See also: IRC log
propose Tuesday 8 March 2005 for next meeting
regrets DaveO for 8 Mar
VQ has a conflict with 8 Mar
VQ is available to prepare an agenda, but not to run the meeting
<ht> regrets HST for 8 March
NDW offers to run the 8 Mar telcon
(are we resolved? doesn't seem critical... can decide 28Feb, I suppose)
DC: 2nd proposal to OK 7 Feb minutes
VQ: I've reviewed actions from
the telcons... many seem to be done; I'll get back to the
others 28Feb
... unless there are comments now
noah notes being done with his action on extensibility
VQ: recall we agreed to meet near
Nice just after the W3C AC meeting, but it's no longer
convenient for Chris...
... and HT has offered to host...
... some preferences each way...
<Roy> Edinburgh +1
<noah> France +1
<noah> (if someone will host, of course)
Chris: I have not told Coralie (prospective INRIA local organizer) to cancel our meeting in June
<noah> Edinburgh OK if not, just trying to save travel wear n tear
VQ: to expects to attend the AC meeting?
DC: I do
DO: I do
<noah> NM: I do
HT: I do
NDW: I prefer Edingburgh, though that reduces the chance I'll attend the AC meeting
<Ed> I will not be at the AC meeting
VQ: I expect TimBL to attend the AC meeting
Roy: I think timbl had a conflict with the June 8 Date
"TimBL was also unable to comfirm in-person attendance." re 8-10 June. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#meeting-plans
HT: I think I can hold my hosting reservations for a month without much cost in case I cancel
VQ: so let's take another week to consider it
<scribe> ACTION: VQ to contact Coralie re 8-10 June meeting arrangements at INRIA. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action01]
CL: you might ask her about Cannes vs Sophia while you're at it
DC: hmm... .5hr of admin seems like a lot for a 2hr meeting...
VQ: some is more than admin... issues list maintenance
<Chris> start discussing issue list stuff in email to get up to speed?
VQ: I expect to update the agenda tomorrow with comments received; I'm willing to take comments up to the meeting day
VQ: re XML Core joint meeting...
VQ: PaulG proposes 10:30 to noon Thu for XML Core/TAG join telcon
<scribe> ACTION: NDW: let XML Core WG know yes, we agree to meet Thu 3 Mar 10:30am in Boston [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action02]
VQ: note "14:45-15:45 Joint with
CDF-WG"
... on Monday
HT: no liaison meetings Tuesday?
VQ: right
VQ reviews liaison schedule Revision 1.21 2005/02/22 17:26:09 vquint
(hmm... seems to fall under versioning41, but so does all of life, the universe, and everything, so maybe a specific issue is good)
DC: issue name ideas?
NDW: nameSpaceTerms-NN, maybe?
<Roy> nameAdditions-NN ?
<Chris-again> reservedNoReally?
NDW: some urgency motivates a separate issue from versioning41: having a TAG decision before end of xml:id CR period would be nice
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about timing expectations
<Roy> digestable +1
DO: so the results of this new issue could be folded into work on versioning41?
NDW: sure, but this seems independent of schema languages etc. [?]
HT: people often read more into the namespace REC than is there; I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify
DO: one thing that's in the [draft] finding now is a discussion of relationship between terms, [missed?], which seems relevant
RF: [good point about issues : findings. can't summarize real-time]. I suggest "nameAddition" because the identity questions don't seem to be the main thing
NDW: ...[missed?]... crux of it is xml: namespace [?]
<Chris-again> ... and is it bounded or not
CL: yes, that is the main thing... one spec made an assuption about the xml: namespace, and unless "will not change" is explicitly stated, that's not safe
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to disagree with Norm
[scribe gives up trying to keep up]
<Roy> We can have one finding answer multiple issues, but tracking multiple issues under a single issue name simply because we expect them to be answered in one finding would be a mistake, IMO.
HT: to speak of "adding names to a namespace" doesn't make sense. the names are all there.
NDW: while I might agree, that's not universally agreed
<noah> +1, I agree with Henry. At the very least, we shouldn't preclude in advance that possible formulation
<Chris-again> HT: namespace is a set, unbounded, all names already exist in it
<dorchard> The first part of the finding has an attempt at formal description of the architecture of languages http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html
<noah> If you're looking for a name for an issue (I can't quite tell), how about "immutableNamespaces"?
<ht> namespaceState?
+1 namespaceState
<Ed> +1 namespaceState
VQ: seems we're agreed (agreeing?) to add an issue, in addition to, while perhaps related to, issue 41
<Chris-again> +1 namespaceState
<Roy> +1 namespaceState
<dorchard> +1 namespaceState
<Norm> +1 namespaceState
RESOLUTION: to accept issue namespaceState.
PC: we need to announce the issue to tag-announce
VQ: ndw's request serves as an issue summary?
ER: OK
<Roy> +1
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to announce TAG's acknolwedgement of issue nameSpaceState-NN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action03]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note traditions and to
NDW, HT, DO volunteer to "work on it"
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to work with HT, DO on namespaceState [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action04]
<Zakim> Chris-again, you wanted to add that a cc should be sent to affected WGs
<ht> HST has in mind to try to summarise, in a way the owners would acknowledge as fair, the various positions so far articulated at the base of the ongoing discussion
tx for the sketch, ht. pls do
(not in this meeting, I assume)
<ht> Correct DanC
PC: add this to the 3 Mar TAG/XML Core agenda?
NDW: yes, quite
PC: pending XML Core work depends on this?
NDW: xml:id CR exit
PC: is there room for this on the TAG/XML Core agenda?
NDW/VQ: think so, yes
<Roy> my input is already in www-tag
DC suggests straw poll; if we can say "yes" today, very well. if not, let's wait 'till noah can make his case
RF: having trouble differentiating this from work going on in uri mailing list
DC: why do you want/need to differentiate?
RF: good question...
... not sold by Noah's request as is.
DC: let's wait 'till Noah can make his case.
VQ: very well.
<noah> Roy, either in these minutes or by email, maybe you could send URIs to pertinent thread in URI list? Thanks.
<Roy> Noah, there is ongoing discussion on uri@w3.org regarding rfc2717-2718 replacement that contains instructions on what to include in scheme spec.
<Roy> Noah, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Feb/0042.html
VQ: continuing from 7 Feb
... continuing from 7 Feb, when we got to xmlFunctions-34
...
... I'm interested in names relevant to each issue.
DC: There are variuos questions about how to embed RDF in HTML/XHTML. Practice includes putting RDF in comments inside HTML.
<Norm> Appalling but true
DC: I'd like reviewer for "Storing Data..."; I think there's perhaps more work to cover, but that's my work to date toward a finding on this issue.
HT: I'm happy to review
NDW: [cut off?]
<scribe> ACTION: HT to review Storing Data in Documents: The Design History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to review Storing Data in Documents: The Design History and Rationale for GRDDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action06]
DC: [can't type and
summarize]
... something like: next time a /robots.txt situation comes
around, I'd like to have something in place that's better than
a hard-coded name
CL: meanwhile, /robots.txt is quite useful.
VQ: any takers?
NDW: some interest, but not much bandwidth
DC: haven't have a "lightbulb" idea. prefer to leave it in the "someday" pile
DO: this came from a request from
the web services description WG...
... (1) when we come up with a component designator, is it
designating an abstract component, or a piece of syntax in the
WSDL doc?
... (2) [missed?]
... and the TAG said: (1) designates abstract component (2) we
discussed lots of options and said "yeah, the one in your WD is
OK"
( trying to confirm that we've approved this finding... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 )
HST: XML Schema work on component designators is relevant...
HT notes...
<ht> MSM reports Schema WG was not happy
<ht> HST hears DO saying that it doesn't actually answer the question, yet
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to volunteer to take this finding on, in a month or two
VQ: ok, so we are where we are.
DC: offshoot of issue 7
CL: there was some WEBDAV criticism in the discussion?
DC: yes, I think so
RF: perhaps it should be reassigned to me
<Roy> ACTION: Roy to prepare putMediaType-38 for further discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/22-tagmem-minutes#action07]
DanC: gee... can't remember the gist of this. let's wait 'till TimBL is around
<Roy> I am planning to work on URIGoodPractice-40 next week during TP when I can talk to DaveO
RF: related to abstractComponentRefs-37 ...
DO: in discussion of XPointer () stuff, I recall some criticism from RF, which spawned this issue
VQ: ok, that's it for today
ADJOURN.