IRC log of tagmem on 2003-10-20
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 18:32:49 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 18:45:46 [ChrisL]
- ChrisL has joined #tagmem
- 18:51:20 [ChrisL]
- ian?
- 18:51:29 [Ian]
- Yes?
- 18:51:48 [ChrisL]
- re joint action item about svg and linking
- 18:51:50 [ChrisL]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/linking.html#Links
- 18:52:00 [ChrisL]
- please link to svg 1.1 not 1.0
- 18:52:23 [Ian]
- Ok.
- 18:53:19 [ChrisL]
- and (following link above) it seems fairly clear that SVG uses XLink as is; i don't understand the wording "Section 17.1 of the SVG specification suggests that interaction with an a link involves retrieving a representation of a resource, identified by the XLink href attribute: "By activating these links (by clicking with the mouse, through keyboard input, and voice commands), users may visit these resources." " in the arch doc
- 18:53:35 [ChrisL]
- 1.0 has that, 1.1 hav better and less wooly language
- 18:53:39 [Ian]
- Ok.
- 18:53:54 [ChrisL]
- oh - it does if i scroll down a bit
- 18:54:00 [ChrisL]
- ok so wat was wrong with it?
- 18:54:15 [ChrisL]
- it seems informative; the ref ro xlink is normative
- 18:54:39 [Ian]
- I'll re-examine it.
- 18:55:02 [ChrisL]
- Our action was re http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#dereference-uri
- 18:55:19 [Ian]
- Right
- 18:55:27 [ChrisL]
- however, apart from removing 'suggest' which seems overly tentative, that section looks ok
- 18:56:13 [ChrisL]
- a better part of the spec to quote would be an earlier sentence from the same para
- 18:56:15 [ChrisL]
- The remote resource (the destination for the link) is defined by a URI specified by the XLink href attribute on the 'a' element.
- 18:56:46 [ChrisL]
- that seems to lead much more clearly from svg, to the a element, to the href attribute as specified by xlink
- 18:57:46 [ChrisL]
- my only other criticism is that links in the arch doc go to the references only
- 18:57:58 [ChrisL]
- so section 5.4 of the XLink 1.0 [XLink10] specification
- 18:58:15 [ChrisL]
- I would prefer to see a direct link to 5.4 as well
- 18:58:22 [ChrisL]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators
- 18:58:29 [Norm]
- Zakim, what's the passcode?
- 18:58:29 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 0824, Norm
- 18:58:33 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
- 18:58:34 [ChrisL]
- after all, important resources should have uris
- 18:58:40 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 18:59:03 [ChrisL]
- zakim, phone chris-work
- 18:59:03 [Zakim]
- ok, ChrisL; the call is being made
- 18:59:04 [Zakim]
- +Chris
- 18:59:34 [ChrisL]
- we seem to have a modem or fax machine on the line
- 18:59:45 [ChrisL]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 18:59:45 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-tagmem-irc#T18-59-45
- 18:59:53 [ndw_]
- ndw_ has joined #tagmem
- 19:00:10 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:00:54 [ChrisL]
- is it just me or does everyone hear that awful noise?
- 19:01:12 [ChrisL]
- zakim, who is here?
- 19:01:12 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Norm, Chris
- 19:01:13 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see TBray, ndw_, ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Ian
- 19:01:40 [ChrisL]
- norm, do you get a bad noise onthe phone?
- 19:01:57 [ndw_]
- Norm, not really. I heard your voice once, briefly, but it's been pretty quiet since then
- 19:02:16 [Norm]
- I heard you again. Can you hear me?
- 19:02:18 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Bray
- 19:02:27 [ChrisL]
- I get terrible distortion
- 19:02:27 [Ian]
- zakim, call Ian-BOS
- 19:02:27 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian; the call is being made
- 19:02:28 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 19:02:31 [Norm]
- We can't hear you, Chris
- 19:02:32 [ChrisL]
- someone is speaking?
- 19:02:49 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 19:02:49 [Ian]
- zakim, drop Ian
- 19:02:52 [Zakim]
- Ian is being disconnected
- 19:02:53 [Zakim]
- -Ian
- 19:02:54 [Ian]
- zakim, call Ian-BOS
- 19:02:54 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian; the call is being made
- 19:02:55 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 19:02:57 [ChrisL]
- no idea what is being said or who is saying it
- 19:03:05 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 19:03:12 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 19:03:12 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Chris, Tim_Bray, Ian, Norm
- 19:03:13 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see TBray, Norm, ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian
- 19:03:22 [Norm]
- Zakim, who's talking?
- 19:03:37 [Zakim]
- Norm, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Chris (65%), Ian (17%)
- 19:03:45 [Norm]
- Zakim, mute norm
- 19:03:45 [Zakim]
- Norm should now be muted
- 19:03:49 [Ian]
- zakim, mute Chris
- 19:03:49 [Zakim]
- Chris should now be muted
- 19:03:53 [Zakim]
- -Chris
- 19:03:56 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Bray
- 19:04:03 [Norm]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 19:04:03 [Zakim]
- Norm should no longer be muted
- 19:04:07 [ChrisL]
- zakim, phone chris-work
- 19:04:07 [Zakim]
- ok, ChrisL; the call is being made
- 19:04:08 [Zakim]
- +Chris
- 19:04:09 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Bray
- 19:04:37 [Norm]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 19:04:37 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Chris, Ian, Norm, Tim_Bray
- 19:04:38 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see TBray, Norm, ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian
- 19:04:42 [Ian]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-tag.html
- 19:04:49 [Ian]
- Regrets: SW, DC
- 19:06:57 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 19:07:01 [ChrisL]
- I assert that Ian and i have completed our action item
- 19:07:13 [ChrisL]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-tagmem-irc#T18-59-45
- 19:07:13 [Ian]
- zakim, P5 is Paul
- 19:07:13 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'P5'
- 19:07:19 [Ian]
- zakim, ??P5 is Paul
- 19:07:19 [Zakim]
- +Paul; got it
- 19:08:10 [Zakim]
- + +1.949.679.aaaa
- 19:08:34 [aaaa]
- aack!
- 19:08:41 [Ian]
- zakim, aaaa is Roy
- 19:08:41 [Roy]
- Roy has joined #tagmem
- 19:08:42 [Zakim]
- +Roy; got it
- 19:09:05 [timbl]
- timbl has joined #tagmem
- 19:09:15 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 19:09:48 [Ian]
- Roll call: NW (Chair), TBL, RF, CL, TB, PC, IJ
- 19:09:57 [Ian]
- Regrets: DC, SW
- 19:10:04 [Ian]
- Not sure: DO
- 19:10:15 [Ian]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2003/10/20-tag.html
- 19:10:37 [Ian]
- Accept the minutes of the 6-8 Oct ftf in Bristol?
- 19:10:44 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/10/06-tag-summary.html
- 19:11:07 [Ian]
- Resolved: Accepted
- 19:11:16 [Ian]
- Accept this agenda?
- 19:11:26 [Ian]
- yes
- 19:11:33 [Ian]
- Next meeting: 27 Oct 2003 teleconference
- 19:11:39 [Ian]
- Regrets: TB, IJ, PC (at risk)
- 19:12:00 [Ian]
- Reminder: Action items related to Arch Document due 22 October.
- 19:12:29 [Ian]
- [Look at upcoming agendas]
- 19:12:54 [Ian]
- 1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.
- 19:13:00 [Ian]
- CL: DO sent in first draft
- 19:13:19 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Oct/0062.html
- 19:13:42 [Ian]
- agenda+ 3023 update from TB
- 19:14:05 [Ian]
- NW: The expectation is that next week we will walk through slides.
- 19:14:15 [Ian]
- CL: How much should I incorporate from summary for AC highlight?
- 19:14:44 [Ian]
- NW: Incorporate what you think is appropriate; punch up as necessary.
- 19:15:00 [Ian]
- agenda-
- 19:15:09 [Ian]
- ---------
- 19:15:15 [Ian]
- abstractComponentRefs-37
- 19:15:36 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html
- 19:15:37 [Zakim]
- -Paul
- 19:15:53 [Ian]
- Summary of options from DO
- 19:16:35 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 19:16:42 [Zakim]
- +DOrchard
- 19:17:18 [Ian]
- Draft finding:
- 19:17:28 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0027.html
- 19:18:00 [Ian]
- q+ with some comments about finding: (1) publish as HTML, tell stroy, what is conclusion to arch argument?
- 19:18:15 [Ian]
- q+ with some comments about finding: (1) publish as HTML, tell stroy, what is conclusion to arch argument
- 19:18:21 [Ian]
- q+
- 19:19:40 [ChrisL]
- q+ to talk about balanced parens
- 19:20:11 [Ian]
- [Background on draft finding from DO]
- 19:20:53 [ChrisL]
- q?
- 19:21:32 [Ian]
- TBray: There needs to be more structure of this document to point out (1) here's what we think you should do (2) here's the raw data.
- 19:21:51 [Ian]
- TBray: Not clear why raw data there. I think it's useful to have that data there.
- 19:22:39 [Ian]
- ack Ian
- 19:22:50 [Ian]
- IJ: Should I publish?
- 19:23:00 [Ian]
- DO: Yes, after my next round of updates.
- 19:23:56 [Ian]
- (1) pull out refs to people and put in acks section.
- 19:24:14 [Ian]
- (2) time-sensitive information that belongs in status section.
- 19:27:14 [ChrisL]
- ij: add an ack section
- 19:27:35 [ChrisL]
- ij: 2.1 requirements are from wsdl wg, doc does not say so, might be tag reqts
- 19:28:20 [ChrisL]
- ij: not clear in section 1 what the problem is. not defined what an abstract component *is*
- 19:29:00 [ChrisL]
- ij: shrin grecommendations,tel a story, state the problem clearly. not clear where reqts go
- 19:29:08 [ChrisL]
- do: reqts guide the solution
- 19:29:26 [ChrisL]
- ij: are these the only requirements
- 19:29:51 [ChrisL]
- do: true there might be others
- 19:29:56 [Ian]
- ack ChrisL
- 19:29:56 [Zakim]
- ChrisL, you wanted to talk about balanced parens
- 19:30:10 [TBray]
- q?
- 19:30:16 [Ian]
- CL: Re balanced parens; are we saying that in general balanced parens are bad in URIs?
- 19:30:22 [Ian]
- RF: Yers.
- 19:30:24 [Ian]
- RF: Yes
- 19:30:27 [ChrisL]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/#syntax
- 19:30:37 [Ian]
- CL: In that case, we have some problems with xpointer framework...
- 19:30:38 [ChrisL]
- PointerPart ::= SchemeName '(' SchemeData ')'
- 19:30:43 [Roy]
- is broken, as stated earlier
- 19:30:53 [ChrisL]
- EscapedData ::= NormalChar | '^(' | '^)' | '^^' | '(' SchemeData ')'
- 19:30:53 [Ian]
- TBray: Roy has publicly flamed xpointer in the past.
- 19:31:22 [ChrisL]
- so we are saying, as the TAG, that XPointer Framework and dependent specs are *broken*? or not?
- 19:31:22 [Ian]
- DO: Hence wording in the finding - I don't think that the TAG has made an explicit recommendation that xpointer is broken.
- 19:31:42 [Ian]
- DO: Some TAG participants have said that balanced parens are a bad idea. Some of the participants have agreed, or not actively pushed back.
- 19:32:33 [Ian]
- RF: I've seen many bad designs in which parens are used; I've seen no designs that actually required parentheses.
- 19:32:47 [Ian]
- RF: I've seen some cases where parens were used *internally*, but not exposed.
- 19:33:05 [Ian]
- RF: Xpointer produces invalid fragments since the URI spec does not allow those characters.
- 19:33:17 [ChrisL]
- RF: xptr spec uses illegal characters not allowed in fragment identifiers
- 19:33:33 [Ian]
- q+
- 19:33:57 [ChrisL]
- cl: however, the syntax used in XML will be escaped when used on the wire as per usual
- 19:34:36 [Ian]
- q-
- 19:34:39 [Ian]
- q+
- 19:34:43 [Ian]
- q-
- 19:35:41 [Ian]
- CL: I have concerns that some folks on the TAG feel a recent W3C Rec is broken.
- 19:35:54 [Ian]
- CL: And that the finding uses the xpointer syntax.
- 19:36:08 [Ian]
- CL: I'd be ok pointing out (1) this is the syntax and (2) there are problems with it.
- 19:36:16 [Ian]
- RF: I'm ok with presentation as is in the draft finding.
- 19:37:04 [Ian]
- DO: Maybe the TAG should have an issue on parens in frag identifier syntax; tied to xpointer.
- 19:37:15 [Ian]
- CL: This affects SVG as well, which has its own fragment syntax.
- 19:37:39 [ChrisL]
- which uses parens as per what was believed to be correct current practice
- 19:38:05 [Ian]
- DO: I'm not sure that we would recommend xpointer to wsdl wg even if we said parens ok.
- 19:38:39 [Ian]
- DO: Do we want a finding on good URI practices?
- 19:38:41 [Ian]
- CL, TB: Yes.
- 19:39:24 [Ian]
- [TB seeks title for issue regarding URI design]
- 19:39:32 [ChrisL]
- http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking has no link to an implementation report
- 19:39:46 [Ian]
- PC: Has anyone done this work on best practices for URI design?
- 19:40:01 [Ian]
- RF: It's not in the spec (since hard to get consensus on that...).
- 19:40:39 [Ian]
- PC: I'm concerned that, while useful, documenting good practice might be too much of a challenge.
- 19:40:47 [Ian]
- RF: The info is there, in various places.
- 19:41:13 [Ian]
- RF: Some info is in TBL's DesignIssues
- 19:41:14 [TBray]
- q+
- 19:41:32 [Ian]
- RF: If I get excited, I'll add as an appendix of RFC2396 bis
- 19:41:58 [ndw]
- q?
- 19:42:47 [Ian]
- DO: Should the TAG start on this and then fold into RFC2396?
- 19:43:14 [Ian]
- RF: It's always useful to seed the clouds, but people tend NOT to agree on how to design a URI space. They tend to not agree strongly.
- 19:43:31 [ndw]
- look at what? and don't do that?
- 19:43:32 [Ian]
- IJ: This is also related to URI-squatting.
- 19:43:48 [TBray]
- Look at what Vignette does and don't do that
- 19:43:53 [Ian]
- DO: Even enumeration of choices (even if some agree, some don't) still useful.
- 19:44:02 [Ian]
- DO: Another survey..
- 19:44:11 [ndw]
- What does Vignette do?
- 19:44:21 [TBray]
- produces unspeakably horrible URIs
- 19:44:43 [Ian]
- RF: Also sounds like arch doc.
- 19:45:34 [TBray]
- Principles: don't put in the name of the product e.g. example.com/cgi-bin/sadlfk.cfm?cfmId=3125
- 19:45:35 [Ian]
- DO: Hmm, seems like finding a better place for this level of detail rather than in arch doc, especially if the material is controversial.
- 19:45:40 [ndw]
- q?
- 19:45:41 [TBray]
- Principle: consider putting in dates
- 19:45:48 [ndw]
- ack TBray
- 19:47:08 [Ian]
- TBray: I think that we should adopt this as an issue.
- 19:47:16 [Ian]
- "What are good practices for URI construction?"
- 19:47:32 [Roy]
- I will take that as an action item
- 19:49:06 [Ian]
- Resolved: Add issue URIGoodPractice-40
- 19:49:09 [Ian]
- Action IJ: Add to issues list.
- 19:49:17 [Ian]
- Action RF: Draft finding for this issue.
- 19:49:41 [Ian]
- NW: This should allow DO to simplify his finding a little.
- 19:50:27 [Ian]
- NW: Is this in the critical path for last call?
- 19:50:32 [Ian]
- [Nobody thinks it is.]
- 19:51:05 [Ian]
- DO: Other comments on draft finding abstractComponentRefs-37?
- 19:52:59 [Ian]
- ========================
- 19:53:06 [Ian]
- Review of 3023-related actions
- 19:53:14 [Ian]
- [Update from TB on various liaisons]
- 19:53:24 [Ian]
- Actions 2003/10/08:
- 19:53:24 [Ian]
- - NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
- 19:53:24 [Ian]
- - TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
- 19:53:24 [Ian]
- - TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml 1.1.
- 19:53:24 [Ian]
- - TBL and DC will talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.
- 19:54:40 [Ian]
- NW: I spoke to the Core WG about this last Weds. There was general agreement that a revision of 3023 would be a good thing, and that XML 1.1 should point to an updated version.
- 19:55:10 [Ian]
- NW: In addition, the Core WG felt it would be nice if 3023 used xpointer syntax for frag ids for xml. I told them that the TAG was unlikely to push for that.
- 19:55:28 [Ian]
- - TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
- 19:55:40 [Ian]
- TBL: We talked to the IETF about this.
- 19:55:49 [ChrisL]
- tim (bray) did you read the xml cg minutes
- 19:55:51 [ChrisL]
- ?
- 19:56:05 [Ian]
- CL: There was discussion at that meeting.
- 19:56:52 [ChrisL]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2003Oct/0021.html
- 19:58:08 [ChrisL]
- tbl: good direction in general, but not for this iteration
- 19:58:23 [ChrisL]
- tbl: happy to leave it in son-of-3023 this time round
- 19:59:56 [ChrisL]
- tbl: does tag have anopinion on that, xml fragid syntax
- 20:00:54 [ChrisL]
- people use barename id pointers currently
- 20:00:55 [ndw]
- q+
- 20:01:05 [Roy]
- I would prefer that the "id" issue be settled first.
- 20:01:10 [ndw]
- ack ndw
- 20:01:30 [ChrisL]
- tb: people do not use application/xml they use a more specific type 9docbook, svg, whatever)
- 20:02:20 [ChrisL]
- nw: in favor of having a generic fragment syntax to prevent each one having to define the same minimum stuff
- 20:02:30 [ChrisL]
- nw: like xptr framework syntax
- 20:03:05 [ChrisL]
- tb: so no consensus on what the pointer should be or whether it is needed
- 20:03:30 [Ian]
- - TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml 1.1.
- 20:03:44 [Ian]
- TBray: I'm less optimistic about getting this revised.
- 20:04:01 [ChrisL]
- tb: talksed to the 3023 editors at the oreilly camp. sstl is not ken to work on revision. murata-san wants to wait until w3c has a policy on charsets. kohn is no longer involved
- 20:04:11 [Ian]
- s/ken/keen
- 20:04:26 [ChrisL]
- tb: arch doc says 3023 is wrong, simon says "and?"
- 20:04:59 [Ian]
- TBray: I think we have made our position clear; it's written up in arch doc; there's not much else we can do.
- 20:05:23 [Ian]
- RF: You can write a short draft and publish it as a proposed std.
- 20:05:31 [Ian]
- RF: Have the RFC editor mark 3023 as updated.
- 20:05:38 [Ian]
- RF: You don't need the original editors to write an update spec.
- 20:07:26 [Ian]
- Action CL: Draft update to 3023 for review by the TAG (on www-tag).
- 20:07:30 [TBray]
- Chris: check out "xml2rfc" tool, just type that into Google
- 20:07:56 [Ian]
- RF: I'll point CL out some examples.
- 20:08:00 [ChrisL]
- thanks, tim
- 20:08:12 [Ian]
- ==========
- 20:08:32 [Ian]
- 2.3 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
- 20:08:52 [Roy]
- xslt for RFC generation can be found at http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/
- 20:09:31 [Roy]
- RFC 2732 is an update spec
- 20:11:12 [Ian]
- IJ: I have been doing desxcription in OWL
- 20:12:17 [Ian]
- TBray: I'd prefer circles and arrows diagrams to UML.
- 20:12:52 [Ian]
- DO: We'd only be using a small piece of UML.
- 20:15:30 [Ian]
- IJ: I would like to get TBL to work with me on this offline.
- 20:16:01 [DaveO]
- DaveO has joined #tagmem
- 20:16:58 [Ian]
- TBray: Any action items in 2.3 (agenda) that are in grave risk of not being done?
- 20:18:17 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Bray
- 20:18:33 [TBray]
- Oh hell emergency, prob won't be back, I'm OK on action items. Sorry
- 20:18:39 [Ian]
- by
- 20:18:39 [Ian]
- we
- 20:18:55 [DaveO]
- I guess it should be stated for the record that moving from visio as I proposed to OWL for diagrams effectively cuts me out of being able to edit said diagrams. I am concerned that this will set a default for all future diagrams, such as the extensibility/versioning diagram.
- 20:19:33 [Ian]
- IJ: What do I replace "URIs identify (i.e., name) resources." with?
- 20:19:47 [Ian]
- IJ: Can RF feed me some text while RFC2396 is being revised?
- 20:20:26 [Ian]
- RF: There's no controversy about the term "refer".
- 20:20:57 [timbl]
- DaveO, you can't state things for the record without saying them in the meeting.
- 20:21:07 [Ian]
- RF: Just delete "i.e., name".
- 20:21:10 [Ian]
- IJ: I can do that.
- 20:21:21 [timbl]
- We'll have you editing owl in now time 0.1 :-)
- 20:21:30 [Ian]
- IJ: I think that RF's action is not critical path.
- 20:22:09 [Ian]
- IJ: What about TBL's action from July?
- 20:22:46 [Ian]
- TBL: Please don't drop this action.
- 20:23:20 [Ian]
- ADJOURNED
- 20:23:26 [Roy]
- bye
- 20:23:28 [Zakim]
- -DOrchard
- 20:23:29 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 20:23:32 [Roy]
- Roy has left #tagmem
- 20:23:37 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 20:23:39 [Zakim]
- -Ian
- 20:23:40 [DaveO]
- It's in IRC, therefore it's on record.
- 20:23:45 [Zakim]
- -TimBL
- 20:23:49 [Zakim]
- -??P5
- 20:23:53 [Zakim]
- -Chris
- 20:23:54 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
- 20:24:45 [Ian]
- RRSAgent, stop