00:55:32 timbl has joined #tagmem 02:32:22 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 02:32:41 DanC_lap has left #tagmem 14:07:26 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 14:08:12 The latencies are better on the phone 14:08:26 Yes, please use the phone :-) 14:08:27 We are dialing in. 14:08:51 Sorry we were talking on the video link for the last 15 minutes bringing Stuart uptodate. 14:09:12 +??P1 14:09:16 Trying to find a MIT number for Zakim. 14:09:23 zakim, ??P1 is me 14:09:23 +Stuart; got it 14:09:34 BTW we do yet have Roy or Chris at the meeting. 14:09:53 +MIT262 14:09:56 Norm: We are moving at 12noon to other room and Amy says it will have a telcon facility. 14:10:43 noah has joined #tagmem 14:10:52 Sorry we are expecting Dan and Roy. 14:11:25 topic http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0069.html 14:11:33 topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0069.html 14:11:33 meeting: TAG F2F Nov 30, 2004 14:11:42 Stuart has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0069.html 14:12:05 zakim, who is here? 14:12:05 On the phone I see Norm, Stuart, MIT262 14:12:06 On IRC I see noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Stuart, timbl, paulc 14:15:07 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 14:17:19 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:17:19 See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/30-tagmem-irc#T14-17-19 14:17:47 We have to recess at 12noon today and move rooms. 14:18:17 We'll be in 346 in the Stata Center this afternoon. 14:18:25 Norm will be away 11:30am ET to 1pm. 14:18:32 Zakim, MIT262 has PaulC, DanC, Roy, Noah 14:18:32 +PaulC, DanC, Roy, Noah; got it 14:19:32 Scribe: DanC (thru lunch) 14:19:41 RoyF offers for after lunch 14:19:58 Topic: 5. TAG Issues 14:20:09 DanC_lap has changed the topic to: TAG ftf http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag 14:20:13 TAG issues grouped by theme: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html 14:20:52 Roy has joined #tagmem 14:21:48 PaulC: which issues shall we discuss next? Stuart: I'd like to discuss metadataInURIs 31 14:22:16 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#metadataInURI-31 14:22:55 PaulC observes that 31 is in the "2.2.2 URI and Fragment Issues" cluster of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html 14:23:27 Zakim, Chris just arrived in MIT262 14:23:27 +Chris; got it 14:24:17 PaulC observes requests jive with http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html 14:25:36 Topic: 2.2.1 Media-Types Issues RFC3023Charset-21 14:25:56 PC: outstanding actions here? 14:26:18 CL: just the long-standing action to edit the revision 14:27:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0027.html 14:27:34 subject: 3023 update (was Re: Agenda TAG Telcon: 8th Nov 2004) 14:27:59 CL: there's pushback on the use of XPointer 14:29:08 ACTION: something about XPolinter in RFC3023 revision 14:30:15 ACTION 1 = explain how just using the RECcomended parts of XPointer isn't too much of a burden in RFC3023 14:30:24 ACTION 1 = CL: explain how just using the RECcomended parts of XPointer isn't too much of a burden in RFC3023 14:31:16 CL: ... charset... 14:32:26 SW: I found Martin's distinction between use in registration docs and use in exchanged documents useful 14:32:42 CL: I don't see how it helps to require documenting and implementing it but not using it 14:34:02 Chris has joined #tagmem 14:35:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html#self-describing 14:35:58 see also http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#no-charset 14:36:38 In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT specify the character encoding for XML data in protocol headers since the 14:36:47 ation provider SHOULD NOT specify the character encoding for XML data in protocol headers since the data is self-describing 14:37:53 http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types 14:38:15 " In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT specify the character encoding for XML data in protocol headers since the data is self-describing." 14:39:48 Roy: Existing 3023 says must, so we went to SHOULD NOT; if it had not, we would have said MUST NOT 14:39:50 RF: if not for the "providers MUST..." in RFC3023, we'd have said "MUST NOT". 14:40:25 CL: revising the finding along those lines seems like a good next step 14:40:47 PC: there may be knock-on effects on webarch 14:40:56 DC: I don't see an opportunity to do that before REC 14:41:00 PC: no, but eventually 14:42:23 CL: ... charset... local disk... xml processor... 14:42:51 ... transcoding proxy 14:42:59 ... +xml 14:44:59 PC: in sum, CL is continuing to negotiate changes to 3023 ... 14:45:04 NM: I asked whether we were going so far as to encourage transcoding of XML into different encodings, while revising the XML declaration appropriately. 14:45:12 Two questions: 1) Is text/*+xml allowed (discouraged but allowed) 2) Should charset be used with an instance of text/*+xml if it occurs however discouraged? 14:45:25 NM: The answer I got was: "IF you choose to transcode, THEN you must keep the decl in sync" 14:45:50 Chris: not encouraging, but recognising that it happens and also, that the +xml convention has value here for unrecognized media types 14:45:56 PC: I subscribed to ietf-xml-mime. how many others? CL 14:46:37 NM: I agree with that, but raised another point: "We should note that such transcoding has costs for other reasons: there are situations in which I depend on my XML files being byte-for-byte unmodified (e.g. CVS diffs)." 14:48:43 Re: MIME Type Review Request: image/svg+xml http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0070.html 14:49:11 http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/index.html 14:49:54 CL: yes, I'll let the TAG know when the RFC3023 revision merits TAG review or discussion 14:50:35 http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00978.html 14:51:05 Fw: XML media types, charset, TAG findings Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:48:00 +0900 14:51:12 That summarizes what I have been saying 14:52:50 Topic: 2.2.1 Media-Types Issues putMediaType-38 14:53:09 CL: oh yeah... I had an action here... 14:53:43 pointer to the list Paul is projecting? 14:53:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html 14:55:04 ACTION: Chris explain why resources that have further server side processing (includes, php, asp etc) might want to have different media type when placed on server and when retrieved from it 14:55:54 DC: likely for monday's telcon? CL: maybe. 1/2hr email, provided I find the 1/2hr... 14:55:54 its a half hour email thing, well try to do in next few daya 14:56:20 Topic: mediaTypeManagement-45 , 2.2.1 Media-Types Issues 14:57:10 reviewing ACTION CL: draft finding on 45 14:57:33 text from minutes http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#diwg4 14:58:33 NM asks about raising issues; several encourage him to raise them in www-tag 14:59:05 Chris: note to self, also discuss impossibility of media types for combinations of different document formats (xhtml+matml+svg+etc) 14:59:45 NM: things like application/soap+xml seem to be stretching MIME... people want this mix-in... 15:00:36 Chris: there was asuggestion to do a three way hierarchy, like application/foo/xml or another suggestion was xml/image/foo 15:00:39 ... but if I really want to say "this is a SOAP purchase order" the 2-level system doesn't accomodate it well 15:00:55 +xml precludes adding a +somethingelse 15:01:43 q+ 15:02:42 NM: decisions like "don't use ..." seem to be made on-the-margin 15:03:16 PC asks about the number of +'s allowed 15:03:51 PC: does RFC3023 restrict it to just one + ? 15:04:03 NM: I think so 15:05:30 NM: is it better not to raise an issue until there's a constructive solution in sight? I wonder, sometimes. 15:05:49 ack Roy 15:05:55 q+ 15:06:29 RF: there's a lot of aspects of media types that suggest "let's redesign the whole system..." 15:07:15 ... [missed] 15:07:29 PC: why isn't that[?] a comment on RFC3023? 15:08:02 RF: ... image/* is a whole bunch of unrelated formats; media types are a processing declaration more than a format declaration. 15:08:21 ack Chris 15:08:36 ... every text/xml thing is also a text/plain thing, but the difference is how you process it 15:08:52 suggested global issue: RethinkingMediaTypes? 15:09:10 I sometimes worry about the whole media type/fragment identifier tangle of issues 15:09:16 CL: there was discussion of application/soap/xml , which is hierarchical, but... 15:09:36 q+ 15:09:55 ... but if you extend it fiurther, is application/spap/cml/signed the same as application/soap/signed/xml ? 15:10:09 DC: this seems like issue 45, to me 15:10:26 [this = NM's questions] 15:10:42 CL: I'm glad to work with Chris on this 15:10:50 s/CL/NM 15:11:11 ack Stuart 15:11:16 SW: how does this relate to compound documents? 15:11:37 CL: yes, quite... the html/svg/mathml 2^N stuff... 15:11:43 q+ 15:11:52 PC: the 2^n+1 problem 15:12:05 FWIW, I think DC has been proven write. 3023 speaks of a suffix of +xml but does not outright prohibit additional "+" signs by my reading. Hang on, I'll copy some pertinent text., 15:12:08 SW: the compound documents WG seems relevant here 15:12:28 http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/ 15:12:33 When a new media type is introduced for an XML-based format, the name 15:12:33 of the media type SHOULD end with '+xml'. This convention will allow 15:12:33 applications that can process XML generically to detect that the MIME 15:12:33 entity is supposed to be an XML document, verify this assumption by 15:12:33 invoking some XML processor, and then process the XML document 15:12:34 accordingly. Applications may match for types that represent XML 15:12:36 MIME entities by comparing the subtype to the pattern '*/*+xml'. (Of 15:12:39 course, 4 of the 5 media types defined in this document -- text/xml, 15:12:40 application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and 15:12:40 ack DanC_lap 15:12:42 application/xml-external-parsed-entity -- also represent XML MIME 15:12:44 entities while not conforming to the '*/*+xml' pattern.) 15:12:50 "A Compound Document is the W3C term for a document that combines multiple formats, such as XHTML, SVG, SMIL and XForms. The W3C Compound Document Formats (CDF) Working Group will specify the behaviour of some format combinations, addressing the needs for an extensible and interoperable Web." 15:13:12 Also: "This document recommends the use of a naming convention (a suffix of 15:13:12 '+xml') for identifying XML-based MIME media types, whatever their 15:13:12 particular content may represent. This allows the use of generic XML 15:13:12 processors and technologies on a wide variety of different XML 15:13:12 document types at a minimum cost, using existing frameworks for media 15:13:13 type registration. 15:13:15 Although the use of a suffix was not considered as part of the 15:13:17 original MIME architecture, this choice is considered to provide the 15:13:19 most functionality with the least potential for interoperability 15:13:21 problems or lack of future extensibility. The alternatives to the ' 15:13:23 +xml' suffix and the reason for its selection are described in 15:13:25 Appendix A." 15:14:28 DC: I think it will be nifty if CDF presented their requirement document to TAG 15:14:41 DC: "compund documents" is a huge design space. I'm surprised W3C chartered a WG with a problem that big. I'm interested to have them present their requirements doc to us 15:15:11 See above...they really mean use of multiple namespaces that are designed to be mixed and matched. 15:15:20 * Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as SMIL, SVG and XML Events, with XHTML by reference. 15:15:20 * Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as XHTML, XML Events, CSS, SVG, SMIL and XForms, into a single document by inclusion. 15:15:28 * Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as SMIL, SVG and XML Events, with XHTML by reference. 15:15:28 * Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as XHTML, XML Events, CSS, SVG, SMIL and XForms, into a single document by inclusion. 15:15:43 http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/admin/charter 15:15:50 There's good reason to debate the pros and cons of W3C having a working group in that area, but it's a very narrow slide of what I consider compound documents. 15:17:36 1. grounded in good practise 2. make it short 15:18:01 Dan C suggested a finding on mediaType Management-45 should do the above two points 15:18:21 short ~= 5 pages 15:18:54 ACTION SW: coordinate with CDF WG. e.g. requirements presentation plenary week 15:19:00 [note paulc comments were actually paul minuting DC comments] 15:19:45 Topic: 2.2.2 URI and Fragment Issues 15:19:51 of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html 15:20:04 reviewing ACTION DC: with Norm, develop a finding on httpRange-14 starting with the HashSlashDuality text 15:20:13 NDW: I've done a little work on that 15:20:30 ... since preempted by webarch work 15:22:51 NDW/DC: delivery to tag late Jan is our best guess. 15:23:16 ACTION DanC: update 14 in the issues list to put in on an agenda in late jan 2005 15:23:29 Topic: IRIEverywhere-27 15:24:18 Proof that the split we asked for happened 15:24:19 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-charmod-20041122/ 15:24:28 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-charmod-resid-20041122/ 15:24:29 RF: I suggest that this should be marked pending IETF completing IRI spec [something] which is almost done 15:25:14 Under normative references 15:25:15 I-D IRI 15:25:15 Martin Dürst, Michel Suignard, Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs), Internet-Draft, September 2004. (See http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-10.txt.) [NOTE: This reference will be updated once the IRI draft is available as an RFC.] 15:25:55 PC: Schema has anyURI that is defined in terms of XLink 15:26:03 PC: current state is anyURI type in XML Schema... 15:26:04 PC: XLink defines some of IRI 15:26:32 PC: Quaery 1.0 xslt 2.0 xpath 2.0 (the qt specs) all inherit this 15:27:00 CL: so there is already a support of a subset of IRI 15:27:31 ack danc 15:27:31 DanC_lap, you wanted to note TimBL's questions http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html 15:29:43 DC: to summarize: are there 2 spaces, or one space with 2 encodings? 15:30:10 SW: I've asked MD and found his answers somewhat unsatisfying... he seems to say "both" 15:30:17 CL: both seem to be useful... 15:32:11 RF: I'm unlikely to read the IRI spec again until the IESG approves it. it changed just yesterday 15:33:31 ... and the IESG is all but decided. 15:34:04 RF: Once http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-11.txt exists it will be approved 15:34:45 timbl, do you want the action on this? 15:34:59 that is... 15:35:03 all URIs are IRIs, so there is only one identifier space 15:36:02 ACTION RF: notify the TAG when IESG has decided on IRI spec and suggest answers to timbl's questions http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html 15:36:46 ----------- 15:36:50 Topic: fragmentInXML-28 15:37:12 swapping in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#fragmentInXML-28 15:37:22 reviewing Action CL: Write up a summary of the resolution. 15:37:41 CL: I've been hesitant to draft that since the relevant terminology in webarch was changing 15:37:54 but now its stable 15:38:01 'secondary resource' and so on 15:38:21 So I can do this, eta one week 15:38:41 ACTION CL: Write up a summary of the resolution. on fragmentInXML-28 continues. 15:39:10 ------ 15:39:14 Topic: metadataInURI-31 15:39:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0129.html 15:39:31 reviewing ACTION Stuart revise finding 15:39:49 ^30 Nov summary of feedback 15:40:24 ACTION Stuart: revise finding on metadataInURI-31 15:41:13 reviewing PC's action to find out about DO's action 15:41:21 DC suggests withdraw 15:41:29 action PC WITHDRAWN. 15:41:57 SW: ETA xmas 15:42:28 SW: I'm willing to work on this until it's finished, regardless of my term 15:42:41 ---- 15:42:54 break 'till 10:50 15:43:01 -Norm 15:53:14 I have just updated http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDsemantics-32.html to take into account the xml:id last call 15:54:09 Ugh. Chris did you send the HTML to Ian? 15:59:29 ---- resuming from break 15:59:50 Topic: siteData-36 16:00:07 reviewing ACTION2003-01-12 16:00:17 reviewing ACTION2003-01-12 DC Propose example of a site description. 16:00:17 +Norm 16:03:36 PC finds "Action TB: Beef up use cases in draft finding." 16:05:08 CL: people use "web site" in 2 senses... 16:05:16 q+ 16:05:54 scribe: Chris 16:06:04 ack Norm 16:06:17 ack DanC_lap 16:06:21 NW: confused by what chris said, didn't seem to be about sitedata 36 16:06:44 DC: Its derived from robots.txt and p3p and things that saw of parts of the namespace 16:06:51 little wormholes in URI space 16:07:18 DC: TBray wanted to have a doc that said 'this is a website' and I saifd 'no, its a website description' hence my action 16:08:02 NW: Interested to see a finding in this area 16:08:17 PC: Should we ask TBray about this? 16:36:59 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:37:03 Ralph has left #tagmem 16:37:20 DC: does the XQuery spec specify how to take the FO namespace URI and a name like concat and make a URI out of it? 16:37:22 PC: no 16:37:25 DC: webarch says you MUST 16:37:49 NDW: I have a proposal that I haven't yet made... to add fragids 16:38:52 PC: let's add this to our todo list, Norm. IR1 thingy. 16:39:25 dorchard has joined #tagmem 16:39:36 Hi David 16:39:46 We are meeting in a different room this afternoon 16:39:47 David, 346 is the room for after lunch. 16:39:51 joining us for lunch? 16:40:10 (a room number wasn't sufficient for me; I wandered around the building for 10 minutes before somebody held my hand...) 16:40:38 ----- 16:40:41 Topic: xlinkScope-23 16:41:51 in basel (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag#htxl) we made a nearby decision, but not one to close this issue 16:43:36 PC: is this referenced in webarch? 16:43:41 DC: yes, in 4.5.2 16:44:58 ---- 16:44:59 # xlinkScope-23 : What is the scope of using XLink? 16:45:44 NW: Propose to wait for XLink 1.1 to see what happens 16:46:12 q+ 16:47:46 SKW: Waiting for Liam to cause task force to meet 16:48:00 q+ to say we need to know exactly what we'll say if asked about status at the AC mtg 16:51:48 task force charter/genesis... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2003AprJun/0057.html 16:51:58 first real message 16:51:59 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-linking-tf/2004Feb/0000.html 16:53:24 DC: no duration. not optimal. 16:53:37 (also no public accountability) 16:53:57 i agree, it needs to have an actual charter, milestones and deliverables 17:00:44 To quote Ian Hikson "I don't really have a good solution though, not even for this very small 17:00:44 problem set ("identify links and classify them as either hyperlinks or 17:00:44 source links, without using external files, and without making it a pain 17:00:44 to use for authors"). D'oh." 17:01:10 -Norm 17:01:16 -MIT262 17:06:13 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 17:08:15 Bye 17:10:53 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 17:14:34 Roy has joined #tagmem 17:15:58 -Stuart 17:15:59 TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended 17:16:00 Attendees were Norm, Stuart, PaulC, DanC, Roy, Noah, Chris 17:58:05 Chris has joined #tagmem 18:03:10 paulc has joined #tagmem 18:03:21 scribenick: roy 18:03:32 scribenick: Roy 18:08:28 scribenick: roy_scribe 18:10:04 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html 18:10:56 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#XMLVersioning-41 18:11:12 Dave Orchard in attendance 18:11:24 Zakim, who's on the phone? 18:11:24 I notice TAG_f2f()9:00AM has restarted 18:11:25 On the phone I see +1.617.324.aaaa 18:11:42 PC chair for this afternoon 18:12:25 Zakim, aaa is G346 18:12:25 sorry, DanC_lap, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa' 18:12:29 Zakim, aaaa is G346 18:12:29 +G346; got it 18:12:43 +Norm 18:13:00 Zakim, G346 holds PaulC, DaveO, RoyF, DanC, Noah, Chris 18:13:00 +PaulC, DaveO, RoyF, DanC, Noah, Chris; got it 18:13:55 PC: I saw DO's presentation at the conference, a high-level summary -- shall we go through it? 18:16:02 DO's slides are not on-line 18:17:58 Zakim, TimBL just arrived in G346 18:17:58 +TimBL; got it 18:18:17 PC: DO has 45 minutes 18:18:41 PC: to present 18:18:42 -Norm 18:19:10 Zakim, remind us in 40 minutes to see if we're going to be done in 45 minutes 18:19:10 ok, DanC_lap 18:20:17 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:21:42 Updated rough draft finding on extensibility and versioning for F2F http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0071.html 18:22:16 DC: I like the producer/consumer diagram. I wonder why 3 arcs and not 2/4 18:23:09 +1 discussion of substitution rules. I don't care for "ignore" terminology 18:23:44 nice diagram: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/image001.gif 18:24:26 hmm... there's a question of _whether_ to use a schema language, not just which one, yes? 18:24:31 I think forward or backward compatibility is presented as much too much of a boolean relation. This was raised by me at Cannes last year. Even as an early version of an applications, there are shades of grey regarding the ways in which I will or won't process content that in some sense I don't fully understand. 18:24:58 +Norm 18:25:20 Norm has joined #tagmem 18:25:44 I'm not as happy as Dan with the substitution formulation, though I agree that "ignore" is much too simplistic. There are ways I can process various newer forms without "Transforming" to an older form. For example, I can check a digital signature on the whole thing. I can use default rules for printing our outputting, etc. None of this involves a transform to a legal V1 form. 18:25:52 "Others substitution mechanisms exist, such as the fallback model in XSLT." is news to me. a specific section link into the XSLT spec would be nice 18:27:05 Plan for issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html 18:27:14 while there are various ways documents can produced/consumed, but the web architecture has one main one, I think. 18:27:45 Aug F2F discussion of issue 41: http://www.w3.org/2004/08/10-tagmem-irc 18:28:09 Oct F2F discussion of issue 41: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag#extvers 18:28:14 (checking to see if "xml 1.1 is not a compatible change" is noted in the Nov 2004 draft...) 18:28:38 yup... "A good example of an incompatible changed identified as a minor change is XML 1.1." 18:28:51 a citation link would be nice. 18:30:01 XML1.1 is back but nor forwards compatible with 1.0, I assume 18:30:35 Oh, no ... not compatible, when you include the yes, I don't know why "incompatible" rather than "not forward compatible" was used 18:32:09 (I have an action from another forum to work on a persistence ontology... quite relevant to "version identification" slide) 18:32:31 q+ ask for a more formal treatment in some places. For example, operation of interpreting a doc in language x as if it were in namespace y. XML version numbers and namespaecs don't make this a trvial operaton. 18:33:34 q+ to ask for a more formal treatment in some places. For example, operation of interpreting a doc in language x as if it were in namespace y. XML version numbers and namespaecs don't make this a trvial operaton. 18:33:58 (work in progress: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/changePolicy ) 18:34:20 Eg the "Decision" on this slide connects to the transformation rules on anotehr slide to give f/b compatability results. 18:34:58 UBM the example for a change every time anything changes. 18:35:32 QA Spec Guidelines interaction with Issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0113.html 18:35:34 "for each compatible version" -- forward or backward? (seems odd to introduce the fwd/back terminology and then not use it) 18:36:26 q+ tim2 to say: Missing concept -- damage involved. Compat can be quntitative, eg when middle name is removed? 18:36:53 hmm... less fuzzy examples might be better, yes. 18:37:06 Universal Business Language 18:37:31 UBL http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ 18:37:54 DO: I sent a comment on UBL asking for [something] 18:38:07 (I wonder what became of that comment; I gather UBL is done-and-dusted) 18:38:40 DO: UBL don't intend to support distributed extensibility 18:39:20 timbl: what happens when entire namespace changes is that people begin programming to specific exceptions (i.e., if the parts I use have not changed, just internally ignore the namespace) -- that has a negative effect on third-party processing 18:39:39 NM: I'd like to discuss this at length; going over examples like UBL might be as important as the solution 18:40:15 ... or solutions 18:40:35 timbl: What happens when UBL comes out with a different version is that the application engineers and lawyers look at the specs and contracts and decide whether one can for them be tretawed like the other. 18:44:04 "this is the most common" ... hmm... 18:44:26 NM: are people happy with the ns2 approach? DO: no, prolly not 18:46:09 did I miss a slide about "or use a different schema language"? 18:46:31 or "don't use a schema language"? 18:47:42 "swap trick" .. I don't grok. would have liked a slide on thqat 18:48:00 re slide "CVI Strategy #3..." 18:48:47 slide: Extension Element 18:50:22 slide: Schema V2 18:52:03 (noodling on a set of slides on how RDF addresses these issues: sacrifices handy XML syntax for stuff like order and containership; establishes the "erasure" substituion rule...) 18:52:58 NM: have concerns about focus on existing Schema limitations, rather than on the way forward on general issues 18:54:47 ("the current schema language" bugs me. Relax-NG is current. RDF is a W3C REC and addresses many of these issues.) 18:55:11 slide: #5 Incompatibe Extensions 18:56:32 q+ to ask if there are any non-hypothetical examples of "must understand" mechanisms (does new HTTP verbs count? non-WF XML?) 18:57:53 TBL relates "#5..." slide to issue xmlFunctions-NN 18:58:13 xmlfunctions-34 18:58:19 xmlFunctions-34 18:59:08 stef has joined #tagmem 18:59:10 DanC_lap, you asked to be reminded at this time to see if we're going to be done in 45 minutes 18:59:34 stef has left #tagmem 19:00:45 The RSS problem of which David speaks in my view follows from defining processing as oppossed to meaning 19:01:19 yes, but defining meaning is only a solution if it answers the processing questions, right, timbl? 19:01:37 Yes, which is does in this case. 19:05:51 DO: I didn't get around to elaborating on RelaxNG and OWL/RDF for these slides, but I wrote a blog entry 19:06:13 PC: the "versioning activities" list is missing QA WG work 19:07:07 DO: plan to do more reference to the QA work in the finding 19:07:50 PC: what QA is proposing is that it would be better if the SOAP spec laid out the specific extensibility points in one section 19:09:11 DO: end of presentation .... questions? 19:09:20 Plan for issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html 19:09:27 q? 19:09:31 Which of these items are done? 19:09:45 q+ to make a number of comments queued up on Dave's presentation 19:10:05 ack tim 19:10:05 tim2, you wanted to say: Missing concept -- damage involved. Compat can be quntitative, eg when middle name is removed? 19:10:20 ack timbl 19:10:20 timbl, you wanted to ask for a more formal treatment in some places. For example, operation of interpreting a doc in language x as if it were in namespace y. XML version numbers 19:10:22 q+ 19:10:23 ... and namespaecs don't make this a trvial operaton. 19:11:10 I did not ack him twice - I think someone else did. 19:11:40 IRC indicates that timbl himself did the "ack tim" 19:11:56 ah 19:12:19 timbl: the may-ignore extensions are not really ignored -- they are just not processed (kept in some reserve, perhaps) 19:13:30 timbl: you could write down some math that reflect the extension rules using substitutions 19:15:56 timbl: [discussion of other ways to describe forward and backward compatibilty by phrasing it in terms of substution rules] 19:16:36 DC: there are no documents that are both xml 1.0 and 1.1 19:17:06 DC: because the version is labeled with the document [??] 19:18:29