19:34:55 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 19:36:06 Chris has joined #tagmem 19:36:18 Stuart? 19:38:30 brb 19:40:34 Hello Chris 19:40:53 My review of the QA doc is partially complete. i can talk about it at the telcon but don't have a full draft response ready that we could discuss and send to them 19:41:16 I have been filling in their proforma, and deciding whether their spec conforms to itself 19:41:37 Norm has joined #tagmem 19:41:47 That's ok... I'd put an 'and' in the agenda where I had meant 'at'.... ie. I just wanted to be certain that we coud discus it *next* week. 19:41:56 oh, okay then 19:42:18 i will work on it more after the call, and send out a draft response tomorrow 19:42:30 so far it looks good, by the way 19:42:47 Thanks... 19:43:03 see you in a few 19:48:58 Only that much? :-) 19:56:44 TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started 19:56:51 +[Microsoft] 19:57:34 pbc has joined #tagmem 19:58:18 zakim, dial chris-617 19:58:18 ok, Chris; the call is being made 19:58:19 +Chris 19:58:56 +Norm 20:00:11 +Stuart 20:00:11 zakim, who's here? 20:00:11 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Chris, Norm, Stuart 20:00:13 On IRC I see pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart 20:00:20 zakim, [Microsoft is pbc 20:00:20 +pbc; got it 20:02:09 DanC has joined #tagmem 20:02:21 +DanC 20:03:03 zakim, whois here? 20:03:03 I don't understand your question, Stuart. 20:03:06 noah has joined #tagmem 20:03:10 +[IBMCambridge] 20:03:12 zakim, who is here? 20:03:12 On the phone I see pbc, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, [IBMCambridge] 20:03:13 On IRC I see noah, DanC, pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart 20:03:27 zakim, +[IBM is noah 20:03:27 sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '+[IBM' 20:03:35 zakim, [IBMC is noah 20:03:35 +noah; got it 20:04:03 Meeting: TAG telcon 20:04:09 Scribe: Norm 20:04:17 ScribeNick: Norm 20:04:21 Chair: Stuart 20:04:57 zakim, who is here? 20:04:58 On the phone I see pbc, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, noah 20:04:59 zakim, who is here? 20:05:00 On IRC I see noah, DanC, pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart 20:05:01 On the phone I see pbc, Chris, Norm, Stuart, DanC, noah 20:05:03 On IRC I see noah, DanC, pbc, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart 20:05:54 Absent: TBL, RF 20:07:28 Chair notes a fair amount of administrivia on today's agenda. 20:08:07 5-10 minutes on issues list maintainance 20:08:18 Regrets for next week 20:08:30 Regrets for next week 20:08:36 I can scribe next week 20:09:03 pbc gives regrets as well 20:09:05 (I'll be on my way to the airport 17 Jan) 20:09:53 Next meeting: 24 Jan 2005 20:10:28 Meeting of 17 Jan 2005 cancelled. 20:10:36 "The Last Call review period ends 28 January 2005, at 23:59 EDT" 20:10:49 Action: Chris to post QA review comments for email discussion. 20:11:02 try all caps ACTION: 20:11:15 and ACTION Chris: ... is sometimes better than ACTION: Chris 20:11:28 ACTION Chris: Post QA review comments for email discussion. 20:11:46 Minutes of 20 Dec 2004 accepted. 20:12:14 Discussion of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rsalz-qname-urn-00.txt 20:13:08 DO asks if we want discussion of this ID on www-tag? 20:13:41 This seems related to the QNames as Identifiers issue. 20:13:53 General agreement that it's ok for discussion to go to www-tag 20:14:05 ACTION SW: Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on www-tag. 20:14:28 1.1 W3C Technical Plenary 20:14:32 q+ re minutes/agenda tools 20:15:09 q+ to comment re minutes/agenda tools 20:15:27 ack danc 20:15:27 DanC, you wanted to comment re minutes/agenda tools 20:15:28 SW opens discussion of TAG contribution to technical plenary day 20:15:37 timbl has joined #tagmem 20:16:02 +TimBL 20:16:19 Topic: W3C Technical Plenary 20:16:44 q+ to clarify - TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb? 20:16:46 queue= 20:17:47 PC: volunteered to participate in the planning committee but has had to back out. Suggest that we ask for 1+ hours and put together a comprehensive proposal including our issues, perhaps E+V. 20:17:51 q+ to clarify - TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb? 20:18:08 PC: It would have broad interest which is important at the plenary 20:18:21 CL: TP is the first f2f after 1 Feb? 20:18:32 SW: Yes, although we're talking about the Wednesday day. 20:18:49 okay 20:18:54 Wednesday is 2 Feb, fwiw. 20:18:55 Reminder: I believe that David Orchard is planning to join us on this call in part to discuss our plans for versioning discussion at the Plenary. Am I remembering correctly? 20:19:08 dorchard has joined #tagmem 20:19:27 Wednesday is 2 MAR, not 2 Feb. Oops. 20:19:28 s/Feb/Mar/ 20:20:05 (heh... the dbooth script will change that to "... is 2 MAR, not 2 Mar") 20:20:06 SW: Housekeeping: introduce new members of the TAG. 20:20:33 SW: WebArch? Substantive issues, E+V or httpRange-14? 20:20:56 q+ to suggest maybe we survey unresolved issues? 20:21:20 ack Chris 20:21:54 q+ to say oh... no, not httpRange-14 for the big meeting on weds. only a small thing, with position papers prerequisite for attendance 20:22:36 Some discussion of how an E+V presentation might work with participation from TAG, Schema and other relevant participants. 20:22:50 SW: We need to introduce the new TAG. 20:23:17 PC: I disagree; Wednesday should be as technical as possible with the minimum amount of administrive overhead 20:24:25 noah: If the reason to have the TAG there as a whole is introductions, that's 3-5 min. What really do we want to have covered though on behalf of the TAG at this session? Versioning is one interesting issue, but it's odd because it spills over beyond the tag. We have others, httpRange-14, looming WS-Addressing issues, perhaps others? 20:25:23 noah: Did we collect a set of intersting things as we went through the arch document? Should we survey the state of play on unresolved issues; listing them with a 2-3 min introduction to each. Note that we're entering a process of looking at these and tyring to set our agenda for the coming year. Should we share that with the plenary so that they can have some input. 20:25:36 noah: Perhaps we should do a "state of the TAG" and split E+V off into another slot. 20:25:45 q+ to question the logistics of a survey, as well as interestingness; to wonder if anybody's interested to set up a WBS thing 20:26:04 ack Chris 20:26:05 ack Chris 20:26:12 ack Noah 20:26:12 noah, you wanted to suggest maybe we survey unresolved issues? 20:26:18 ack DanC 20:26:18 DanC, you wanted to say oh... no, not httpRange-14 for the big meeting on weds. only a small thing, with position papers prerequisite for attendance and to question the logistics 20:26:21 ... of a survey, as well as interestingness; to wonder if anybody's interested to set up a WBS thing 20:26:47 DanC: I can imagine presenting in a survey style; collecting data will be frustrating if we don't use the WBS survey. 20:27:15 DanC: If we're going to do a survey, we should use the machine to help 20:27:25 DanC: on httpRange-14: please no, not with a large audience. 20:27:48 DanC: I think that should be a small group with a 1 page position paper required to even get in the door 20:28:03 SW: So I've heard noah suggest that we make this a two bite sort of thing: TAG for one and E+V for another. 20:28:12 TBL: For what extent are we concentrating on what we haven't decided yet? 20:28:25 FWIW, the survey aspect was somewhat secondary in my thinking. I had in mind more of a: "let us remind you what issues look challenging to us and why". Now, we can either discuss a few in the remaining time, and/or solicit your sense of which are important and whether there are other directions we're missing. 20:28:29 TBL: Should we use this time to present the architecture document or a number of things which are not in dispute? 20:28:56 DanC: While I think we should present the webarch document, I wonder if this is the right audience. If there's a new WG, they should get a presentation, but this group participated in review of the document. 20:29:17 q+ 20:29:28 SW: Last year we had theme-oriented panels and that seemed like a good thing 20:29:32 yes, please, theme-oriented. E+V 20:29:33 ack chris 20:29:48 yes, content/presentation... CSS, XSL, DI, ... . 20:29:57 CL: I suggest separation of content and presentation because there are several different approaches to the problem (CSS, XSL, vs. Device Independence) 20:30:21 CL: Might be interesting to see if we have more or less agreement than we expect. 20:30:31 CL: If we decided to do that, I'm prepared to do some preparation for that. 20:30:47 SW: Is there a third choice, or should we stick with two? 20:31:22 SW: I can go back to Steve Bratt with those two. 20:31:23 I can do some introductory slides on that, to set the scene 20:31:57 Are we at the point where we should invite DaveO to dial in? 20:32:05 Topic: TAG Liasons; Extensibility and Versioning 20:32:28 SW: The idea, I think, is to hold one meeting early in the half of the week, a "stakeholders meeting" where we focus on motivating needs and requirements. 20:33:44 Some discussion of the email about this topic 20:34:11 noah: Will the meeting be best served by inviting everybody? It's just a matter of logistics. 20:34:55 Message in question: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0002.html 20:36:37 noah: scratch comment about inviting everybody; was confused, thought we were still talking about the Wednesday panel session 20:37:52 noah: The Schema WG feels that they have some ownership over the extensibility and versioning issue. But they also see that it's a much larger issue. 20:38:30 noah: My guess is that we need to do a deep dive to get organized and complement each other going forward 20:38:37 q+ 20:38:41 noah: There are also other communities that are our users and they have different needs as well. 20:39:13 ack pbc 20:39:24 q+ to ask what of "ACTION NM: to explore means of getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public spaces" http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 20:39:28 PC: Why would we wait until the plenary to get together with schema on this issue? 20:40:13 PC: We've got a few meetings in February and at least one more in January 20:40:54 noah: I think it might be more valuable to do it face-to-face. 20:41:08 q? 20:41:27 ACTION SW: To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema between now and the plenary 20:41:40 DanC: any news on getting the Schema work public? 20:41:55 noah: Yes, I did the narrow part of the action to alert the chair. 20:42:04 noah: Maybe I should take another actoin to follow up? 20:42:29 ACTION Noah: Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their work public. 20:43:11 Some discussion about administrivia associated with doing this in a WG that has experienced some shrinkage. 20:43:35 s/their work/ their extensibility and versioning use cases work/ 20:43:54 SW: wrt E+V, we're talking about a panel session, we might also have a shareholders meeting if we get feedback; and we'll try to have liason with schema before the plenary 20:44:05 Topic: Tag Liasons; XML Core 20:44:59 q+ to note Liam's "future of XML" musings, to wonder if TAG/XML Core would find that worth discussing 20:45:09 Norm: No issues at present, but it's easier to cancel than schedule if we decide we do have issues 20:45:46 ack danc 20:45:46 DanC, you wanted to ask what of "ACTION NM: to explore means of getting current and future Schema WG work on versioning into public spaces" 20:45:49 ... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 and to note Liam's "future of XML" musings, to wonder if TAG/XML Core would find that worth discussing 20:46:03 Topic: TAG Liasons; QA-WG 20:46:43 They would like to meet. Will work with SW on topics. 20:46:54 Topic: TAG Liasons; WS-Addressing 20:47:16 They would like to meet. We've had a possible new issue that may be related. 20:47:50 ack danc 20:47:50 DanC, you wanted to ask didn't SKW take an action to contact ws-addressing WG? 20:48:06 +1 to idea that we meet with WS-Addressing. Suggested agenda: they walk through their design and issues, preparing to defend non-use of URIs 20:48:48 DanC wonders who has the ball on setting up that meeting 20:48:53 SW: I have the ball. 20:49:33 PC: Which WGs would we meet with if we were going to flatten all the deferred issues 20:50:18 Note that I don't have an SVG f2f competing with TAG at the TP, this time 20:50:30 However I am meeting with some WG on SVG behalf 20:51:41 q+ to ask if SKW has all the TP balls, and wonder if spreading the work around would be easier or just introduce more mess 20:51:42 ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG would like to participate in the Plenary 20:52:02 ack danc 20:52:02 DanC, you wanted to ask if SKW has all the TP balls, and wonder if spreading the work around would be easier or just introduce more mess 20:53:19 Topic: 2. Technical; Extensibility and Versioning 20:54:11 +DOrchard 20:54:38 SW: We've got to the piece on E+V. I think you sent out a couple of revised drafts just before Christmas. 20:54:44 SW: Do you want to tell us what's changed? 20:55:06 (hmm... when we left our hero, the ball was with the readers, not the writers) 20:55:07 dorchard: I thought I went through that in Boston. 20:55:20 Were they just before Christmas, or just before Boston? 20:55:24 SW: Ok, unfortunatly I wasn't present. 20:55:48 "ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan. ACTION DC: paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion for 10 Jan" 20:55:51 oops! 20:56:17 q+ to say sorry, no, didn't read it, see earlier agend request to discuss issue list maintenance 20:56:20 Correction: Before Boston not before Christmas. 20:56:32 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 20:57:22 DanC, PC have not yet completed review; action pending. 20:57:32 ack danc 20:57:32 DanC, you wanted to say sorry, no, didn't read it, see earlier agend request to discuss issue list maintenance 20:57:52 noah: Is it appropriate to go over at least my recollection of our tentative decisions 20:58:03 "ACTION NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding" 20:59:01 Right, thanks for finding that. 20:59:01 SW: At the moment we are a little lacking in feedback. Apologies for dragging dorchard here before we were well prepared. 20:59:25 ACTION DC: review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?]. CONTINUES. 20:59:43 dorchard: The only thing that's happened since then is that I did write up a paper that examines RELAX NG in this context. 21:00:09 dorchard: I tried to come up with a small set of scenarios that I've been working with. 21:00:21 http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/Compatibility/OWLRDFExtensibility.html 21:00:23 q+ to suggest an example 21:00:42 ack Chris 21:00:42 Chris, you wanted to suggest an example 21:01:02 CL: One example that might be interesting for RELAX NG would be taking an empty element and adding an attribute co-constraint that says whether or not it should be empty. 21:01:14 Dave specifically contrasts his scenarios, which are sort of mechanistic (add an attribute to a type) to the more general user level scenarios the schema wg has been using as motivation (I.e. phrased as business scenarios) 21:02:08 SW: Should we continue or cancel some of these actions? If they're continued, can you set expectations? 21:02:26 DanC reviews them: 21:02:49 ACTION NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding. CONTINUES. bigger than a 1-week thing 21:02:50 NM: to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding 21:03:55 PC asks to withdraw: ACTION PC: to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion 21:04:16 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 21:05:15 SKW offers to review part 1 21:05:18 To review ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/vers-adoc.html ? 21:05:27 dorchard observes that the TAG is in flux until the elections finish 21:06:21 ACTION DC: paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion. 21:06:27 (I think I can do it this week) 21:06:37 . ACTION PC: paulc to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft 21:07:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/att-0137/vers-adoc.html 21:07:34 ACTION SKW: to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft 21:07:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part2.html 21:10:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/ 21:10:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html 21:10:12 SW notes that he's put the wrong link in the agenda 21:11:38 dorchard: between now and February 12, is very bad for scheduling additional meetings 21:11:44 noah: but you will be at the Tech Plenary 21:11:49 dorchard: yes 21:12:05 SW: Should we shoot for the 14th? 21:12:15 yes, 14 Feb looks like an interesting sync-point 21:12:23 noah: You're hoping Schema WG will be available then? 21:12:26 SW: yes 21:12:43 dorchard agrees that falling back to 21 Feb would be ok 21:14:05 SW: Plan is to have our reviews finished for discussion on 14 Feb 21:14:50 ACTION NM: contact David E. to [???] 21:14:51 ACTION NW: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14 Feb 21:15:17 noah: Schema chair agrees informally 21:15:28 Topic: 2. Technical; XML Chunk Equality 21:15:57 NW: posted a draft a while back, went through www-tag discussion 21:16:08 -DOrchard 21:16:11 nw: mostly discussion was about a single issue 21:16:17 (agenda cites http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlChunkEquality.html ) 21:16:27 nw: xml:lang and case folding and non-ascii characters and stuff 21:16:30 ([Editor’s Draft] TAG Finding 07 September 2004) 21:16:35 nw: apart from that, little feedback 21:16:47 action 11 = NM: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14 Feb 21:17:08 sw: how was that recieved by xml core? 21:17:29 nw: reluctant as there was not a single correct response for all of xml 21:17:50 nw: however, this was juts 'a' notion of equality not 'the' one, so they declined 21:18:00 nw: thus, the ball is in TAG court again 21:18:35 nw: Core if fine with TAG doing 'a' way 21:18:42 s/if/is/ 21:18:53 q? 21:19:06 dc: looks like an interesting note 21:19:28 nw: can tag publish a wg note? 21:19:42 dc, cl, sw: yes (probably) 21:19:55 pc: why bother changing the finding to a note? 21:19:59 q+ to ask about precendents of findings as notes 21:20:25 nw: one psychological step less normative. not in all caps. 21:20:57 q+ to expound about xml:lang 21:21:38 q+ to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. discuss" note 21:21:49 ack danc 21:21:49 DanC, you wanted to review actions from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/11/29-30-tag#xmlv41 and to and to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see 21:21:53 ... what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. discuss" note 21:21:54 ack noah 21:21:55 q+ to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. discuss" note 21:21:57 noah, you wanted to ask about precendents of findings as notes 21:22:52 nm: don't want to get into duplicat work, republish findings and notes. rather train people how to read findings 21:23:17 ack chris 21:23:17 Chris, you wanted to expound about xml:lang 21:23:24 q+ to ask whhy we started this. 21:24:48 ack danc 21:24:48 DanC, you wanted to say that my instinct about xml:lang is to write a test case and then see what implementations do, but hey, with a note, just stick a "xml:lang looks hairy. 21:24:52 ... discuss" note 21:25:14 slight clarification: I'm not necessarily against publishing as notes if we can convince ourselves there's a good reason that justifies the duplicate investment in publication and ongoing maintenance in the face of possible bugs. I'm suggesting we decide on the criteria in general. I think Dan is now suggesting such a criterion. 21:25:15 as an example of another algorithm. 21:25:26 cl: bogus language codes do not affect well formedness, but anything not conforming to the prose of xml still does not conform to prose 21:25:26 should we also point to http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-deep-equal 21:25:59 q+ to follow up with Dan quickly: are you saying finding AND a note? Sounds like you're saying "it's either a finding or a note", and this one's a note. 21:26:17 q+ 21:26:20 q? 21:26:23 cl: its well defined, except for this theoretical corner case 21:26:31 ack timbl 21:26:31 timbl, you wanted to ask whhy we started this. 21:26:34 yes, noah 21:26:47 pbc: yes, we should 21:27:35 tbl: can we take norms finding and see to what exent dsig breaks on things that are the same, if RDF would be happy with it as a definition of RDF litteral, etc 21:27:59 tbl: xml has a deep equality issue (from scribbled notes) 21:28:11 pc: xquery and xpath, rather than xml?? 21:28:25 q+ 21:28:28 q- 21:28:34 s/scribbled notes/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html 21:28:42 q- noah 21:28:49 ack pbc 21:28:56 pc: so, this is one possible way to compare two chunks 21:29:13 Woudl they have prefered it with ':'? 21:29:18 pc: it does not really demonstrate that other algorithms exist, when you might use them etc 21:29:29 (RDF uses the c14n one) 21:29:30 pc: deep=1 from F&O, plus??? 21:29:36 Tim's scribbled notes say: XML schema has the "Deep equality" issue as to when any two chunks 21:29:36 are "equal". 21:29:51 FWIW: I'm not immediately calling to mind any reason that XML Schema would care. 21:30:11 pd: dsig have various views on canonical representations 21:30:23 s/pd/pc/ 21:30:45 pc: so if we added some other alternatives, its fine as a finding 21:31:05 (hmm... it's now starting to smell like a survey of the literature on XML chunk comparison, more in the finding genre) 21:31:07 tbl: a list of things to avoid or known potholes, is valuable 21:31:11 Schema does have equality rules for typed values of particular fields, e.g. when typed as an integer attribute AT="123" is equal (as a key for example) to AT="00123". 21:31:21 yes, more like a finding now 21:31:23 I don't think there are open issues in this area. 21:31:46 sw: not overriding support for making it a note 21:31:57 I note that DSIG achieves something close to chunk equality via its canonicalization rules (which I believe are user-pluggable). 21:32:04 pc: ok as a finding if we had time to discuss it, so suggesting improvements 21:32:28 sw: ok so very much as a finding 21:33:04 ACTION Norm: make editorial improvements, point to other different schemes, why use them, things to avoid 21:33:22 tbl: is there vagueness in RDF literal? 21:33:57 pc: good to see when F&O deep= works and when it does not 21:34:51 pc: looking for a way to select an algorithm to get least astonishment 21:35:25 tbl: for URI comparison, if they are trivially equal they are always equal with more complicated meythods 21:35:47 tbl: is the same thing true here? if two chunks are norm=, are they always equal?? 21:36:00 -TimBL 21:36:01 sw: oops, running out of time, this is interesting 21:36:09 pc: put at front of next agenda 21:36:13 RRSAgent, please make minutes 21:36:19 pc: email discussion also good 21:36:45 -pbc 21:38:35 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 21:38:42 [[ 21:38:43 10-tagmem-actions.rdf (from ACLs DB) 21:38:43 world access. 21:38:43 10-tagmem-irc.html (from ACLs DB) 21:38:43 world access. 21:38:43 10-tagmem-irc.rdf (from ACLs DB) 21:38:43 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 21:38:45 world access. 21:38:47 10-tagmem-irc.txt (from ACLs DB) 21:38:49 world access. 21:38:51 ]] 21:38:55 [[ 10-tagmem-minutes.html (from ACLs DB) 21:38:55 member access. ]] 21:39:08 -DanC 21:39:13 -Norm 21:39:14 -noah 21:39:14 -Stuart 21:39:30 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl?rev=1.104&content-type=text/plain 21:39:57 norm, that last link is the perl 21:40:03 I've got the perl. 21:40:06 ok 21:40:22 Where's 10-tagmem-irc.txt again? In /2001/tag/2004/01/ ? 21:40:42 No. Probably not 21:40:45 Thre it is. 21:40:58 perl scribe.perl --implicitContinuations -tidy input.txt > output.html 21:41:15 Nope http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-minutes is still 503 21:41:22 Nope http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc.txt is 503 21:41:37 rrsagent, pointer? 21:41:37 See http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-41-37 21:41:47 zakim, bye 21:41:50 Zakim has left #tagmem 21:41:52 rrsagent, bye 21:41:52 I see 11 open action items: 21:41:52 ACTION: Chris to Post QA review comments for email discussion. [1] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-11-28 21:41:52 ACTION: SW to Respond to DO approving discussion of the ID on www-tag. [2] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-14-05 21:41:52 ACTION: SW to To schedule some sort of meeting with Schema between now and the plenary [3] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-41-27 21:41:52 ACTION: Noah to Attempt to get the Schema WG to make their work public. [4] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-42-29 21:41:52 ACTION: SW to give Steve Bratt a response to how the TAG would like to participate in the Plenary [5] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-51-42 21:41:52 ACTION: DC to review blog entry on RDF versioning [pointer?]. CONTINUES. [6] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T20-59-25 21:41:52 ACTION: NM to to work with DO to come up with improved principles and background assumptions that motivate versioning finding. CONTINUES. bigger than a 1-week thing [7] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-02-49 21:41:52 ACTION: DC to paulc to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and versioning editorial draft finding prior to discussion. [8] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-06-21 21:41:52 ACTION: SKW to to inform QA and Schema WGs of the new version of the e&v draft [9] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-07-34 21:41:52 ACTION: NM: Coordinate with chair of Schema for meeting on 14 Feb [11] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-14-51 21:41:52 ACTION: Norm to make editorial improvements, point to other different schemes, why use them, things to avoid [12] 21:41:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/10-tagmem-irc#T21-33-04 21:41:54 leaving. As of this point the attendees were [Microsoft], Chris, Norm, Stuart, pbc, DanC, [IBMCambridge], noah, TimBL, DOrchard 21:42:09 Bleh. some local config glitch 21:42:19 norm, remember to dismiss zakim and rrsagent (in that order) to flush any buffering