IRC log of tagmem on 2003-11-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:57:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:59:25 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:00:31 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:00:31 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:00:32 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
20:00:35 [Zakim]
20:01:21 [Zakim]
20:01:30 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p2 is me
20:01:31 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:01:38 [Zakim]
20:02:25 [Zakim]
20:03:07 [Zakim]
20:03:33 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:03:54 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:04:11 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, NW, RF, TB, IJ
20:04:21 [Ian]
Tentative regrets: PC
20:04:27 [Ian]
Expecting: DC, CL, TBL
20:04:39 [Ian]
and DO
20:04:59 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
20:05:06 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #tagmem
20:05:19 [DanC]
I offer regrets; an urgent AC prep discussion preempts my participation here.
20:06:12 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:06:21 [ChrisL]
zakim, dial chris-home2
20:06:21 [Zakim]
I am sorry, ChrisL; I do not know a number for chris-home2
20:07:12 [ChrisL]
zakim, dial chris-hometwo
20:07:12 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisL; the call is being made
20:07:13 [Zakim]
20:08:36 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, NW, RF, TB, IJ, CL
20:08:39 [Ian]
Regrets: DC, TBL
20:08:47 [Ian]
Regrets: PC
20:08:49 [Ian]
Unknown: DO
20:09:13 [Ian]
Accept the minutes of the 27 Oct teleconference?
20:09:36 [Ian]
20:09:41 [DanC]
DanC has left #tagmem
20:09:45 [Ian]
CL: There are some missing pieces.
20:10:11 [Ian]
CL: Some missing pieces re: PC and DO.
20:11:00 [Ian]
Action IJ: Invite people to fill in blanks.
20:11:28 [Ian]
Accept this agenda?
20:11:40 [Ian]
20:11:41 [TBray]
for the record, I won't be there for the Monday, just 2 days
20:12:44 [Ian]
IJ: Additional comments on deepLinking from DJW
20:12:52 [Ian]
TBray: He suggested text.
20:13:34 [Zakim]
20:13:35 [Ian]
SW: I've some updates on I18N WG interaction.
20:13:53 [Ian]
SW: I've invited them to a future teleconf to discuss issues.
20:13:56 [Ian]
[Post ftf meeting]
20:15:34 [Ian]
SW: Please mark my action item as done; I will arrange a future teleconf with them I hope before the end of 2003.
20:15:41 [Ian]
# Next meeting: 10 Nov 2003 teleconference
20:16:09 [timbl]
Ok, thanks.
20:16:14 [Ian]
CL: Possible regrets for 10 Nov
20:16:43 [Ian]
1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.
20:16:51 [Ian]
Action CL 2003/10/27: incorporate input on AC slides and produce another draft. ETA: Wedss
20:17:00 [Ian]
[Action not done]
20:17:58 [Ian]
[CL describes slides by voice]
20:19:05 [Ian]
Chris, changes in TAG issues since 18 May here:
20:19:12 [Ian]
20:19:42 [Ian]
3 new issues, 0 decided, 12 with activity, 21 discussed
20:20:02 [Roy]
/me yuck
20:20:16 [Ian]
We also published some findings
20:20:26 [Ian]
[Better on that front]
20:20:42 [Ian]
DO: I think we need to have slides to TAG by Thursday.
20:23:11 [Ian]
SW: Please register for the AC meeting.
20:23:11 [ChrisL]
Compressed slides because we have too many
20:23:13 [Ian]
20:23:54 [Ian]
Resolved: DO and CL to present TAG report to AC.
20:24:04 [Ian]
1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda
20:24:08 [Ian]
Meeting page
20:24:10 [ChrisL]
dealt with (what I remember to be) PCs comment about stressing liaison and delegation
20:24:18 [Ian]
20:24:20 [ChrisL]
put that up front in the slides
20:24:36 [ChrisL]
moved election details to last slide as a reminder
20:24:45 [Ian]
SW: No agenda yet. I expect we'll be spending lots of time on the arch doc.
20:24:52 [ChrisL]
middle portion is as per davids slides
20:24:59 [Ian]
SW: Please send email reviews to list to drive the agenda.
20:25:18 [ChrisL]
curring summaries to save time, and pointing to web site for further detail
20:25:24 [ChrisL]
20:26:06 [Ian]
IJ: Will we talk about formal model be part of mtg agenda?
20:27:44 [Ian]
20:28:25 [ChrisL]
because the flight goes over midnight
20:28:34 [TBray]
20:28:51 [Ian]
TBray: You need to sell this first.
20:29:04 [Ian]
TBray: Are you planning for this to appear in the appendix?
20:29:10 [Ian]
IJ: Ideally, yes.
20:29:15 [Ian]
TBray: Then you're going to have to sell it.
20:29:21 [Ian]
TBray: Secondly, we'd need some tool ware.
20:29:43 [Ian]
TBray: We'd need discussion on what the benefits are.
20:30:45 [Ian]
TBray: Also, the priority is to go to last call; I'd be nervous about introducing a major element so late.
20:32:40 [Zakim]
20:33:23 [Ian]
IJ: I will see to it that the diagram gets done before the ftf meeting.
20:33:42 [Ian]
2.1 Review of 3023-related actions
20:33:50 [Ian]
Action CL 2003/10/27: Draft XML mime type thingy with Murata-san.
20:34:00 [Ian]
CL: Murata-san indicated that he would work on a revision.
20:34:18 [Ian]
CL: There was some discussion about where this should take place (presumably IETF process).
20:34:40 [Ian]
CL: The bone of contention is around charset.
20:34:47 [Ian]
CL: We are working on reaching consensus around that.
20:35:14 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:35:22 [Ian]
TBray: I think fragments are the big bone of contention.
20:35:33 [Ian]
TBray: Plus you have to coordinate with XML Core.
20:36:40 [Ian]
[CL discusses various issues]
20:36:51 [Ian]
TBray: I would expect you have work for a few months.
20:37:12 [Ian]
SW: Any strong prefs on where discussed?
20:37:20 [Ian]
CL, TB: I'm ok with ietf-xml-mime.
20:37:25 [Ian]
SW: Me too
20:37:31 [ChrisL]
'various issues' meaning what to do about fragments
20:37:46 [Ian]
CL: I'd like to keep the TAG in the loop.
20:37:49 [Ian]
TBray: I'm on the list, too.
20:38:19 [Ian]
TBray: the more we have to deal with fragments, the longer this will take.
20:38:21 [DaveO]
My earlier point on the diagram is that I can help write explanative material. And we've had one version of the diagram since 9/19.
20:38:41 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:39:41 [Ian]
SW: I think these actions are done:
20:39:50 [Ian]
1. NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
20:39:50 [Ian]
2. TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
20:39:50 [Ian]
3. TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml 1.1.
20:40:17 [Ian]
2.2 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
20:40:28 [Ian]
Comments on 27 Oct 2003 WD of the Arch Doc?
20:40:37 [Ian]
20:41:42 [Ian] is source
20:43:17 [Ian]
I think one could read the 27 Oct draft.
20:43:25 [Ian]
Some todos are small (glossary, images)
20:43:31 [Ian]
Others bigger: inclusion of versioning piece
20:43:38 [Ian]
[Action item review]
20:43:58 [Ian]
1. Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write up a paragraph for section 3 on syntax-based interoperability. (done). See also comments from Mike Champion
20:44:20 [Ian]
DC: There was a big thread; then DC came up with some text that I can agree with (modulo some fluff at the end).
20:44:33 [Ian]
In the do 1.2.4:
20:44:40 [Ian]
The general success of Web software is evidence that interoperability in networked information systems is best achieved when interfaces specified at the level of concrete syntax are available as the default mode of interaction. Concrete syntax provides a basis for interoperability in networked information systems such as the Web.
20:44:54 [Ian]
[IJ made that up]
20:45:02 [Ian]
TBray: I'd be more comfortable with DC's two-paragraph text.
20:46:14 [Ian]
DC text:
20:46:16 [Ian]
20:46:22 [Ian]
[27 Oct]
20:46:51 [Ian]
CL: We backed away from either extreme: syntax is everything, syntax means nothing.
20:47:04 [ChrisL]
syntax is amajor contributor, not sufficient of itself
20:47:08 [Ian]
[Action completed]
20:47:23 [Ian]
Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Write a paragraph of rationale for why error handling good in the context of the Web. (done)
20:47:40 [Ian]
Cf 1.2.2 Error handling
20:48:42 [Ian]
TBray: I am troubled that we lost a statement that one reason the web works well is that error handling was part of web from early on.
20:50:36 [Ian]
TBray: Say that "Our experience shows that specified error handling has enabled the Web to grow."
20:51:01 [Ian]
Completed action TB 2003/10/08: Propose a revised paragraph to replace the "Furthermore" sentence in section 2.3 (done)
20:51:58 [Roy]
20:52:36 [Ian]
[TB's edit in mid section 2]
20:52:55 [TBray]
I'm OK with Ian's handling of my text
20:52:55 [Ian]
Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Add ed note to abstract that the abstract will be rewritten.
20:53:06 [Ian]
Completed action IJ 2003/10/08: Draft good practice note for 4.4.
20:53:41 [Ian]
3-7 are done.
20:53:50 [Ian]
Completed action DO,NW 2003/10/08: Make the summary to replace 4.5 Extensibility and Versioning in the arch doc (done)
20:54:16 [Ian]
Action CL 2003/07/21: Discuss and propose improved wording of language regarding SVG spec in bulleted list in 2.5.1.
20:54:27 [Ian]
[Not done]
20:54:41 [Ian]
Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Write up text on information hiding/abstraction respect for before 2/3/4. (done)
20:54:55 [TBray]
jeepers that Orchard/Walsh extensibility text is loooooooooooooong
20:54:59 [Stuart]
20:55:05 [Ian]
Information hiding made it into 1.2.1
20:55:21 [Ian]
Action NW 2003/10/08: Revise QName finding. We will also add those two good practice notes to section 2:
20:55:21 [Ian]
1. If you use Qnames, provide a mapping to URIs.
20:55:21 [Ian]
2. Don't define an attribute that can take either a URI or a Qname since they are not syntactically distinguishable."
20:55:28 [Ian]
NW: I expect I'll revise the finding some time today.
20:55:42 [Ian]
Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Rewrite the last paragraph of 4.9.2 to be less inflammatory about DTDs (done)
20:55:56 [Ian]
Completed action NW 2003/10/08: Massage three paragraphs following good practice note about persistency at beginning of 2.6. (done)
20:56:32 [Ian]
Action RF 2003/10/08: Explain "identifies" in RFC 2396.
20:56:44 [Ian]
RF: I'm working on that this week.
20:56:55 [Ian]
Action TBL 2003/07/14: Suggest changes to section about extensibility related to "when to tunnel".
20:57:15 [Ian]
Action DC 2003/07/21: Propose language for section 2.8.5 showing examples of freenet and other systems. Progress; see URISchemes/freenet
21:00:06 [Ian_]
Ian_ has joined #tagmem
21:00:41 [Ian_]
21:00:43 [Ian_]
2.3 XML Versioning
21:00:46 [Ian_]
NW: There's been discussion, pushback on certain sections.
21:00:58 [Ian_]
NW: I've been working on terminology and definitions.
21:01:27 [Ian_]
NW: I am starting to feel like we should either get more feedback or put into arch doc to review in situ.
21:01:39 [Ian_]
SW: I sent comments to NW and DO (off list)
21:01:59 [DaveO]
I thought the latest plan was to incorporate the latest version (which norm sent out last week) into the arch doc as-is...
21:02:17 [TBray]
21:02:52 [Ian_]
TBray: It's really long; it would increase the arch doc by 25%.
21:03:26 [Ian_]
NW: At this point, I would appreciate a fresh set of eyeballs to cut it down.
21:04:14 [Ian_]
TBray: I can't take a position on inclusion until I've read it.
21:05:02 [DaveO]
I'll point out that about 1/8 is overhead for boilerplate, abstract, etc.
21:05:18 [Ian_]
IJ: I can read it. I also propose to write a precis of 4-5 paragraphs for inclusion in the arch doc.
21:05:23 [Ian_]
[Support for that]
21:05:44 [Ian_]
IJ: I will liaise with DO on this, of course.
21:05:55 [Ian_]
NW: I won't have time to revise finding before ftf meeting.
21:06:12 [Stuart]
21:06:25 [TBray]
21:06:44 [Zakim]
21:08:06 [Ian_]
DO: Are concerns about lengthy material (1) hard to read (2) adds too much late in the game (3) needs editing.
21:08:22 [Ian_]
TBray: I think that this text goes into much more detail than other parts of the arch doc.
21:08:34 [Ian_]
TBray: The question is whether the proposed text is too heavy.
21:08:46 [Ian_]
TBray: I need to review it before making more comments.
21:10:00 [Ian_]
NW: I'm willing to help IJ work on reducing amount of text.
21:10:25 [Ian_]
DO: I want to push back on removing some of the good practices.
21:10:41 [Ian_]
DO: I think they are all worthwhile; some editing may be appropriate.
21:11:01 [Ian_]
Action IJ: Review XML Versioning text, propose a shortened form to DO and NW for their consideration.
21:11:11 [Ian_]
(Including good practice notes)
21:11:34 [Ian_]
Resolved: Add an issue to the TAG issues list: XMLVersioning-41 to help track
21:13:49 [Ian_]
DO: Can we do a quickie update of the status section that our thinking may have changed?
21:14:12 [Ian_]
NW: I can do a properly dated finding out with some status info.
21:14:17 [Ian_]
IJ: Please chat with me about URIs.
21:14:38 [Ian_]
21:15:07 [Ian_]
21:16:37 [Ian_]
DO: the latest version I sent out was to Ian.
21:17:08 [Roy]
publish it!
21:17:20 [ChrisL]
+1 to publish it
21:17:41 [Ian_]
DO: So please (1) publish finding and (2) put material from section 1 into arch doc.
21:18:59 [Ian_]
[DO will resend to IJ or tag]
21:19:09 [Roy]
SW: Ian and DO to work this out offline and publish the most recent one
21:19:39 [Ian_]
21:19:48 [Zakim]
21:19:58 [Ian_]
* deepLinking-25
21:19:58 [Ian_]
1. Action IJ 2003/09/15: Take back to Comm Team publicity of this finding.
21:19:58 [Ian_]
IJ: Janet Daly suggested that if we want publicity, we should publish as a Working Group Note.
21:21:07 [ChrisL]
we discussed this before, note means nothing but finding means finding
21:22:04 [Roy]
To press: A TAG finding is the joker in the pack of cards -- it may be a wild card, depending on what game we are playing at the time.
21:22:14 [Ian_]
Action IJ: Invite JD to ftf meeting in Japan to discuss this.
21:22:25 [Ian_]
(re: deeplinking-25)
21:22:57 [Ian_]
TBray: DJW suggested some text.
21:23:21 [Ian_]
Correction: said he would volunteer some text.
21:23:30 [ChrisL]
"When I use a word," says Humpty Dumpty, "it means exactly what I mean it to mean, no more and no less."
21:23:48 [Ian_]
21:23:54 [Zakim]
21:23:55 [Zakim]
21:23:56 [Zakim]
21:23:57 [Zakim]
21:23:57 [Zakim]
21:24:06 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
21:24:35 [Zakim]
21:24:38 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
21:24:40 [ChrisL]
how was my audibility on that call?
21:25:02 [Ian_]
pretty good
21:25:05 [Ian_]
RRSAgent, stop