18:48:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:48:40 <IanOut> zakim, this will be TAG
18:48:41 <Zakim> ok, IanOut
18:48:50 <IanOut> IanOut has changed the topic to: Agenda http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/12/09-tag
19:55:48 <PaulC> PaulC has joined #tagmem
19:57:36 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:57:40 <Zakim> +??P0
19:59:03 <Stuart> Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:59:14 <PaulC> Paul is here.  Can Zakim see me?
19:59:24 <PaulC> +1
19:59:33 <PaulC> +q
19:59:40 <PaulC> q+
19:59:46 <PaulC> q-
20:00:24 <DanCon> DanCon has joined #tagmem
20:00:29 <Zakim> +TimBL
20:00:32 <Zakim> -??P0
20:00:34 <Zakim> +??P0
20:00:38 <timMIT> timMIT has joined #tagmem
20:00:51 <Zakim> +??P3
20:00:58 <Zakim> +Ian
20:01:07 <timMIT> Zakim, ??P3 is Stuart
20:01:08 <Zakim> +Stuart; got it
20:01:11 <Zakim> +DOrchard
20:01:56 <DanCon> DanCon has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/09-tag
20:02:33 <Zakim> +DanC
20:02:36 <Zakim> +Norm_Walsh
20:02:44 <Norm> Norm has joined #tagmem
20:04:03 <timMIT> The scribe notes that the Happy Birthday To You is considered sung
20:04:40 <timMIT> Ian has a sprained finger
20:04:59 <DanCon> woohoo! purple postponed issues in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist
20:05:05 <DanCon> er... purple pending
20:05:08 <timMIT> ______________________________________________
20:05:13 <timMIT> Meeting starts
20:05:37 <DanCon> Zakim, who's on the phone?
20:05:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, TimBL, Stuart, Ian, DOrchard, DanC, Norm_Walsh
20:05:48 <timMIT> Regrets for this mtg : TimBray, Roy F (?)
20:05:54 <timMIT> Chris we expect.
20:06:07 <Ian> Accepted 2 Dec?
20:06:07 <timMIT> .
20:06:12 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/02-tag-summary
20:06:30 <timMIT> DanC: My action about registry draft is not listed the way I would like.
20:06:46 <timMIT>    I am not calling for review on www-tag. I'm not assigned to do that.
20:07:26 <timMIT>    So long as that is understood, we don't need to change the minutes.
20:07:36 <timMIT>    I called for review in THIS group.
20:07:48 <Ian> Action IJ: Correct minutes to reflect fix.
20:08:20 <timMIT> Ian: The agenda is a carry-over from last week.
20:08:30 <timMIT> s/Ian/Stuart
20:09:03 <timMIT> Ian: pls have 5 for arch doc at end of meeting
20:09:13 <Ian> # Accepted this agenda
20:09:17 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/09-tag
20:09:56 <Ian> # Next meeting: 16 Dec 2002?
20:10:12 <timMIT> Next meeting: A week today 
20:10:20 <Ian>    6. Following meeting: 6 Jan 2003?
20:10:23 <timMIT> Regrets? None from those here.
20:11:00 <timMIT> Note that 15th 23rd December were cancelled at face-face.
20:11:13 <timMIT> There will be no tag meeting on those dates.
20:11:29 <timMIT> Any Other business?
20:11:39 <timMIT> Stu: I have some.  Trying to set up xlink mtg,
20:14:04 <timMIT> [discussion of planning xlink meeting]
20:16:01 <timMIT> Meeting target   15th or 16th January maybe ...
20:17:00 <timMIT> Stuart will contact the Hypertext Coordination group, Vincent Quint chair <quint@w3.org>.
20:17:26 <timMIT> ACTION: Stuart set up xlink meeting, contacting HTCG
20:17:52 <timMIT> ACTION IJ: Correct minutes as above
20:18:43 <timMIT> Tech Issue 2
20:18:44 <timMIT> http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/draft-connolly-registries-00.txt
20:18:58 <timMIT> Dan: I got endorsement of this from Tim Bray and Norm W.
20:19:12 <timMIT>     One question is, publish in TAG's name?
20:19:18 <DaveO> DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:19:25 <timMIT>     A TAG finding reference is missing
20:19:53 <timMIT>      Should one bring up with IETF-W#C meeting first? No, March is too long
20:20:52 <timMIT>    I propose that the TAG adopt this in being co-author with Mark darft-w3c-registries*
20:21:26 <timMIT>    Note that darft-w3c is a posisbility since last IETF-W3C telcon.
20:21:42 <timMIT>     Anyone want to discuss, object, etc?
20:21:47 <timMIT>     [pause]
20:22:59 <timMIT> RESOLVED:  The TAG adopts http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/draft-connolly-registries-00.txt as suitable for publication as draft-w3c=*
20:23:04 <timMIT> s/=//
20:23:18 <timMIT> Stuart:  Thanks to Dan and to Mark B
20:23:26 <timMIT> Dan: One thing to discuss:
20:23:49 <timMIT> This came up under iss 9, the idea of URIs for media typed.
20:23:50 <Zakim> +Chris
20:24:33 <Ian> TBL: "Media type document"
20:25:42 <timMIT> If we follow this, we will probably end up with a URI for text/html with no #
20:26:17 <timMIT> TimBL: This is OK if we really can just treat it as a URI for a media type document, not for an abstract concept.
20:26:20 <timMIT> In principle.
20:26:23 <timMIT> _____________
20:26:30 <timMIT> Chris arrives.
20:26:32 <timMIT> Issue 1
20:26:38 <Ian>    1.  Status of URIEquivalence-15, IRIEverywhere-27. Relation to Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL on URI canonicalization and email from Martin in particular. See more comments from Martin.
20:26:38 <Ian>          1. Action MD 2002/11/18: Write up text about IRIEverywhere-27 for spec writers to include in their spec.
20:26:38 <Ian>          2. Action CL 2002/11/18: Write up finding for IRIEverywhere-27 (from TB and TBL, a/b/c), to include MD's text.
20:26:42 <Ian> CL: Pending.
20:27:14 <timMIT> action item 2.1.1.2 that was still pending
20:28:08 <DanCon> FYI, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-02.txt
20:28:25 <timMIT> action 2.1.1.1  MD's action item: nothing found, assumed still pending
20:28:45 <DanCon> timbl, did you send in your RDDL proposal?
20:28:47 <timMIT> Technical issue 3: 
20:28:48 <timMIT> namespaceDocument-8 
20:28:48 <timMIT> Action NW 2002/11/18: Take a stab at indicating pros and cons for the various RDDL/RDF/Xlink designs arising from TB's RDDL challenge. 
20:28:48 <timMIT> RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray. 
20:28:48 <timMIT> RDDL Proposal from Chris Wilper 
20:28:51 <timMIT> ---
20:29:24 <timMIT> stu: I haven't seen many responses to Tim Bray's challenge
20:29:36 <DanCon> http://www.w3.org/2002/11/rddl/ex1.xml <- http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2002/11/25/2002-11-25.html#1038249302.320672
20:29:44 <DanCon> ^timbl's proposal, I think
20:29:48 <timMIT> TimBL: I had one but forgot to send it.
20:29:51 <PaulC> q+
20:29:58 <Ian> CL: What happens if no satisfactory replies to contest?
20:29:59 <timMIT> Chris: What heappens if there are no good ones?
20:29:59 <DanCon> ack danc
20:30:01 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to xlink meeting, Hypertext CG
20:30:22 <Ian> q+
20:30:32 <timMIT> Paul: I have been talking to a lot of people about this, and I really wonder about whether we are right to look for just one format.
20:30:55 <Ian> IJ: I think the goal was to suggest one approach, not the only approach. The goal was to avoid saying "do this" without providing any example of how.
20:30:55 <timMIT>   The web wasn't designed like that, or we would still have HTML 0.9
20:31:13 <timMIT>     Should we have many posisbilities, and guidelines about what should be there?
20:31:19 <Norm> q+
20:31:40 <timMIT> Ian: My understadning was that we are not proposing *the* but *one* solution - to show there is one which works.
20:31:42 <Ian> ack PaulC
20:31:45 <Ian> ack Ian
20:31:58 <timMIT> q+
20:32:01 <Ian> q+ CL
20:32:10 <Ian> ack Cl
20:32:48 <timMIT> Chris:  Saying it is human readable is easy, and ig we don't need it to be machine readable.
20:32:49 <Ian> We did say it should be machine readable....
20:33:10 <timMIT> q+ Ian
20:33:30 <DanCon> folks should feel free to use IRC as a parallel channel, as far as I'm concerned.
20:33:36 <timMIT> Chris: ... then you don't need much more.
20:33:54 <timMIT> Norm: I didn't think we were defining *the* format, but we were defining a really good one.
20:33:57 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8
20:34:01 <Ian> Resolution summary
20:34:01 <Ian>     Resolution is incomplete. Consensus points from 12 Feb ftf meeting are:
20:34:01 <Ian>         * Namespace URIs should be dereferencable (to find useful explanatory material).
20:34:01 <Ian>         * The TAG has not yet reached consensus on the nature of the material at the end of a namespace URI. The TAG discussed the value of human readable materials, schemas, and indirections to useful adjuncts.
20:34:11 <DanCon> ack norm
20:34:12 <timMIT>    I thought our excercise was to produce a good one, but not insist.
20:34:14 <DanCon> ack timbl
20:34:16 <Ian> ack Ian
20:34:27 <DanCon> ack tim
20:34:48 <PaulC> q+
20:35:24 <PaulC> But we did not settle on only one image format e.g. GIF or else we would have never been able to permit the usuage of JPEG and SVG.
20:35:40 <Ian> DC: RDDL is a distraction. It suggests that  XHTML, RDF, and XML Schema don't get the job done.
20:35:46 <timMIT> TimBL: I think there is something to be gained from a standard here to stop grag.
20:35:54 <DaveO> q+
20:35:55 <PaulC> q+
20:36:00 <Ian> ack DanCon
20:36:01 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to say that XHTML, RDF, and XML Schema already work fine; RDDL is a distraction
20:36:02 <DanCon> ack dancon
20:36:04 <timMIT> DanC: I think a godo appraoch to stick anxml schema there and an html document.
20:36:26 <DanCon> ack paulc
20:36:34 <DanCon> Chris disagreed with DanC
20:36:58 <timMIT> Paul: It is a tradeoff - if we had standardized on GIF would we never had had PNG?
20:37:00 <timMIT> q+ Chris
20:37:00 <DanCon> q+ Chris
20:37:15 <timMIT> q+ to respond to PaulC re SVG
20:37:42 <timMIT> DavidO: I was always unhappy with saying theye should be a document there.
20:37:51 <timMIT>    This gets confused with what it is.
20:38:03 <Ian> q+
20:38:06 <timMIT>   Saying that xml schema would be a good thing there IMHO is a bad thing.
20:38:07 <Stuart> q?
20:38:33 <timMIT>    If we can't get toresolution for what the best format is, then I would prefe us to say there should NOT be a document available.
20:38:35 <DanCon> gee... what's the best format for images? JPEG or SVG? surely it depends on the image, no, daveo?
20:38:50 <timMIT> Chris; I was not suggetsing that RDDL should b the *one true* format.
20:39:12 <timMIT>    As I said, if human-readable is all we want, then we have no problem.
20:39:30 <DaveO> Dan, this is an argument we had almost a year ago.
20:40:00 <timMIT>   As for putting a schema there, clearly that would  [scribe fails to ctachthe logic of Chris' argument]
20:40:03 <Ian> TBL: Are you saying that putting a scheme there is bad?
20:40:05 <Ian> CL: Yes.
20:40:33 <timMIT> CL: I am saying that having something which sits there and points to it vastly better than content negotiating.
20:40:39 <DanCon> I disagree.
20:40:40 <DaveO> DO agrees with CL
20:40:54 <DaveO> q+
20:40:58 <Ian> ack Chris
20:41:00 <Ian> ack TimMIT
20:41:01 <Zakim> TimMIT, you wanted to respond to PaulC re SVG
20:41:12 <DanCon> we have not decided ANYTHING, actually. why is anybody surprised that the discussion continues?
20:42:12 <Ian> We have consensus minuted at earlier meetings. I am surprised.
20:43:14 <DanCon> "Resolved: The point about URIs should have dereferencable material at their end applies to namespaces."
20:43:18 <DanCon> -- http://www.w3.org/2002/02/12-tagmem-irc
20:43:25 <DanCon> <- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8
20:43:30 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2002/02/12-tagmem-irc
20:44:13 <Ian> q?
20:44:38 <timMIT> Tim: I thought we had come to a consensus that itis good to have a document , and that human readable is useful and machine readable are good. 
20:44:41 <DanCon> ack ian
20:44:52 <timMIT> ian: There was never any "must"
20:45:09 <timMIT> Ian: No on suggested that  asingle format will meet all needs.
20:46:02 <timMIT> [attempt to establish what we had already agreed]
20:46:50 <Ian> From xml namespaces spec, 2:
20:47:00 <Ian> "It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists). An example of a syntax that is designed with these goals in mind is that for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, it should be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in such a way as to achieve these same goals."
20:47:34 <DanCon> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#ns-decl
20:47:36 <Ian> q+
20:47:37 <PaulC> q+
20:47:41 <Ian> ack DaveO
20:47:45 <timMIT> DO: I understood: we were going to come up with a  format, and RDDL was a good start, but my assumption was that we would have a standard before we recommended putting anything there.
20:48:03 <PaulC> My problem is with people saying "the format" instead of "a format" or "an example format".
20:48:30 <timMIT> Ian: David, do you need one single format, or a general receommendation of one among several?
20:48:31 <DanCon> my problem is any work that suggests sticking an XML schema or RDF schema there isn't OK will get an objection from me.
20:48:33 <timMIT> DO: Either
20:48:47 <Ian> IJ: I just want to be sure nobody expects it to be "the format"
20:48:50 <DanCon> any work that suggests sticking an XML schema or RDF schema there isn't OK will get an objection from me.
20:48:50 <timMIT> Chris:  We say that it meeets the criteria, whcih are not well defined.
20:48:53 <Ian> ack Ian
20:49:07 <DaveO> I will object to XML Schema being OK.
20:50:05 <timMIT> PaulC: We should callit "only an example format"
20:50:07 <timMIT> q+
20:50:24 <Stuart> q+
20:50:42 <timMIT> DO: Do you think that the issue about which vocabulary should use HTML should be a "best practice"?
20:50:57 <Norm> q+
20:51:05 <Stuart> ack PaulC
20:51:09 <Ian> ack PaulC
20:51:12 <Ian> ack TimMIT
20:53:00 <timMIT> TimBL; URIsa are the only thing we insist on.  We don't insist on any data formats.
20:53:37 <timMIT> paul: Sounds like we are design this like everything else on teh web, that you can use something else if you wnat to.
20:54:01 <timMIT> Stu: TimBray not being here may be a problem. He and Jonathan had been working on the document.
20:54:17 <timMIT>    I still find there is a problem with ambiguity - namespace vs namespace document.
20:54:40 <DaveO> SW, I share your concern.
20:54:43 <Ian> ack Stuart
20:54:47 <Ian> ack Norm
20:54:53 <timMIT>    i can see a solution here having a Namespace Docuemnt being identfied, and that indirectly idnetifying a namespace.
20:55:04 <timMIT> Norm: I never thought that RDDL would be part of the namespace rec.
20:55:21 <timMIT>    i thought we would publish it as a separate finding.
20:55:28 <Ian> q+
20:55:31 <timMIT> Chris: me too.
20:55:38 <timMIT> TimBL: me too
20:55:56 <timMIT> Paul: I mean 'effectively" chaneg the namespace redc, not actually.
20:56:35 <timMIT> Ian:   I hoped that if the NS rec were revised, then it would be more explicit bout it being OK or good toput a document there.
20:56:43 <timMIT> timbL:  I agree.
20:57:17 <timMIT> s/Paul:/DaveO
20:58:01 <timMIT> SKW: Any change of TAG attitude here?
20:58:04 <Ian> IJ: Summary - easier to incorporate tag finding into namespaces revision if the language is clearer about utility of putting something at the end of a namespaces URI; it's easier to read one doc instead of 2.
20:58:10 <timMIT> Norm: Not with out TimBray
20:58:49 <timMIT> SKW: I will update TimBray on our discussion.
20:58:52 <timMIT> _____________________________________
20:58:52 <timMIT> Item 4
20:59:02 <timMIT> this was a new issue last week. Some email traffic.
20:59:03 <Ian> #
20:59:03 <Ian>    1.
20:59:03 <Ian>          2.
20:59:03 <Ian> # xmlProfiles-29
20:59:03 <Ian>    1. Action DO 2002/12/02: Talk to XMLP WG about this new issue.
20:59:04 <Ian>    2. Action NW 2002/12/09: Talk to XML Core WG about this new issue
20:59:10 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlProfiles-29
20:59:56 <timMIT> Chris: people have been discussing entities. TimBray sugegsted removing external entities but it wasn't clear MathML would be helped.
21:00:01 <Ian> [Discussion about entities/MathML]
21:00:44 <Ian> ack Ian
21:00:52 <Norm> q+
21:01:07 <Stuart> q+ to ask about background from XMLP
21:02:12 <Ian> DC: Used to be mchar.
21:02:25 <timMIT> DanC:   I know people on MathML who di dnot want to use entities ... they had a <mchar name="..."/> before but it went away.
21:02:38 <Ian> DC email:
21:02:39 <Ian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0027.html
21:02:47 <timMIT> Norm: The i18n folks pushed backon <mchar as yet anotehr way 
21:03:06 <Stuart> q?
21:03:24 <Stuart> ack DanCon
21:03:25 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to elaborate on what MathML wants
21:03:56 <DanCon> Mike Champion, on why mchar went away http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0029.html
21:03:58 <timMIT> TimBL: If schema allowed one to define character entities?
21:04:05 <timMIT> DanC: Why not use elements?
21:04:14 <timMIT> ____? Can't use em in attriubtes
21:04:39 <DanCon> oops; 0029 has nothing to do with mchar
21:04:50 <timMIT> Norm; Subestting XML discussion was driven by XMLP group profiling out "internal subsets".
21:05:13 <timMIT> DanC: round tripping.
21:05:34 <timMIT> ... is something was serialized with &foo; do you have to write it out like that?
21:05:47 <Stuart> ack Norm
21:05:53 <Stuart> ack Stuart
21:05:54 <Zakim> Stuart, you wanted to ask about background from XMLP
21:06:06 <timMIT> SKW: The XMLP -- do we need to respond to them?
21:06:13 <DanCon> Zakim, mute me
21:06:14 <Zakim> sorry, DanCon, I do not see a party named 'DanCon'
21:06:28 <timMIT> Zakim, mute Dan
21:06:29 <Zakim> DanC should now be muted
21:06:52 <DanCon> Zakim, DanC is me
21:06:54 <Zakim> +DanCon; got it
21:07:02 <Stuart> q?
21:07:05 <timMIT> paulC: We could say, Thanks - good rationale.
21:07:19 <Norm> s/paulC/DaveO/, I think
21:07:54 <timMIT> ACTION SKW: Thanks XMLP WG
21:07:57 <DanCon> zakim, unmute me
21:07:58 <Zakim> DanCon should no longer be muted
21:08:03 <DaveO> q+
21:08:19 <Norm> q+
21:09:38 <DanCon> in my inbox, I have a message from David Carlisle of 03 Dec 2002 11:02:10 +0000 to www-tag, but I don't see it in the HTTP archive. spam deely issue, maybe?
21:09:45 <Ian> q?
21:09:47 <timMIT> SKU: Are we on XML Core WG ground here/
21:09:48 <Ian> q+
21:10:00 <Ian> ack DaveO
21:10:18 <timMIT> DaveO: don't understand the question about being in scope for XML core.
21:10:54 <timMIT> ... it is in scope as I understand their charter under examining possible future version.
21:11:00 <Norm> dir
21:11:22 <PaulC> q+
21:11:24 <Ian> q+ CL
21:11:31 <DanCon> ack norm
21:11:34 <DanCon> ack ian
21:13:04 <timMIT> Norm; I think we should invide Paul Grosso
21:13:18 <timMIT> PaulC: I agree.
21:13:53 <timMIT> PaulC: Apeople having been using "profile" and 'subsetting" in confusing ways
21:14:02 <Stuart> q?
21:15:16 <Norm> CL: I agree with PaulC, some people have been thinking that 2.0 would be smaller and others that it would be larger
21:15:30 <Norm> CL: It doesn't say anything explicit in the charter about profiling or a subset
21:15:41 <Norm> CL: But equally, it says they could do a 2.0 if they think it's advisable
21:15:48 <Norm> CL: perhaps, they're telling us they think it's inadvisable
21:15:50 <Stuart> q?
21:16:00 <Norm> ack paulc
21:16:01 <Norm> ack cl
21:16:13 <Norm> CL: We should try to herd this discussion in useful directions
21:16:33 <Norm> PC: several people have put words in Paul Grosso's mouth along the lines of trying to decide what the boundaries are
21:16:42 <Norm> PC: We could do it by email, or here.
21:16:54 <Norm> CL: I think it would be very useful
21:17:09 <Norm> SW: I'd be happy to invite Paul Grosso
21:17:30 <Norm> SW: We probably need to show some leadership in formulating what the issue is
21:17:54 <Norm> DaveO: I think the TAG should make up it's mind about what it thinks of profiling/subsetting, etc.
21:18:15 <Norm> DaveO: For example, if the Core WG says it's a sucky idea, that might be one response, then we should think about whether we would agree or disagree with that
21:18:29 <Norm> DaveO: I don't want to couple what the TAG thinks about this issue with what the TAG thinks
21:18:46 <Norm> ...TAG thinks...Core thinks
21:18:59 <Norm> SW: Ahead or in parallel with meeting with Paul
21:19:46 <PaulC> That was brutely Norm volunteering to take the "high ground".
21:21:32 <Norm> ACTION: NW to write up a first draft of the TAG position
21:21:46 <Norm> ACTION: SW to invite Paul Grosso to a future meeting
21:23:03 <Ian> -------------------------------------------------------------
21:23:06 <Ian> Arch Doc
21:23:14 <Ian> 6 Dec 2002
21:23:15 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20021206
21:23:45 <Ian> IJ: Ok to publish at will editor's drafts?
21:24:50 <Ian> [Lots of support for publish early often]
21:24:58 <Norm> Ian: do you have the two XHTML versions?
21:26:53 <Ian> ADJOURNED
21:26:59 <Ian> RRSAgent, stop