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