IRC log of tagmem on 2005-02-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:49:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:49:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:50:48 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
19:51:59 [Vincent]
Yes, I have invited all the bots
19:52:12 [noah]
Thank you!
19:56:33 [Norm]
noah, Vincent: I'm waiting for the heating company to arrive, our furnace isn't working, so I'll be interrupted when they do arrive. (It's 60 degrees and falling in the house)
19:56:39 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:57:15 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:57:21 [Zakim]
19:58:17 [Zakim]
19:58:26 [Ed]
Ed has joined #tagmem
19:59:12 [Vincent]
hi ed
19:59:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.916.785.aaaa - is perhaps Ed_Rice?
19:59:29 [Zakim]
19:59:34 [Ed]
20:00:21 [Zakim]
20:00:51 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:00:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, Ed_Rice?, Norm, DanC
20:00:53 [Zakim]
20:00:59 [Norm]
zakim, [IBM is Noah
20:00:59 [Zakim]
+Noah; got it
20:01:13 [noah]
Norm, OK: we're sharing scribing anyway. I'll be sure to cover when you leave. Is it supposed to be over 60 in the house?
20:01:23 [DanC]
Topic: Roll call, agenda review
20:01:24 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
20:01:24 [Zakim]
sorry, noah, I do not recognize a party named '[IBMCambridge]'
20:01:27 [Norm]
zakim, ??P0 is Hoylen
20:01:27 [Zakim]
+Hoylen; got it
20:01:30 [DanC]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
20:01:30 [Zakim]
20:01:31 [Norm]
zakim, ??P1 is Vincent
20:01:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hoylen, ??P1, Ed_Rice?, Norm, DanC, Noah, ??P20
20:01:33 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
20:01:50 [Norm]
zakim, ??P20 is DavidE
20:01:50 [Zakim]
+DavidE; got it
20:01:54 [DanC]
20:02:16 [holstege]
holstege has joined #tagmem
20:02:19 [noah]
Meeting: TAG Teleconference, February 14, 2005
20:02:22 [Norm]
zakim, who is on the phone?
20:02:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hoylen, Vincent, Ed_Rice?, Norm, DanC, Noah, DavidE
20:02:26 [Zakim]
20:02:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.856.914.aabb
20:02:49 [Norm]
zakim, aabb is Ashok
20:02:49 [Zakim]
+Ashok; got it
20:03:04 [Norm]
zakim, who is on the phone?
20:03:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hoylen, Vincent, Ed_Rice?, Norm, DanC, Noah, DavidE, Roy_Fielding, Ashok
20:03:11 [dezell]
dezell has joined #tagmem
20:03:12 [Zakim]
20:03:15 [Hoylen]
Hoylen has joined #tagmem
20:03:18 [Norm]
zakim, davide is dezell
20:03:18 [Zakim]
+dezell; got it
20:03:21 [noah]
scribe: Noah
20:03:26 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
20:03:36 [Zakim]
20:04:08 [noah]
Topic: Attendance
20:04:19 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:04:54 [MSM]
MSM has joined #tagmem
20:04:57 [noah]
From the tag, we have: Noah, Vincent, Roy, Tim BL, Norm, Ed Rice
20:05:01 [MSM]
zakim, please call Michael-Office
20:05:01 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
20:05:02 [Zakim]
20:05:10 [noah]
Regrets from: Henry Thompson, David Orchard
20:05:25 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
20:05:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hoylen, Vincent, Ed_Rice?, Norm, DanC, Noah, dezell, Roy_Fielding, Ashok, TimBL, Mary_Holstege, Michael
20:05:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MSM, timbl, Ashok, Hoylen, dezell, holstege, Ed, Roy, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, Vincent, DanC, Norm
20:05:56 [Norm]
I'd like to see xml:id/C14N discussions on the agenda for next week
20:06:04 [noah]
From schema WG: Hoylen Sue, David Ezell, Mary Holstege, Michael Sperberg-McQueen
20:06:08 [noah]
Topic: Schedules
20:06:18 [Ashok]
Noah, I'm also here
20:06:19 [noah]
We will have a telcon next week on the 21st
20:06:40 [noah]
Ashok Malhotra is also here from the Schema WG
20:06:53 [noah]
Dan Connolly will scribe next week.
20:07:08 [noah]
Topic: Review of Minutes for 2/7
20:07:17 [DanC]
(ed sent something thursday?)
20:07:22 [DanC]
20:07:42 [noah]
Should we accept minutes of 2/7 that were released on Thursday:
20:07:57 [Zakim]
20:08:07 [noah]
Dan: there is some miscellaneous stuff in there that should be cleaned up.
20:08:20 [noah]
ATTENDANCE: David Orchard joins the call
20:09:06 [noah]
We will not accept 2/7 minutes now. Will wait for cleaned minutes.
20:09:57 [noah]
ACTION: Ed Rice to clean up 2/7 minutes and either email or commit somewhere in CVS
20:09:57 [DanC]
(2/7 is not I18N-happy. it's 7 Feb)
20:10:20 [noah]
ACTION 1=Ed Rice to clean up 7 Feb minutes and either email or commit somewhere in CVS
20:10:25 [DanC]
(or 2005-02-07)
20:10:36 [noah]
Topic: Telcon Scheduling
20:11:07 [noah]
Vincent proposes 1PM Eastern Time for future TAG Telcons
20:11:14 [noah]
Various members assent.
20:12:32 [DanC]
22 Feb
20:12:47 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
20:13:11 [noah]
Vincent: We have decided to schedule TAG telcons on Tuesdays at 1 PM Eastern time, starting Tues 22 Feb
20:13:41 [noah]
Topic: Topic Plenary
20:13:43 [DanC]
ACTION Vincent: arrange bridge for 1pET tuesdays starting 22Feb
20:14:03 [noah]
Noah sends REGRETS for 22 Feb.
20:14:41 [noah]
s/Topic: Topic/Topic: Tech/
20:14:42 [timbl]
Tim bl sends regrets for Feb 22
20:15:06 [noah]
Dan: I was asked for input by Paul Downey
20:15:23 [noah]
Vincent: work directly with the organizer if you have questions or concerns about the panel
20:15:37 [noah]
Vincent: Noah will be on future of XML panel
20:16:29 [noah]
Norm: I think I'm on the XML futures panel, if it's the same as the XML 2.0 panel
20:16:35 [DanC]
(it's not called "XML 2.0" anywhere that I can see, norm. "Session 3: Where XML is Going, and Where it Should (or Shouldn't) Go" Moderator: Rich Salz. )
20:16:59 [noah]
Noah: FWIW, I don't think I'm specifically representing the TAG on future of XML, was invited because of lightening talk I gave last year on XML 1.1 issues.
20:17:31 [noah]
Vincent: we have been solicted to propose lightening talks at the Plenary. Any candidates?
20:18:06 [noah]
OK, nothing specific on lightening talks here.
20:18:15 [noah]
Topic: TAG F2F at Plenary
20:18:40 [noah]
Vincent: We have TAG meeting on Monday morning of TP, with WS-Addressing meeting at the end of that.
20:18:56 [noah]
Vincent: will work on agendas etc. tomorrow morning. Suggestions welcome.
20:19:37 [noah]
20:19:50 [noah]
Topic: TAG Liaisons during Plenary Week
20:21:50 [noah]
See: for list of proposed meetings
20:21:52 [Roy]
I am available for all liaison meetings listed.
20:22:14 [noah]
VQ: Propose Thurs. 11 AM for Core WG meeting.
20:22:53 [noah]
Noah: Doublebooked with Schemas
20:22:59 [noah]
Roy is available for all liaisons.
20:23:04 [noah]
Norm will be there, and is on core.
20:23:08 [noah]
Ed can attend.
20:23:27 [noah]
VQ: OK, we'll confirm that we will meet with them.
20:23:42 [noah]
ACTION: Vincent to confirm Thurs meeting at 11AM with Core WG
20:24:05 [noah]
VQ: Proposal for joint meeting with XML Schema WG Thurs after lunch
20:24:18 [noah]
Dave Orchard will be there
20:24:36 [noah]
Norm: would like to be there, but may conflict with core
20:24:42 [noah]
Noah: will be there, on both groups
20:24:43 [Roy]
20:24:48 [noah]
Vincent will be there
20:24:51 [noah]
Roy will be there
20:25:34 [noah]
VQ: Resolved, we will meet with XML Schema on Thurs at 2 PM
20:25:54 [dezell]
sorry missed the opportunity -- for how long? 1 hr? 2?
20:26:18 [noah]
VQ: Proposal to meet with QA WG. Discussion with chairs suggests best course is joint calls after the plenary.
20:26:26 [DanC]
(I'm bummed about the scheduling of the TAG/WS-Addressing and TAG/CDF meetings. sigh.)
20:26:38 [noah]
(I'm bummed Dan will miss WSA)
20:26:58 [noah]
VQ: Compound Document group proposes to meet with us on Monday at 3PM
20:28:19 [Norm]
I've stepped away to deal with the heating guy. brb.
20:28:33 [noah]
Dan says he's chairing other WG's Mon & Tues, how about Thurs.
20:28:47 [noah]
VQ: Well, we already have 3 meetings on Thurs., could be hard
20:28:55 [noah]
Dan: OK, do it without me. Too bad.
20:30:50 [noah]
ACTION: Vincent to figure out whether and when we want to meet with Compound Documents group
20:31:38 [noah]
VQ: If you are interested in CDF meeting and have scheduling constraints, send me mail by tomorrow, 15 Feb.
20:32:14 [noah]
Topic: Extensibility and Versioning Discussion with XML Schema WG
20:33:12 [noah]
VQ: Dave, as editor of draft finding, please give us a TAG status report
20:33:30 [noah]
DO: the draft finding has been considerably refined from 2003 version.
20:34:09 [noah]
See and
20:34:30 [noah]
DO: Discusses some of the decisions a language designer would want to consider, and gives advice on making those decisions.
20:34:54 [noah]
Sample issues: do you want compatible or incompatible extensions, should owners of other Namespaces be able to extend your language.
20:35:03 [noah]
s/Sample/DO: Sample/
20:35:27 [noah]
DO: which versions of schemas do producers and consumers have?
20:35:42 [noah]
DO: how does a consumer know which particular version a particular component is part of?
20:36:02 [noah]
DO: are you using new namespaces for new constructs? Spectrum of possibilities.
20:36:31 [noah]
DO: Compared to 2003, trying to provide somewhat more formal definitions of terms like language.
20:36:54 [noah]
DO: That was part 1. Part 2 discusses schema-specific issues, and in this case mainly W3C XML Schemas.
20:37:36 [noah]
DO: This cut focusses on W3C XML Schemas. Plan is to include RDF, OWL and Relax NG. Norm has been helping me with Relax NG. Hope is to put that in soon.
20:37:46 [noah]
q+ To update status a bit
20:38:19 [noah]
DO: Plan to spend a bit more time on this now that I'm back on the TAG
20:38:30 [noah]
VQ: Would someone from schema give us an update on your work.
20:39:07 [noah]
David Ezell will be known as DE.
20:39:16 [noah]
DE: We've been looking at this for several years.
20:39:20 [DanC]
(this use cases thing is great... I only discovered it minutes before the telcon, though. has everybody else read it in detail?
20:39:35 [noah]
DE: Our mandate is to improve things in XML Schema 1.1
20:40:55 [noah]
DE: XML Schema 1.0 was focussed more on expressing constraints. In Schema 1.1, we plan an explicit focus on frameworks for extensibility and versioning.
20:42:10 [noah]
DE: Schema WG has posted a number of documents including
20:42:13 [noah]
DE: Use cases
20:42:49 [Vincent]
ack noah
20:42:49 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to update status a bit
20:43:28 [Vincent]
ack danc
20:43:28 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask if the problems with extensibility also relate to having a PSVI
20:43:42 [noah]
Noah: yes, just reminding that I am still working on my action to help Dave O. with higher level issues in the draft finding
20:44:03 [MSM]
zakim, please unmute Michael
20:44:03 [Zakim]
Michael should no longer be muted
20:44:03 [noah]
Dan: does having a PSVI make it harder? I think some early Schema WG members thought so.
20:44:07 [noah]
q+ to comment on psvi
20:44:25 [Vincent]
ack noah
20:44:25 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to comment on psvi
20:44:45 [MSM]
q+ to say that in fact I think the PSVI is the key to support for versioning
20:44:54 [DanC]
-> An Approach for Evolving XML Vocabularies Using XML Schema
20:45:47 [DanC]
(what I hear is yes, folks are looking at interactions between PSVI and versioning)
20:46:07 [noah]
DE: I can't say much officially on behalf of the wg. PSVI is a fertile area for discussion.
20:46:58 [noah]
Noah: actually, there have been proposals to leverage the PSVI to help applications discover which content was truly expected (validated against explicit declaration) vs. being tolerated for forward compatibility (validated against some sort of wildcard or extensibility hook)
20:46:59 [DanC]
("the finding"=??)
20:47:15 [noah]
Michael Sperberg-McQueen: MSM
20:47:17 [dorchard]
q+ to talk about parsers impl of partial validation
20:47:42 [Vincent]
ack dorchard
20:47:42 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to talk about parsers impl of partial validation
20:47:47 [noah]
MSM: I don't share Dan's concern. I think indeed that David's draft findings fail to fully explore some of the positive potential of the PSVI.
20:48:22 [noah]
DaveO: One reason draft finding doesn't talk much about partial validation is that in practice today's processors don't report the PSVI in that detail.
20:48:52 [noah]
DaveO: I was trying to talk about solutions that were practical today.
20:50:07 [noah]
MSM: one of our requirements (specifically RQ-144) for version 1.1 for XML Schema is to clarify the conformance requirements for how much of the PSVI processors must support.
20:50:32 [noah]
MSM: We are seriously considering but not yet committed to also naming useful combinations so a processor could claim: "I report the Red subset."
20:50:42 [dorchard]
BTW, when I specification "optional", I mean both optional in the spec and optional in the impl. Amazingly, in general, not all software implements all required parts of specs.
20:50:45 [dezell]
q+ to report on PSVI support
20:50:46 [noah]
MSM: you can find pointers to proposals from the Schemas editorial page.
20:51:37 [Vincent]
ack dezell
20:51:37 [Zakim]
dezell, you wanted to report on PSVI support
20:52:20 [noah]
FYI: link to definition of schema requirement 144 is (member only)
20:52:41 [noah]
DE: At our schema meeting at Redwood shores many implementors were present, and all claimed to support full PSVI.
20:54:20 [noah]
DaveO: For the information of new tag members, I've been doing a fair amount of the work on the finding.
20:54:33 [noah]
VQ: How can we best coordinate with the Schema WG on this?
20:55:30 [noah]
DaveO: for a start, I think the scenarios (what I've called mine) and use cases (what the Schema WG has called theirs) are important
20:58:07 [dezell]
q+ to embellish
20:58:21 [noah]
DaveO: we need to understand, beyond use cases, which parts of this work the schema WG thinks is its responsibility
20:58:39 [MSM]
dorchard: getting agreeement on the scenarios / use cases is really really important. Extensibility is not JUST a question of the schema langauge, or the schema, but systemic
20:58:47 [noah]
DaveO: we need to work together to figure out what behavior should be from a web arch perspective.
20:58:56 [noah]
DaveO: having the schema use cases public helps.
20:59:39 [noah]
DaveO: then there the nuts and bolts of what happens in Schema NG (presumably Schema 1.1 [scribe]) is mostly the responsibility of the Schema WG
20:59:56 [noah]
DaveO: I think the mandate I've received is to explore many different schema langs.
21:00:35 [Vincent]
ack dezell
21:00:35 [Zakim]
dezell, you wanted to embellish
21:01:03 [noah]
DE: we agree very much that the use cases are important.
21:01:31 [noah]
DE: we've tried hard not to be self selecting in use cases, I.e., to not focus only on things we think we know how to solve or should solve on our own.
21:02:00 [noah]
DE: we shouldn't prejudge use cases as to which are the business of W3C XML Schema, per se.
21:02:19 [noah]
DE: it's in our charter to make sure that XML Schema 1.1 has a much better story on versioning.
21:05:24 [DanC]
(our list of actions is a mess)
21:05:46 [DanC]
(but it's worth noting that an action is continued explicitly)
21:06:07 [noah]
DE: I keep hearing form people in (my employer's group), the National Assoc. of Convenience stores, that they expect XML to make things simple, but versioning is a big challenge for them. Users do care.
21:06:20 [noah]
VQ: Noah, what was that you volunteered to do?
21:06:43 [noah]
Noah: to indeed fulfill the action I was assigned to work with Dave to explore some higher level issues for the draft findings.
21:06:47 [noah]
VQ: new action?
21:07:03 [noah]
Noah: No, I think it's in the list somewhere. If not, we should add it, but I won't generate a duplicate now.
21:07:15 [noah]
VQ: Anyone with anything else on this topic?
21:07:39 [noah]
MSM: Yes. I think you're focussing on older processors/applications getting data conforming to newer schemas.
21:08:02 [noah]
Seems that you're worrying mainly about the case where the old processor can't get at the new schema and resulting PSVI.
21:08:23 [noah]
We think that there are use cases where you can get the new schema and use cases where you can't.
21:09:11 [noah]
DaveO: it seems to me the 80/20 case is where the software that did not evolve is not configured to pull new schemas or similar descriptions dynamically. Could happen, but not 80/20.
21:09:43 [noah]
MSM: are you saying what they have done or should do?
21:10:46 [noah]
DaveO: security models are a factor.
21:11:04 [noah]
MSM: we may need to agree to disagree
21:11:23 [noah]
MSM: I think there will be situations where people should fetch the new schema
21:11:46 [noah]
DaveO: agreed in principle, but I'm not sure it's practical in enough cases to be worth major focus
21:13:08 [noah]
MSM: Another point. You seem to be assuming that applications will necessarily roll over and die when data is not valid per a schema. That's only one model. Many applications will fall back after a validation failure.
21:13:49 [noah]
MSM: so, there's a model in which the early schemas do not try to partially validate future extensions, but in which the applications have some other model as to how to proceed when the validation doesn't fully succeed.
21:14:19 [noah]
DaveO: I don't understand.
21:14:47 [noah]
MSM: I'll try again. The draft finding conflatest the set of documents that a given application will accept with those that are valid per its (preferred) schema.
21:15:07 [MSM]
the finding seems to me to conflate two distinct notions: (1) the set of documents valid against schema v.N and (2) the set of documents application software will accept and process.
21:15:28 [noah]
DaveO: I think you're saying there can be implicit schemas which are larger than (in your example) or smaller than the explicit schema written in a specific schema language.
21:15:43 [noah]
DaveO: I agree with that. Have been trying to figure out how to articulate that.
21:16:22 [MSM]
And it's important to note that it's not really hard for parser-generator technology (and thus for code generators) to generate a parser that is more forgiving, more capacious, and accepts partially valid or invalid documents
21:17:01 [noah]
Tim: would the broader schema be for what the application accepts in its "longer lifetime", I.e. for all the future variants that the application will to some degree tolerate.
21:17:08 [noah]
21:17:23 [noah]
Dave: Java code could add constraints
21:17:42 [MSM]
tim, in the ideal case, yes, that larger 'set of all future documents' is what one might plausibly want the application software to accept.
21:17:43 [noah]
Tim: I'm raising the case where constraints are looser than you might think.
21:18:16 [DanC]
ack danc
21:18:16 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to suggest findings or chapters list in
21:18:16 [Vincent]
ack DanC
21:19:12 [noah]
Noah(nonscribe) notes: we also have to watch for the fact that sometimes people introduce intentionally incompatibilities. Sometimes the v8 flavor of a language is intentionally incompatible with v1 of an application, because we know very old versions are not in use any more.
21:19:35 [DanC]
"Extending and Versioning XML Languages Part 2: Schema Languages"
21:19:36 [noah]
Dan: I think your title in part 1 sounds broader than what you actually discuss.
21:19:50 [noah]
21:20:51 [noah]
DaveO: originally, this was going to be a one parter on using XML schema language to extend and version. People came back and said, please split it into a general and a specific.
21:21:35 [noah]
Dan: Norm wrote "consider the case of XSLT 2.0". That's a good idea, and I have a list of about 10. Here goes:
21:21:48 [DanC]
21:21:48 [DanC]
-- XSLT extension functions
21:21:49 [DanC]
-- adding <img> to HTML
21:21:49 [DanC]
-- adding <form> to HTML
21:21:49 [DanC]
-- adding <frames> and <script> to HTML
21:21:49 [DanC]
-- SMIL system: extensions
21:21:51 [DanC]
-- adding rdf:parseType="Collection"
21:21:53 [DanC]
-- not adding rdf:parseType="Quote"
21:21:57 [DanC]
-- adding Content-Transfer-Encoding to HTTP
21:21:59 [DanC]
-- the emergence of TLS in HTTP (new URI scheme, new port; good
21:22:01 [DanC]
idea or not?)
21:22:03 [DanC]
-- CSS forward-compatible parsing rules
21:22:05 [DanC]
-- SOAP must-understand
21:22:07 [DanC]
-- the XPointer scheme registry
21:22:09 [DanC]
21:22:34 [noah]
Dan wonders whether 3 or 4 of the topics listed above would be a good focus?
21:22:37 [DanC]
21:22:50 [noah]
DaveO: yes.
21:23:36 [noah]
DaveO: for example, XSLT is used as an example of multiple versions using the same namespace, with a version attribute used to distinguish processing semantics.
21:23:39 [MSM]
MSM thinks "adding 'script' to HTML" should also be considered, because it's a case where the HTML extensibility rules were not quite what people would have liked to have
21:24:39 [noah]
DaveO: some people want it bigger, some smaller
21:26:47 [DanC]
(did I forget <script>? I meant to include it, MSM)
21:27:11 [Vincent]
ack danc
21:27:11 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say that issue41 has always felt like a book, to me; that extensibility _is_ W3C's core competency, and that if the TAG spent a year exploring it, that would be
21:27:15 [Zakim]
... time well spent
21:27:44 [dorchard]
q+ to respond to Noah "issue 41 navel gazing"
21:28:37 [Vincent]
ack dorchard
21:28:37 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to respond to Noah "issue 41 navel gazing"
21:28:38 [noah]
Noah: I think the TAG should focus on the higher level issues that bear on the health of the Web, the schema WG should focus on XML Schema mechanisms, and somewhere in the middle are XML details that aren't validated by schemas.
21:29:05 [noah]
Dan: If the TAG's next major work was 50-100 pages on versioning, that might not be a bad thing.
21:29:20 [noah]
DaveO: the age old question of going top down or detail-oriented.
21:29:36 [noah]
DaveO: I think architects must focus on the details to be successful.
21:30:33 [noah]
DaveO: I campaigned in part on having the tag focus on the details of this particular issue.
21:30:59 [noah]
VQ: We're running out of time. Thanks to all!
21:31:00 [Zakim]
21:31:03 [Zakim]
21:31:04 [Zakim]
21:31:06 [Zakim]
21:31:07 [Zakim]
21:31:08 [Zakim]
21:31:10 [Zakim]
21:31:11 [Zakim]
21:31:13 [Zakim]
21:31:15 [Zakim]
21:31:17 [Zakim]
21:31:19 [Zakim]
21:31:22 [Zakim]
21:31:23 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
21:31:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.916.785.aaaa, Norm, DanC, [IBMCambridge], Noah, Hoylen, Vincent, Roy_Fielding, +1.856.914.aabb, Ashok, TimBL, dezell, Mary_Holstege, Michael, DOrchard
21:31:25 [holstege]
holstege has left #tagmem
21:32:16 [noah]
zakim, bye
21:32:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
21:32:32 [noah]
rrsagent, draft minutes
21:32:32 [noah]
I have made the request to generate noah
21:32:41 [Hoylen]
Hoylen has left #tagmem
21:33:17 [noah]
rrsagent, bye
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ed Rice to clean up 7 Feb minutes and either email or commit somewhere in CVS [1]
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Vincent to arrange bridge for 1pET tuesdays starting 22Feb [2]
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Vincent to confirm Thurs meeting at 11AM with Core WG [3]
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Vincent to figure out whether and when we want to meet with Compound Documents group [4]
21:33:17 [RRSAgent]
recorded in