IRC log of tagmem on 2005-04-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:25 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tagmem

16:59:25 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/19-tagmem-irc

16:59:31 [Norm]

We'll be thin on the ground, take it up with the chair :-)

17:00:19 [DanC]

thin on the ground... yeah... if all the potential regrets turn into actual regrets, we'll have to be unanimous, among those on the phone, to adopt my new issue

17:00:22 [Roy]

Roy has joined #tagmem

17:00:38 [Zakim]

TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started

17:00:45 [Zakim]

+Norm

17:01:34 [Zakim]

+[INRIA]

17:01:38 [Zakim]

+Roy

17:02:06 [Roy]

Scribe: Roy

17:02:35 [Zakim]

+ +1.804.740.aaaa

17:03:16 [Ed]

Ed has joined #tagmem

17:03:30 [Vincent]

Zakim, [INRIA} is Vincent

17:03:30 [Zakim]

sorry, Vincent, I do not recognize a party named '[INRIA}'

17:03:40 [Zakim]

+Dave_Orchard

17:03:46 [Roy]

Chair: Vincent

17:04:09 [dorchard]

dorchard has joined #tagmem

17:04:30 [Roy]

NM: I will scribe next week

17:04:46 [Zakim]

+??P1

17:04:51 [Zakim]

+DanC

17:05:25 [Roy]

Zakim, who is here

17:05:25 [Zakim]

Roy, you need to end that query with '?'

17:05:28 [Vincent]

Zakim, who is here

17:05:28 [Zakim]

Vincent, you need to end that query with '?'

17:05:29 [DanC]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

17:05:30 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Norm, [INRIA], Roy, +1.804.740.aaaa, Dave_Orchard, ??P1, DanC

17:05:31 [Ed]

Ed has joined #tagmem

17:05:56 [Roy]

Topic: Roll Call

17:06:38 [Roy]

DC: we haven't published anything in a while

17:06:53 [Roy]

DC: a working draft sort of thing

17:07:07 [dorchard]

possible regrets, may be on a plane

17:07:11 [Roy]

DC: regrets for next week

17:08:11 [Roy]

Vincent: Accept the minutes of 12 April telcon

17:08:22 [Roy]

[no objections]

17:08:59 [Roy]

Topic: New issue? Squatting on link relationship names, x-tokens, registries, and URI-based extensibility

17:09:16 [Roy]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0033.html

17:09:37 [Roy]

DC: it would be great if they used a URI, but they don't

17:09:49 [Roy]

DC: unlear if this is a new issue or an old one

17:09:57 [Roy]

s/unlear/unclear

17:10:54 [Roy]

VQ: Can it be addressed in the context of one of the existing issues [missed which ones]

17:11:25 [Roy]

VQ: preferencce for issue 41

17:12:00 [Roy]

NM: 41 carries too much baggage already, perhaps 9 (no)

17:12:29 [Roy]

NW: perhaps if it is hard to find the issue, it deserves a new one

17:12:32 [DanC]

"The decision to identify XML namespaces with URIs was an architectural mistake that has caused much suffering for XML users and needless complexity for XML tools. "

17:13:00 [DanC]

ack danc

17:13:00 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to note http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/13/namespace-uris.html

17:13:11 [Roy]

DC: it seems we have failed to convince at least one person

17:13:37 [Roy]

VQ: inclined to proceed with a new issue

17:13:41 [DanC]

issue makingNewTerms ...

17:13:49 [Roy]

RF: okay by me

17:13:59 [DanC]

issue linkRelationshipNames

17:14:15 [Roy]

DC: trying to think up a name

17:15:06 [Norm]

Interestingly Atom "gets this right" AFAICS. "foo" => http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/foo

17:15:37 [Roy]

NM: preamble about media types would indicate relationship to issue 9, but I guess that was just a lead in -- we should be clearer that this is about the short name issue

17:15:58 [Roy]

q+

17:16:21 [Roy]

VQ: just link relationships, or broader?

17:16:38 [Roy]

NW: would prefer broader issue of short names

17:17:02 [Roy]

no dead typing

17:17:36 [DanC]

standarizedAttributeValues

17:17:38 [DanC]

hmm

17:17:41 [Roy]

RF: standardized attribute names in content

17:17:56 [Roy]

RF: right, Values is better

17:18:56 [DanC]

standarizedFieldValues

17:19:11 [Roy]

RF: I meant attribute values in general, not just in XML syntax

17:19:26 [Roy]

standardizedFieldValues

17:19:41 [DanC]

works for me

17:20:02 [Norm]

Works for me

17:20:06 [Roy]

[no objections]

17:21:12 [Roy]

RESOLVED: new issue standardizedFieldValues-51

17:23:07 [Roy]

DC: does anyone else think they should use URIs?

17:23:41 [Roy]

RF: like the IANA-based registry used by Atom relationships

17:25:18 [Roy]

DC: what does it mean to add a relation name? Can they be a URI? How do you get an IANA name?

17:25:25 [Norm]

I suppose someone should define the mechanism for adding to the registry, writing an RFC maybe?

17:25:46 [Roy]

DC: suppose I just introduce a short name

17:26:11 [Roy]

NM: is it formally defined as a relative URI?

17:27:13 [Roy]

RF: it is formally defined as a suffix of the IANA base URI if the value is not already a URI

17:28:03 [Roy]

ACTION: DanC to introduce new issue standardizedFieldValues-51

17:28:59 [DanC]

(hmm... "standardized" is perhaps narrower than I'd like, but no matter)

17:28:59 [Roy]

VQ: shall we wait and see the feedback from the introduction before continuing?

17:29:03 [Roy]

[agree]

17:29:33 [Roy]

Topic: Close issue xmlIDSemantics-32?

17:30:05 [Roy]

NW: CR was published, in the process of implementation reports

17:30:24 [Roy]

NW: inclined to continue this until PR

17:31:20 [Roy]

DC: looking at how this impacts other (existing) specs and what tests are needed

17:32:06 [Roy]

DC: trying to address concern about W3C having many individual specs that don't always work well together

17:32:48 [Roy]

DC: for example, Chris looked at this and provided examples where various specs (like CSS) should be updated/revised to reflect the change

17:34:24 [Roy]

NW: I don't think it would be appropriate for CSS to say anything about xml:id because the current [algorithm?] will pick up the new id automatically because it starts with the infoset

17:35:26 [Roy]

NM: I think both views of this are right, there is a case to be said that the infoset way is architecturally better

17:36:09 [Roy]

NM: OTOH, Dan is right as well and we need to provide [details missing]

17:36:32 [Roy]

NW: agrees in general

17:37:56 [Roy]

ACTION: Norm to raise the issue of synchronizing xml:id with CSS spec to Core WG

17:37:58 [Norm]

ACTION: NW to point out to the Core WG that it would be good to get the CSS working group to buy into xml:id

17:38:42 [DanC]

(the corresponding concern applies to xpath etc.)

17:38:53 [Roy]

VQ: I guess we can conclude that we should not close the issue? Do we agree?

17:40:08 [Roy]

DC: yes, but would like to hear from other TAG members

17:40:46 [Roy]

NW: Xpath 2 has cupport for xml:id construction, Xpath 1 can support it providing that it starts with an infoset

17:41:20 [Roy]

DC: surprised, so that means something that used to conform will no longer conform?

17:41:40 [Roy]

NW: both still conform

17:41:54 [Zakim]

-Norm

17:41:57 [Zakim]

+Norm

17:44:17 [Roy]

[technical discussion of XML processing continues by NW, NM, DC]

17:46:43 [Roy]

q?

17:46:47 [Roy]

q-

17:51:00 [Roy]

VQ: let's get back to the specific issue at hand

17:51:11 [DanC]

(http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/#impact )

17:51:46 [Roy]

DC: I would like for this section C to have a test case prior to going into effect

17:52:09 [Roy]

NW: would like Dan to send mail to public-xml to that effect

17:54:05 [Roy]

NW: I don't know how to construct a test for CSS, but the introduction of xml:id does not change historical documents and its presence will be ignored by parsers ignorant of xml:id. The CSS spec doesn't need to say anything about that.

17:55:30 [Roy]

VQ: suggest revisiting this after Norm completes action ... is there any other spec beyond CSS that are impacted?

17:55:37 [Roy]

DC: six specs are listed

17:56:11 [Roy]

VQ: let's move on

17:56:24 [Roy]

Topic: Review of XRI documents

17:56:52 [Roy]

VQ; Henry is not here, but can Ed provide his feedback?

17:57:20 [Roy]

Ed: I sent HT some feedback this morning but haven't heard back yet

17:57:37 [Roy]

Ed: (my delay)

17:57:59 [Roy]

VQ: we need to reply to the WG by the end of this month

17:58:17 [Roy]

VQ: and work on a longer document

17:59:19 [Roy]

Ed: HT is working on the longer document ... after feedback, will have a better idea how to proceed toward sending comments to WG

18:00:00 [Roy]

VQ: should we prepare something specific for the XRI team?

18:00:20 [Roy]

Ed: yes, they deserve a direct feedback as opposed to a general reference

18:00:54 [Roy]

RF: agree on direct response (as well as later general document)

18:01:18 [Roy]

VQ: running out of time, do we have time to make a TAG decision?

18:02:10 [Roy]

DC: we already have general feedback in the form of the webarch doc

18:04:38 [Roy]

DO: we need to take a look at the examples given and explain how we can solve those problems using URI, HTTP, etc.

18:05:25 [DanC]

q+ to propose: 1. XRI follows the pattern of an administrative hierarchy of delegation ending with a path, 2. http/dns handle that case, and is ubiquitously deployed 3. new URI schemes should not be introduced when existing schemes handle them 4. ergo XRI should not be introduced.

18:05:40 [Roy]

DO: on my blog, I got comments about change of ownership of a domain and broke it down into examples

18:05:56 [Vincent]

ack DanC

18:05:56 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to propose: 1. XRI follows the pattern of an administrative hierarchy of delegation ending with a path, 2. http/dns handle that case, and is ubiquitously deployed

18:05:59 [Zakim]

... 3. new URI schemes should not be introduced when existing schemes handle them 4. ergo XRI should not be introduced.

18:06:00 [Roy]

DO: that show how the points can be responded to

18:06:27 [dorchard]

q+

18:06:40 [Vincent]

ack dorchard

18:07:03 [Roy]

DC: wonder what parts of the argument would fail to convince

18:07:05 [DanC]

DO: what's not established is "http/dns handle that case"

18:08:39 [Roy]

DO: they wrote a document that shows (in their mind) why 2) is not the case. What we need to do is come up with examples that show an alternative interpretation/solution to the examples they provided in the documents.

18:08:57 [Roy]

DC: did their writing convince you?

18:09:17 [Roy]

DO: it did give me pause to wonder about the two scenarios already mentioned

18:10:02 [Roy]

Ed: most cases of domain change can be handled by redirects

18:10:46 [DanC]

dorchard, did you mail something to www-tag on this item?

18:11:36 [Roy]

NM: is it obvious to people on this call that redirect is something that we can point to for longevity of URIs?

18:11:57 [Zakim]

- +1.804.740.aaaa

18:12:02 [Roy]

DC: yes, one of the many reasons why HTTP is better for this type of thing

18:12:37 [Zakim]

+ +1.804.740.aabb

18:12:53 [Roy]

DC: I am willing to try to make that case (am writing a related article)

18:13:08 [dorchard]

try http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog

18:13:46 [Roy]

VQ: can you do that such that we have something to approve next week?

18:13:52 [DanC]

(my target is now end of day weds)

18:14:09 [DanC]

(I see http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/04/19/dns_changes_dont_break_http_uris )

18:14:27 [dorchard]

http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/04/11/why_http_uris_are_better_than_urns_and_even_id_uris_for_identifiers

18:14:39 [DanC]

rogrer. tx

18:15:08 [DanC]

ACTION DanC: elaborate on "http/dns handle the case of an administrative hierarchy followed by a path"

18:15:09 [Roy]

DO: above are links to related blog entries

18:16:23 [Roy]

Ed: we should be able to have enough material to reply next week

18:16:37 [Roy]

Topic: <html><body></body></html>

18:16:48 [Roy]

Topic: Review of Binary XML documents

18:17:59 [DanC]

sounds like ed's action continues

18:18:11 [Roy]

Ed: I have this afternoon set aside for this

18:19:04 [Roy]

Ed: should it be in finding form or just an email?

18:19:27 [Roy]

NM: perhaps less formality is desired for a response to a WG

18:19:31 [Roy]

Ed: agree

18:19:52 [Roy]

Topic: Reviewing WS-Addressing Core and SOAP Binding

18:20:43 [Roy]

http://www.w3.org/2005/03/29-tagmem-minutes.html#item03

18:21:35 [Roy]

DC: endPointRefs-47

18:21:38 [DanC]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#endPointRefs-47

18:22:04 [Roy]

DC: suppose we just withdrew this from our list?

18:22:43 [Ed]

Ed has joined #tagmem

18:23:33 [Roy]

NM: what about the general concern that they are using something other than URIs for general identity?

18:25:34 [Roy]

NM: what WSA did was remove the distinction that indicated a parameter was being used for identity, but they didn't remove the mechanism itself. Some people still use that feature for the purpose of identification.

18:26:19 [DanC]

q+ to note my struggles reviewing WS-addressing... can anybody sketch a test scenario? how can I tell if a hunk of software is doing ws-addressing right or not?

18:27:06 [Roy]

DC: similar to cookies in that WSA does not prevent the use of those fields for the sake of passing identifying data

18:27:23 [Roy]

DC: but not all such fields are used in that way

18:27:58 [DanC]

s/DC: similar/DO: similar/

18:28:05 [DanC]

s/DC: but/DO: but/

18:28:18 [DanC]

(hmm... [[ WS-Addressing is conformant to the SOAP 1.2 [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework] processing model ...]] )

18:29:42 [Roy]

NM: I think these questions are still present, and though not directly tied to this issue it may be our last chance to deal with non-URI addressing

18:29:50 [Roy]

VQ: out of time

18:30:52 [Zakim]

-Norm

18:31:02 [Zakim]

-Dave_Orchard

18:31:10 [Roy]

ADJOURNED

18:31:14 [Zakim]

- +1.804.740.aabb

18:31:15 [Zakim]

-DanC

18:31:16 [Zakim]

-??P1

18:31:17 [Zakim]

-[INRIA]

18:31:26 [Zakim]

-Roy

18:31:27 [Zakim]

TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended

18:31:28 [Zakim]

Attendees were Norm, [INRIA], Roy, +1.804.740.aaaa, Dave_Orchard, DanC, +1.804.740.aabb

18:31:38 [Roy]

rrsagent, pointer?

18:31:38 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2005/04/19-tagmem-irc#T18-31-38

18:31:53 [DanC]

RRSAgent, make logs world-access

18:32:18 [DanC]

do you want it to draft HTML minutes, roy?

18:32:25 [Roy]

I can do it

18:32:29 [DanC]

ok

19:31:32 [dorchard]

dorchard has joined #tagmem

20:51:48 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #tagmem