17:08:33 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:08:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc 17:09:22 tbl struggles to confirm for 6sep... software... 17:09:37 VQ: agenda comments? 17:09:55 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/08/Aug232005.html 12 july minutes 17:10:02 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/08/30-agenda.html 17:10:22 VQ: I made a small change re attendance 12 July 17:10:30 Regrests for 6th Sept and 13th 17:10:30 RESOLVED to approve 12 July minutes 17:10:46 oops... 17:11:17 above is not 12 July but 23 Aug 17:11:31 RESOLVED to approve 12 July minutes. 17:11:49 HST regrets for 13 September 17:12:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/07/12-minutes.html minutes 12 July 17:12:34 VQ: upcoming telcons... grid... 17:13:14 Topic: Administrative (roll call, review of minutes, agenda) 17:13:21 Also, Regrets for 4th October 17:14:06 HT: still working on getting somebody from [missed] to our ftf 17:14:32 Also, regrets for 8 and (29 is AC meeting) November 17:15:06 Topic: Preparing agenda for Edinburgh f2f (20-22 Sep) 17:15:32 VQ: agenda page is in progress 17:15:57 VQ: meeting goals? our June meeting focussed on long-term plans... 17:16:51 VQ: perhaps try to close some issues this time? 17:17:25 ack danc 17:18:04 DanC: re authentication, I'm prepared to discuss, but not sure I'll get my writing assignment done 17:18:15 ... e.g. openid 17:18:30 HT: sounds plausible 17:19:14 HT: I have an XML 2005 paper in progress that's relevant to a number of issues/actions on languages/namespaces/etc. 17:19:22 [ooh... nice trick... a 2-fer] 17:19:46 ack danc 17:19:46 DanC, you wanted to ... re URI scheme and certain vendors 17:20:51 VQ: see also next item for today 17:21:52 DanC: maybe namespaceDocument-8... 17:22:10 Ed: let's review priorities from Jun ftf... 17:22:42 (looking at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/14-16-minutes.html ) 17:23:35 ... e.g. grid 17:23:56 DanC: seems like we had several lists; do you remember which one? 17:24:00 VQ: I think so 17:25:01 (er... agenda request or something? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14 still shows "no decision" ) 17:25:37 Topic: Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI Schemes 17:27:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Aug/0024.html 17:29:57 "The dav: scheme is a poor use of this valuable shared resource, and should not be used as a precedent." 17:31:29 PROPOSED: to send [0024] in the name of the TAG to [hmm... where, exactly?] 17:32:07 " Please send any comments to the 17:32:07 > iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-08-09." 17:32:16 Cc the authors, with cc: to uri@w3.org? 17:32:55 so RESOLVED. action timbl 17:32:58 ^ quoted from 17:32:58 > From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org On Behalf Of The IESG 17:32:58 > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:33 PM 17:32:58 > To: IETF-Announce 17:32:58 > Subject: Last Call: 'Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI 17:33:11 oops 17:34:06 rather, action HT 17:34:55 ACTION DanC: send individual comment on dav: to ietf 17:35:53 HT: reply to? 17:35:56 DanC: uri@w3.org 17:35:59 HT: copy www-tag? 17:36:02 TBL: yes 17:36:25 Topic: namespaceDocument-8 17:38:10 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0056.html Revisiting namespaceDocument-8 Norman Walsh (Friday, 24 June) 17:38:18 NDW: yes, there was some discussion... 17:38:37 ... (a) JB objects to GRDDL alone on the basis that it doesn't ensure human-readability 17:38:44 ... (b) [missed] 17:38:55 ack danc 17:38:55 DanC, you wanted to ask for a particular namespace to focus on... xquery? xml schema? hypothetical-ml? 17:39:32 http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema 17:39:32 RDDL 1: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml 17:39:41 RDDL 2: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl2.xml 17:41:41 DanC: yes, let's focus on http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema 17:42:01 HT: so which...? 17:42:36 NDW: backing up... we've considered alternatives to RDDL 1.0, but since then RDDL 1.0 deployment is becoming more and more substantial; e.g. microsoft... 17:42:55 ... and we have GRDDL that can work either way... 17:43:53 NDW: yes, 2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml is written in the dialect with large deployment 17:44:38 DanC: so is that "valid"? 17:44:49 HT: well, it's valid modular XHTML, but that's not supported by validat.w3.org 17:45:16 DanC: so text/xml by design? 17:45:40 NDW: well, I meant meant application/xhtml+xml 17:45:47 (try .htaccess, maybe) 17:46:28 $ HEAD 'http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml' 17:46:37 Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9 17:47:28 DanC: so which media types are preferred? acceptable? for RDDL, application/xhtml+xml ? is application/xml ok? 17:47:51 HT: I think the answer is the same as for XHTML. so no, not application/xml 17:49:06 HT: applicatin/xml is acceptable in some circumstances, e.g. when the client asks for it 17:50:12 http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation 17:50:56 http://www.rddl.org/purpose 17:51:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd 17:51:19 I get 404 @ http://www.rddl.org/purpose 17:51:50 4xx conflicts with "should make respresentation available". 2xx conflicts with our decision on httpRange-14 17:53:08 NDW: namespace names interact with deployed RDDL... 17:53:17 DanC: well, not necessarily the RDF output 17:53:22 NDW: right 17:54:19 DanC: so W3C namespace policy... could we have a W3C REC for RDDL that endorses http://www.rddl.org/purpose? 17:54:31 After some effort, hst concludes that norm's rddl1 example is identical the the existing XMLSchema namespace document plus GRDDL link, so, I will edit in those changes so the namespace doc't can be used for testing . . . 17:54:54 TimBL: ah... hmm... we'd need assurance that rddl.org has similar policies as w3.org; e.g. that if they go poof W3C could take it over. 17:55:25 ... not sure that's existing W3C policy yet 17:55:46 (checking http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri ...) 17:55:49 Note, ht, that my grddl XSL stylesheet has no normative weight so I think it may be premature to add it to the official Schema namespace 17:56:18 RDDL has no normative weight, but it's been at the namespace URI for years! 17:56:31 Fair enough 17:56:37 All this stuff is there to encourage experimentation, IMHO 17:57:16 "For Recommendation Track documents, the persistence policy for the namespace MUST use the template shown below." 17:59:31 several: seems quite reasonable to keep rddl.org in the namespace name, though yes, W3C policy as written conflicts with that so far. 18:00:26 VQ: this reminds me of "Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc" action from http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04 18:00:34 TimBL: yes, that's in progress... 18:01:22 http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri 18:01:28 That is Ian's latest draft 18:01:45 v 1.25 2005/08/18 15:08:07 18:02:35 TimBL: see esp new material in 4. Namespace Changes over Time 18:03:18 ack danc 18:03:18 DanC, you wanted to say I think I'm in sync with ndw's draft on ns8 18:04:54 DanC: I wonder about depending on other than text/html ... 18:07:01 e.g. http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view 18:07:43 .. [missed...] 18:07:55 HT: RDDL 1.0 supports DTD-based validation... 18:08:24 DanC: I could do class/rel stuff ala microformats... with relax-ng if you like 18:09:04 NDW: JB suggests RDDL 1.0 or the attribute-based thing... 18:09:23 HT: if we have the GRDDL wildcard, do we need another RDDL dialect besides 1.0? 18:09:24 DanC: no 18:09:43 Ed agrees.. we dont need 2.0 18:10:17 NDW: so RDDL 1.0, or other human-readable with GRDDL [that's what I wanted to hear; not sure that's what he said] 18:10:52 ACTION DanC: draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng 18:11:44 ACTION NDW: follow-up on namespaceDocument-8, based on DanC's vanilla XHTML example 18:12:44 VQ: plan to close at the ftf? or take more time? 18:13:13 NDW: well, provided we get the writing and the feedback, let's try to close it. but there's considerable risk in that schedule 18:13:15 DanC: yeah. 18:13:32 . 18:13:33 . 18:13:42 Topic: Reviewing a few pending actions 18:14:01 ACTION Tim: to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc [continues] 18:14:14 no news on David Orchard to contextualize his scenarios ... 18:14:25 yeah... errata and issues.html#14 18:14:52 VQ: done? HT: prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion 18:15:06 HT: that was for the previous [June] ftf 18:15:36 HT: hmm... I need to check back with the XML Schema WG about pointing to the p element, but as for this action, pls consider it closed. 18:15:37 VQ: very well 18:15:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/proposed-errata.html 18:16:39 DC: httpRange-14 isn't closed in the issues list... 18:16:54 VQ: yes, that's straightforward for me to fix 18:17:28 q+ to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than message-ids 18:18:15 ack DanC 18:18:15 DanC, you wanted to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than message-ids 18:18:53 ACTION: Norm to find better numbers for the errata 18:21:05 PROPOSED: to acknowledge that Typo in Status , Typo in Status, Missing anchor messages report actual problems 18:21:12 so RESOLVED. 18:21:17 ACTION: Norm ot produce an erratum document 18:21:21 I note that the Schema WG has agreed that they will distinguish between errata and corrigenda, henceforth 18:22:13 I minuted errata as "problem". they're synonyms, yes? 18:22:37 -Ht 18:22:46 NDW: I'm willing to scribe next week. 18:22:56 VQ: if I can't find Roy, then yes, please. 18:23:16 -TimBL 18:23:17 -Norm 18:23:19 -DanC 18:23:20 -Ed 18:23:22 -Vincent 18:23:24 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended 18:23:26 Attendees were Norm, Ed, Ht, TimBL, Tayeb/JeffB, Vincent, DanC 18:29:04 RRSAgent, pointer? 18:29:04 See http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc#T18-29-04 18:32:43 Dan, don't forget to make the log readable 18:35:11 errata are the bugs/problems, some of which get corrigenda, that is, fixes 20:31:14 Zakim has left #tagmem 20:41:15 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 22:26:42 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 23:16:32 Norm has joined #tagmem 23:26:50 Nope, resorts to email. 23:53:02 timbl_ has joined #tagmem