IRC log of tagmem on 2004-01-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:02:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
20:02:22 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:02:22 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:02:23 [Zakim]
20:02:52 [Zakim]
20:03:08 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P2 is mne
20:03:08 [Zakim]
+mne; got it
20:03:13 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P2 is me
20:03:13 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '??P2'
20:03:22 [Stuart]
zakim, mine is me
20:03:22 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named 'mine'
20:04:11 [Zakim]
20:04:31 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, [Microsoft], Ian, mne, ??P3
20:04:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, timbl, Norm, Ian, DanCon
20:04:41 [Zakim]
20:04:53 [Ian]
Roll call: TBL, SW, PC, TB, IJ
20:05:01 [Stuart]
zakim, mne is me
20:05:01 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:06:05 [Zakim]
20:06:29 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:06:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, [Microsoft], Ian, Stuart, ??P3, DanC, David_Orchard
20:06:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, timbl, Norm, Ian, DanCon
20:06:48 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p3 is TBray
20:06:48 [Zakim]
+TBray; got it
20:06:49 [DanCon]
agenda + holiday photo exchange
20:07:12 [Ian]
+ DO
20:07:14 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:07:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, [Microsoft], Ian, Stuart, TBray, DanC, David_Orchard
20:07:16 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, timbl, Norm, Ian, DanCon
20:07:40 [timbl]
Norm, will you be joining us on the phone?
20:09:04 [Ian]
DC: I second proposal to accept 15 Dec minutse
20:09:08 [Ian]
Resolved to accept:
20:09:16 [Ian]
20:09:23 [Ian]
20:09:25 [Ian]
20:09:56 [Zakim]
20:09:59 [Ian]
SW: Add to agenda brief discussion of "member representation" in proc doc as revised.
20:10:04 [Ian]
roll call: + NW
20:10:14 [Ian]
1.1 Video meeting in Feb 2003
20:10:14 [Ian]
1. Action SW/PC 2003/11/10: Explore possibility of TAG videolink TAG distributed meeting in February.
20:10:17 [Ian]
SW: Not much to report.
20:10:24 [Ian]
Absent: RF, CL
20:10:44 [Ian]
TB: Please note that I've changed affiliation.
20:11:01 [Ian]
[So recorded in the minutes]
20:12:12 [Ian]
1.2 Technical Plenary
20:12:12 [Ian]
1. Continued action SW 2003/11/15: Take to tech plenary committee the TAG's proposal.
20:12:30 [Ian]
SW: The idea of debate around web arch got some favorable response.
20:12:48 [Ian]
SW: I need to continue to work on setting up liaisons with other groups.
20:13:47 [Ian]
I need to work on ftf meeting page; with liaisons.
20:13:56 [Ian]
TBL: I cannot attend ftf meeting in Cannes.
20:15:19 [DanCon]
is isight a possibility?
20:15:23 [Ian]
TBL: I will be working, however. Could attend by video.
20:17:06 [Zakim]
20:17:22 [DanCon]
(Stuart, yes, let's do talk about TP liaison foo; I'm interested to help; perhaps right after this call)
20:17:28 [Ian]
20:17:54 [Ian]
1.3 New Year Planning
20:17:54 [Ian]
1. Reflection on 2003; goals for 2004.
20:17:55 [Ian]
2. Face-to-face meeting schedule
20:18:02 [Ian]
[Support for long-term planning from PC, DC, NW]
20:18:35 [Ian]
Action PC: Propose meeting schedule for next 4 (or so) TAG ftf meetings. Due: 12 Jan 2004.
20:18:51 [Ian]
20:18:55 [Ian]
- Arch Doc to Rec.
20:18:59 [Ian]
- Close more issues
20:19:33 [Zakim]
20:19:36 [Ian]
DC: We occasionally bump up against QA boundary.
20:19:44 [Ian]
zakim, Lauren_Wood is TimBray
20:19:44 [Zakim]
+TimBray; got it
20:20:27 [Ian]
DC: We had some gratifying impact within the W3C community (e.g., SOAP, Voice). My goal for 2004 is to see some Web sites changed.
20:20:45 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:20:52 [TBray]
20:21:33 [Ian]
DC: Once in a while, people talk about w3c-certified engineers. The advogado model (open source developers) of peer review is interesting to me.
20:21:49 [Ian]
DC: I'd like to reproduce that phenomenon around people who build arch-happy Web sites.
20:22:42 [Ian]
TBray: One idea came up at town hall in Philadelphia. I am troubled by the fact that we don't have a conformance section in the Arch Doc.
20:23:00 [Ian]
TBray: We could produce a Web arch conformance statement template.
20:23:44 [Ian]
[Check out what UAAG 1.0 does on this front: ]
20:23:57 [Ian]
TBray: I'd also like to make progress on RDDL and formalizing the notion of a Web site.
20:24:34 [Ian]
PC: I think that my first priority is to get arch doc to Rec. We need to scope out what our next technical work will be beyond that.
20:24:52 [Ian]
PC: I'd like to have the current arch doc to Rec and a sketch of next version for Nov 2004 AC meeting.
20:25:06 [DanCon]
(path from to is longer than I'd like)
20:26:06 [Ian]
Action IJ: Add public-webarch-comments to list of mailing lists on TAG home page.
20:26:27 [Ian]
20:26:35 [Ian]
NW: I will revise QName finding for 12 Jan 2004.
20:26:46 [Ian]
20:26:55 [Ian]
NW: I will deliver it by COB 7 Jan.
20:27:04 [DanCon]
COB eastern us
20:27:43 [Ian]
IJ: I will be on the road Th-Sun; will not have much availability (e.g., let's do agenda by email).
20:27:52 [Ian]
20:28:06 [Ian]
* contentTypeOverride-24: 10 Dec 2003 draft of Client handling of MIME headers
20:28:06 [Ian]
IJ: Comments sent by SW; no progress over holidays.
20:28:32 [Ian]
20:28:44 [Ian]
20:28:46 [Ian]
20:28:52 [Ian]
SW: I think that "not ready to go" review.
20:29:50 [Ian]
IJ: I will have responded to SW's comments by 16 Jan 2004.
20:30:07 [Ian]
SW: We are planning to meet with the I18N WG on 19 Jan.
20:30:18 [DanCon]
pls note that 19 jan I18N meeting at the top of today's minutes
20:31:20 [DanCon]
near "next meeting: 12jan"
20:32:45 [DanCon]
agenda + IETF telcon 8Jan (reminder)
20:32:54 [Ian]
20:32:56 [Ian]
20:33:07 [Ian]
SW: I"d like to have new version by end of Jan 2004.
20:33:15 [Ian]
20:33:18 [Ian]
20:33:40 [Ian]
TBray: I will commit to doing that by next week.
20:33:59 [Ian]
Please note open action view:
20:34:06 [Ian]
20:34:12 [Ian]
20:34:19 [Ian]
20:34:19 [Ian]
# abstractComponentRefs-37
20:34:29 [Ian]
DO: No change from where we were 2-3 weeks ago.
20:34:46 [Ian]
DO: WSDL WG had taken our suggestions to heart.
20:35:07 [Ian]
DO: Remaining question about syntax.
20:35:14 [Ian]
(of frag ids)
20:35:15 [DanCon]
fragment syntax, I think he said
20:35:29 [Ian]
DO: Question of where the frag id syntax dfns would go.
20:35:40 [Ian]
20:36:14 [Ian]
TBL: Spec should define the frag id sem/syn normatively.
20:36:23 [Ian]
20:36:29 [Ian]
q+ to talk about
20:36:55 [Ian]
DO: The thought was that since this was raised during RDF review, that it be related to that material. I pushed back on that approach since I think the issue is larger.
20:37:02 [Ian]
DC: Is WSDL planning to register a media type?
20:37:06 [Ian]
DO: I think so.
20:37:09 [Ian]
ack Ian
20:37:09 [Zakim]
Ian, you wanted to talk about
20:37:44 [Ian]
IJ: It has been my understanding that Martin has the ball on this.
20:37:53 [Ian]
DC: Yes, he does. Next W3C/IETF meeting scheduled for 8 Feb.
20:38:13 [Ian]
s/8 Feb/6 Feb/
20:38:14 [DanCon]
20:38:37 [DanCon]
"Friday, February 6, 2004, at 1:00:00 PM Boston time = Friday, February 6, 2004, at 18:00:00 UTC"
20:40:14 [Ian]
20:40:30 [Ian]
[Back to abstractComponentRefs-37]
20:40:44 [Ian]
20:40:51 [Ian]
20:40:51 [Ian]
Revise draft finding based on comments at 20 Oct teleconf.
20:40:51 [Ian]
* accepted on 20 Oct 2003
20:41:02 [Ian]
20:41:59 [Ian]
Last draft I see:
20:42:09 [Ian]
20:42:19 [Ian]
20:42:33 [Ian]
Issues that are open and that we expect to close by the end of last call:
20:42:42 [Ian]
* rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
20:42:42 [Ian]
* whenToUseGet-7
20:42:42 [Ian]
* URIEquivalence-15
20:42:42 [Ian]
* errorHandling-20
20:42:42 [Ian]
* contentTypeOverride-24
20:42:43 [DanCon]
re "which is current?" my "happy new year" comment was meant for the record. 1/2 ;-)
20:43:00 [Ian]
20:43:11 [Ian]
Three open actions
20:45:30 [Ian]
[Discussion of comments from Henry Thompson\
20:46:17 [Ian]
[Summary by TB]
20:46:34 [Ian]
TBray: I thought that it was a shared observation of the state of reality (from HT) but not an objection.
20:46:36 [Ian]
DC: I concur.
20:47:10 [Ian]
[Review of other actions re: issue 6]
20:48:17 [Ian]
NW: Even though I proposed on 4 Nov, I am revising based on another action.
20:49:54 [Ian]
DO has two action items re: issue 6.
20:50:20 [Ian]
DC: I'd like the WSDL WG to send a LC comment on our spec saying "We are happy with how you handled issue 6."
20:51:00 [DanCon]
(I feel some obligation to help DO get that to happen, fyi)
20:51:25 [Ian]
20:51:25 [Ian]
Propose some extra text for section 4.5 that hypertext agents often follow an IGNORE rule and this often results in incompatible behavior. Ignore applied to fragid interpretation.
20:51:25 [Ian]
* accepted on 15 Nov 2003
20:52:15 [Ian]
DC: I propose to withdraw; this was for LC draft.
20:52:31 [Ian]
Resolved to drop DO's action re: section 4.5 text for issue 6.
20:53:02 [Ian]
20:53:06 [Ian]
20:53:13 [Ian]
20:53:28 [Ian]
20:53:28 [Ian]
Provide TAG with pointers into WS specs where issue of safe operations is manifest.
20:53:28 [Ian]
* accepted on 15 Sep 2003
20:53:33 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:53:33 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to continue an action on issue 7
20:53:37 [Ian]
DC: Please continue.
20:54:01 [Ian]
DC: I'm counting in the same bucket Mark Baker's request for clarification (re: WSDL).
20:54:50 [Ian]
[No sense of due date]
20:54:59 [Ian]
Ask WSDL WG to look at finding; ask them if marking operations as safe in WSDL is one of their requirements.
20:54:59 [Ian]
* accepted on 15 Sep 2003
20:55:08 [Ian]
DO: I have completed this action.
20:55:18 [Ian]
DO: However, I have not seen an answer to my question.
20:55:42 [Ian]
DO: My current understanding is that the req is currently considered out-of-scope. Not sure if it will become in-scope.
20:56:03 [DanCon]
(if he's not claiming victory, don't bug him for details)
20:56:23 [Ian]
20:56:30 [Ian]
20:56:41 [Ian]
20:56:41 [Ian]
Track RFC2396bis where Tim Bray text has been integrated. Comment within the IETF process.
20:56:41 [Ian]
* accepted on 30 Jun 2003
20:56:47 [Ian]
SW: There has been an update, I think.
20:57:14 [Ian]
DC to TBL: Do you know what's being published in your name?
20:57:18 [Ian]
TBL: I haven't read the latest one.
20:58:00 [Ian]
DC: Likely to be on IETF/W3C meeting agenda.
20:58:04 [Ian]
(6 Feb)
20:58:43 [Stuart]
20:58:46 [Ian]
SW: Version 4 of RFC2396 expired in Dec.
20:58:56 [Ian]
20:59:04 [Ian]
TBray: New draft URi to follow...
20:59:21 [DanCon]
URI CG homepage should have current state
20:59:23 [TBray]
20:59:39 [DanCon]
20:59:45 [timbl]
redirects to
21:00:38 [Ian]
Action TBL: Review RFC2396 bis (current Editor's Draft) in advance of IETF coordination meeting 6 Feb.
21:00:39 [DanCon]
ACTION TimBL: review RFC296bis draft in prep for IETF/W3C meeting in Feb
21:00:47 [Ian]
21:00:54 [Ian]
21:01:06 [Ian]
CL email:
21:01:09 [Ian]
21:01:13 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
21:01:26 [DaveO]
The URI for my comment to
21:01:26 [Ian]
IJ: Is this sufficient for CL closing his action?
21:01:31 [DaveO]
21:02:03 [Ian]
DC: I'd like Rob to send comments to public-webarch-comments.
21:02:35 [Ian]
RL response:
21:02:40 [Ian]
21:02:52 [Ian]
Resolved: Close CL's action item for issue 20.
21:03:00 [Ian]
21:03:02 [Ian]
21:03:31 [Ian]
21:03:34 [Ian]
2.4 Other action items
21:03:42 [Ian]
Action DC 2003/11/15: Follow up on KeepPOSTRecords with Janet Daly on how to raise awareness of this point (which is in CUAP).
21:03:45 [Ian]
DC: Please continue.
21:04:14 [Ian]
21:04:29 [Ian]
DC: I expect the draft xml mime draft to be on IETF/W3C liaison agenda. I hope CL will be there.
21:04:40 [Ian]
21:04:53 [Ian]
21:05:11 [Ian]
21:05:35 [Ian]
[Discussion of W3C Process Document]
21:06:00 [Ian]
21:06:01 [Ian]
21:09:01 [TBray]
21:09:22 [Stuart]
ack Ian
21:10:19 [TBray]
21:12:20 [TBray]
21:12:44 [Ian]
21:13:45 [Ian]
21:18:15 [Ian]
TBray: I think it's unacceptable to change the status of elected and appointed reps ex-post facto.
21:18:23 [Ian]
21:21:21 [TBray]
21:25:51 [Stuart]
21:25:52 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
21:26:16 [Ian]
21:26:24 [Stuart]
q+ PC
21:26:50 [Stuart]
ack Dan
21:26:50 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to re-iterate PaulC's earlier point that it would have been nicer if the AB had presented this to us in a mutually convenient document, and to ask if I missed a
21:26:53 [Zakim]
... chairs meeting or something
21:27:06 [Stuart]
q- TBray
21:28:12 [TBray]
"Less parochial" I like that
21:28:46 [Ian]
21:28:49 [Ian]
ack Stuart
21:28:51 [DanCon]
PROPOSED: whereas TAG members very much valued the old "not a representative of their member org" language, please emphasize the "use their best judgment to find the best solutions for the Web" at the end of the para...
21:28:51 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
21:29:02 [Stuart]
ack PC
21:29:15 [DanCon]
PROPOSED: whereas TAG members very much valued the old "not a representative of their member org" language, please emphasize the "use their best judgment to find the best solutions for the Web" at the end of the para and subordinate the "An individual on the Advisory Board or the TAG is a Member representative, a Team representative, or an invited expert." sentence
21:30:59 [Ian]
[TB leaves]
21:31:00 [Zakim]
21:31:09 [TBray]
21:33:49 [DanCon]
Ian, do you think it's reasonable for the AB to make this change without coming to talk to us?
21:34:52 [Stuart]
21:36:01 [Zakim]
21:36:24 [Ian]