18:55:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:55:47 <Ian> Ian has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tag.html
18:56:13 <Norm> 04-tag.html? Not just 04-tag?
18:58:29 <Ian> You can drop .html
19:00:49 <Ian> zakim, this is TAG
19:00:49 <Zakim> Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG".
19:00:52 <Ian> zakim, this is TAG
19:00:52 <Zakim> Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG".
19:00:52 <Ian> zakim, this is TAG
19:00:53 <Zakim> Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG".
19:00:58 <Ian> zakim, this will be TAG
19:00:58 <Zakim> ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 30 minutes ago
19:01:04 <Ian> zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:01:04 <Zakim> ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:01:05 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:01:07 <Zakim> +Ian
19:01:34 <Zakim> +??P0
19:01:37 <Zakim> -Ian
19:01:38 <Zakim> +Ian
19:01:52 <Ian> zakim, ??P0 is Roy
19:01:52 <Zakim> +Roy; got it
19:02:11 <Zakim> +??P1
19:02:30 <Ian> zakim, ??P1 is TimBray
19:02:30 <Zakim> +TimBray; got it
19:03:04 <Stuart> Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:03:21 <Stuart> Just about to dial in....
19:03:45 <Zakim> +Norm
19:03:59 <Norm> Zakim, who's on the phone?
19:03:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ian, Roy, TimBray, Norm
19:04:16 <Ian> Regrets: DO, DC, PC?
19:04:24 <Ian> NW: Yes
19:04:24 <Zakim> +??P3
19:04:33 <Ian> zakim, ??P3 is Stuart
19:04:33 <Zakim> +Stuart; got it
19:04:42 <Chris> Chris has joined #tagmem
19:04:53 <Chris> I am just joining
19:05:14 <Chris> but will be muted - the cooling fan/air conditioner is load, but also vital
19:05:41 <Chris> zakim, passcode?
19:05:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 0824, Chris
19:05:54 <Zakim> + +1.334.933.aaaa
19:05:59 <Chris> zakim, mute me
19:06:00 <Zakim> sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'Chris'
19:06:01 <Norm> Welcome, Chris
19:06:51 <Stuart> zakim, who is here?
19:06:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ian, Roy, TimBray, Norm, Stuart, +1.334.933.aaaa
19:06:52 <Ian> zakim, aaaa is Chris
19:06:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see Chris, Stuart, RRSAgent, Norm, Zakim, Ian
19:06:53 <Zakim> sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
19:07:21 <Chris> zakim, +1.33 is Chris
19:07:21 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
19:07:51 <Chris> zakim, my phone does not start with +1 but +33....
19:07:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'my phone does not start with +1 but +33....', Chris
19:08:22 <Ian> Roll call: CL, SW (Chair), NW, IJ, TB, RF. Regrets: DO, DC, PC
19:08:24 <Ian> Missing: TBL
19:08:54 <Ian> Resolved; Accept http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html
19:09:16 <Ian> Action IJ: Make these minutes public.
19:09:28 <Ian> Accept the 28 Jul teleconf minutes?
19:09:35 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tag-summary.html
19:09:35 <Norm> Ian says...oh, nevermind :-)
19:09:59 <Ian> Nobody has read 28 Jul minutes; held over.
19:10:11 <Ian> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2003/08/14-tag.html
19:10:44 <Ian> SW: Continue walkthrough where we left off, or review 1 Aug draft?
19:11:09 <Ian> TB: I have dozens of dozens of editorial issues re: 1 Aug draft, but I think that up to about 2.5 it reflects where we got to.
19:12:43 <Zakim> -TimBray
19:13:16 <Ian> ----
19:13:26 <Ian> Next meeting? 
19:13:39 <Ian> SW: Lots of regrets for 11 August. I recall RF and IJ said they might meet at that time.
19:14:31 <Ian> No meeting 14 August.
19:15:02 <Ian> 18 Aug regrets: TBL, IJ; possible regrets from DO, PC.
19:15:17 <Ian> 25 Aug regrets: TBL, IJ, SW; possible regrets from DO, PC.
19:15:36 <Ian> 8 Sep regrets: TBL, IJ
19:15:48 <Zakim> +??P1
19:15:51 <Ian> Next meeting: 18 Aug teleconf. Regrest TBL, IJ. Need a scribe.
19:15:56 <Ian> zakim, P1 is TBray
19:15:56 <Zakim> sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'P1'
19:16:04 <Ian> zakim, ??P1 is TBray
19:16:04 <Zakim> +TBray; got it
19:16:13 <Ian> ----
19:16:22 <Ian> Resuming Arch Doc review from where we left off at ftf meeting.
19:17:06 <Ian> Left off in extensibility and versioning section.
19:18:03 <Ian> CL: using screen grab for svg to png.
19:18:15 <Chris> for one offs, yes
19:18:57 <Ian> ----
19:19:19 <Chris> can anyone hear me?
19:19:22 <Norm> yes
19:19:30 <Ian> SW: I will be organizing ftf meeting in Bristol 6-8 Oct.
19:19:32 <Chris> i can't hear anyone else
19:19:34 <Ian> Chris, we are talking to you.
19:19:37 <Ian> You can't hear us.
19:19:50 <Chris> correct
19:20:00 <Ian> TB: Recall that for ftf meeting we want to set up time for video link (at best) and telephone link (at worst).
19:20:03 <Zakim> -Chris
19:20:04 <Ian> TB: Especially for TBL.
19:20:10 <Ian> (DC sent regrets)
19:20:38 <Zakim> +Chris
19:21:15 <Ian> ----
19:21:17 <Ian> Action item review
19:25:03 <Ian> Review of open actions; not of which have been completed.
19:25:35 <Ian> ----
19:26:05 <Ian> Review of effect of completed actions
19:26:17 <Ian> 2.1 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#identifiers-comparison
19:26:52 <Ian> "Applications may apply rules beyond basic string comparison (e.g., for "http" URIs, the authority component is case-insensitive) to reduce the risk of false negatives and positives. Please refer to section 6.3 of [URI] for more information about reducing the risk of false positives and negatives.
19:26:52 <Ian> "
19:27:07 <Ian> Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Reword the good practice note with new term for "spelling" based on "character string".
19:27:33 <Ian> "URI characters: If a URI has been assigned to a resource, Web components SHOULD refer to the resource using the same URI, character for character."
19:28:18 <Ian> ---
19:28:30 <Ian> IJ: What about using "Web component" instead of "agent" change?
19:28:32 <Ian> CL: Seems ok to me.
19:28:39 <Ian> TB: I think that's probably worth doing as well.
19:28:51 <Ian> TB: I won't stand for the term human component! These are people!
19:29:48 <Ian> Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Prune instances of "scheme name" except when referring to string component before ":"; RF calls this "scheme component".
19:30:01 <Ian> Completed action IJ 2003/07/21: Include POST (and other methods) as examples of deref methods at beginning of 2.5.
19:31:41 <Ian> NW's new 4.6
19:31:52 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#composition
19:32:09 <Ian> Continuing where we left off:
19:33:53 <Stuart> q?
19:34:23 <Ian> We last were talking about extensibility at ftf meeting.
19:35:23 <Ian> CL: Recall that I have an objection to the phrase "final form"
19:36:01 <Ian> (On 4.6)
19:36:01 <Ian> TB: I am more and more nervous about 4.6 since topic of composition is new.
19:36:16 <Ian> CL: I agree, but we need something to work with. We already have some (positive and negative) experience.
19:36:26 <Ian> RF: What about putting this in the "future work" section?
19:36:40 <Ian> TB: I think that it's fine to point out some of the known issues.
19:36:49 <Ian> TB: The issues in XML are not yet worked out.
19:37:04 <Ian> TB: Don't be too sanguine about expanding this much more than is already there.
19:37:28 <Chris> unless its to enumerate more known problems
19:39:07 <Ian> 4.7 extensibility and versioning.
19:39:13 <Ian> CL: Swap 4.6 and 4.7
19:39:38 <Ian> TB: I agree.
19:39:40 <Ian> NW: Yep
19:40:09 <Ian> TB: I disagree with definition "A format is extensible if instances of the format can include terms from other vocabularies. "
19:40:44 <Ian> TB: There is a lot more than than adding elements.
19:40:53 <Ian> CL: There is ambiguity about word "Vocabulary."
19:41:04 <Chris> by that definition xml is not extensible
19:41:14 <Ian> NW: DO and I have a finding in the work on this. I propose that we leave this until the finding has moved along.
19:41:20 <Chris> (which could be fine - xml is a user restrictable vocabulary)
19:41:44 <Ian> TB: However, I think the second and third called out principles are excellent and I wouldn't want to lose them.
19:41:53 <Ian> TB, SW: Delete first principles; it's subsumed.
19:42:21 <Ian> IJ: How is your finding going in terms of defn of compatibility?
19:42:26 <Ian> NW: More prose than algorithm.
19:43:03 <Chris> instead of M and N, perhaps n, n+1, n-1 ?
19:44:19 <Ian> 4.8. Presentation, Content, and Interaction
19:45:15 <Ian> CL: I am still working on text for this section.
19:45:36 <Ian> [Will be a summary of long essay I previously sent.]
19:45:53 <Ian> 4.9. Hyperlinks
19:47:07 <Ian> NW: I'd like to change editorially "Allow Web-wide linking, not just internal document linking."
19:47:14 <Ian> CL: Split in two.
19:47:30 <Ian> TB: Yes, split.
19:48:06 <Ian> TB: Does last good practice note belong here or in XML section?
19:48:35 <Ian> NW: N3 uses qnames as well.
19:49:41 <Ian> SW: Do we need to distinguish hyperlinking from other kinds of linking?
19:49:42 <Ian> CL: Yes.
19:50:04 <Ian> IJ: Do we have a defn of hyperlink v. link that is not a horrible rat hole?
19:50:06 <Ian> TB, CL: No.
19:50:37 <Ian> TB: We should ack the fact that much of this section that much of the text applies to hyperlinks in XML.
19:51:21 <Ian> IJ: +1 to creating a generic hyperlink section and an xml-specific hyperlink section.
19:51:26 <Ian> NW, TB, CL: Yes.
19:52:01 <Ian> IJ: How does hyperlinking connect to "on the Web"?
19:53:14 <Chris> are embedded links (images etc) hyperlinks
19:53:28 <Ian> TB: I don't think we need to have a firm defn of hyperlink in this document.
19:53:38 <Ian> CL: Are embedded images hyperlink?
19:53:48 <Ian> CL: Are all hyper links user-activated?
19:53:51 <Chris> are all hyperlinks user actuated
19:54:44 <Ian> NW: I share SW's concern. I'm happy to break 4.9 in two and take a stab at defining hyperlink as well.
19:56:15 <Ian> TB: I think we can get away with "When you go and implement something you think is a hyperlink, do this..." and we'll be fine.
19:56:25 <Ian> 4.10. XML-Based Data Formats
19:56:29 <Ian> CL: I don't like "XML-based".
19:57:07 <Ian> TB: I have found no better term than XML-based.
19:57:21 <Ian> TB: I suggest leaving title as is and define what we mean in the first paragraph.
19:57:25 <Ian> CL: That's fine by me.
19:57:41 <Ian> Action TB: Write a definition of "XML-based".
19:58:02 <Ian> IJ: Does "XML Application" connote something different?
19:58:07 <Zakim> -Roy
19:58:20 <Ian> TB: Actually, more commonly it's an XML vocabularly.
19:58:41 <Chris> I mainly want to exclude 'similar to' xml, like using * instead of " for delimiting attributes and saying the syntax is 'based on' xml
19:58:45 <Ian> TB: In formal terms in the XML spec, "XML application" means anything that talks to an XML processor.
19:59:03 <Ian> TB: So, SVG is an XML vocabulary not an XML application.
19:59:08 <Chris> yes
19:59:34 <Ian> 4.10.1. When to Use an XML-Based Format
19:59:42 <Ian> Editor's note: Which XML Specifications make up the XML Family?
19:59:51 <Ian> TB: Delete that note; this is not crucial to the arch of the web.
20:00:03 <Ian> Resolved: Delete the note.
20:00:17 <Ian> 4.10.2. XML Namespaces
20:00:30 <Ian> TB: We need a consistent formatting when we drop into story mode.
20:01:32 <Ian> TB: Cite "title" element specifically.
20:02:10 <Ian> IJ: I also deleted a lot of prose I found confusing.
20:02:16 <Ian> IJ: Any good practice notes belong here?
20:02:38 <Zakim> +??P0
20:02:56 <Ian> TB: We need a good practice note in 4.10.2: When designing a new XML vocabularly, put in its own namespace.
20:03:02 <Ian> CL: Much more important for elements than attributes.
20:03:06 <Ian> zakim, ??P0 is Roy
20:03:06 <Zakim> +Roy; got it
20:03:22 <Ian> TB: Given that everyone is wrapping content in SOAP, not having a namespace is a problem.
20:03:36 <Ian> CL: Formatting attribs in xsl:fo should have been given a namespace.
20:03:41 <Zakim> -TBray
20:04:39 <Ian> Action NW: Redraft 4.10.2 to include some good practice notes (e.g., use namespaces!)
20:05:44 <Ian> 4.10.3. Namespace Documents
20:05:56 <Chris> fot attribute values, especially ones that are inherited
20:06:26 <Ian> IJ: I added "machine-readable" to good practice note.
20:07:21 <Chris> Dan googles on the namespace URI and gets back .....
20:07:24 <Ian> RF: I think "machine-readable" is a meaningless statement.
20:08:03 <Ian> IJ: In UAAG we talked about "content primarily intended for people" v. "primarily intended for processors"
20:08:11 <Ian> RF: Say "optimized for machines."
20:08:21 <Ian> CL: I think the "unattended" part is the key bit.
20:08:29 <Ian> CL: A DTD is suitable for unattended processing.
20:08:46 <Ian> Optimized for processors.
20:10:34 <Ian> IJ: I'd like to find a short phrase AND include "unattended" in a definition.
20:11:07 <Ian> Action IJ: s/machine-readable/something like: optimized for processors, w/ defn that includes notion that it can be processed unattended (by a person).
20:11:22 <Ian> 4.10.4. Fragment identifiers and ID semantics
20:11:56 <Ian> NW: Third para goes to some length to saqy that there is no semantics for +xml media types. We should note that that may change if RFC3023 changes.
20:12:17 <Ian> NW: Allude to the fact that we may someday get there.
20:12:37 <Zakim> +TimBL
20:12:40 <Ian> NW: In para starting "It is common practice...."; s/DTD validation/validation/
20:13:08 <timbl_> timbl_ has joined #tagmem
20:14:03 <Chris> see finding on xmlid-32
20:14:10 <timbl_> RRSAgent, pointer?
20:14:10 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/08/04-tagmem-irc#T20-14-10
20:14:11 <Norm> s/DTD// and fix the grammar
20:14:14 <Norm> :-)
20:14:19 <Chris> type ID
20:14:31 <Ian> Action NW: Rewrite para 4 of 4.10.4.
20:14:40 <Ian> 4.10.5. Media Types for XML
20:14:54 <Chris> norm, see the canonical example
20:14:55 <Chris> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
20:14:55 <Chris> <!DOCTYPE foo [
20:14:55 <Chris> <!ATTLIST foo partnum ID #IMPLIED> ]>
20:14:55 <Chris> <foo  partnum="i54321" bar="toto"/>
20:16:38 <Ian> 4.11. Future Directions for Representations and Formats
20:18:00 <Norm> Editorially in 4.10.5, check markup for "text/*" in the good practice note
20:18:36 <Ian> CL: Put 4.10.5 good practice note at the END of the section.
20:18:42 <Ian> NW: Yes, much better.
20:19:40 <Ian> CL: Also be more precise that intermediaries can only transcode in case of text/xml.
20:20:12 <Norm> They can transcode text/*, technically, yes?
20:20:13 <Ian> CL: Furthermore, append "and will cause the document to not be well-formed."
20:20:54 <Ian> 3. Interaction
20:20:56 <Zakim> + +1.949.679.aabb
20:20:58 <Zakim> -Roy
20:21:01 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801#interaction
20:21:07 <Ian> zakim, aabb is Roy
20:21:07 <Zakim> sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
20:21:12 <Ian> zakim, +aabb is Roy
20:21:12 <Zakim> sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named '+aabb'
20:21:20 <Ian> zakim, +1.949 is Roy
20:21:20 <Zakim> +Roy; got it
20:21:48 <Norm> There are several more places where I think <code> markup would improve things
20:23:01 <Ian> CL: Please shorten 3.0.
20:23:20 <Ian> IJ: It's all story.
20:23:28 <Ian> CL: But it collects things and these need to be brough tout.
20:23:31 <Ian> brought out.
20:23:55 <Ian> CL: There's a diagram here: browser gets octets and media type; can interpret octets given media type.
20:24:29 <Ian> CL: Talk about layers here.
20:24:38 <Ian> IJ: Would these layer be important to the arch?
20:24:40 <Ian> CL: Yes.
20:24:59 <Ian> RF: "Some of the headers (for example, 'Transfer-encoding: identity', which indicates that no compression has been applied)"
20:25:11 <Ian> RF: There is no "identity" encoding. 
20:25:23 <Ian> RF: You would simply not see any transfer-encoding header.
20:25:28 <Ian> RF: That header field is not just for compression
20:25:56 <Ian> IJ: What about "(e.g., Transfer-encoding)"?
20:25:58 <Ian> RF: Yes.
20:26:13 <Ian> IJ: Other examples you'd like to see there?
20:26:16 <Ian> RF: No.
20:27:04 <Ian> CL: Fine with only 'Transfer-encoding'.
20:27:20 <Ian> RF: I am wondering whether we need more intro before the story.
20:27:35 <Stuart> s/SW/RF
20:27:56 <Ian> IJ: What about putting 3.1 before the story?
20:28:02 <Ian> CL: Yes, that lets you use the terms in the story.
20:29:00 <Ian> RF: Para 3 of Interaction doesn't talk about resource header fields. E.g., "vary" is about the response, not the representation.
20:29:13 <Ian> TBL: Yes, I think we should make that distinction.
20:30:20 <timbl_> Message, Representation, and Resource
20:30:37 <timbl_> 3 things
20:30:40 <Ian> RF: There are always three things: rep metadata, res metadata, and message metadata.
20:30:53 <Ian> IJ: Where should we talk about resource metadata?
20:31:09 <Ian> RF: Etag is representation.
20:31:19 <Ian> RF: Alternates is resource metadata
20:31:27 <timbl_> Examples of Resource: Alternates, Vary
20:31:42 <timbl_> Examples of Representation; Etag
20:32:41 <Ian> SW:
20:33:01 <Ian>  Message contains data and metadata. There are three types of metadata (resource, msg, representation)
20:33:17 <timbl_> 1. Data   2. Metadata
20:33:29 <Ian> IJ: Before we said that representation includes some of the representation metadata.
20:33:39 <timbl_> 2.1 message metadata  2.2.  represtentaion metadat   2.3 resourcemetadata
20:33:57 <Chris> message metadata is transitory
20:34:35 <Chris> message metadata is clearly part of the interaction (only)
20:34:54 <Chris> resource metadata is not about the representation, so its in the interaction section also
20:35:22 <Chris> thus, only representation metadata is in the formats section
20:37:09 <timbl_> q+ to say "about" means very little.
20:38:16 <Ian> RF: I'm going to rewrite the whole section anyway...
20:38:37 <Ian> TBL: There are more meanings than "about"; metadata describes relationships.
20:39:39 <Ian> IJ: I'd prefer slightly longer terms than just "data" since that leads to "Which data? Message data or representation data?"
20:39:41 <Ian> ADJOURNED
20:39:42 <Zakim> -Norm
20:39:43 <Zakim> -Roy
20:39:44 <Zakim> -Stuart
20:39:48 <Zakim> -Chris
20:39:49 <Zakim> -Ian
20:39:51 <Zakim> -TimBL
20:39:52 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
20:42:02 <Stuart> Stuart has left #tagmem
20:42:24 <Chris> rrsagent, bye
20:42:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items