profile the work of another (notably cross-organizational boundaries).
20:38:38 [Norm]
20:38:42 [Ian]
TBL: We can discuss it, with an option to return to the XML Core WG with a request to produce a profile.
20:38:43 [DaveO]
20:38:50 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:38:51 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to express a preference for having PaulG/XMLCore make a request to XMLP WG before we accept this
20:39:32 [Ian]
DC: If we accept this as an issue, can we immediately contact both WGs to ensure that they know they are represented?
20:39:42 [Ian]
DC: One possibility: do this by email or in a teleconf.
20:39:51 [PaulC]
20:40:04 [Ian]
DC: I would prefer that Paul write to the XMLP WG and get their reply on record.
20:40:12 [TBray]
20:40:18 [TBray]
20:40:25 [Ian]
ack norm
20:41:07 [Ian]
NW: There's a lot of editorial work, not much technical benefit, unclear political ramifications of such an exercise.
20:41:09 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:41:33 [Ian]
DO: I think that Paul Grosso should ask the XMLP WG for their rationale, and that the TAG is interested in that reply.
20:41:54 [Ian]
DO: I believe that Chair of XMLP WG is interested in providing information on this topic.
20:41:59 [Norm]
By "political" I mean that it's not clear what buy-in would be obtained from vendors and parser authors, etc. I'm not sure that's really "political" but it's more than purely technical.
20:42:43 [Ian]
ack PaulC
20:43:13 [Ian]
PC: On the IETF BCP - does this apply when XML used as the basis of a protocol?
20:43:29 [Ian]
PC: TBL talks about profiles as though they were bad; but profiles happen all the time within W3C.
20:43:36 [DaveO]
I wonder if there are at least two profiles: "non-protocol" and "protocol".
20:44:02 [Ian]
PC: I'm not sure that the TAG can do anything about on group profiling (or not profiling) the work of another group.
20:44:13 [DaveO]
20:44:34 [DanCon]
I don't think TimBL suggested lockstep; I think he just meant that if XMLP wants to profile XML, the WG working on XML should get the right of review
20:44:38 [Ian]
PC: There's a long history on this topic (going back to Sep 2001, at least) regarding SOAP.
20:44:48 [DaveO]
can I rebut Paul's point?
20:44:59 [Ian]
20:45:02 [PaulC]
20:45:03 [TBray]
no, I'm going to propose a resolution
20:45:08 [DaveO]
20:45:18 [DanCon]
you already have, DaveO; i.e. you've already made it clear that PaulC's view of history is not universally held. 1/2 ;-)
20:45:29 [Ian]
PC: I think it is appropriate to tell Paul G to talk to the XMLP WG. We can give him some pointers to the public record.
20:45:34 [Ian]
TB Proposal:
20:46:07 [Ian]
1) We should officially respond to PaulG saying that there is some history and that it would be appropriate to direct his query to the XMLP WG to ensure that the evidence is brought out for review.
20:46:46 [Ian]
2) Propose TAG adopts subsetXML issue, based on the fact that XML doesn't provide a means for subsetting. Some people (like me) think that it's bad to subset XML. But some groups still want to do this, and some groups have good reasons for doing so.
20:46:49 [DanCon]
hmm... I thought the subsetting XPath case was directly relevant. the name "subsettingXML" seems exclusive of that.
20:46:59 [DaveO]
Dan, what is "XML"?
20:47:23 [DanCon]
a language defined in the XML 1.0 recommendation, I think.
20:47:27 [DaveO]
Is XML=XML 1.* + namespaces + xpath + dom + xquery + xslt?
20:47:29 [Norm]
DaveO: XML is
20:47:35 [Ian]
TB: The XMLP WG has evidence that subsetting will be sometimes necessary.
20:47:46 [Ian]
TB: It's not reasonable for SOAP 1.2 to wait for a revised XML.
20:47:46 [Norm]
DaveO: XML++ might include namespaces, base, et. al.
20:47:50 [Ian]
20:47:54 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:48:00 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:48:26 [Ian]
DO: Friendly amendment to TB's (2). Not just an issue of subsetting XML, but rather among the family of XML specs.
20:48:49 [Ian]
TB: Retitle as profileXML.
20:49:05 [Ian]
TB: Change wording "XML family of specifications"
20:49:16 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:49:24 [Ian]
DC: "Profiling W3C specs" would be fine.
20:49:44 [PaulC]
You don't conform to XPath. You conform to XPointer or XSLT.
20:49:47 [Ian]
DC: Flavors of a language are evil. Sometimes you need profiles, but there is a cost to interoperability.
20:49:47 [TBray]
20:49:57 [Ian]
DC: Profiles are to be avoided.
20:50:13 [Ian]
RF: What you want with a profile of XML is to make it possible to implement software.
20:50:43 [TBray]
20:50:44 [PaulC]
I agree with Tim's amended resolution of this item but I would like to see a clear statement of the "XML family of specification" issue.
20:50:54 [Ian]
RF: General purpose servers implement HTTP differently from specific-purpose servers.
20:51:27 [Ian]
RF: There are limits on URIs, size of request header. Apps need to be able to define these things on their own. Not limits on the protocol, but limits on the implementation of the protocol.
20:51:37 [Ian]
20:51:41 [PaulC]
Re XPath, I guess you could also conform to the new DOM API + XPath.
20:51:42 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:52:06 [Ian]
TB: I agree with DC - one of the good things about XML historically is that it's much more option-free than other specs.
20:52:09 [timmit]
q+ to say that http example is more -- what happens if an http server doesn't implement HEAD?
20:52:23 [Ian]
TB: Clearly this approach is running into trouble.
20:52:49 [Ian]
TB: I've put a stake in the ground about which specs to group together (XML, namespaces, base) so that profiling not necessary.
20:53:54 [Ian]
TBL: Things will break if some parsers understand entities and others don't.
20:54:03 [DaveO]
20:54:03 [TBray]
hmmm... sounds reasonable
20:54:11 [PaulC]
20:54:14 [Ian]
ack Timmit
20:54:15 [Zakim]
Timmit, you wanted to say that http example is more -- what happens if an http server doesn't implement HEAD?
20:54:25 [DanCon]
issue profilePlussesAndMinuses-NNN
20:54:33 [Ian]
ack PaulC
20:54:43 [DanCon]
issue profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN
20:54:47 [Ian]
PC: Wasn't this on the XML Core WG agenda at some point?
20:54:56 [Ian]
DO: Yes, they are chartered to do this.
20:55:15 [DaveO]
20:55:17 [DaveO]
20:55:45 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:56:50 [Ian]
TB: Maybe it suffices to say to the XML Core WG that we think this should be moved up their list of priorities.
20:56:58 [DaveO]
20:58:41 [Ian]
NW: No one I know of is chomping at the bit to address this; seems like a lot of work, without much promise of payoff.
20:59:11 [Ian]
NW: If we want this work done, we should ask the Core WG.
20:59:32 [DaveO]
20:59:50 [Ian]
TB: Don't phrase this as "Do XML 2.0".
21:00:20 [Ian]
TB: If we think there's a problem here (and I think evidence suggests there is), we could profitably invest some time in how we get a solution.
21:00:31 [Ian]
TB: Will be hard to disentangle tech from process issues.
21:00:36 [DanCon]
ack danc
21:00:48 [Ian]
ack DaveO
21:01:21 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
21:02:31 [Ian]
DO: This issue has also come up in WSA WG.
21:03:24 [Ian]
NW: The major issues here are not technical.
21:03:43 [Ian]
NW: The Core WG has discussed this.
21:03:53 [Ian]
DO: What information can be conveyed here?
21:04:33 [Ian]
TB: Let's toss this out into www-tag.
21:04:38 [Ian]
21:04:57 [Ian]
NW: If we want to engage the Core WG, we should invite Paul Grosso to a meeting where this is discussed.
21:05:11 [Ian]
ack DanCon
21:05:12 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to propose: profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN
21:05:22 [Ian]
21:06:11 [Ian]
SW: I have concerns about our communications with other groups.
21:06:31 [Ian]
DC: We should accept issue and PC/DO and NW should ask the groups how they want to be represented here.
21:06:35 [PaulC]
21:06:50 [Ian]
IJ: Title?
21:07:11 [PaulC]
I don't want us to send an appeal to www-tag on this front since I want the negotiate with the Chairs and WGs to occur first.
21:07:20 [Ian]
TB: Whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family
21:07:26 [Ian]
DC: I object to "in the XML Family"
21:07:32 [Ian]
DO: I feel strongly about "in the XML Family"
21:07:33 [PaulC]
21:07:36 [Chris]
21:07:41 [Ian]
TBL: I feel that the profiling issue applies to other issues as well.
21:07:42 [Ian]
ack Ian
21:08:00 [DanCon]
he didn't say "feel strongly"; he (DaveO) observed that the xML family is what we've been talking about
21:08:02 [Ian]
DO: I'd like to examine the issue w.r.t. the scope of things in the XML family of specs.
21:08:58 [Stuart]
21:09:10 [Ian]
TBL: If the comment is "necessary evil" then it applies to all our specs.
21:09:24 [Ian]
CL: We have two issues (general and specific).
21:09:51 [Chris]
ach chris
21:09:56 [Chris]
ack chris
21:10:06 [Ian]
SW Proposed: Accept profilesNecessaryEvil-NNN as new issue.
21:10:10 [Ian]
DO: I object.
21:10:24 [Chris]
don't like it either
21:10:26 [Ian]
PC: I object.
21:10:29 [Ian]
CL: I object.
21:10:31 [Ian]
TB: I object.
21:11:03 [Ian]
TB Proposed: xmlProfilesNecessaryEvil.
21:11:30 [Ian]
CL: I don't like "necessary evil"; presupposes an outcome.
21:11:46 [Chris]
21:11:49 [DaveO]
21:11:54 [Ian]
Proposed: xmlProfiles.
21:11:57 [TBray]
issue xmlProfiles-NNN: When, whether and how to profile the XML family of recommendation
21:11:57 [Ian]
DC: Abstain.
21:12:01 [Chris]
like daves
21:12:17 [Ian]
Resolved: xmlProfiles.
21:12:23 [DanCon]
connolly abstaining
21:13:00 [Ian]
Action IJ: Add to issues list xmlProfiles-NNN. TB suggests title "When, whither and how to profile W3C specifications in the XML Family"
21:13:43 [Ian]
Action DO: Talk to XMLP WG about this new issue.
21:13:52 [Ian]
Action NW: Talk to XML Core WG about this new issue.
21:14:31 [Ian]
21:14:38 [Ian]
# Binary XML (see message from Robin Berjon, Paul Cotton (member only), Don Brutzman (member only)
21:15:03 [Ian]
DO: Yes.
21:15:16 [Ian]
TB: I propose we not take up this issue.
21:15:25 [Ian]
DC: I propose we take up binaryXML as an issue.
21:15:31 [Ian]
DO: I do, too.
21:15:38 [Ian]
TB: I object to taking this up as an issue.
21:15:44 [Ian]
NW: I abstain.
21:16:01 [Ian]
RF: I abstain, mostly because I wouldn't call it XML....
21:16:09 [Ian]
TB: Exactly, if it's binary, it's not XML.
21:16:27 [Chris]
its not the XML serialisation format, true
21:16:29 [Ian]
SW Proposed: Adopt binaryXML-NNN as an issue.
21:16:38 [Ian]
Objections: TB
21:16:47 [Ian]
Abstain: NW, RF, SW, PC
21:16:50 [Chris]
proposed - binaryXMLInfoset
21:16:58 [Ian]
PC: My rationale - I'm not sure what the community is asking for.
21:17:30 [Ian]
CL: Discussion started before I could send crisp problem statement.
21:17:43 [timmit]
21:18:04 [timmit]
I would like to be on the record as to why I would have supported this
21:18:36 [Ian]
Supports binaryXML-NNN: DO, TBL, DC, CL
21:19:19 [timmit]
I owuld like to take up this issue because it has been raised by so many parties to often, and no statment one way or the other exists about it. The comunity deserves such a thing.
21:19:44 [Ian]
Action CL: Write up problem statement about binary XML; send to www-tag.
21:19:56 [Ian]
21:20:02 [Ian]
ack PaulC
21:20:08 [Ian]
ack Timmit
21:20:28 [Ian]
TBL: Here's why I think we should take it up - it's been raised by a lot of people (e.g., Web3D, who are users).
21:20:59 [DaveO]
21:21:36 [Chris]
21:21:56 [TBray]
considering changing my vote
21:22:03 [Ian]
TBL: The XML community has ruled it out of scope. If the TAG's conclusion is that it's better to do Y than binary XML, then we should say so clearly.
21:22:20 [TBray]
21:22:34 [Ian]
TBL: If the answer is so obvious, we should state it clearly. If it's not, then we should unearth it and deal with it.
21:23:12 [Ian]
DO: Also an issue in the Web Services community.
21:23:18 [Ian]
DO: I think the TAG could help out in this area.
21:23:20 [Ian]
ack DaveO
21:23:21 [Ian]
ack Chris
21:23:51 [Ian]
CL: For SVG we said "use gzip" but the mobile folks said that wasn't good enough; they have to store strings with whitespace preserved.
21:23:58 [Ian]
CL: They end up having 2 copies of the data.
21:24:19 [timmit]
(because the DOM allows access t the original strings)
21:24:48 [Ian]
TB: I am profoundly against the notion of binary XML in general. However, having listened here, it's apparent that it's an issue that won't go away.
21:25:06 [Ian]
TB: If it's a bad idea, we should say why and tell people how to solve problems in the real world.
21:25:29 [Ian]
SW Proposed: binaryXML-NNN as a new issue.
21:25:34 [Ian]
Dissent: None.
21:25:37 [Ian]
Abstain: RF
21:25:45 [Ian]
Abstain: NW, PC
21:26:06 [Ian]
Support: DC, CL, TB, DO, TBL, SW
21:26:19 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept binaryXML-NNN as a new issue.
21:26:31 [Ian]
ack TBray
21:26:40 [Ian]
21:26:54 [Ian]
21:26:56 [Ian]
3. Uniform resource version info and access of resource metadata (see message from Ossi Nyk?nen)
21:27:14 [Ian]
21:27:43 [DaveO]
21:27:51 [Ian]
ack DanCon
21:27:57 [Ian]
ack DaveO
21:28:00 [TBray]
21:28:07 [Ian]
DO: I'm interested in the issue of versioning resources.
21:28:13 [Ian]
DO: E.g., namespaces and versioning.
21:28:33 [Ian]
21:29:02 [Ian]
TB: Notion of encoding metadata in a URI is broken. Versioning has application-specific semantics.
21:29:23 [timmit]
Now RDF for metada is a good idea...
21:29:41 [Chris]
memories of VMS filenames with ;version in the filename
21:29:51 [timmit]
q+ to say that when we turn down an idea cos its crazy we owe the world to write a finding
21:30:05 [Ian]
CL: If we universally thing this is a bad thing to do, we should say so loudly.
21:30:31 [Ian]
SW Proposed: Accept medataInURI-NNN?
21:30:47 [Ian]
IJ: Could be short if universal response is "no".
21:30:51 [DanCon]
Bray noted Baker's work on the IANA/HTTP draft
21:30:54 [DanCon]
with thanks.
21:31:22 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept issue matadataInURI-NNN with note that TAG thinks the answer is "no" and will explain what to do instead.
21:31:33 [Ian]
21:31:49 [Ian]
Proposed to publish IANA/HTTP thingy
21:32:00 [Ian]
SW: Published by?
21:32:21 [Ian]
[DC talks about authoring IETF drafts.]
21:32:55 [Ian]
Resolved: The TAG thanks Mark Baker for his contributions to this draft!
21:33:16 [Ian]
Action DC: Point to this draft on www-tag.
21:33:17 [DanCon]
A Registry of Assignments using
21:33:17 [DanCon]
Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful Policies
21:33:17 [DanCon]
21:33:26 [Ian]
[Take this up next week...]
21:33:52 [Ian]
21:33:54 [Ian]
XML 2002.
21:34:08 [Ian]
PC: Create a local copy.
21:34:11 [Zakim]
21:34:44 [Ian]
21:34:48 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop