IRC log of tagmem on 2004-01-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:57:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:57:48 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
19:57:48 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 27 minutes ago
19:57:56 [Norm]
19:58:56 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
19:59:24 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:59:31 [Zakim]
20:00:12 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:00:12 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:00:13 [Zakim]
20:00:14 [Zakim]
20:00:15 [Zakim]
20:00:20 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
20:00:20 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
20:00:21 [Zakim]
20:00:31 [Ian]
zakim, what's the code?
20:00:31 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Ian
20:00:33 [Norm]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
20:00:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm
20:00:36 [Zakim]
20:00:56 [Zakim]
20:01:48 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:01:53 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:01:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Stuart
20:01:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, timbl, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Stuart, Chris, Ian
20:02:46 [Zakim]
20:02:49 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #tagmem
20:02:59 [Zakim]
20:03:13 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:03:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Ian, Stuart, TimBL, TB
20:03:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanCon, TBray, timbl, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Stuart, Chris, Ian
20:04:20 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:04:29 [Ian]
20:04:33 [Ian]
20:04:46 [Zakim]
20:04:47 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, TBL, NW, IJ, TB, DC
20:05:09 [Ian]
Previous minutes 19 Jan
20:05:18 [Ian]
20:05:19 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:05:21 [Ian]
SW, TB: Look ok.
20:05:27 [Ian]
Resolved to accept those as minutes of 19 Jan teleconf
20:05:36 [Ian]
Proposed to accept TAG activity summary
20:05:42 [Ian]
20:05:46 [Ian]
IJ: PC gave a thumbs-up
20:05:55 [Zakim]
20:05:56 [Zakim]
20:06:06 [Ian]
SW: I review summary within 24 hours.
20:06:10 [Ian]
This agenda:
20:06:12 [Ian]
20:06:14 [Ian]
20:06:20 [Ian]
20:07:05 [Ian]
Proposed next meeting: 2 Feb 2004.
20:07:17 [Ian]
DC: Seconded.
20:07:24 [Ian]
So resolved.
20:07:33 [Ian]
DO: Regrets for 2 Feb.
20:07:53 [Ian]
Video meeting 9 Feb. Agenda?
20:08:01 [Ian]
SW: Please send agenad suggestions to the list.
20:08:14 [Ian]
SW: We should spend some time on our agenda for the year 2004.
20:08:18 [DanCon]
for 9Feb, I have some input on namespaceDocument-8 and rdf/xhtml-35
20:08:33 [Ian]
Meet 16 Feb?
20:08:37 [Zakim]
20:08:38 [Ian]
[Holiday in the US]
20:09:14 [Norm]
Sun is closed, but I expect to work anyway. I can attend 16 Feb
20:10:17 [DanCon]
MIT is closed 16Feb.
20:10:18 [Ian]
Regrets: DC, IJ
20:10:28 [Ian]
Proposed to cancel 16 Feb teleconf.
20:10:39 [Ian]
RESOLVED. No meeting 16 Feb 2004.
20:10:43 [Ian]
20:10:48 [Ian]
1.1 Technical Plenary
20:11:04 [Ian]
I have not heard back from Steven for HTML WG.
20:11:21 [Ian]
SW: XML Schema WG would like to meet in principle.
20:11:29 [Ian]
SW: Suggestion that we meet Monday.
20:12:10 [Ian]
CL: For SVG WG, there was a point about link traversal.
20:12:23 [Ian]
IJ: What about type attribute?
20:12:27 [Ian]
CL: Not that I'm aware of.
20:13:36 [Ian]
Use of xlink?
20:13:49 [Ian]
DC: I'd like SVG WG to say "Yes we've read your doc and ____________"
20:14:00 [Ian]
IJ: I'll ping Steven P. re HTML WG.
20:14:18 [Ian]
SW: For Voice, agreed to meet in principle. Some issues regarding contentTypeOverride.
20:14:46 [Chris]
use of xlink ... svg 1.0 and 1.1 use it, svg 1.2 ads inline complex links ...
20:15:07 [Ian]
DC: SHared memory v. Message passing
20:15:28 [Ian]
20:15:29 [Ian]
20:15:38 [Ian]
q- re
20:15:41 [Ian]
q- voice
20:15:44 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:16:14 [Ian]
SW: Nobody from this meeting is actively pursuing a meeting with them.
20:17:02 [Zakim]
20:17:16 [Ian]
IJ: There are some issues in the voice spec about silent user agent (design to continue silently in the face of errors).
20:17:18 [Stuart]
ack Ian
20:17:24 [Ian]
DC: DOn't think that requires face time.
20:17:34 [Ian]
NW: For Core, didn't think we needed ftf time with TAG for four issues:
20:17:40 [Ian]
1) IRIeverywhere
20:17:43 [Ian]
2) XMLProfile
20:17:45 [Ian]
3) ID semantics
20:17:51 [Ian]
20:18:00 [Ian]
SW: What about XML Linking?
20:18:09 [Ian]
NW: I don't think we have anything new to say on that.
20:18:26 [Ian]
NW: I don't think we as a TAG have a burning need to talk about.
20:18:32 [Ian]
IJ: What about xml mime type RFC?
20:18:38 [Ian]
DC: I'd rather not.
20:18:59 [Ian]
SW: I am hearing there's no compelling reason to meet ftf in March with XML Core WG
20:19:16 [Ian]
TBray: Issue about whether xml 1.1 is a good idea is an arch issue.
20:19:23 [Ian]
TBray: But that may be too late...
20:19:46 [Ian]
DC: Late is uncomfortable, but later is even worse.
20:19:58 [Ian]
[DC requests to return to that question later in the call]
20:20:10 [Norm]
XML 1.1 has been through 1 Directors call and the Core WG believes it has done everything the Director wants. I'm hoping for a REC stamp on that real soon now.
20:20:14 [Ian]
SW: What about WSDL?
20:20:20 [Ian]
- abstract components
20:20:25 [Ian]
- marking operations as safe in wsdl.
20:20:50 [Ian]
DO: I believe that the WSDL WG is interested.
20:21:11 [DanCon]
I gather "whether XML 1.1 is a good idea" was raised to The Director's attention. I haven't watched all that closely, but as often as not, The Director says "yes, OK, you can have your REC today, but this leftover bit should get some TAG attention"
20:21:14 [Ian]
[List of pen actions]
20:21:16 [Ian]
20:21:30 [Ian]
20:21:41 [Ian]
Proposal from SW about tech plenary (for mailing list)
20:21:47 [Ian]
20:21:52 [Ian]
20:22:17 [Norm]
I have no objection to giving it some attention, but I would not like to see it delayed again. I guess that means I don't feel like there's a problem. But that could be just me.
20:22:18 [Ian]
IJ: No progress on issue tracking for Arch Doc.
20:22:25 [Ian]
20:22:27 [Ian]
20:23:23 [Ian]
Joint dinner with AB on 4 March?
20:23:45 [Ian]
Proposed to accept invitation.
20:24:11 [Ian]
RF: I suspect that I"ll be gone by then.
20:24:17 [Chris]
yeah, ok
20:24:18 [Ian]
DC: I think I"m available.
20:24:26 [Ian]
CL: Probably.
20:24:27 [Ian]
SW: Yes.
20:24:30 [Ian]
PC: Yes
20:24:41 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept AB dinner invitation for 4 March.
20:24:46 [Ian]
1.2 TAG meeting schedule in 2004
20:24:46 [Ian]
1. Action PC 2004/01/05: Propose meeting schedule for next 4 (or so) TAG ftf meetings. Due: 23 Jan 2004.
20:24:50 [Ian]
PC: Please continue.
20:24:56 [Ian]
Action IJ: Follow up with AB/TAG dinner.
20:25:18 [Ian]
20:25:21 [Ian]
2. Technical (75min)
20:25:30 [Ian]
# qnameAsId-18
20:25:30 [Ian]
* 6 Jan 2004 draft finding "Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content"
20:25:37 [Ian]
20:26:00 [Ian]
Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content
20:26:00 [Ian]
[Editor?s Draft] TAG Finding 14 January 2004
20:26:30 [Ian]
DO: I am satisfied with the TAG accepting this finding.
20:26:48 [Ian]
SW: I have read it and I am satisfied.
20:26:52 [Ian]
PC: +1
20:26:53 [Ian]
TBray: +1
20:27:18 [Ian]
Resolved: TAG Approves 14 Jan 2004 draft of qname finding as revised approved finding.
20:28:10 [Ian]
DC: Can you read the part where we say qnames in query are ok?
20:28:26 [Ian]
4.1 QNames in Other Specifications
20:28:35 [Ian]
"The [Functions and Operators] specification, for example, uses QNames to identify functions. This is motivated partly by backwards compatibility with XPath 1.0, but also by the fact that function names share some characteristics with element and attribute names. In particular, the names need to be globally unique so that name collisions don?t occur either between independently developed functions or different versions of the specification.
20:28:47 [Ian]
NW: And ff.
20:29:22 [Ian]
DC: Drop "equally well"
20:29:31 [Ian]
TBray: I even object to "equally well"
20:29:35 [Ian]
6 Architectural Statement
20:29:35 [Ian]
In so far as the identification mechanism of the Web is the URI and QNames are not URIs, it is a mistake to use a QName for identification when a URI would serve equally well.
20:29:51 [Ian]
SW: I don't mind taking out "equally well"
20:30:03 [Ian]
DC: Seems best to me to point to the ARch Doc that says "You need a mapping"
20:30:32 [Norm]
20:30:35 [Ian]
20:30:49 [Ian]
SW: Recall there are two issues -
20:30:55 [Ian]
a) Mapping from qname to URI
20:31:04 [Ian]
b) Mapping from qualified name to URI
20:31:20 [Ian]
DC: Query specs don't do what Web Arch says, the finding shoudl say that they clash with Arch Doc
20:31:33 [Chris]
that was the 'must that i was referring to ... must provide a mapping to URI
20:32:09 [Ian]
NW: "Specifications that use QNames to represent {URI, local-name} pairs MUST describe the algorithm that is used to map between them.
20:32:09 [Ian]
20:32:37 [Ian]
NW: You could argue that the Nov 2003 Query drafts are deficient in not providing that mapping.
20:32:40 [duerst-8]
duerst-8 has joined #tagmem
20:32:45 [Norm]
20:32:47 [Ian]
NW: But that's a comment on the query spec.
20:32:51 [apphillips]
apphillips has joined #tagmem
20:32:52 [timbl]
q+ to suggest that "we expect futrue drafts"t be in this finding
20:33:21 [Ian]
DC: In the discussion on the query specs, seems like they are using qnames without mappings to URIs. I'd like the finding to point to the Arch Doc and say "This doesn't follow the GPN in the Arch Doc."
20:33:23 [timbl]
q+ timbl2 to say that teh dinstinction is not well made ebwteen mappings
20:33:29 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:33:29 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest that "we expect futrue drafts"t be in this finding
20:33:31 [Zakim]
20:34:08 [Ian]
TBL: If we are assuming that specs will change, we should say that in a footnote in the finding.
20:34:16 [Norm]
20:34:20 [Norm]
ack timbl2
20:34:20 [Zakim]
timbl2, you wanted to say that teh dinstinction is not well made ebwteen mappings
20:34:24 [Ian]
TBL: Distinguish between specs as they are today from how we'd like them to be.
20:34:37 [Ian]
TBL: The finding doesn't bring out the different mappings.
20:35:29 [Ian]
TBL: The finding is organized by context. But doesn't say which mappings need to be defined.
20:35:29 [Stuart]
20:35:41 [timbl]
"There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI, local-name} pairs or vice versa"
20:36:25 [Ian]
TBL: I think we might want to promote one way - use xml base and namespace...
20:36:31 [TBray]
I suggest we push this back another week, I for one now want to give it a careful read
20:36:51 [Ian]
TBL: Perhaps finding should deal with two mappings more clearly.
20:37:25 [Ian]
SW: "A related TAG issue, rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6, concerns the mechanism by which one can (or can not) construct a URI for a particular QName. We do not consider that issue in this finding."
20:37:31 [Ian]
DC: Then this finding shouldn't talk about the query specs.
20:37:52 [Stuart]
ack Norm
20:37:52 [Ian]
20:37:52 [DanCon]
the examples in there are quite good.
20:38:12 [Ian]
TBray: I suggest we push back one more week. I"d like to read it carefully.
20:38:34 [Ian]
Action CL, TB, TBL: Read finding due next week.
20:38:42 [Stuart]
20:38:44 [Ian]
TBray: I think it's worthwhile since I think this will keep coming back.
20:39:08 [Ian]
RESOLVED: The TAG DOES NOT accept this finding today.
20:39:26 [Ian]
The TAG thanks NW for his ongoing work on this finding!
20:39:43 [Ian]
PC: Please have the minutes state what needs to be clarified in a revision.
20:40:00 [Ian]
TBray: I withdraw my +1 given discussion here; subtlety of issue.
20:40:08 [DanCon]
(today's record should show zero decisions, not 2, Ian)
20:40:12 [Ian]
I agree.
20:40:30 [apphillips]
zakim, Prasad_Yendluri is probably Addison_Phillips
20:40:30 [Zakim]
+Addison_Phillips?; got it
20:40:47 [Ian]
TBL: Document should state that this document is only about XML (qnames might be used in other languages).
20:41:05 [DanCon]
timbl: s/in Content/in XML Content/
20:41:08 [Ian]
20:41:20 [Stuart]
it also uses xpointer as an example of a language where qnames get used
20:41:43 [DanCon]
thanks, norm, for playing faithful editor. (2nded by Bray)
20:41:44 [Ian]
NW: I have no plans to make changes before next week.
20:42:13 [Ian]
20:42:17 [Ian]
# contentTypeOverride-24:
20:42:17 [Ian]
* 10 Dec 2003 draft finding "Client handling of MIME headers"
20:42:17 [Ian]
* Status: IJ expects to have revision by 29 January.
20:42:38 [Ian]
Who will review this?
20:42:42 [Ian]
SW volunteers.
20:42:55 [Ian]
RF volunteers
20:43:16 [Ian]
20:43:24 [Ian]
Joining the call at this point:
20:43:30 [Ian]
Addison, Martin
20:44:15 [Ian]
20:44:22 [Ian]
2.3 namespaceDocument-8 activity
20:44:22 [Ian]
20:44:22 [Ian]
1. RDDL2 Background from Tim Bray.
20:44:23 [Ian]
2. grokRDDL.xsl mapping to RDF from Dan Connolly.
20:44:28 [Ian]
20:44:36 [Ian]
DC: TB, did you see my email?
20:45:02 [Zakim]
20:45:05 [Ian]
TBray: I thought your RDF mapping was fine.
20:45:19 [Ian]
DC: Please sort out amongst yourselves. I prefer attributes.
20:45:46 [Ian]
TBray: As Eric points out, you can put more structure in a DIV than an A.
20:45:54 [Ian]
TBray: But I'm not convinced by that point.
20:46:04 [Ian]
CL, TBL, SW: We've watched this...
20:46:15 [Ian]
DC: Please prepare for discussion in substance at our video mtg.
20:46:53 [Ian]
DC: Please be prepared to give your position (or not) on 9 Feb.
20:47:15 [Ian]
[TB to scribe]
20:47:32 [Zakim]
20:48:52 [Zakim]
20:48:56 [Chris]
I don't see a resolution to 120 from the minutes
20:49:00 [TBray]
Where are we on C120?
20:49:43 [TBray]
Dan: the agreement (see #119) to split puts all the issues on the shelf for me
20:49:50 [duerst-8]
20:49:51 [TBray]
TBray: Disagree, SW too
20:50:14 [TBray]
20:50:19 [DanCon]
ack dancon
20:50:50 [DanCon]
this relates to web architecture how, chris?
20:50:51 [TBray]
Revisiting C117
20:51:14 [TBray]
CL: He asked for a link to text, but they did inline text which is wonderful. But for remaining images, wants links to text
20:51:28 [DanCon]
stuart, how is C117 related to TAG proceedings?
20:51:28 [TBray]
CL: shouldn't cause problems because browsers not required to render
20:51:57 [TBray]
MD: where does the link go?
20:52:02 [TBray]
CL: right underneath the image
20:52:19 [DanCon]
20:52:37 [Stuart]
20:52:46 [TBray]
MD: sounds reasonable
20:53:23 [Chris]
20:53:23 [Chris]
20:53:38 [TBray]
Because we as a group blessed Chris' comments collectively
20:53:51 [TBray]
<discussion of how best to achieve desired effect>
20:54:38 [TBray]
Agree that CL and the I18n guys will work this out
20:54:50 [TBray]
RESOLVED: C117, pending review by CL
20:55:15 [r12a]
r12a has joined #tagmem
20:55:33 [TBray]
Next: C120
20:55:43 [TBray]
TBray: Have you reviewed this since rewritten?
20:56:08 [TBray]
CL: Expecting input from PC
20:56:09 [Chris]
20:56:32 [TBray]
PC: I still have a to-do to follow up
20:56:38 [TBray]
20:57:09 [Ian]
TBray: Let's push this off until drafts restructured.
20:57:43 [TBray]
TBray: Propose to resolve C120, have a look on restructured drafts
20:58:03 [TBray]
MD: XQuery has a similar problem with underspecification
20:58:20 [TBray]
PC: We followed all of your links and couldn't find the algorithm
20:59:04 [TBray]
Addison: We think we're fine for the moment
20:59:27 [DanCon]
straight to last call? I'd expect a non-last-call WD
21:00:16 [Stuart]
21:00:19 [TBray]
<discussion> of plans for future charmod drafts
21:00:34 [TBray]
DC: worried about I18n going straight to last call without intervening draft
21:01:16 [TBray]
MD, Addison: next part 1 has vew changes from current text after addressing issues
21:01:23 [TBray]
21:01:28 [TBray]
21:01:34 [Chris]
21:01:46 [Stuart]
ack duerst
21:02:03 [timbl]
One can call something "Last Call" if the WG doesn't want to be abl eto change it, whether or not there are "substantive changes"?
21:02:09 [Stuart]
ack dan
21:02:20 [Stuart]
ack chris
21:02:23 [timbl]
q+ to say One can call something "Last Call" if the WG doesn't want to be abl eto change it, whether or not there are "substantive changes"?
21:02:30 [TBray]
21:03:33 [Stuart]
ack timbl
21:03:33 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say One can call something "Last Call" if the WG doesn't want to be abl eto change it, whether or not there are "substantive changes"?
21:03:46 [r12a]
21:04:56 [TBray]
<general discussion of meta-issues; what level should we be critiquing at>
21:05:12 [Chris]
21:05:21 [TBray]
MD: we think these edits are orthogonal to the charmod split
21:05:36 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:06:11 [Ian]
TBray: Two options
21:06:18 [Ian]
- Express ourselves satisfied and close C120
21:06:27 [Ian]
- Or say we haven't done enough and will need to review it further.
21:06:39 [Ian]
TBray: I"m inclined to go with CL; declare satisfaction with issue C120.
21:06:48 [Ian]
DC: I am opposed to that proposal.
21:06:57 [TBray]
TBray: Suggest we retire C120
21:06:59 [TBray]
DC: Objection
21:07:02 [Ian]
DC: On the grounds that I need to see the revised text.
21:07:07 [TBray]
DC: because we haven't seen the revised text
21:07:28 [Chris]
21:07:30 [TBray]
DC: doesn't believe this is orthogonal to the split
21:07:37 [TBray]
MD: why not?
21:07:48 [Ian]
DC: Cuz it's not
21:08:26 [TBray]
21:09:15 [TBray]
SW: call question on C120
21:09:21 [TBray]
Objections: Dan, Roy
21:09:58 [Ian]
21:10:02 [Ian]
ack r12a
21:10:07 [duerst-8]
21:10:27 [Ian]
Richard: We're here talking today because we think we've addressed your comments. The split won't have a grand effect.
21:10:28 [TBray]
RI: the split is really not going change the text, it's just a partitioning of sections
21:10:41 [Chris]
propose therefore that we leave 120 open so we can get to the other issues this telcon, please
21:10:48 [DanCon]
"when we split the document, we're not going to be making any changes, really" <- I can't make sense of this.
21:11:04 [timbl]
21:11:07 [timbl]
21:11:15 [Ian]
ack TBray
21:11:36 [Ian]
TB to DC: Will you express objection to any and all issue before seeing the new text?
21:11:43 [Ian]
DC: No. This one is related to the split, some others may not be.
21:13:27 [TBray]
Roy: we expressed happiness with large portions some time ago
21:13:51 [TBray]
21:14:46 [TBray]
TBL: w.r.t. 120, we thank i18n group for taking on our feedback, loooks good, we want to review again post-spliit.
21:14:51 [TBray]
<general agreement>
21:14:53 [TBray]
21:14:58 [Chris]
C122 - I am now satisfied with the changes as it no longer excludes specs talking about bytes or glyphs where it is sensible to do so.
21:15:13 [TBray]
21:15:18 [DanCon]
21:15:34 [TBray]
CL Propose we accept C122
21:15:38 [TBray]
DC: Abstain
21:15:59 [TBray]
21:16:19 [DanCon]
C123 Is XML non-conforming?
21:16:45 [TBray]
CL: Propose to accept C123
21:16:58 [TBray]
DC: so XML no longer non-conforming?
21:17:02 [Chris]
We do not think that the exclusion of U+0000 in XML 1.1, or of the C0 range in XML 1.0, is arbitrary; it was done for very clear reasons.
21:17:14 [TBray]
TB: yes, I mean no, I mean yes, XML is no longer non-conforming
21:17:18 [TBray]
RESOLVED to accept
21:17:32 [TBray]
C125 next
21:17:34 [DanCon]
3.6.3 contradictory C125 [issue name not very helpful]
21:17:48 [Chris]
It could also be misused to completely change the rendering of some text (in the case of Chinese or Japanese easily to an extent that would completely change the meaning of the visually appearing text).
21:18:55 [TBray]
MD: explanation text in i18n response (I didn't understand)
21:19:02 [TBray]
q+ to express bafflement
21:19:41 [DanCon]
ack TBray
21:19:41 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to express bafflement
21:19:42 [TBray]
TB: what does this have to do with PUA?
21:20:30 [TBray]
TBray: don't understand connection to the PUA
21:20:56 [Zakim]
21:21:00 [Zakim]
21:21:26 [Chris]
propose: first para is fine, second para is interesting and irrelevant
21:22:11 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
21:22:14 [TBray]
Proposed: we accept first paragraph but consider 2nd paragraph irrelevant
21:22:24 [TBray]
(with ref C125)
21:22:40 [Chris]
one more point
21:22:50 [TBray]
21:22:51 [Chris]
Related point, avoid using character mechanisms for things that are not characters ('pi' fonts). Use small inline graphics instead.
21:24:02 [TBray]
MD: we can make a note and address this point
21:24:19 [TBray]
Now on C126
21:24:28 [TBray]
TB: Propose we accept
21:24:33 [TBray]
21:24:47 [DanCon]
C126 Should XML allow NCRs everywhere?
21:25:24 [TBray]
21:25:50 [TBray]
CL: I don't think you understood; I want to encourage IRIs in docs, since wire constraints don't affect them
21:26:14 [TBray]
21:26:30 [Ian]
TBray: Not very happy about this resolution.
21:26:38 [DanCon]
ACTION DanC: look at C127 "Say that the IRI form is used in the document instance and the hexified URI form when it goes over the wire"
21:26:39 [Ian]
TBray: Are the diffs written up in charmod?
21:26:53 [Ian]
MD: I think there's a whole chapter on referencing Unicode/ISO10646
21:27:00 [DanCon]
C128 Referencing the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646
21:27:05 [Ian]
MD: I think it speaks quite a bit to the similarities/diffs.
21:27:09 [Ian]
TBray: I'll go review that.
21:27:10 [Chris]
21:28:01 [Ian]
TBray: Please refer to chapters 1-3 of Unicode std.
21:28:10 [Ian]
TBray: If there are tech diffs, please bring tha tout.
21:28:41 [Chris]
In addition to the jointly defined CCS and encoding forms, the Unicode Standard adds normative and informative lists of character properties, normative character equivalence and normalization specifications, a normative algorithm for bidirectional text and a large amount of useful implementation information. In short, the Unicode Standard adds semantics to the characters that ISO/IEC 10646 merely enumerates. Conformance to the Unicode Standard implies conformance t
21:30:45 [r12a]
21:30:57 [Ian]
I think Unicode has bidi algo, for example.
21:31:56 [Ian]
MD: Unicode std has bidi algo
21:32:22 [Norm]
XML 1.1 uses the fact that some chars are punctuation!
21:32:33 [Norm]
You can't use them in name characters, for example.
21:32:59 [Chris]
thanks, norm
21:33:03 [DanCon]
"our note"... are we wordsmithing comment responses? I thought CL was quoting the charmod spec.
21:33:45 [apphillips]
XML namespaces use the Unicode char props: cf.
21:33:55 [Ian]
TB Proposal: Don't accept this one yet.
21:34:00 [TBray]
Norm: XML 1.1 uses Unicode properties e.g. you can't use a punct character in a NAME
21:34:23 [Chris]
so for the rest - do we take them to email??
21:34:55 [Ian]
Action TB: Review charmod language re: reference to Unicode std.
21:34:57 [TBray]
TB: not prepared to accept. I will go review latest text. Want a strongly-worded pointer to Unicode spec.
21:35:24 [TBray]
ACTION CL: pull out items that are worth our discussion time
21:36:58 [Chris]
clwilldo this action within 7 days
21:37:07 [TBray]
Addison: i18n group wants to re-publish sometime in February
21:37:18 [Zakim]
21:37:23 [TBray]
Addison: Wants to make sure that they got through the comments
21:37:32 [TBray]
DC: Publish and I'll tell you if I'm happy
21:38:31 [TBray]
Addison: would really liike people to look at their feedback on comments
21:38:47 [TBray]
CL: will do triage in next 7 days
21:38:54 [Zakim]
21:38:54 [apphillips]
apphillips has left #tagmem
21:38:55 [Zakim]
21:38:56 [Zakim]
21:38:57 [TBray]
Do I need to do anything to stop recording?
21:38:57 [Zakim]
21:38:58 [Zakim]
21:38:58 [Zakim]
21:39:01 [Zakim]
21:39:16 [Chris]
rrsagent, stop