IRC log of tagmem on 2004-01-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:34:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:34:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:34:30 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
19:34:30 [Zakim]
ok, Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started
19:34:41 [Zakim]
19:34:42 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
19:34:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ishida
19:35:37 [Ian]
Richard was off by 30 minutes
19:36:35 [timbl]
Zakim, who is here?
19:36:35 [Zakim]
I notice TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has restarted
19:36:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL
19:36:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, Ian
19:47:57 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:49:30 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #tagmem
19:59:04 [MJDuerst]
MJDuerst has joined #tagmem
19:59:13 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:00:20 [Ian]
zakim, call LW-AB
20:00:20 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:00:21 [Zakim]
20:00:22 [timbl]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
20:00:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, LW (muted)
20:00:26 [Zakim]
20:00:28 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:00:28 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:00:29 [Zakim]
20:00:32 [timbl]
Zakim, mute me
20:00:32 [Zakim]
TimBL should now be muted
20:00:35 [fyergeau]
fyergeau has joined #tagmem
20:00:41 [timbl]
Zakim, unmute me
20:00:41 [Zakim]
TimBL should no longer be muted
20:00:44 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
20:00:44 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
20:00:45 [Zakim]
20:00:48 [Zakim]
20:00:53 [Zakim]
20:00:58 [Ian]
zakim, what's the code?
20:00:58 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Ian
20:01:03 [Zakim]
20:01:07 [Zakim]
20:01:09 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [Zakim]
20:01:29 [Zakim]
20:01:55 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:01:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Ishida, Martin, ??P1, Ian, Roy, Stuart, FYergeau
20:01:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see fyergeau, TBray, MJDuerst, DanCon, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, Ian
20:02:40 [Zakim]
20:02:45 [r12a]
r12a has joined #tagmem
20:02:49 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p1 is Paul
20:02:49 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
20:03:07 [r12a]
zakim, mute ishida please
20:03:07 [Zakim]
Ishida should now be muted
20:03:13 [TBray]
How do I tell Zakim that LaurenWood is TimBray for the moment
20:03:17 [Zakim]
20:03:35 [timbl]
Zakim, ??P1 is NiceConfRoom
20:03:35 [Zakim]
sorry, timbl, I do not recognize a party named '??P1'
20:03:51 [timbl]
Zakim, Paul holds Norm
20:03:51 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
20:04:26 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:04:26 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Ishida (muted), Martin, Paul, Ian, Roy, Stuart, FYergeau, Lauren_Wood, David_Orchard
20:04:28 [Zakim]
Paul has Norm
20:04:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, r12a, fyergeau, TBray, MJDuerst, DanCon, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, Ian
20:04:35 [MJDuerst]
Zakim, LaurenWood is TimBray
20:04:35 [Zakim]
+TimBray; got it
20:05:50 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, TBL, DO, NW, PC, IJ, TB, RF, Francois Yergeau, Martin Durst, Richard Ishida
20:05:54 [Ian]
Am I missing anyone?
20:05:58 [Ian]
20:06:03 [Ian]
20:06:30 [Ian]
Regrets: DC.
20:06:33 [Ian]
And CL.
20:06:48 [Ian]
PC, TB: Read 12 Jan minutes
20:06:54 [Ian]
20:06:59 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 12 Jan minutes.
20:07:12 [Ian]
This agenda focused on I18N issues.
20:08:10 [Ian]
DO: I'd like a status report re: some findings.
20:08:12 [Ian]
20:08:20 [Ian]
1.1 Video meeting in Feb 2003
20:08:34 [Ian]
SW: Looks like it's shaping up for Redmond/Bristol/Boston on 9 Feb.
20:08:47 [Ian]
20:09:38 [Ian]
20:09:51 [Ian]
Extended Telcon/Video Conference
20:09:51 [Ian]
Date: 9th February
20:09:51 [Ian]
Start Time: 16:00 UTC, 11:00 Eastern, 8:00 Pacific
20:09:51 [Ian]
Duration: 4 hours
20:09:51 [Ian]
Video locations: Bristol (HP), Boston (MIT), Redmond (Microsoft).
20:10:52 [DanCon]
I'm lined up to join from MIT on 9Feb.
20:11:14 [Ian]
RF: I'll be in Redmond.
20:11:50 [Ian]
REsolved: We will meet using that time slot.
20:11:55 [Ian]
SW: I look forward to input on that agenda.
20:12:02 [Ian]
NW: Small risk 9 Feb for me.
20:12:37 [Ian]
20:12:43 [Ian]
1.2 Technical Plenary
20:13:34 [Ian]
SW: COmmittee would like 30-min overview of arch doc.
20:13:42 [Ian]
SW: Hot topic issues:
20:13:45 [Ian]
- Mixed language
20:13:47 [Ian]
- Linking in XML
20:13:51 [Ian]
- HTTPRange-14
20:14:05 [Ian]
SW: I have an action to ask the TAG to name 3-4 hot issues for tech plenary discussion.
20:14:08 [Norm]
20:14:18 [Ian]
SW: Mixed langauge resonated with folks from others in the planning committee.
20:14:59 [Ian]
NW: +1 to linking in XML
20:15:10 [Zakim]
20:15:15 [TBray]
+1 to linking in XML
20:15:44 [Ian]
DO: HTTPRange-14
20:16:09 [Ian]
DO: I think having the debate would help technical folks see why we are where we are.
20:16:14 [Ian]
DO: -1 to linking in XML
20:17:01 [Ian]
DO: +1 to interpretation of fragids; abstract components.
20:17:06 [timbl]
q+ to wonder about the XML chunk cannicalization issue, and to exprss concern about httpRang14
20:17:17 [DanCon]
ah... ChrisL is away at an SVG meeting in Sydney
20:17:39 [Norm]
ack Norm
20:17:43 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:17:43 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to wonder about the XML chunk cannicalization issue, and to exprss concern about httpRang14
20:17:48 [Ian]
TBL: I'm a bit worried about httpRange-14.
20:17:50 [Stuart]
ack norm
20:18:48 [MJDuerst]
zakim, who is here?
20:18:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Ishida (muted), Martin, Paul, Ian, Roy, Stuart, FYergeau, TimBray, David_Orchard, ??P8
20:18:50 [Zakim]
Paul has Norm
20:18:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, r12a, fyergeau, TBray, MJDuerst, DanCon, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, Ian
20:18:53 [Ian]
TBL: Don't want to rehash for the purpose of rehashing.
20:19:03 [MJDuerst]
Zakim, P8 seems to be Addison
20:19:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'P8 seems to be Addison', MJDuerst
20:19:05 [TBray]
+1 to moving on to i18n now
20:19:12 [Ian]
20:19:22 [r12a]
zakim, unmute ishida please
20:19:22 [Zakim]
Ishida should no longer be muted
20:19:25 [r12a]
zakim, mute ishida please
20:19:25 [Zakim]
Ishida should now be muted
20:19:29 [MJDuerst]
Zakim, P8 is Addison Phillips
20:19:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'P8 is Addison Phillips', MJDuerst
20:19:35 [Ian]
1.3 TAG meeting schedule in 2004
20:19:35 [Ian]
1. Action PC 2004/01/05: Propose meeting schedule for next 4 (or so) TAG ftf meetings. Due: 12 Jan 2004.
20:19:36 [MJDuerst]
Zakim, P8 is Addison
20:19:36 [Zakim]
sorry, MJDuerst, I do not recognize a party named 'P8'
20:19:39 [Ian]
PC: Please continue.
20:19:42 [MJDuerst]
Zakim, ??P8 is Addison
20:19:42 [Zakim]
+Addison; got it
20:19:49 [Ian]
Roll: +Addison
20:19:54 [Ian]
20:19:55 [Ian]
Finding updates
20:20:04 [Ian]
20:20:13 [Ian]
SW: I hope to make progress before end of month.
20:20:40 [apphillips]
apphillips has joined #tagmem
20:20:46 [Ian]
XMLVersioning-41: What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning? [link to this issue]
20:20:49 [Ian]
20:21:00 [Ian]
RF: This will be done after next revision of URI spec.
20:21:19 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:21:41 [Ian]
20:21:49 [Ian]
URIGoodPractice-40: What are good practices for URI construction? [link to this issue]
20:21:53 [Ian]
20:21:53 [Ian]
Draft a finding for this issue.
20:21:53 [Ian]
* accepted on 20 Oct 2003
20:22:18 [Ian]
DO: Schema WG has responded to proposed finding on abstract component identifiers; want to know what's wrong with using xpointer + brackets.
20:22:55 [Ian]
20:22:58 [Ian]
I18N Discussions
20:23:02 [Ian]
TAG welcomes guests.
20:23:06 [TBray]
20:23:19 [Ian]
2.1 Discussion with Internationalization WG representatives
20:23:19 [Ian]
* charmodReview-17
20:23:19 [Ian]
o TAG finding related to adoption of Charmod? See mail from TBL
20:23:19 [Ian]
o Schedule ftf time during tech plenary week.
20:23:20 [Ian]
o Charmod LC issues and TAG comments. See also CL comments.
20:23:22 [Ian]
* URIEquivalence-15
20:23:24 [Ian]
* IRIEverywhere-27
20:23:28 [Ian]
20:23:40 [Ian]
TBray: What's the general state of the world re: the Charmod spec?
20:24:02 [Ian]
apphillips: We've almost completed handling of LC comments on Charmod.
20:24:30 [Ian]
apphillips: We were asked to review early uniform normalization, and also asked to split document to push non-controversial pieces to Rec more quickly.
20:24:42 [Ian]
apphillips: We have a plan to complete work on character model by:
20:24:48 [Ian]
1) Splitting the document in two:
20:24:56 [Ian]
a) Things not related to normalization
20:25:02 [Ian]
b) Normalization, string matching, indexing.
20:25:22 [Ian]
2) Schedule is to advance part one to LC by end of February (approx).
20:25:48 [Ian]
3) Create WD for part 2, with eye of getting to Rec in summer 2004.
20:25:50 [Stuart]
ack Tbray
20:25:53 [Ian]
20:26:05 [TBray]
q+ to ask Addison a question
20:26:37 [r12a]
zakim, unmute ishida please
20:26:37 [Zakim]
Ishida should no longer be muted
20:26:48 [DanCon]
(re splitting: and there was much rejoicing!)
20:26:51 [Ian]
apphillips: One comment we received re: charmod was that it makes a number of normative statements about the work of other groups. It is our understanding that the TAG would be a better group to make such statemetns for other groups.
20:27:21 [Ian]
[AP: Ok to share this information with public.]
20:27:26 [Ian]
ack Ian
20:28:00 [Ian]
TBray: How are I18N Resources for advancing work?
20:28:06 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:28:11 [Ian]
apphillips: We have resources to complete this work.
20:28:20 [Ian]
TBray: I'm delighted you have considered splitting the document.
20:28:28 [Ian]
s/considered/agreed to
20:28:47 [MJDuerst]
20:28:52 [Ian]
[General enthusiasm about splitting]
20:28:57 [Zakim]
20:28:58 [Ian]
ack MJDuerst
20:29:01 [Stuart]
q+ PC
20:29:03 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:29:03 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to ask Addison a question
20:29:05 [Zakim]
20:29:09 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:29:31 [TBray]
what Martin said
20:29:31 [Ian]
MD: I note that all of the "tough issues" are in part II.
20:29:34 [Stuart]
ack PC
20:30:06 [Ian]
PC: Originally we had suggested splitting in three. Please explain your proposed split.
20:30:38 [Ian]
apphillips: The document was not simply hacked in two. We could foresee a part III in the future.
20:31:33 [Norm]
q+ Paul
20:31:44 [Stuart]
ack Paul
20:32:01 [Ian]
PC: Not sure what you meant re: normative requirements on other groups...
20:32:16 [Ian]
apphillips: "If you are going to write a W3C Recommendation, you MUST...."
20:33:40 [Ian]
MD: W3M considered different proposals for ensuring how best to set policies without putting text in a Recommendation.
20:33:59 [Ian]
MD: W3M Recommended that the TAG issue a finding.
20:35:01 [Ian]
MD: Ideally we should start a draft finding now (or next time the charmod is published) and move the finding to approved state in step with the charmod spec.
20:35:02 [TBray]
I'm not sure why it's better for the TAG to say that I18n says you should do this, as opposed to i18n group just saying you should do this
20:35:49 [Ian]
TBL: It's a question of the role of a specification in the world. Technical specifications define a language or protocol.
20:36:22 [Ian]
TBL: XML folks can describe what XML is. But the specs only define terms. The XML folks did not write a spec that said "All W3C specs SHALL BE in XML."
20:36:24 [Ian]
TBL: Two reasons:
20:36:27 [Ian]
a) Not their role.
20:37:17 [Ian]
If a WG can lay down the law to other WGs, it makes it difficult for one WG to move on; creates more interdependencies. You end up defining a W3C process.
20:37:38 [TBray]
q+ to point at RFC3470
20:37:58 [MJDuerst]
q+ to say that in some way, the W3C is looking for the equivalent of BCP in IETF
20:38:04 [Ian]
b) There is peer pressure to use specs, not mandatory statements.
20:38:27 [Ian]
TBL: The TAG hasn't said "You MUST XML."
20:38:34 [TBray]
yep, 3470 is a BCP
20:38:48 [Ian]
TBL: The TAG can say "This is why it's there; this is how it fits in; if you disagree, please come talk to us."
20:39:06 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:39:06 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to point at RFC3470
20:39:22 [r12a]
perhaps the TAG ought to say "You SHOULD use CharMod"
20:39:58 [r12a]
r12a is richard ishida
20:40:01 [Norm]
q+ Paul
20:40:42 [TBray]
Another semi-exception is webarch
20:41:05 [MJDuerst]
q+ to say that Charmod, same way as WebArch, is an architectural document
20:41:28 [MJDuerst]
Zakim, ack me
20:41:28 [Zakim]
MJDuerst, you wanted to say that in some way, the W3C is looking for the equivalent of BCP in IETF and to say that Charmod, same way as WebArch, is an architectural document
20:41:31 [Zakim]
I see Paul on the speaker queue
20:41:49 [Norm]
20:41:57 [Stuart]
ack Paul
20:42:01 [Ian]
MD: Like Webarch, Charmod is an architectural specification - doesn't define a language.
20:42:28 [Ian]
PC: XML Base spec is an example of a spec that suggests that other specs use it.
20:42:43 [TBray]
So webarch is a single point of entry for meta-ness so to speak
20:43:07 [Ian]
PC: Early normalization requires a certain critical mass of software doing this in the market. Delicate timing problem.
20:43:18 [Ian]
apphillips: That is the big concern we are actively considering.
20:43:33 [TBray]
If that's the case I'd *really* like to get a pointer to this thing into webarch 1.0
20:43:45 [MJDuerst]
q+ to say if Charmod is split, there would be a TAG finding for each part.
20:44:17 [Ian]
PC: I am intrigued by a TAG finding that encourages software developers to move their software in a particular direction re: normalization.
20:44:51 [Stuart]
ack norm
20:44:52 [Ian]
PC: I am convinced that a TAG finding will help spread the word in my organizaiton.
20:44:57 [Stuart]
ack mj
20:44:57 [Zakim]
MJDuerst, you wanted to say if Charmod is split, there would be a TAG finding for each part.
20:45:57 [Ian]
TBray: I'd like to have a pointer to Charmod in Webarch.
20:46:14 [Ian]
TBray: I see that the Arch Doc could be used as a starting point for meta information.
20:47:27 [r12a]
20:47:59 [Ian]
RI: Charmod not really like XML; if we get it right, it should be applicable almost all the time.
20:49:52 [TBray]
20:50:01 [Ian]
TBL: Not sure charmod that different from XMl.
20:50:15 [Stuart]
ack r12a
20:51:13 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:51:33 [Ian]
TBray: Some parts will be compulsory (e.g., don't use ISO 8859-1) while others will require judgment.
20:52:09 [MJDuerst]
q+ to say that we have to add something in the Intro to say that you have to still think when you read Charmod
20:52:13 [Ian]
TBray: Do you contemplate the draft distinguishing MUST from "PLEASE CONSIDER"
20:52:18 [Ian]
apphillips: Much is written that way already.
20:53:10 [Stuart]
ack mj
20:53:10 [Zakim]
MJDuerst, you wanted to say that we have to add something in the Intro to say that you have to still think when you read Charmod
20:53:35 [Ian]
MD: We need to make clear that this doc doesn't cover all I18N issues.
20:53:40 [Ian]
(e.g., formatting)
20:54:19 [Ian]
20:54:24 [Ian]
Review of TAG issues brought to the I18N WG.
20:54:29 [MJDuerst]
20:54:55 [Roy]
/me (out for a minute)
20:55:09 [Ian]
20:56:16 [Ian]
20:56:29 [Ian]
Specifications SHOULD NOT add rules for character encoding beyond what is provided in XML
20:56:55 [Ian]
NW: Our particular concern was the XML case.
20:57:09 [Ian]
TBray: XML has well-defined rules about char encoding requirements.
20:57:34 [Stuart]
20:57:39 [Ian]
TBray: We added a sentence: "When basing a protocol, format, or API on a protocol, format, or API that already has rules for character encoding, specifications SHOULD use rather than change these rules.
20:57:39 [Ian]
EXAMPLE: An XML-based format should use the existing XML rules for choosing and determining the character encoding of external entities, rather than invent new ones. "
20:57:47 [Ian]
NW: I think that satisfies the spirit of our comment.
20:57:52 [Ian]
MD: Note that this says "SHOULD"
20:58:05 [Roy]
/me (is back)
20:58:14 [Ian]
TBray: Might be worthwhile to point to RFC3470
20:58:20 [Ian]
[RI notes]
20:59:49 [Ian]
PROPOSED: TAG is satisfied with the disposition of this issue as suggested by I18N for C114.
20:59:56 [Ian]
21:00:01 [Ian]
21:00:05 [Ian]
21:00:10 [Ian]
21:00:11 [Ian]
21:00:13 [Ian]
21:00:41 [Ian]
MD: We think this is editorial; have decided not to do this currently.
21:01:56 [Ian]
TBray: I hope there will be stable, addressable normative text.
21:01:56 [r12a]
r12a has joined #tagmem
21:02:22 [Ian]
TBray: I want URIs to identify conformance requirements.
21:02:37 [Ian]
MD: We'll take this back and look at it.
21:02:43 [Ian]
MD, AP: Sounds reasonable.
21:02:57 [Ian]
C116 Open
21:02:58 [Ian]
21:03:59 [Ian]
21:04:14 [Ian]
The use, within the spec, of images of characters
21:04:31 [Ian]
MD: The claim is that we violate our own suggestions by using graphics for text.
21:04:43 [Ian]
MD: We have made some corrections.
21:04:48 [TBray]
I think, based on a quick scan through all the TAG-labeled stuff, that we will be able to mark the vast majority of these resolved
21:05:25 [Ian]
MD: Our changes take into account the current state of deployed user agents.
21:06:18 [Ian]
PROPOSED: TAG is happy with the WG's disposition re: comment C117.
21:06:24 [Ian]
21:06:34 [Ian]
21:06:38 [Ian]
XML 1.0 and 1.1 are non conforming
21:07:06 [Ian]
MD: Decision: Partially accepted.
21:08:32 [Ian]
apphillips: Nothing that we've done breaks XML to our awareness.
21:08:42 [Ian]
TBray: I'm satisfied.
21:08:48 [Ian]
NW, PC: Satisfied.
21:08:57 [Ian]
PROPOSED: TAG is happy with the WG's disposition re: comment C118.
21:09:05 [Ian]
21:09:19 [Ian]
21:09:28 [Ian]
C119: Split document in two.
21:09:47 [Ian]
PROPOSED: TAG is [very] happy with the WG's disposition re: comment C119.
21:09:58 [Ian]
RF: Note that it hasn't been split yet.
21:10:22 [Ian]
TB, TBL, RF: Leave open until this is actually done.
21:10:33 [Ian]
apphillips: We'll notify you when we have the WDs available.
21:10:40 [TBray]
Note that I'm unhappy with the response to my C071; after a lot of thought the TAG wrote language that has been incorporated into RFC2396bis, it covers this point in depth: the phrase "bit-for-bit" is actively misleading
21:11:03 [TBray]
I'll post a follow-up to that as appropriate
21:11:12 [TBray]
Otherwise I'm 100% OK with all the other comments I raised
21:11:20 [Ian]
SW: The TAG is happy with the direction of the I18N WG.
21:12:12 [Ian]
21:12:12 [Ian]
21:12:19 [Ian]
Remove parts dealing with collation and sorting
21:12:27 [Ian]
MD: Decision: Partially accepted.
21:13:09 [Ian]
MD: We don't think we can just remove this.
21:13:19 [Ian]
MD: "#
21:13:19 [Ian]
In the context of Section 3.1, Perceptions of Characters, the fact that units of collation are different from other units, and the various issues, are important and well established. The text as well as the examples have been carefully chosen to show the range of phenomena. We do not see the need for a separate architectural document on collation and related issues; there are already an ISO standard and an Unicode Technical Standard, as well as many implementations,
21:13:20 [Ian]
for user-oriented sorting/collation"
21:13:33 [Norm]
q+ Paul
21:13:35 [Ian]
RF: My impression upon reading this was that it would not be implemented.
21:13:54 [Ian]
RF: There aren't good examples of existing implementations.
21:14:52 [Ian]
MD: There are performance issues, but this is implemented now: ICU (?). I also think Microsoft has implementations.
21:15:50 [Ian]
MD: We agree that servers should present results in the way the users want to see them.
21:16:08 [Ian]
PC: Hard to find the Unicode algorithm.
21:16:08 [Stuart]
ack Paul
21:16:34 [Ian]
MD: Still separate as a Unicode technical report.
21:17:16 [Stuart]
21:17:18 [Stuart]
21:17:20 [TBray]
OK, scribing
21:17:22 [Ian]
21:17:31 [TBray]
TBL: Asking about status of test suites
21:18:09 [TBray]
PC expressed frustration in other WGs at difficulty in finding the algorithm
21:18:27 [TBray]
TBL: how do they know they've got it right?
21:18:45 [TBray]
Addison: charmod doesn't explicitly point at Unicode Collation Algorithm currently
21:19:05 [TBray]
MD: if you have another one that works better, you can use it, e.g. Microsoft currently uses others that they think works better
21:19:29 [TBray]
Addison: if we were to recommend UCA, we'd have to make sure that Unicode produces thoses or do it themselves...
21:19:51 [Ian]
TBray: Lots of applications where you explicitly do want to sort using Unicode collation sequence.
21:20:10 [Ian]
SW: I think this issue seems open still.
21:20:27 [Ian]
MD: We would like a formal reply by RF (or CL) on this one.
21:20:30 [TBray]
Re my issue C071: see
21:20:50 [Ian]
MD: This would be for Part I.
21:22:33 [r12a]
21:22:36 [fyergeau]
21:23:12 [Ian]
TBray: What does "must" mean?
21:23:28 [Ian]
apphillips: There is an intentional "lower case must"
21:23:51 [Ian]
TBray: I don't see anything to object to.
21:24:13 [Ian]
RF: My original objections were that all software use UTF-8 to begin with.
21:24:20 [Ian]
RF: I don't see that anymore.
21:24:44 [Ian]
RF: There used to be a requirement that all specs specify processing per the reference processing model...
21:24:56 [Ian]
MD: That's still there, but in another section. C120 is not about that, however.
21:25:07 [TBray]
I'm OK with 3.1.5 as written
21:25:09 [Ian]
MD: I note also that this is only observable behavior.
21:25:16 [Ian]
MD: If you can get the same result another way, that's fine.
21:25:17 [Norm]
q+ Paul
21:25:30 [Stuart]
ack paul
21:25:39 [Ian]
PC: To close off on a previous point, cf para at bottom of 3.1.5.
21:26:09 [Ian]
PC: I can't find the "default collation order" in the reference [To take offline]
21:26:51 [Ian]
PC: The previous paragraphs have SHOULD statements; it's fair to state that one reason they can't be stronger than that is that, e.g., the database industry has made collation an artifact of the data as stored, not of the user's preferences.
21:26:59 [Ian]
MD: I agree that there are strong performance issues there.
21:27:23 [Ian]
PC: I think the Query WG supports these SHOULDS (and does more).
21:27:30 [Ian]
21:27:55 [Ian]
SW: We can continue this face-to-face in Cannes.
21:28:15 [Ian]
apphillips: Our goal is to have a WD ready by the tech plenary. We will have some new material by then.
21:28:40 [Ian]
SW: If we use half of our time next week, are people interested?
21:28:42 [Ian]
TBray: Yes.
21:28:55 [Ian]
MD: I think it would be productive for TB to review what we sent him.
21:29:33 [Ian]
Action TB: Send back replies to I18N regarding their proposals for addressing TB's issues.
21:30:06 [Ian]
Proposed for I18N WG to join 26 Jan TAG teleconf 45 minutes into call.
21:30:17 [TBray]
Once again, thanks to the i18n guys for showing up!
21:30:25 [Ian]
SW: Thanks all for attending.
21:30:25 [apphillips]
TR10: default collation table:
21:30:29 [Ian]
21:30:31 [Zakim]
21:30:33 [Zakim]
21:30:34 [Zakim]
21:30:34 [Zakim]
21:30:35 [Zakim]
21:30:35 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop