IRC log of tagmem on 2002-12-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

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
19:55:48 [PaulC]
PaulC has joined #tagmem
19:57:36 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:57:40 [Zakim]
19:59:03 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:59:14 [PaulC]
Paul is here. Can Zakim see me?
19:59:24 [PaulC]
19:59:33 [PaulC]
19:59:40 [PaulC]
19:59:46 [PaulC]
20:00:24 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #tagmem
20:00:29 [Zakim]
20:00:32 [Zakim]
20:00:34 [Zakim]
20:00:38 [timMIT]
timMIT has joined #tagmem
20:00:51 [Zakim]
20:00:58 [Zakim]
20:01:07 [timMIT]
Zakim, ??P3 is Stuart
20:01:08 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:01:11 [Zakim]
20:01:56 [DanCon]
DanCon has changed the topic to:
20:02:33 [Zakim]
20:02:36 [Zakim]
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
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]
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]
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]
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 <>.
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]
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]
20:22:59 [timMIT]
RESOLVED: The TAG adopts as suitable for publication as draft-w3c=*
20:23:04 [timMIT]
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]
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 that was still pending
20:28:08 [DanCon]
20:28:25 [timMIT]
action 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]
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] <-
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:35:55 [PaulC]
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]
20:38:06 [timMIT]
Saying that xml schema would be a good thing there IMHO is a bad thing.
20:38:07 [Stuart]
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]
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]
20:43:25 [DanCon]
20:43:30 [Ian]
20:44:13 [Ian]
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]
20:47:36 [Ian]
20:47:37 [PaulC]
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]
20:50:24 [Stuart]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:59:03 [Ian]
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]
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]
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]
21:02:47 [timMIT]
Norm: The i18n folks pushed backon <mchar as yet anotehr way
21:03:06 [Stuart]
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
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]
21:07:05 [timMIT]
paulC: We could say, Thanks - good rationale.
21:07:19 [Norm]
s/paulC/DaveO/, I think
21:07:54 [timMIT]
21:07:57 [DanCon]
zakim, unmute me
21:07:58 [Zakim]
DanCon should no longer be muted
21:08:03 [DaveO]
21:08:19 [Norm]
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]
21:09:47 [timMIT]
SKU: Are we on XML Core WG ground here/
21:09:48 [Ian]
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]
21:11:22 [PaulC]
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]
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]
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]
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]
21:26:59 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop