IRC log of tagmem on 2003-04-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:57:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:57:26 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
18:57:26 [Zakim]
ok, Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started
18:57:34 [Ian]
zakim, dial Ian-BO
18:57:34 [Zakim]
I am sorry, Ian; I do not know a number for Ian-BO
18:57:35 [Ian]
zakim, dial Ian-BOS
18:57:35 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
18:57:37 [Zakim]
18:58:17 [Zakim]
18:59:28 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: Agenda:
19:00:20 [Ian]
Regrets: SW
19:00:25 [Zakim]
19:01:11 [Zakim]
19:01:34 [Ian]
zakim, ??P2 is Paul
19:01:34 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
19:01:36 [paulc]
I am on IRC today. No idea why the connection worked this time and not for the last 3 weeks.
19:02:02 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:02:27 [Chris]
with you in a moment guys - just puttingthe finishing touches to a long email discharging an action item
19:02:28 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:02:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Ian, NWalsh, DOrchard, Paul
19:02:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Chris, RRSAgent, timbl_, paulc, Zakim, Ian
19:03:38 [Zakim]
19:04:07 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:04:21 [timbl_]
"Momentarily" means "for a moment".
19:04:29 [timbl_]
(in my book)
19:05:22 [Ian]
Chair: NW, Scribe: IJ
19:05:23 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:05:47 [Ian]
Roll call: TBL, NW, TB, DO, PC, IJ
19:05:56 [TBray]
This effort would be entirely impossible without tabbed browsing...
19:06:45 [Zakim]
19:06:51 [Ian]
zakim, ??P4 is Roy
19:06:51 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:07:12 [timbl_]
19:07:18 [Ian]
# Accept 31 Mar telecon minutes?
19:07:33 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 31 Mar minutes:
19:07:49 [Zakim]
19:08:03 [Ian]
IJ: Would like to decide whether to make draft finding for mime handling public.
19:08:13 [Chris]
last weeks minutes fine by me
19:08:31 [Ian]
thx chris
19:09:02 [Ian]
Accepted agenda:
19:09:02 [Chris]
14 april is ok by me
19:09:24 [Chris]
19:09:27 [Ian]
Next meeting: 14 Apr. No regrets signaled
19:09:35 [Ian]
# Accept summary of TAG activity?
19:09:39 [Ian]
19:10:09 [Ian]
NW, CL: Looks fine with PC's suggested change.
19:10:34 [Ian]
CL: Change "Discussed the following issues' to "made progress on the following issues"
19:10:40 [Ian]
Action IJ: Send out summary
19:10:46 [Ian]
1.1 Meeting planning
19:10:54 [Ian]
# The TAG will strive to organize a virtual meeting shortly after the WWW Conference. See thoughts from SW on organizing a virtual meeting.
19:10:59 [Ian]
19:10:59 [Ian]
Completed action TBL 2003/03/31: Propose June dates (after 4 June). (See questionnaire)
19:11:10 [Ian]
19:11:34 [Ian]
[Responses from all but TB and DO]
19:12:03 [Chris]
(just switching to a browser with better css support...)
19:12:08 [Ian]
TBL: Seems like 19 June gets highest vote
19:12:36 [Ian]
NW: Let's push to email for one more week.
19:13:09 [Ian]
IJ: Please register for AC meeting.
19:13:44 [Chris]
thusday and Friday 19 and 20 June looks good
19:14:05 [Ian]
IJ: Will 8:30-9:30 slot be ok day 2 of AC meeting?
19:14:13 [Ian]
DO, PC: Fine by me. [No objection]
19:14:21 [Ian]
19:14:53 [TBray]
I just filled out the form
19:14:57 [Ian]
1.2 W3C Track Presentation
19:15:14 [Ian]
W3C track:
19:15:27 [Ian]
Notes from Paul Cotton:
19:16:36 [Chris]
'what is the tag and why should you care" fits in 30 minutes
19:16:51 [paulc]
19:16:55 [Ian]
Last time: Arch Doc, Get7, Linking
19:17:42 [Ian]
Last time AT AC MTG: Arch Doc, Get7, Linking
19:17:51 [Ian]
ack paulc
19:17:56 [Chris]
when is the www slot, actually?
19:18:11 [Ian]
PC suggestion:
19:18:11 [Ian]
a) scope and role of the TAG
19:18:11 [Ian]
b) sample findings issued by the TAG and their results
19:18:11 [Ian]
c) overview of the Web Architecture document
19:18:29 [Chris]
D1-S3 W3C's Architecture and Development Principles
19:18:29 [Chris]
16.00 - 17.30
19:18:42 [Chris]
so we are 17:00-17:30
19:18:54 [Chris]
on Wednesday
19:20:54 [Chris]
who wil be there - ian, paul, chris ....
19:21:05 [Chris]
19:21:09 [Chris]
who else
19:21:30 [Ian]
NW: Please reply on email to PC's proposal
19:21:39 [Ian]
Next week: TAG will finalize who will give which piece of the track presentation on 14 April.
19:22:37 [Ian]
TBL: I have a conflict 20 May in the morning (at AC meeting); could TAG slot be other than 8:30?
19:22:50 [Chris]
Tuesday 20th?
19:23:18 [Ian]
Any other constraints?
19:23:28 [Ian]
Action IJ: Report back TBL constraints for AC meeting and TAG slot; no other constraints.
19:23:41 [Ian]
(And report back suggested slot by SB)
19:24:05 [Ian]
[IJ to put question on next weeks' agenda of AC mtg slot]
19:24:09 [Ian]
19:24:44 [Ian]
2.1 Architecture document
19:24:55 [Chris]
D1-S3 W3C's Architecture and Development Principles
19:24:55 [Chris]
16.00 - 17.30
19:25:01 [Ian]
19:25:01 [Ian]
# Action CL 2003/0127: Draft language for arch doc that takes language from internet media type registration, propose for arch doc, include sentiment of TB's second sentence from CP10.
19:25:05 [Chris]
19:25:24 [Ian]
19:25:39 [Ian]
IJ: Who is reading the arch doc?
19:25:41 [TBray]
Tim which?
19:25:51 [Ian]
NW: I am getting closer to reading it.
19:25:53 [Chris]
I have been reading it this week, yes
19:26:35 [Ian]
"internet media types and encoding"
19:26:49 [Chris]
goes in 4.2. Processing model
19:27:07 [Ian]
TBL also reading arch doc.
19:27:09 [Ian]
19:27:23 [Ian]
* contentTypeOverride-24
19:27:27 [Ian]
19:27:27 [Ian]
* Completed action IJ 2003/03/24: Draft up some language; make connection to error-handling issue. TAG position with rationale why to not override server value of content type. (Done)
19:27:35 [Chris]
On IRIEverywhere-27 see
19:27:38 [Ian]
Not yet public:
19:28:12 [TBray]
19:28:40 [Ian]
IJ: I intend to publish this in a week; please review.
19:29:03 [Ian]
CL: Some of the material was in an earlier finding.
19:29:06 [Chris]
please link back to 'consistency of media types' finding
19:29:07 [Ian]
IJ: Yes, could refer to that.
19:29:19 [Ian]
[IJ: Put on agenda for next week]
19:29:46 [Ian]
19:29:46 [Ian]
* namespaceDocument-8
19:29:46 [Ian]
o Next steps on RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray/Paul Cotton
19:30:04 [Ian]
TB: I have an action to fix this up to ensure that it's valid, modularized xhtml.
19:30:10 [Ian]
TB: Two substantive issues before the TAG:
19:30:21 [Ian]
1) Do we support this version of RDDL on a technical basis?
19:30:27 [Ian]
2) How do we move it forward?
19:30:41 [paulc]
19:31:48 [Ian]
TBL: I think that the TAG is not set up to be a WG at this time; Rec track docs would be quite a drain on resources at this time. If this were a draft, I think at this time it would be better to fork off another WG.
19:31:49 [TBray]
19:31:54 [TBray]
19:32:02 [paulc]
Please see for my view.
19:32:03 [Chris]
q+ to talk about life after rec, testsuites, and other resource suckers
19:32:25 [Ian]
TBL: Another possibility is to say "we don't think this is contentious, we don't have time to get review, we'll publish as a Note."
19:32:45 [Ian]
TBL: Then, if picked up, then can put on Rec track. Or if not used because of problems, move to a WG for more work.
19:32:57 [Ian]
19:33:00 [Ian]
ack paulc
19:33:22 [Ian]
PC: On this front, I think the TAG should "ask permission" and not "ask forgiveness".
19:33:28 [Ian]
PC: Therefore I would like to propose the following:
19:33:33 [Ian]
a) we publish our proposal for namespacedocument-8 [2] as a Note ASAP
19:33:46 [Ian]
b) we specifically request input for the AC membership at the May AC on how the content of this Note should be progressed to Recommendation track.
19:33:54 [Ian]
(if or should be progressed)
19:34:17 [Ian]
PC: We should negotiate this precedent with the AC.
19:35:00 [Ian]
PC: With simple change by TB, we could publish as Note quickly and get ac feedback.
19:35:03 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:35:05 [Ian]
q+ Norm
19:35:29 [Ian]
TB: I think I agree with TBL and PC; don't want to be sloppy to respond formally to public input.
19:36:06 [Ian]
TB: What about publishing this as a finding?
19:36:13 [Ian]
TB: I could also see publishing as a Note.
19:36:33 [Ian]
19:36:37 [Ian]
ack Chris
19:36:37 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about life after rec, testsuites, and other resource suckers
19:37:06 [Ian]
CL: Lots of responsibilities for Rec track work (e.g., test suites, life after Rec, etc.)
19:37:24 [Ian]
CL: I support publication as a finding.
19:37:27 [Ian]
ack Norm
19:37:35 [timbl_]
19:37:37 [Ian]
NW: I agree with PC (publication as a Note)
19:37:56 [Chris]
we could still ask the AC if the finding should go on the rec track and if so who should do it would work
19:38:17 [Ian]
NW: I think that findings have more stature; people used to seeing docs from TAG at this point. People are more used to seeing spec-like things as Notes.
19:38:20 [Ian]
19:38:23 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:38:53 [Ian]
IJ: Note more spec-like; TR page as location for document likely to get more attention.
19:38:59 [Chris]
19:39:01 [Ian]
IJ: I lean slightly towards Note publicatoin.
19:39:09 [timbl_]
q+ to ask about links from
19:39:14 [Ian]
ack Chris
19:39:58 [Ian]
ack timbl_
19:39:58 [Zakim]
timbl_, you wanted to ask about links from
19:41:58 [Ian]
Action TB: (1) Clean up messy section 4 of RDDL draft and (2) Investigate and publish a canonical mapping to RDF.
19:42:31 [Ian]
19:42:44 [Ian]
1) TAG doesn't think that Rec track best option for now (at least without consulting the AC)
19:43:34 [Ian]
19:43:34 [timbl_]
19:43:37 [Ian]
19:43:41 [Ian]
ack timbl_
19:43:57 [Ian]
TBL: I think finding is inappropriate; people expect a certain genre of thing in a finding. This is Note-like.
19:44:18 [TBray]
19:44:24 [Ian]
19:44:36 [Ian]
TBL: We could publish a finding explaining why the Note is good....
19:44:47 [Ian]
TB: Can you have a Note that says "This represents the consensus of...."
19:45:40 [TBray]
What Norm said
19:45:43 [Chris]
finding can be short, but should still exist
19:45:47 [Ian]
Proposed: Plan is to publish TB's revised RDDL document as a W3C Note. Status section would say that it represents the consensus of the TAG.
19:46:13 [Ian]
CL: The finding would say why the solution is desirable.
19:46:32 [paulc]
19:46:49 [Ian]
IJ: I think that rationale would be better in the document.
19:47:01 [paulc]
Where do we say that users of namespaces SHOULD use the suggested format.
19:47:01 [Ian]
CL: I'd like each issue to close with a finding.
19:47:08 [Chris]
its a consistency thing
19:47:17 [Ian]
ack paulc
19:47:57 [Ian]
TB: Current language in Note does not say "namespaces SHOULD use the suggested format." I would be fine to say that, but don't think it needs it.
19:48:23 [TBray]
Current doc says "A Resource Directory is designed to be suitable for service as the body of an entity returned by dereferencing a URI serving as an XML Namespace name."
19:48:40 [timbl_]
19:49:10 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:49:18 [Ian]
ack timbl_
19:49:32 [Ian]
TBL: I hear PC saying put language spec in a Note, put recommendations on usage in a finding.
19:50:07 [Ian]
TBL: I feel that we can put the RDDL Note forward, but I agree where there will be applications where people will use XML or RDF schemas.
19:50:19 [Ian]
TBL: I don't think we can force people to use it.
19:50:28 [Ian]
19:50:36 [timbl_]
I don't WANT to frce people to use it
19:50:50 [Ian]
NW: I agree with CL to use finding to answer finding, publish spec in Note.
19:50:54 [TBray]
OK, I can go with the the 2-doc solution
19:51:01 [Ian]
IJ: I can too
19:51:32 [Ian]
Proposal: Publish spec as a Note, TAG opinion ("Should use...") as finding.
19:51:39 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:52:27 [Ian]
Proposal: TAG expects to publish RDDL Spec as a Note (status section to indicate consensus of TAG), and to produce a finding to answer question of namespaceDocument-8.
19:52:46 [Ian]
namely that groups SHOULD use RDDL.
19:53:56 [Ian]
TBL: I think we should say that RDDL is a good example (don't say "SHOULD" in finding; just indicate RDDL as a good example).
19:54:09 [DaveO]
I think we should say that RDDL should be used.
19:54:48 [TBray]
19:54:49 [Ian]
Proposal: TAG expects to publish RDDL Spec as a Note (status section to indicate consensus of TAG), and to produce a finding to answer question of namespaceDocument-8.
19:55:06 [timbl_]
ok by me
19:55:19 [Ian]
TB: I'm optimistic that in the finding we'll find consensus on verbiage.
19:55:35 [timbl_]
I don't want to recommend RDDL any more than we recommend XML, RDF or SVG
19:55:38 [DaveO]
19:56:05 [DaveO]
19:56:07 [Ian]
Proposal: TAG expects to publish RDDL Spec as a Note (status section to indicate consensus of TAG that this is a suitable representation of a resource), and to produce a finding to answer question of namespaceDocument-8 (with some sort of pointer to the RDDL spec).
19:57:07 [Ian]
Proposal: TAG expects to publish RDDL Spec as a Note (status section to indicate consensus of TAG that RDDL is a suitable format for representations of an XML namespace), and to produce a finding to answer question of namespaceDocument-8 (with some sort of pointer to the RDDL spec).
19:57:36 [Ian]
Resolved: TAG expects to publish RDDL Spec as a Note (status section to indicate consensus of TAG that RDDL is a suitable format for representations of an XML namespace), and to produce a finding to answer question of namespaceDocument-8 (with some sort of pointer to the RDDL spec).
19:58:07 [Ian]
Action TB: Work on RDDL Note.
19:58:17 [Ian]
Action: Work on TAG finding.
19:58:21 [Ian]
Action PC: Work on TAG finding.
19:58:51 [Ian]
19:58:56 [Ian]
19:58:56 [Ian]
19:58:56 [Ian]
# IRIEverywhere-27
19:58:56 [Ian]
* Action CL 2003/03/31: Revised position statement on use of IRIs.
19:59:04 [Chris]
[IRIEverywhere-27] next steps
19:59:20 [DaveO]
I have to step away for a few minutes.
20:00:33 [Ian]
CL: I'd like more discussion this week; deadline 21 April?
20:00:49 [Ian]
CL: Also need to convey to Martin the desirability of seeing updated to include iDNS and published as draft 4, and to move to RFC soon.
20:01:11 [Ian]
CL: I'd like to address question of 'blessed wording' regarding IRI that three XML-related specs can use to get to Proposed Rec.
20:01:34 [TBray]
Kanji example in
20:01:39 [timbl_]
20:02:03 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:02:10 [Ian]
q+ TBray
20:02:14 [TBray]
20:02:15 [Ian]
ack timbl_
20:02:34 [Ian]
TBL: I think there is a fundamental question that has not been resolved, and is causing a lot of tension.
20:03:00 [Ian]
TBL: Whether, fundamentally, the fundamental string is the URI, or whether we are dispensing with URIs in favor of Unicode strings instead.
20:03:14 [Chris]
position A says IRI is a way of talking about URI
20:03:19 [Ian]
TBL: I was under the impression during development of IRIs, that the model was position A.
20:03:35 [Chris]
position B says IRI is the real thing and URI is a subset that should go away
20:03:43 [Ian]
TBL: I think the TAG needs to adress this bifurcation (A v. B)
20:04:00 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:04:09 [Ian]
TB: I agree with TBL and CL in the characterization.
20:04:18 [Chris]
and please lets get to blessed text after we have discussed this
20:04:32 [Chris]
20:04:54 [timbl_]
Zakim, remind me to turn into a pumpkin in 25 minutes
20:04:55 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'remind me to turn into a pumpkin in 25 minutes', timbl_
20:04:57 [Ian]
TB: "Is any URI an IRI?" I think the answer is No; lots of sloppiness about hexifying.
20:05:20 [Chris]
strongly disagree with TimBray
20:05:38 [Ian]
TB: I think IRIs need to be rigid and deterministic about when hexifying is used, and that the mapping (to URI) process be well-characterized.
20:06:26 [Ian]
CL: I don't think it's true that all URIs are IRIs. [Some discussion of equivalence measures around hexifying]
20:06:51 [Ian]
CL: It does not follow that the URI version of an IRI is the same as that IRI.
20:07:23 [Ian]
CL: It does not follow that the URI version of an IRI is the same as that IRI in all cases: same when you dereference; not the same in e.g., namespace comparisons.
20:07:26 [timbl_]
Zakim, remind me in 22 minutes to turn into a pumpkin
20:07:26 [Zakim]
ok, timbl_
20:07:41 [Ian]
NW: Why inappropriate to convert to URI before comparison?
20:08:02 [Ian]
CL: A number of specs don't do it that way; they do simple string matching in a number of specs. Therefore, not reasonable in practice to require conversion to URI.
20:08:16 [Ian]
CL: E.g., you have to have a kanji character and upper case hex and lower case hex to be the same.
20:08:32 [TBray]
We really need to do this in a room with a whiteboard
20:08:39 [Ian]
CL: Too much water to push uphill (especially when extra processing doesn't get you much).
20:08:40 [timbl_]
q+ to argue that theis is relatively little water to push up hill
20:08:43 [Ian]
20:08:47 [Ian]
ack Chris
20:08:48 [Chris]
ack chris
20:08:50 [TBray]
20:08:52 [Ian]
ack timbl_
20:08:52 [Zakim]
timbl_, you wanted to argue that theis is relatively little water to push up hill
20:09:13 [Ian]
TBL: I've been there too.... I was convinced of CL's argument, but upon further reflection believe it's untenable.
20:09:31 [Ian]
TBL: Suppose that identifiers are unicode strings and you don't have to canonicalize them to compare them.
20:09:43 [Ian]
TBL: There is ten years of software using 7-bit fields for this quantity.
20:10:03 [paulc]
I need to step out for 3-4 min.
20:10:12 [TBray]
20:10:14 [Chris]
q+ to point out that I really, really want to talk about blessed text in the next 20 minutes
20:10:14 [Ian]
TBL: If suddenly you allow namespaces that can differ in 7-bit systems but not in 8-bit systems.
20:11:21 [Ian]
TBL: Changing the XML spec is relatively easy. You have a transition strategy: ask them to canonicalize namespace IDs and xpaths. During the interim, the only time things actually fail is when people use things that only differ in case of hex encoding. So this is a corner case.
20:11:46 [Ian]
TBL: Easier to move to full canonicalization and full equality and to be consistent with 10 years of code and fix latest departures.
20:11:51 [Ian]
CL: I strongly disagree.
20:11:53 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:11:55 [Ian]
q+ Norm
20:12:16 [Ian]
TB: I'm not sure that CL and I disagree that much. In terms of URIs, it's a fact that everyone uses string comp in namespace applications.
20:12:33 [Ian]
TB: We have ample evidence that this is prone and shakey to failure, but people do it anyway.
20:12:46 [Chris]
everyone uses string comparison in namespace comparisons, and in xpath. and in xml query. and ....
20:12:59 [Ian]
TB: One reason has to do with hex-encoding. We can remove that sloppiness in the IRI spec; but we'd have to abandon the insistence that every URI is an IRI.
20:13:01 [Ian]
20:13:14 [Ian]
TBL: I hear TB proposing that IRIs are always canonical.
20:13:15 [Ian]
ack Chris
20:13:15 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to point out that I really, really want to talk about blessed text in the next 20 minutes
20:13:49 [paulc]
I'm back.
20:15:53 [Ian]
TBL: Are you saying, CL, that browsers that use hex encoding are wrong?
20:16:07 [Ian]
CL: Yes, they are doing it too early. They should do when they send over HTTP transport.
20:16:34 [Ian]
TBL: If you are telling me that the encoded and unencoded forms are equivalent....
20:16:35 [Ian]
CL: Yes.
20:17:31 [Ian]
RF: When a robot takes advantage of some heuristic, this is not for the purpose of determining equivalence of the identifier; it's equivalence of an operation.
20:17:38 [Ian]
20:18:20 [Ian]
TBL: Each algorithm in the deployed software, though, is using a different piece of the URI spec for its heuristics.
20:18:56 [Ian]
RF: There is a reason to create an equivalence relationship between IRIs and URIs. That there are other mechanisms that don't respect that equivalence is irrelevant.
20:19:20 [Ian]
RF: I agree with TBL.
20:19:22 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:20:10 [timbl_]
"blessed text"
20:20:12 [timbl_]
20:20:51 [Ian]
NW: I think that TB is right - the key to make this all fit together is to say "Not all URIs are IRIs, and you define mappings that are reversible"
20:20:59 [Chris]
deprecated subset of URIs
20:21:16 [Ian]
[On text about IRIs in specs at this point]
20:22:06 [Ian]
CL: Should we be in the business of producing parts of specs that have guarantees associated with them, or not.
20:22:27 [Ian]
CL: Or do we say "Here's our best guess, do the best you can to prepare something for the Director."
20:22:45 [Ian]
20:22:51 [timbl_]
q+ to say we should respond and we should not suggest the result has papal infallability.
20:22:58 [Ian]
ack timbl_
20:22:58 [Zakim]
timbl_, you wanted to say we should respond and we should not suggest the result has papal infallability.
20:23:13 [Ian]
TBL: If we are talking about this, we owe people a response, but without any guarantees.
20:23:15 [Chris]
agree about the papal infalibility
20:23:52 [Ian]
TB: see language in xml 1.1...hmmm, doesn't say much.
20:24:07 [Ian]
CL: There is language in schema spec as well.
20:24:14 [Ian]
CL: People could point to that (It's a Rec)
20:24:45 [Ian]
TB: I think the anyURI type is underspecified.
20:25:40 [Ian]
TB: Last time I looked, there were very few syntactic restrictions on what you can put in an anyURI. I don't think that that's a good solution.
20:26:25 [Ian]
TBL: How about if we tell people to refer to the IRI draft. Then we explain to people what that means: When you refer to the IRI spec, you take on that %7e and %7E are the same.
20:26:43 [Chris]
this is the option A, push water uphill argument
20:26:53 [Ian]
TBL: That gets the XML specs off the hook. We need to explain that, the syntax and semantics are defined by URI specs.
20:27:04 [Ian]
NW: Core WG wants to say that these things are IRIs, not URIs.
20:27:05 [Chris]
Core WG wants to say these things are IRIs
20:27:25 [Ian]
TB: I think that it's clear that we probably can't solve their problem for them.
20:27:38 [Ian]
TB: IRI, though the right answer, isn't done.
20:29:26 [Zakim]
timbl_, you asked to be reminded at this time to turn into a pumpkin
20:29:41 [Ian]
TBL: Propose that specs continue to be well-defined in terms of URIs, and only as well-defined as the IRI spec currently is.
20:30:44 [Ian]
TBL: URI conformance + xml namespace conformance will
20:31:02 [Ian]
give you this flexibility.
20:31:36 [Ian]
NW: A lot of existing software will no longer be conformant.
20:31:50 [Ian]
CL: XML Namespace software will break.
20:31:57 [Ian]
RF: But IRIs won't look in the future like they look today.
20:32:05 [Ian]
RF: IRIs will change to support IDNA.
20:32:09 [Zakim]
20:32:10 [Zakim]
20:32:27 [Ian]
NW: If you do what TBL just said, then you have to use URI comparison and not string comparison.
20:32:36 [Ian]
RF: Then use the field, define in the other specs as CDATA, and forget about it.
20:32:39 [paulc]
I have to go very soon.
20:32:57 [Ian]
CL: I have an action to write this up.
20:33:34 [Chris]
I cannot complete writing this up
20:33:46 [Chris]
all proposed solutions have vehement objections
20:33:55 [Ian]
NW: IJ: please move this up the agenda next week (Blessed Text)
20:33:58 [Chris]
need to be higher up the agenda next week
20:34:53 [Ian]
20:35:07 [Ian]
Proposed: Move URIEquivalence-15 to pending state?
20:35:27 [Ian]
NW: Please put on agenda for next week to confirm.
20:35:35 [Ian]
20:35:49 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop