IRC log of tagmem on 2004-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:03:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:03:14 [paulc]
Travelling today. Am in London, UK. Joining soon.
19:03:20 [DanC]
agenda + Roll call
19:03:24 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:03:31 [Zakim]
+Stuart
19:03:37 [DanC]
agenda -1
19:04:51 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:05:28 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:05:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Roy, DanC, Stuart
19:05:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, RRSAgent, paulc, Stuart, Zakim, DanC
19:06:17 [paulc]
Is anyone else due to join the call?
19:06:46 [Norm]
We're not sure, paulc. TimBL maybe.
19:07:29 [DanC]
Scribe: DanC
19:07:33 [DanC]
Scribe next week: NormW
19:07:40 [DanC]
Regrets: TimBL
19:07:48 [DanC]
Regrets: ChrisL
19:07:51 [paulc]
Still figuring out what 30 digits I am going to dial to join in.
19:09:03 [Stuart]
Monthly Summary draft at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Sep/0015.html
19:10:32 [DanC]
re 19July, norm has a copy of a draft from CL; NW will send to www-tag as is
19:11:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.949.679.aaaa
19:11:12 [Zakim]
-Roy
19:11:20 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/12-tag-summary.html is OK by me
19:11:29 [DanC]
RESOLVED to accept.
19:12:18 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/07/26-tag-summary.html ok by ME
19:12:22 [Zakim]
+Liam
19:12:22 [DanC]
RESOLVED to accept.
19:12:39 [DanC]
Zakim, Liam is temporarily PaulC
19:12:39 [Zakim]
+PaulC; got it
19:13:10 [DanC]
PaulC: I expect to get minutes 9-11 August f2f done this week.
19:13:13 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:13:35 [paulc]
Had to use an operator. Sorry for the delay.
19:13:36 [DanC]
RESOLVED to accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Aug/0030.html as a true record of 16 Aug telcon
19:13:54 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2004/08/30-tagmem-irc ok by me. and PaulC
19:14:01 [DanC]
RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2004/08/30-tagmem-irc as a true record.
19:14:07 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Sep/0015.html
19:14:19 [DanC]
^draft monthly summary
19:14:54 [DanC]
RESOLVED: monthly summary OK; PaulC to send tomorrow unless he finds reason not ot
19:15:03 [DanC]
s/ot/to/
19:15:14 [Roy]
/me paul, can you adjust microphone -- bit of darth vader sound here
19:15:22 [DanC]
-- Accept this agenda
19:16:22 [DanC]
DanC: let's do last call comments before 2.1
19:16:26 [DanC]
SKW: OK
19:16:32 [paulc]
I am using a handset so I not sure what to do.
19:16:35 [DanC]
-- Next meeting: 20 September
19:17:15 [DanC]
NW: I'm at risk. oops; I guess that applies to scribe duties. RoyF: I can be back-up scribe.
19:17:42 [DanC]
-- Basel meeting update
19:18:03 [DanC]
SKW reviews... "Meeting Objectives: 1. Consider and respond to all LC#2 comments." others?
19:18:23 [DanC]
PaulC: I recall that ftf as a target for extensibility stuff.
19:18:28 [DanC]
NDW: oh yeah...
19:19:09 [DanC]
DanC: is Stuarts interaction with QA relevant to these plans?
19:19:28 [paulc]
I just discovered I have a speaker phone. No idea how it will work.
19:20:24 [DanC]
SKW: I haven't heard back since my 3Sep message.
19:20:36 [DanC]
... but yes, a telcon with QA before our ftf would be good.
19:21:07 [DanC]
DanC: I hope LC2 doesn't take anywhere near most of the scheduled 3 days.
19:21:25 [DanC]
-- Boston F2F December
19:21:36 [DanC]
SKW: see admin mail re dietary needs
19:21:41 [paulc]
BTW I have purchased my ticket for the Boston F2F. Current seat sale was too good to let go.
19:22:03 [DanC]
(skipping 1.2 TAG Vacancies due to timbl not being present)
19:22:12 [paulc]
No news on charter.
19:22:33 [DanC]
--- 2.2 Review of 2nd Last Call Document
19:22:46 [DanC]
LC2 tracking http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html
19:24:22 [DanC]
ACTION PaulC: close "# DIWG Review of Last Call WD Architecture of the World Wide Web"
19:24:34 [DanC]
NDW: I just closed "minor error in webarch section 2.2.2"
19:25:31 [DanC]
DanC offers to close 2nd "# Comments on Working Draft 5 July 2004 - URI Overloading" as a dup.
19:26:20 [DanC]
SKW: patrickS seems willing to accept renaming "information resource" as sufficient
19:26:55 [DanC]
ACTION SKW: draft proposal to address ""information resource" (currently #9)
19:27:50 [DanC]
SKW: "Request for Review of TAG AWWW 2nd LC Draft." is a request to PatH. DanC: I gather he intends to do it.
19:28:08 [DanC]
--- # Comments on Working Draft 5 July 2004 - URI Overloading
19:28:08 [DanC]
* 2004-08-28T20:37:38Z from lucyweber
19:31:43 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: respond ala "we didn't say assing and didn't mean it. does that clarify?"
19:32:16 [DanC]
--- # Definition of agent in the Web Architecture
19:32:16 [DanC]
* 2004-08-30T07:47:16Z from a.p.meyer
19:32:54 [DanC]
RoyF: commentor assumes we're using traditional-AI:agent
19:34:12 [DanC]
SKW: we don't have "agent" in our glossary. PC: but we use it unqualified, for example [missed]
19:34:58 [DanC]
PC: I think the explanation in [which section?] is sufficiently clear
19:35:27 [DanC]
"1. Introduction"
19:36:13 [DanC]
ACTION PaulC: explain to a.p.meyer that we didn't mean any more than we said.
19:36:26 [DanC]
(or something like that; should the action read differently?)
19:37:23 [DanC]
DanC: any suggested text beside the one from sandro? SKW: perhaps HT's "web proper names", but that might be different
19:37:31 [DanC]
RoyF: PatrickS made a suggestion
19:38:16 [DanC]
--- # Comments on Web Arch WD - 2004-07-05
19:38:16 [DanC]
* 2004-09-02T23:20:50Z from karl
19:38:23 [DanC]
DanC: many comments in one msg. :(
19:39:59 [Roy]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html
19:41:20 [Roy]
KD-001: editorial
19:42:09 [DanC]
NDW: yes, I'll deal with KD-001 as editorial.
19:42:12 [DanC]
... and let Karl know
19:42:29 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: deal with KD-001 as editorial and let Karl know
19:42:32 [Roy]
KD 002: why wouldn't the web work with 2 XHTMLs
19:42:36 [Roy]
?
19:43:13 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: seek clarification on KD 002
19:43:52 [DanC]
This version:
19:43:52 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-chips-20030128/
19:43:52 [DanC]
Latest version:
19:43:52 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/TR/chips
19:44:03 [DanC]
KD 003
19:45:16 [DanC]
NDW I'm OK to cite "Common HTTP Implementation Problems" http://www.w3.org/TR/chips
19:46:19 [DanC]
RoyF: doesn't seem that the HTTP WG mailing list was notified of CHIPS
19:46:54 [DanC]
DanC: is the HTTP WG still chartered? RoyF: no, but the list is still there for maintenance and issues like those discussed in CHIPS
19:47:54 [DanC]
PaulC: is http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#gl2 the most relevant?
19:49:43 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: to cite "Common HTTP Implementation Problems" http://www.w3.org/TR/chips per KD 003
19:51:18 [Roy]
KD 004
19:51:30 [DanC]
-- KD 004 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html
19:52:37 [DanC]
DanC: looks editorial to me; doesn't seem critical to fix.
19:53:08 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: seek clarification on KD 004
19:53:53 [DanC]
-- KD 005 URI Ownership
19:54:39 [Norm]
ack danc
19:54:47 [DanC]
DanC: the gandi.net contract has me owning dm93.org, not renting
19:56:26 [DanC]
SKW: I made a comment that might be relevant to KD 005
19:57:40 [DanC]
DanC: we've got several actions in reply to Dubost; I'm OK to leave KD006 etc. for another time
19:58:13 [Roy]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0049.html
19:58:14 [DanC]
-- # non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers
19:58:14 [DanC]
* 2004-09-03T03:31:30Z from myriam.amielh
19:59:15 [DanC]
RoyF: seems like a question on the URI spec; I'm OK to take it
19:59:34 [DanC]
ACTION RoyF: respond to "non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers" comment
20:00:23 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0052.html
20:00:24 [Norm]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0052.html
20:00:33 [DanC]
-- # Should TR/webarch be TR/webarch10?
20:00:33 [DanC]
* 2004-09-03T15:56:32Z from ndw
20:01:33 [DanC]
[... missed some...]
20:02:01 [Roy]
I would say no because I don't expect anyone to be dependent on v1 versus v++
20:02:01 [DanC]
RoyF: I don't expect this to be versioned in a way that v1 vs others matters to people, so I prefer to stay with "webarch" as our shortname
20:02:21 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: respond to "Should TR/webarch be TR/webarch10?" comment
20:02:43 [Roy]
[Dan's version of what I said is better]
20:02:45 [DanC]
-- # new text for Information Resource (section 3.1)
20:02:45 [DanC]
* 2004-09-08T19:56:48Z from sandro
20:02:54 [DanC]
note SKW's action above
20:03:10 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html
20:03:25 [DanC]
DanC: quick straw poll? any appeal to text from sandro? RoyF: I don't like it.
20:03:34 [DanC]
NDW: nor I
20:04:25 [DanC]
--- # AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2
20:04:25 [DanC]
* 2004-09-09T11:45:10Z from gk
20:05:22 [Norm]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0059.html
20:05:34 [DanC]
DanC: quite some meat there... hmm...
20:05:46 [DanC]
DanC: he suggests we've diluted our message; is asking us to SPEAK UP
20:06:24 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: propose some response to " AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2" comment
20:06:35 [Roy]
for DanC: tie this comment into 9 (information resource) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0063.html>
20:06:50 [DanC]
(by the way, I'm going to try to arrange for these actions to show up in the http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html page)
20:07:41 [DanC]
(what's the best practice on pluralizing URI?")
20:12:27 [DanC]
DanC: the sentence "One way ..." is sorta important to me.
20:13:08 [DanC]
... and no, the "data URI scheme" stuff doesn't appeal to me.
20:13:53 [DanC]
NDW: I'm inclined to include it
20:13:54 [paulc]
Darth: Sorry.
20:14:32 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: integrate text on uri ownership from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0061.html , salting to taste
20:15:11 [DanC]
back to...
20:15:12 [Roy]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html
20:15:13 [DanC]
-- KD 005
20:16:04 [DanC]
SKW: the text proposed in 0061 obsoletes the sentence he's commenting on
20:17:15 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: after integrating above comments on URI ownership section, ask KD if it satisfies KD 005
20:20:50 [DanC]
--- on issue 35
20:20:53 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/mod-meta.html#s_metamodule
20:21:18 [Roy]
deja vu
20:21:32 [Norm]
RDF Syntaxes: Everybody Wants One
20:21:53 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/
20:22:10 [DanC]
# meeting record: 2004-09-07 RDF-in-XHTML Task Force Ralph R. Swick (Tuesday, 7 September) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Sep/0013.html
20:22:59 [Norm]
QNames in content. Sigh.
20:23:23 [DanC]
possible tag finding on 35: grddl rationale http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html
20:23:30 [DanC]
and slides http://www.w3.org/2003/g/talk/all.htm
20:24:48 [Norm]
20.4 looks really odd. meta inside link.
20:26:11 [Norm]
PC: There's a RELAX NG schema but no XML Schema.
20:26:36 [Norm]
PC: We suppose they'll generate an XML Schema from the RELAX NG
20:27:24 [Roy]
It looks like this is just codifying the existing meta and link elements, except that they extended link and meta to be containers? Aside from the error of using qnames in attribute content, I don't see a problem. [That is, aside from the general problem the rationale for XHTML2 makes no sense to me.]
20:27:49 [DanC]
extended... yes.
20:31:06 [DanC]
ADJOURN.
20:31:15 [DanC]
RRSAgent, bye
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
I see 13 open action items:
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: PaulC to close "# DIWG Review of Last Call WD Architecture of the World Wide Web" [1]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-24-22
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: SKW to draft proposal to address ""information resource" (currently #9) [2]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-26-55
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanC to respond ala "we didn't say assing and didn't mean it. does that clarify?" [3]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-31-43
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: PaulC to explain to a.p.meyer that we didn't mean any more than we said. [4]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-36-13
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to deal with KD-001 as editorial and let Karl know [5]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-42-29
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to seek clarification on KD 002 [6]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-43-13
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to to cite "Common HTTP Implementation Problems" http://www.w3.org/TR/chips per KD 003 [7]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-49-43
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to seek clarification on KD 004 [8]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-53-08
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: RoyF to respond to "non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers" comment [9]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T19-59-34
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to respond to "Should TR/webarch be TR/webarch10?" comment [10]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T20-02-21
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanC to propose some response to " AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2" comment [11]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T20-06-24
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to integrate text on uri ownership from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0061.html , salting to taste [12]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T20-14-32
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NDW to after integrating above comments on URI ownership section, ask KD if it satisfies KD 005 [13]
20:31:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/13-tagmem-irc#T20-17-15
20:31:47 [Zakim]
-DanC