IRC log of tagmem on 2004-11-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:55:32 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
02:32:22 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
02:32:41 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has left #tagmem
14:07:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:08:12 [Stuart]
The latencies are better on the phone
14:08:26 [Norm]
Yes, please use the phone :-)
14:08:27 [paulc]
We are dialing in.
14:08:51 [paulc]
Sorry we were talking on the video link for the last 15 minutes bringing Stuart uptodate.
14:09:12 [Zakim]
+??P1
14:09:16 [paulc]
Trying to find a MIT number for Zakim.
14:09:23 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P1 is me
14:09:23 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
14:09:34 [paulc]
BTW we do yet have Roy or Chris at the meeting.
14:09:53 [Zakim]
+MIT262
14:09:56 [paulc]
Norm: We are moving at 12noon to other room and Amy says it will have a telcon facility.
14:10:43 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
14:10:52 [paulc]
Sorry we are expecting Dan and Roy.
14:11:25 [paulc]
topic http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0069.html
14:11:33 [paulc]
topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0069.html
14:11:33 [noah]
meeting: TAG F2F Nov 30, 2004
14:11:42 [Stuart]
Stuart has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0069.html
14:12:05 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
14:12:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Stuart, MIT262
14:12:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Stuart, timbl, paulc
14:15:07 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
14:17:19 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, pointer?
14:17:19 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/30-tagmem-irc#T14-17-19
14:17:47 [paulc]
We have to recess at 12noon today and move rooms.
14:18:17 [noah]
We'll be in 346 in the Stata Center this afternoon.
14:18:25 [paulc]
Norm will be away 11:30am ET to 1pm.
14:18:32 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, MIT262 has PaulC, DanC, Roy, Noah
14:18:32 [Zakim]
+PaulC, DanC, Roy, Noah; got it
14:19:32 [DanC_lap]
Scribe: DanC (thru lunch)
14:19:41 [DanC_lap]
RoyF offers for after lunch
14:19:58 [DanC_lap]
Topic: 5. TAG Issues
14:20:09 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has changed the topic to: TAG ftf http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag
14:20:13 [paulc]
TAG issues grouped by theme: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html
14:20:52 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
14:21:48 [DanC_lap]
PaulC: which issues shall we discuss next? Stuart: I'd like to discuss metadataInURIs 31
14:22:16 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#metadataInURI-31
14:22:55 [DanC_lap]
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 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, Chris just arrived in MIT262
14:23:27 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
14:24:17 [DanC_lap]
PaulC observes requests jive with http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html
14:25:36 [DanC_lap]
Topic: 2.2.1 Media-Types Issues RFC3023Charset-21
14:25:56 [DanC_lap]
PC: outstanding actions here?
14:26:18 [DanC_lap]
CL: just the long-standing action to edit the revision
14:27:17 [paulc]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0027.html
14:27:34 [DanC_lap]
subject: 3023 update (was Re: Agenda TAG Telcon: 8th Nov 2004)
14:27:59 [DanC_lap]
CL: there's pushback on the use of XPointer
14:29:08 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: something about XPolinter in RFC3023 revision
14:30:15 [DanC_lap]
ACTION 1 = explain how just using the RECcomended parts of XPointer isn't too much of a burden in RFC3023
14:30:24 [DanC_lap]
ACTION 1 = CL: explain how just using the RECcomended parts of XPointer isn't too much of a burden in RFC3023
14:31:16 [DanC_lap]
CL: ... charset...
14:32:26 [DanC_lap]
SW: I found Martin's distinction between use in registration docs and use in exchanged documents useful
14:32:42 [DanC_lap]
CL: I don't see how it helps to require documenting and implementing it but not using it
14:34:02 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
14:35:34 [paulc]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html#self-describing
14:35:58 [Chris]
see also http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#no-charset
14:36:38 [Chris]
In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT specify the character encoding for XML data in protocol headers since the
14:36:47 [Chris]
ation provider SHOULD NOT specify the character encoding for XML data in protocol headers since the data is self-describing
14:37:53 [Roy]
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types
14:38:15 [DanC_lap]
" 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 [Chris]
Roy: Existing 3023 says must, so we went to SHOULD NOT; if it had not, we would have said MUST NOT
14:39:50 [DanC_lap]
RF: if not for the "providers MUST..." in RFC3023, we'd have said "MUST NOT".
14:40:25 [DanC_lap]
CL: revising the finding along those lines seems like a good next step
14:40:47 [DanC_lap]
PC: there may be knock-on effects on webarch
14:40:56 [DanC_lap]
DC: I don't see an opportunity to do that before REC
14:41:00 [DanC_lap]
PC: no, but eventually
14:42:23 [DanC_lap]
CL: ... charset... local disk... xml processor...
14:42:51 [DanC_lap]
... transcoding proxy
14:42:59 [DanC_lap]
... +xml
14:44:59 [DanC_lap]
PC: in sum, CL is continuing to negotiate changes to 3023 ...
14:45:04 [noah]
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 [Stuart]
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 [noah]
NM: The answer I got was: "IF you choose to transcode, THEN you must keep the decl in sync"
14:45:50 [Chris]
Chris: not encouraging, but recognising that it happens and also, that the +xml convention has value here for unrecognized media types
14:45:56 [DanC_lap]
PC: I subscribed to ietf-xml-mime. how many others? CL
14:46:37 [noah]
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 [DanC_lap]
Re: MIME Type Review Request: image/svg+xml http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0070.html
14:49:11 [Roy]
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/index.html
14:49:54 [DanC_lap]
CL: yes, I'll let the TAG know when the RFC3023 revision merits TAG review or discussion
14:50:35 [Chris]
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00978.html
14:51:05 [DanC_lap]
Fw: XML media types, charset, TAG findings Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:48:00 +0900
14:51:12 [Chris]
That summarizes what I have been saying
14:52:50 [DanC_lap]
Topic: 2.2.1 Media-Types Issues putMediaType-38
14:53:09 [DanC_lap]
CL: oh yeah... I had an action here...
14:53:43 [Chris]
pointer to the list Paul is projecting?
14:53:59 [DanC_lap]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html
14:55:04 [Chris]
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 [DanC_lap]
DC: likely for monday's telcon? CL: maybe. 1/2hr email, provided I find the 1/2hr...
14:55:54 [Chris]
its a half hour email thing, well try to do in next few daya
14:56:20 [DanC_lap]
Topic: mediaTypeManagement-45 , 2.2.1 Media-Types Issues
14:57:10 [DanC_lap]
reviewing ACTION CL: draft finding on 45
14:57:33 [Chris]
text from minutes http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#diwg4
14:58:33 [DanC_lap]
NM asks about raising issues; several encourage him to raise them in www-tag
14:59:05 [Chris]
Chris: note to self, also discuss impossibility of media types for combinations of different document formats (xhtml+matml+svg+etc)
14:59:45 [DanC_lap]
NM: things like application/soap+xml seem to be stretching MIME... people want this mix-in...
15:00:36 [Chris]
Chris: there was asuggestion to do a three way hierarchy, like application/foo/xml or another suggestion was xml/image/foo
15:00:39 [DanC_lap]
... 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 [Chris]
+xml precludes adding a +somethingelse
15:01:43 [Roy]
q+
15:02:42 [DanC_lap]
NM: decisions like "don't use ..." seem to be made on-the-margin
15:03:16 [DanC_lap]
PC asks about the number of +'s allowed
15:03:51 [DanC_lap]
PC: does RFC3023 restrict it to just one + ?
15:04:03 [DanC_lap]
NM: I think so
15:05:30 [DanC_lap]
NM: is it better not to raise an issue until there's a constructive solution in sight? I wonder, sometimes.
15:05:49 [paulc]
ack Roy
15:05:55 [Chris]
q+
15:06:29 [DanC_lap]
RF: there's a lot of aspects of media types that suggest "let's redesign the whole system..."
15:07:15 [DanC_lap]
... [missed]
15:07:29 [DanC_lap]
PC: why isn't that[?] a comment on RFC3023?
15:08:02 [DanC_lap]
RF: ... image/* is a whole bunch of unrelated formats; media types are a processing declaration more than a format declaration.
15:08:21 [paulc]
ack Chris
15:08:36 [DanC_lap]
... every text/xml thing is also a text/plain thing, but the difference is how you process it
15:08:52 [Roy]
suggested global issue: RethinkingMediaTypes?
15:09:10 [Norm]
I sometimes worry about the whole media type/fragment identifier tangle of issues
15:09:16 [DanC_lap]
CL: there was discussion of application/soap/xml , which is hierarchical, but...
15:09:36 [Stuart]
q+
15:09:55 [Chris]
... but if you extend it fiurther, is application/spap/cml/signed the same as application/soap/signed/xml ?
15:10:09 [DanC_lap]
DC: this seems like issue 45, to me
15:10:26 [DanC_lap]
[this = NM's questions]
15:10:42 [DanC_lap]
CL: I'm glad to work with Chris on this
15:10:50 [Chris]
s/CL/NM
15:11:11 [paulc]
ack Stuart
15:11:16 [DanC_lap]
SW: how does this relate to compound documents?
15:11:37 [DanC_lap]
CL: yes, quite... the html/svg/mathml 2^N stuff...
15:11:43 [DanC_lap]
q+
15:11:52 [Chris]
PC: the 2^n+1 problem
15:12:05 [noah]
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 [DanC_lap]
SW: the compound documents WG seems relevant here
15:12:28 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/
15:12:33 [noah]
When a new media type is introduced for an XML-based format, the name
15:12:33 [noah]
of the media type SHOULD end with '+xml'. This convention will allow
15:12:33 [noah]
applications that can process XML generically to detect that the MIME
15:12:33 [noah]
entity is supposed to be an XML document, verify this assumption by
15:12:33 [noah]
invoking some XML processor, and then process the XML document
15:12:34 [noah]
accordingly. Applications may match for types that represent XML
15:12:36 [noah]
MIME entities by comparing the subtype to the pattern '*/*+xml'. (Of
15:12:39 [noah]
course, 4 of the 5 media types defined in this document -- text/xml,
15:12:40 [noah]
application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and
15:12:40 [paulc]
ack DanC_lap
15:12:42 [noah]
application/xml-external-parsed-entity -- also represent XML MIME
15:12:44 [noah]
entities while not conforming to the '*/*+xml' pattern.)
15:12:50 [Chris]
"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 [noah]
Also: "This document recommends the use of a naming convention (a suffix of
15:13:12 [noah]
'+xml') for identifying XML-based MIME media types, whatever their
15:13:12 [noah]
particular content may represent. This allows the use of generic XML
15:13:12 [noah]
processors and technologies on a wide variety of different XML
15:13:12 [noah]
document types at a minimum cost, using existing frameworks for media
15:13:13 [noah]
type registration.
15:13:15 [noah]
Although the use of a suffix was not considered as part of the
15:13:17 [noah]
original MIME architecture, this choice is considered to provide the
15:13:19 [noah]
most functionality with the least potential for interoperability
15:13:21 [noah]
problems or lack of future extensibility. The alternatives to the '
15:13:23 [noah]
+xml' suffix and the reason for its selection are described in
15:13:25 [noah]
Appendix A."
15:14:28 [Roy]
DC: I think it will be nifty if CDF presented their requirement document to TAG
15:14:41 [DanC_lap]
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 [noah]
See above...they really mean use of multiple namespaces that are designed to be mixed and matched.
15:15:20 [Chris]
* Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as SMIL, SVG and XML Events, with XHTML by reference.
15:15:20 [Chris]
* Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as XHTML, XML Events, CSS, SVG, SMIL and XForms, into a single document by inclusion.
15:15:28 [Chris]
* Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as SMIL, SVG and XML Events, with XHTML by reference.
15:15:28 [Chris]
* Specifications for combining W3C technologies, such as XHTML, XML Events, CSS, SVG, SMIL and XForms, into a single document by inclusion.
15:15:43 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/admin/charter
15:15:50 [noah]
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 [paulc]
1. grounded in good practise 2. make it short
15:18:01 [paulc]
Dan C suggested a finding on mediaType Management-45 should do the above two points
15:18:21 [DanC_lap]
short ~= 5 pages
15:18:54 [DanC_lap]
ACTION SW: coordinate with CDF WG. e.g. requirements presentation plenary week
15:19:00 [Roy]
[note paulc comments were actually paul minuting DC comments]
15:19:45 [DanC_lap]
Topic: 2.2.2 URI and Fragment Issues
15:19:51 [DanC_lap]
of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html
15:20:04 [DanC_lap]
reviewing ACTION DC: with Norm, develop a finding on httpRange-14 starting with the HashSlashDuality text
15:20:13 [DanC_lap]
NDW: I've done a little work on that
15:20:30 [DanC_lap]
... since preempted by webarch work
15:22:51 [DanC_lap]
NDW/DC: delivery to tag late Jan is our best guess.
15:23:16 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: update 14 in the issues list to put in on an agenda in late jan 2005
15:23:29 [DanC_lap]
Topic: IRIEverywhere-27
15:24:18 [Chris]
Proof that the split we asked for happened
15:24:19 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-charmod-20041122/
15:24:28 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-charmod-resid-20041122/
15:24:29 [DanC_lap]
RF: I suggest that this should be marked pending IETF completing IRI spec [something] which is almost done
15:25:14 [Chris]
Under normative references
15:25:15 [Chris]
I-D IRI
15:25:15 [Chris]
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 [Chris]
PC: Schema has anyURI that is defined in terms of XLink
15:26:03 [DanC_lap]
PC: current state is anyURI type in XML Schema...
15:26:04 [Chris]
PC: XLink defines some of IRI
15:26:32 [Chris]
PC: Quaery 1.0 xslt 2.0 xpath 2.0 (the qt specs) all inherit this
15:27:00 [Chris]
CL: so there is already a support of a subset of IRI
15:27:31 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
15:27:31 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to note TimBL's questions http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html
15:29:43 [DanC_lap]
DC: to summarize: are there 2 spaces, or one space with 2 encodings?
15:30:10 [DanC_lap]
SW: I've asked MD and found his answers somewhat unsatisfying... he seems to say "both"
15:30:17 [DanC_lap]
CL: both seem to be useful...
15:32:11 [DanC_lap]
RF: I'm unlikely to read the IRI spec again until the IESG approves it. it changed just yesterday
15:33:31 [DanC_lap]
... and the IESG is all but decided.
15:34:04 [Chris]
RF: Once http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-11.txt exists it will be approved
15:34:45 [DanC_lap]
timbl, do you want the action on this?
15:34:59 [DanC_lap]
that is...
15:35:03 [Chris]
all URIs are IRIs, so there is only one identifier space
15:36:02 [DanC_lap]
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 [DanC_lap]
-----------
15:36:50 [DanC_lap]
Topic: fragmentInXML-28
15:37:12 [DanC_lap]
swapping in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#fragmentInXML-28
15:37:22 [DanC_lap]
reviewing Action CL: Write up a summary of the resolution.
15:37:41 [DanC_lap]
CL: I've been hesitant to draft that since the relevant terminology in webarch was changing
15:37:54 [Chris]
but now its stable
15:38:01 [Chris]
'secondary resource' and so on
15:38:21 [Chris]
So I can do this, eta one week
15:38:41 [DanC_lap]
ACTION CL: Write up a summary of the resolution. on fragmentInXML-28 continues.
15:39:10 [DanC_lap]
------
15:39:14 [DanC_lap]
Topic: metadataInURI-31
15:39:25 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0129.html
15:39:31 [DanC_lap]
reviewing ACTION Stuart revise finding
15:39:49 [DanC_lap]
^30 Nov summary of feedback
15:40:24 [DanC_lap]
ACTION Stuart: revise finding on metadataInURI-31
15:41:13 [DanC_lap]
reviewing PC's action to find out about DO's action
15:41:21 [DanC_lap]
DC suggests withdraw
15:41:29 [DanC_lap]
action PC WITHDRAWN.
15:41:57 [DanC_lap]
SW: ETA xmas
15:42:28 [DanC_lap]
SW: I'm willing to work on this until it's finished, regardless of my term
15:42:41 [DanC_lap]
----
15:42:54 [DanC_lap]
break 'till 10:50
15:43:01 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:53:14 [Chris]
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 [Norm]
Ugh. Chris did you send the HTML to Ian?
15:59:29 [DanC_lap]
---- resuming from break
15:59:50 [DanC_lap]
Topic: siteData-36
16:00:07 [DanC_lap]
reviewing ACTION2003-01-12
16:00:17 [DanC_lap]
reviewing ACTION2003-01-12 DC Propose example of a site description.
16:00:17 [Zakim]
+Norm
16:03:36 [DanC_lap]
PC finds "Action TB: Beef up use cases in draft finding."
16:05:08 [DanC_lap]
CL: people use "web site" in 2 senses...
16:05:16 [Norm]
q+
16:05:54 [Chris]
scribe: Chris
16:06:04 [paulc]
ack Norm
16:06:17 [paulc]
ack DanC_lap
16:06:21 [Chris]
NW: confused by what chris said, didn't seem to be about sitedata 36
16:06:44 [Chris]
DC: Its derived from robots.txt and p3p and things that saw of parts of the namespace
16:06:51 [Stuart]
little wormholes in URI space
16:07:18 [Chris]
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 [Chris]
NW: Interested to see a finding in this area
16:08:17 [Chris]
PC: Should we ask TBray about this?
16:36:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:37:03 [Ralph]
Ralph has left #tagmem
16:37:20 [DanC_lap]
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 [DanC_lap]
PC: no
16:37:25 [DanC_lap]
DC: webarch says you MUST
16:37:49 [DanC_lap]
NDW: I have a proposal that I haven't yet made... to add fragids
16:38:52 [DanC_lap]
PC: let's add this to our todo list, Norm. IR1 thingy.
16:39:25 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
16:39:36 [Chris]
Hi David
16:39:46 [Chris]
We are meeting in a different room this afternoon
16:39:47 [DanC_lap]
David, 346 is the room for after lunch.
16:39:51 [Chris]
joining us for lunch?
16:40:10 [DanC_lap]
(a room number wasn't sufficient for me; I wandered around the building for 10 minutes before somebody held my hand...)
16:40:38 [DanC_lap]
-----
16:40:41 [DanC_lap]
Topic: xlinkScope-23
16:41:51 [DanC_lap]
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 [DanC_lap]
PC: is this referenced in webarch?
16:43:41 [DanC_lap]
DC: yes, in 4.5.2
16:44:58 [Chris]
----
16:44:59 [Chris]
# xlinkScope-23 : What is the scope of using XLink?
16:45:44 [Chris]
NW: Propose to wait for XLink 1.1 to see what happens
16:46:12 [Stuart]
q+
16:47:46 [Chris]
SKW: Waiting for Liam to cause task force to meet
16:48:00 [noah]
q+ to say we need to know exactly what we'll say if asked about status at the AC mtg
16:51:48 [DanC_lap]
task force charter/genesis... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2003AprJun/0057.html
16:51:58 [Chris]
first real message
16:51:59 [Chris]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-linking-tf/2004Feb/0000.html
16:53:24 [DanC_lap]
DC: no duration. not optimal.
16:53:37 [DanC_lap]
(also no public accountability)
16:53:57 [Chris]
i agree, it needs to have an actual charter, milestones and deliverables
17:00:44 [Chris]
To quote Ian Hikson "I don't really have a good solution though, not even for this very small
17:00:44 [Chris]
problem set ("identify links and classify them as either hyperlinks or
17:00:44 [Chris]
source links, without using external files, and without making it a pain
17:00:44 [Chris]
to use for authors"). D'oh."
17:01:10 [Zakim]
-Norm
17:01:16 [Zakim]
-MIT262
17:06:13 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
17:08:15 [Stuart]
Bye
17:10:53 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem
17:14:34 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
17:15:58 [Zakim]
-Stuart
17:15:59 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended
17:16:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Stuart, PaulC, DanC, Roy, Noah, Chris
17:58:05 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
18:03:10 [paulc]
paulc has joined #tagmem
18:03:21 [noah]
scribenick: roy
18:03:32 [noah]
scribenick: Roy
18:08:28 [roy_scribe]
scribenick: roy_scribe
18:10:04 [paulc]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/openIssues.html
18:10:56 [roy_scribe]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#XMLVersioning-41
18:11:12 [roy_scribe]
Dave Orchard in attendance
18:11:24 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
18:11:24 [Zakim]
I notice TAG_f2f()9:00AM has restarted
18:11:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.617.324.aaaa
18:11:42 [roy_scribe]
PC chair for this afternoon
18:12:25 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, aaa is G346
18:12:25 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC_lap, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa'
18:12:29 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, aaaa is G346
18:12:29 [Zakim]
+G346; got it
18:12:43 [Zakim]
+Norm
18:13:00 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, G346 holds PaulC, DaveO, RoyF, DanC, Noah, Chris
18:13:00 [Zakim]
+PaulC, DaveO, RoyF, DanC, Noah, Chris; got it
18:13:55 [roy_scribe]
PC: I saw DO's presentation at the conference, a high-level summary -- shall we go through it?
18:16:02 [roy_scribe]
DO's slides are not on-line
18:17:58 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, TimBL just arrived in G346
18:17:58 [Zakim]
+TimBL; got it
18:18:17 [roy_scribe]
PC: DO has 45 minutes
18:18:41 [roy_scribe]
PC: to present
18:18:42 [Zakim]
-Norm
18:19:10 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, remind us in 40 minutes to see if we're going to be done in 45 minutes
18:19:10 [Zakim]
ok, DanC_lap
18:20:17 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
18:21:42 [DanC_lap]
Updated rough draft finding on extensibility and versioning for F2F http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0071.html
18:22:16 [DanC_lap]
DC: I like the producer/consumer diagram. I wonder why 3 arcs and not 2/4
18:23:09 [DanC_lap]
+1 discussion of substitution rules. I don't care for "ignore" terminology
18:23:44 [DanC_lap]
nice diagram: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/image001.gif
18:24:26 [DanC_lap]
hmm... there's a question of _whether_ to use a schema language, not just which one, yes?
18:24:31 [noah]
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 [Zakim]
+Norm
18:25:20 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:25:44 [noah]
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 [DanC_lap]
"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 [paulc]
Plan for issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html
18:27:14 [DanC_lap]
while there are various ways documents can produced/consumed, but the web architecture has one main one, I think.
18:27:45 [paulc]
Aug F2F discussion of issue 41: http://www.w3.org/2004/08/10-tagmem-irc
18:28:09 [paulc]
Oct F2F discussion of issue 41: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag#extvers
18:28:14 [DanC_lap]
(checking to see if "xml 1.1 is not a compatible change" is noted in the Nov 2004 draft...)
18:28:38 [DanC_lap]
yup... "A good example of an incompatible changed identified as a minor change is XML 1.1."
18:28:51 [DanC_lap]
a citation link would be nice.
18:30:01 [timbl]
XML1.1 is back but nor forwards compatible with 1.0, I assume
18:30:35 [timbl]
Oh, no ... not compatible, when you include the <?xml ele
18:30:48 [DanC_lap]
yes, I don't know why "incompatible" rather than "not forward compatible" was used
18:32:09 [DanC_lap]
(I have an action from another forum to work on a persistence ontology... quite relevant to "version identification" slide)
18:32:31 [timbl]
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 [timbl]
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 [DanC_lap]
(work in progress: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/changePolicy )
18:34:20 [timbl]
Eg the "Decision" on this slide connects to the transformation rules on anotehr slide to give f/b compatability results.
18:34:58 [timbl]
UBM the example for a change every time anything changes.
18:35:32 [paulc]
QA Spec Guidelines interaction with Issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0113.html
18:35:34 [DanC_lap]
"for each compatible version" -- forward or backward? (seems odd to introduce the fwd/back terminology and then not use it)
18:36:26 [timbl]
q+ tim2 to say: Missing concept -- damage involved. Compat can be quntitative, eg when middle name is removed?
18:36:53 [DanC_lap]
hmm... less fuzzy examples might be better, yes.
18:37:06 [timbl]
Universal Business Language
18:37:31 [DanC_lap]
UBL http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/
18:37:54 [DanC_lap]
DO: I sent a comment on UBL asking for [something]
18:38:07 [DanC_lap]
(I wonder what became of that comment; I gather UBL is done-and-dusted)
18:38:40 [DanC_lap]
DO: UBL don't intend to support distributed extensibility
18:39:20 [roy_scribe]
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 [DanC_lap]
NM: I'd like to discuss this at length; going over examples like UBL might be as important as the solution
18:40:15 [DanC_lap]
... or solutions
18:40:35 [timbl]
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 [DanC_lap]
"this is the most common" ... hmm...
18:44:26 [DanC_lap]
NM: are people happy with the ns2 approach? DO: no, prolly not
18:46:09 [DanC_lap]
did I miss a slide about "or use a different schema language"?
18:46:31 [DanC_lap]
or "don't use a schema language"?
18:47:42 [DanC_lap]
"swap trick" .. I don't grok. would have liked a slide on thqat
18:48:00 [DanC_lap]
re slide "CVI Strategy #3..."
18:48:47 [roy_scribe]
slide: Extension Element
18:50:22 [roy_scribe]
slide: Schema V2
18:52:03 [DanC_lap]
(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 [roy_scribe]
NM: have concerns about focus on existing Schema limitations, rather than on the way forward on general issues
18:54:47 [DanC_lap]
("the current schema language" bugs me. Relax-NG is current. RDF is a W3C REC and addresses many of these issues.)
18:55:11 [roy_scribe]
slide: #5 Incompatibe Extensions
18:56:32 [DanC_lap]
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 [DanC_lap]
TBL relates "#5..." slide to issue xmlFunctions-NN
18:58:13 [DanC_lap]
xmlfunctions-34
18:58:19 [DanC_lap]
xmlFunctions-34
18:59:08 [stef]
stef has joined #tagmem
18:59:10 [Zakim]
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]
stef has left #tagmem
19:00:45 [timbl]
The RSS problem of which David speaks in my view follows from defining processing as oppossed to meaning
19:01:19 [DanC_lap]
yes, but defining meaning is only a solution if it answers the processing questions, right, timbl?
19:01:37 [timbl]
Yes, which is does in this case.
19:05:51 [DanC_lap]
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 [DanC_lap]
PC: the "versioning activities" list is missing QA WG work
19:07:07 [roy_scribe]
DO: plan to do more reference to the QA work in the finding
19:07:50 [roy_scribe]
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 [roy_scribe]
DO: end of presentation .... questions?
19:09:20 [paulc]
Plan for issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html
19:09:27 [noah]
q?
19:09:31 [paulc]
Which of these items are done?
19:09:45 [noah]
q+ to make a number of comments queued up on Dave's presentation
19:10:05 [timbl]
ack tim
19:10:05 [Zakim]
tim2, you wanted to say: Missing concept -- damage involved. Compat can be quntitative, eg when middle name is removed?
19:10:20 [paulc]
ack timbl
19:10:20 [Zakim]
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 [paulc]
q+
19:10:23 [Zakim]
... and namespaecs don't make this a trvial operaton.
19:11:10 [paulc]
I did not ack him twice - I think someone else did.
19:11:40 [paulc]
IRC indicates that timbl himself did the "ack tim"
19:11:56 [DanC_lap]
ah
19:12:19 [roy_scribe]
timbl: the may-ignore extensions are not really ignored -- they are just not processed (kept in some reserve, perhaps)
19:13:30 [roy_scribe]
timbl: you could write down some math that reflect the extension rules using substitutions
19:15:56 [roy_scribe]
timbl: [discussion of other ways to describe forward and backward compatibilty by phrasing it in terms of substution rules]
19:16:36 [roy_scribe]
DC: there are no documents that are both xml 1.0 and 1.1
19:17:06 [roy_scribe]
DC: because the version is labeled with the document [??]
19:18:29 [paulc]
ack noah
19:18:29 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to make a number of comments queued up on Dave's presentation
19:18:56 [roy_scribe]
noah: there are many shades of gray.
19:19:26 [timbl]
XML 1.1 specifies a language we can call XMLP1.1 whcih is the set of documents an XML 1.1 processor is supposed tro be able to receive, and is union of XML1.0 and XML1.1.
19:19:40 [timbl]
XML1.0 and XML1.1 are incompatable.
19:20:00 [timbl]
XMLP1.1 is backward compatible with XMLp1.0 = XML1.0
19:21:00 [roy_scribe]
noah: my view is that rather than saying there is a binary backwards and forwards-compatibility, they should state the ways in which they will process content
19:21:13 [DanC_lap]
q+ to say I like do's diagram, and I sorta disagree with noah; webarch does have one dominant "processing" model, i.e. publication in the web context.
19:21:30 [DanC_lap]
ack danc
19:21:30 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask if there are any non-hypothetical examples of "must understand" mechanisms (does new HTTP verbs count? non-WF XML?) and to say I like do's diagram, and
19:21:33 [Zakim]
... I sorta disagree with noah; webarch does have one dominant "processing" model, i.e. publication in the web context.
19:21:49 [noah]
q+ to talk about more of the things I had queued up during dave's talk
19:21:51 [roy_scribe]
noah: there is a bit of a trap in treating it as a binary condition, maybe looking at it as shades of gray would free up the text
19:22:49 [noah]
suggest s/treating it/treating compatibility (e.g. forward compatibility or backward compatibility)/
19:23:11 [roy_scribe]
DC: I like the diagram -- it oversimplifies in ways that are consistent with web architecture
19:23:50 [paulc]
ack paulc
19:24:13 [DanC_lap]
q+ to ask if there are any non-hypothetical examples of "must understand" mechanisms (does new HTTP verbs count? non-WF XML?)
19:24:28 [roy_scribe]
PC: had some high-level questions about the docs sent in e-mail on 26 Nov
19:24:39 [noah]
q+ to mention input from XML Schema WG
19:24:40 [roy_scribe]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0071.html
19:24:56 [roy_scribe]
PC: missing response to the work plan... how mucch is done?
19:25:00 [paulc]
Plan for issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html
19:25:04 [roy_scribe]
s/mucch/much/
19:26:10 [roy_scribe]
DO: I have not done the protocol extensibility and service compatibility (from the work plan message)
19:26:37 [paulc]
Items on the plan not done:
19:26:42 [paulc]
- add protocol extensibility,
19:27:05 [paulc]
- Add material on issue about service compatibility
19:28:08 [roy_scribe]
DO: looking at what can be done to describe compatible/incompatible flags to operation extensions
19:28:10 [DanC_lap]
(glad to know DO is noodling on all this stuff, and that my impression that XML Schema problems was the whole story was mistaken)
19:28:51 [timbl]
Compatible services: http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/ProfileHierarchy.html ?
19:29:13 [paulc]
Only first item in Part 2 was done:
19:29:28 [paulc]
- insert original xml schema material
19:29:42 [roy_scribe]
noah: first, I think there is a lot of good work here... trying to figure out what is appropriate for a TAG finding
19:30:05 [paulc]
q+
19:32:51 [DanC_lap]
q+ DanC2 to noodle on writing the E+V book breadth-first or depth first, and to lean toward "write about what you know"
19:33:22 [roy_scribe]
noah: there are a set of idioms ... would be stronger if the finding strarted by emphasizing the principle
19:33:30 [timbl]
agenda+ Type-based solutions without <extension> element
19:33:36 [roy_scribe]
noah: up front
19:33:41 [roy_scribe]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0131.html
19:34:43 [paulc]
Above link is member-only.
19:35:15 [DanC_lap]
(bummer V-F1, VF-2 is member-only; pls send to www-tag, noah)
19:35:29 [roy_scribe]
noah: look for the principles, list the use cases, and treat the issues at a high level before getting into the details of idioms
19:36:41 [paulc]
ack noah
19:36:41 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about more of the things I had queued up during dave's talk and to mention input from XML Schema WG
19:38:35 [DanC_lap]
ack danc3
19:38:35 [Zakim]
DanC3, you wanted to comment on the barrier to entry to the XML Schema WG
19:38:49 [paulc]
ack DanC3
19:38:51 [roy_scribe]
noah: would like DO to enter the schema group and see the (non-public) scenarios
19:39:41 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/xsdv.html
19:40:04 [roy_scribe]
DC: sympathetic to barrrier to entry in schema WG -- it is natural effect from a wg with 7 years of history
19:40:11 [noah]
not quite: I've suggested we are doing a lot of work and I think we'd like to find a way to make it convenient for Dave and other TAG members to have an effective liaison with the Schema WG with respect to the versioning issue in particular
19:41:16 [roy_scribe]
DC: it needs to be made public
19:41:17 [paulc]
ack DanC_lap
19:41:17 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask if there are any non-hypothetical examples of "must understand" mechanisms (does new HTTP verbs count? non-WF XML?)
19:42:08 [roy_scribe]
DC: are there any examples to provide that show must-understand in practice?
19:42:15 [DanC_lap]
NM: SOAP
19:42:44 [roy_scribe]
Roy: is that SOAP in practice, or just theory?
19:44:18 [roy_scribe]
DO: bulk of use is not in distributed extensibility (planning for other folks extensions)
19:45:51 [roy_scribe]
DO: version identifiers often mean capability rather than format of this message
19:46:20 [roy_scribe]
NM: XML 1.1 is a countter-example (very rare)
19:46:57 [roy_scribe]
NM: flexibility is often in conflict with interoperability
19:47:54 [DanC_lap]
RF: yes, HTTP spec says new verbs are "must understand". except for proxies
19:48:07 [DanC_lap]
DO had a sort of "good question" look. timbl said yes.
19:48:26 [paulc]
ack paulc
19:48:26 [roy_scribe]
NM: M-PUT extensibility mechanism is an example, but not widely deployed
19:49:00 [timbl]
q+ to say there is some connection you could write up between message format extension and protocol extension.
19:49:16 [roy_scribe]
PC: we extracted some text for webarch -- does the updated finding mean that we should change the text in webarch?
19:49:29 [roy_scribe]
DO: no, it is augmentation so far
19:50:36 [roy_scribe]
PC: I think NM was saying that the material in webarch was not high-level enough?
19:51:25 [roy_scribe]
NM: I think there are lots of principles between the levels of webarch and the current content of the draft finding
19:51:50 [roy_scribe]
DO: some are implicit
19:52:22 [roy_scribe]
NM: they should be explicit -- they are the main event when it comes to teaching others how to do extensibility and versioning
19:52:35 [paulc]
Norm: are you still there?
19:52:43 [roy_scribe]
DO: trade-off of breadth vers brevity
19:53:19 [paulc]
ack DanC2
19:53:19 [Zakim]
DanC2, you wanted to noodle on writing the E+V book breadth-first or depth first, and to lean toward "write about what you know"
19:54:29 [roy_scribe]
ACTION noah to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate Schema WG
19:54:58 [roy_scribe]
s/Schema WG/versioning finding/
19:56:20 [timbl]
agenda?
19:56:25 [roy_scribe]
DC: glad to see chapter 2, see noah asking for chapter 1, but I'd like to see more discussion of the rest of the problem space beyond issues with schema 1
19:56:38 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?]
19:57:11 [roy_scribe]
ACTION noah: work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding
19:57:44 [noah]
q+ to ask about review process for what Dave has written
19:59:54 [roy_scribe]
DC: title is much broader than the topics being discussed in the finding -- what about RELAX NG, OWL/RDF, ...
20:01:55 [roy_scribe]
timbl: can we change the title of the first draft to better reflect the content?
20:03:34 [noah]
Noah: suggest that if we do have a W3C XML Schema-specific 2nd part, then that might more appropriately be owned by the Schema WG (though I would not want to lose Dave's work and would want him to make a major contribution)
20:03:45 [roy_scribe]
PC: xml-binary is an example where we wrote a problem statement and then asked others to form a group -- we could do the same here
20:04:25 [roy_scribe]
timbl: TAG work has be half vertical and half horizontal (finding depth and webarch breadth)
20:04:29 [paulc]
q+
20:04:47 [roy_scribe]
s/be/been/
20:05:52 [roy_scribe]
NM: the schema WG work and TAG's work (through DO) seem to be taking place on different planets, which is unhealthy
20:06:29 [paulc]
ack timbl
20:06:29 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say there is some connection you could write up between message format extension and protocol extension.
20:06:37 [paulc]
ack noah
20:06:37 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask about review process for what Dave has written
20:06:39 [roy_scribe]
DO: there are limitations to what a single volunteer has time to cover
20:06:52 [timbl]
q+ to say there is some connection you could write up between message format extension and protocol extension.
20:07:15 [roy_scribe]
NM: is now the time to focus on this (process wise)?
20:08:17 [Norm]
I'm here
20:08:21 [roy_scribe]
DO: TAG in general has not said what the next step should be (i.e., indicated approval of the outline so far)
20:08:43 [roy_scribe]
NM: how about placing that on the agenda for a specific meeting in January?
20:09:18 [DanC_lap]
+1 the ball is with the readers, not the writers, at the piont
20:09:48 [roy_scribe]
s/piont/point/
20:09:59 [Norm]
I think collecting some solid review would be good
20:10:38 [roy_scribe]
DC: wants this stuff to be public first
20:11:41 [roy_scribe]
NM: will need to check for permission first (no objections likely)
20:12:18 [roy_scribe]
PC: why not just pass the work?
20:13:27 [roy_scribe]
DC: we are talking about joint work because we (Dave, Norm) have invested a lot of work and have (so far) been unable to interface with Schema due to legacy barrier
20:14:08 [roy_scribe]
DC: has Schema done a public working draft?
20:14:22 [roy_scribe]
DO: fails to mention wilcarding stuff
20:14:49 [roy_scribe]
s/wilcarding/widcarding/
20:15:05 [roy_scribe]
s/wilcarding/wildcarding/
20:18:21 [Norm]
q+
20:22:52 [paulc]
q-
20:26:00 [noah]
q?
20:26:26 [paulc]
q+
20:26:35 [paulc]
What we have to decide:
20:26:42 [roy_scribe]
ack timbl
20:26:42 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say there is some connection you could write up between message format extension and protocol extension.
20:27:01 [roy_scribe]
ack Norm
20:27:07 [paulc]
a) when we will review XV Part 1 and when will we discuss the feedback
20:27:17 [timbl]
q?
20:27:21 [paulc]
b) what we need to finish today
20:27:34 [roy_scribe]
ack paulc
20:28:48 [DanC_lap]
agenda?
20:31:45 [Zakim]
-Norm
20:43:24 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:43:33 [Norm]
Still on break?
20:45:36 [roy_scribe]
yes
20:46:45 [Norm]
thx
20:51:40 [roy_scribe]
back from break, returning to discussion on extensibility and version
20:51:43 [roy_scribe]
ing
20:52:01 [Zakim]
+Norm
20:52:05 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
20:52:15 [Chris]
Daves slides
20:52:17 [Chris]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2004Nov/0085.html
20:52:28 [Norm]
q+
20:52:58 [paulc]
ack Norm
20:53:40 [roy_scribe]
Norm: I'd like to see feedback from the TAG first
20:54:03 [roy_scribe]
PC: happy to read it on the flight back home
20:56:23 [DanC_lap]
ACTION PC, DC: review nov part 1, 2 of E+V draft finding
20:56:36 [DanC_lap]
... for 10 Jan
20:56:52 [roy_scribe]
ACTION: paulc and DanC to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan
20:57:45 [roy_scribe]
PC: regarding tech plenary, our discussion earlier suggested that a session on this topic would be good
20:57:56 [Chris]
take two: DO's slides
20:57:57 [Chris]
This is the presentation that Dave Orchard gave at todays TAG meeting.
20:58:06 [Chris]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Nov/0037.html
20:59:29 [roy_scribe]
ACTION: paulc to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft
21:00:14 [DanC_lap]
q+ to offer some work on CDF and XML Schema mixing http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/04schema-hacking/
21:01:02 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to explore means of getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public spaces
21:02:01 [noah]
q+ to say we should still watch out for duplicating requirements effort on XSD-specific requirements
21:02:32 [DanC_lap]
(I gather a certain amount of duplication is inevitable, but yes, let's mitigate it to some extent)
21:02:52 [noah]
Agreed...just some discomfort with the spin that as long as there are no patent issues, anything goes
21:02:59 [timbl]
Danc, DaveO may have "substitution groups" mentioned in the existing part2.
21:03:27 [roy_scribe]
q?
21:03:27 [Chris]
q?
21:03:29 [paulc]
ack noah
21:03:29 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say we should still watch out for duplicating requirements effort on XSD-specific requirements
21:03:50 [timbl]
So he may have covered this method of doing extensions.
21:04:33 [DanC_lap]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part2.html#div250831184 3.3 Substitution Groups
21:05:08 [timbl]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
21:05:08 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Type-based solutions without <extension> element" taken up [from timbl]
21:05:26 [DanC_lap]
(did you just mean to clear the agenda?)
21:06:55 [DanC_lap]
(the meeting gets to timbls' agenda request...)
21:07:50 [paulc]
ack DanC_lap
21:07:50 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to offer some work on CDF and XML Schema mixing http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/04schema-hacking/
21:09:19 [roy_scribe]
DC: was trying to see if composition of data formats is possible using schema
21:10:57 [Norm]
What file are we looking at?
21:12:00 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/04schemahacking/
21:12:16 [Chris]
mathml-renamed.xsd
21:12:40 [Norm]
ty
21:13:02 [Chris]
np
21:13:52 [Chris]
q+ to talk about what HTML did
21:14:59 [roy_scribe]
so is the scribe
21:19:39 [DanC_lap]
(yes, Dave, I think it gets down to fine details about when "compatible" assumes access to a schema)
21:19:45 [roy_scribe]
PC: let's return to open issues
21:19:47 [roy_scribe]
--------
21:20:27 [roy_scribe]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
21:20:38 [DanC_lap]
Topic: abstractComponentRefs-37
21:21:29 [roy_scribe]
PC: was pointed out that the document is not yet polished
21:23:39 [roy_scribe]
DC: start with Stuart's null hypothesis: if WSDL has done something and is happy, do we need any further action?
21:24:24 [Chris]
This was the () considered harmful in fragments.....
21:24:28 [roy_scribe]
DO: Roy has an action URIGoodPractice-40
21:25:31 [noah]
q+ to say that schema is chugging along too, if that matters
21:25:40 [DanC_lap]
(I and a few others have been discussing good URI construction practice in a wiki. http://esw.w3.org/topic/GoodURIs)
21:26:49 [roy_scribe]
DO: so, this issue is done unless it needs to be revisted after URIGoodPractice-40
21:27:08 [roy_scribe]
s/revisted/revisited/
21:27:29 [roy_scribe]
q+
21:28:51 [roy_scribe]
ack roy_scribe
21:29:22 [paulc]
ack Chris
21:29:22 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about what HTML did
21:29:27 [paulc]
ack noah
21:29:27 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say that schema is chugging along too, if that matters
21:30:02 [noah]
FYI: July 2004 Working Draft of XML Schema:Component Designators is at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040716/
21:31:51 [roy_scribe]
Roy: when names are being created by a description language (like WSDL), the distinction between using fragments versus using URIs is not important any more because it has been assumed that the document has already been retrieved (and, hence, isn't going to suffer form the huge flat namespace)
21:39:59 [Norm]
ping?
21:40:07 [DanC_lap]
(yeah! the relevant WGs are talking about it already!)
21:40:12 [paulc]
SW use of SCUDs:
21:40:14 [paulc]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/
21:40:16 [DanC_lap]
(yay! dan't can't spell yay!)
21:41:01 [DanC_lap]
RF's offer to write on 40 on Jan stands, but there's some questions about the relationship to 37...
21:42:13 [DanC_lap]
TBL: let's change 37 to get rid of the ()'s [?]
21:42:29 [Chris]
q+
21:43:58 [paulc]
ack Chris
21:44:10 [DanC_lap]
DO: let's start a finding on 40 that argues against ()s
21:44:35 [DanC_lap]
CL: ISO MPEG is building a thing of indexing into video based on XPointer-like syntax, using ()s
21:45:31 [Chris]
WebCGM also uses nested parens in fragments
21:45:32 [DanC_lap]
RF: meanwhile, RFC3023 is headed toward endorsing XPointer ()s for all +xml media types.
21:46:12 [DanC_lap]
TBL: I don't follow the argument that LR syntax in fragids is bad
21:46:16 [Chris]
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-WebCGM/REC-03-CGM-IC.html#webcgm_3_1_1
21:46:30 [Chris]
"Pictures and objects (application structures) within a WebCGM are addressed using the mechanism of the URI fragment. These WebCGM rules are derived from and are consistent with the Web protocols defined in RFC-2396."
21:46:40 [Chris]
(BNF follows)
21:46:57 [Chris]
WebCGM 1.0 Second Release
21:46:57 [Chris]
W3C Recommendation, 17 December 2001
21:47:28 [DanC_lap]
RF: URIs ala lsdjflkj#abc(../foo) get parsed wrong; consumers treat / as part of the path
21:47:50 [DanC_lap]
some consumers
21:51:51 [roy_scribe]
---------
21:52:29 [roy_scribe]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#DerivedResources-43
21:56:02 [Norm]
q?
21:56:02 [roy_scribe]
DO: can't remember which of XInclude's use of fragments was the issue
21:56:06 [DanC_lap]
agenda + post-meeting scribe duties
21:57:03 [roy_scribe]
DO: brought this up because there was no normative material explaining why what they were doing was unsound
21:57:25 [timbl]
+1
21:57:36 [noah]
FWIW, The AWWW PR says:
21:57:52 [roy_scribe]
NW: as a result of other feedback, XInclude changed its use of fragments and that we may not need to do anything further
21:58:23 [timbl]
q+
21:58:25 [noah]
...never mind...
21:59:02 [noah]
Found it. AWWW says "The Internet Media Type defines the syntax and semantics of the fragment identifier (introduced in Fragment Identifiers (§2.6)), if any, that may be used in conjunction with a representation."
21:59:42 [timbl]
q+ to say that the issue that, as he recalls, was about the way XInclude seemed to be abusing fragids, and that he agreed, and that XInclude was changed. XIncldue itself is a very messy level-breaking part of XML, and so is not a very goo duse case.
21:59:48 [paulc]
ack timbl
21:59:48 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say that the issue that, as he recalls, was about the way XInclude seemed to be abusing fragids, and that he agreed, and that XInclude was changed. XIncldue
21:59:51 [Zakim]
... itself is a very messy level-breaking part of XML, and so is not a very goo duse case.
22:00:28 [roy_scribe]
s/XIncldue//
22:01:18 [roy_scribe]
s/goo duse/good use/
22:02:07 [paulc]
ack DanC_lap
22:02:07 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to ask timbl to say, kinda slowly, why he thinks the status quo is correct, and maybe we could RESOLVE that that's the answer to this issue
22:02:49 [roy_scribe]
DC: 1) if the WG was persuaded to change things, I don't mind writing down the argument
22:03:40 [roy_scribe]
DC: 2) if it was just a non-persuaded process decision, then there's no point in going there
22:04:26 [DanC_lap]
I think a TAG decision is worthwhile here.
22:05:36 [noah]
q+
22:09:11 [roy_scribe]
example: href="...chap3#xpointer(h2[3])
22:09:37 [roy_scribe]
example: 200 response from action says the representation is "text/plain"
22:11:54 [noah]
Doesn't it matter if it's href="http://chap3#xpointer(h2[3])
22:13:49 [Chris]
q+ because webarch does not do that
22:16:05 [roy_scribe]
Chris; provides example of math+xml and the desire to identify an SVG view of part of the rendered math
22:17:44 [DanC_lap]
DC asks CL to package that mathml/SVG example up, mail it to the CDF WG and ask them if they're going to solve it or not
22:19:59 [DanC_lap]
DC also pointed out that if the mathml/SVG example had 200 content-type: mathml, then the mathml media type spec would have to specify how the XSLt transformation to SVG interacts with fragid syntax
22:26:02 [roy_scribe]
timbl: use of a URI in a retrieval action has a single meaning that cannot be overridden by something like XInclude just because it appears as an identifier during an inclusion action
22:26:24 [DanC_lap]
ACTION CL: to package that mathml/SVG example up, mail it to the CDF WG and ask them if they're going to solve it or not
22:27:28 [DanC_lap]
next agendum
22:30:02 [paulc]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag
22:31:32 [paulc]
Paul suggests that meeting record makes clear what issues we did not do at this meeting.
22:31:46 [DanC_lap]
RESOLVED to thank the host! thanks, Amy1
22:31:47 [paulc]
TAG thanks Amy and W3C for hosting our meeting.
22:31:49 [DanC_lap]
Amy!
22:32:36 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
22:32:45 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, pointer?
22:32:45 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/30-tagmem-irc#T22-32-45
22:32:49 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, list attendees
22:32:49 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.324.aaaa, Norm, PaulC, DaveO, RoyF, DanC, Noah, Chris, TimBL
22:33:16 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
22:34:04 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has changed the topic to: TAG ftf adjourned. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag">http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag http://www.w3.org/2004/11/30-tagmem-irc http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag
22:34:31 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
22:38:48 [Zakim]
-Norm
22:38:49 [Zakim]
TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended
22:38:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.617.324.aaaa, Norm, PaulC, DaveO, RoyF, DanC, Noah, Chris, TimBL
23:22:58 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #tagmem