IRC log of tagmem on 2005-08-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:08:33 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tagmem

17:08:33 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc

17:09:22 [DanC]

tbl struggles to confirm for 6sep... software...

17:09:37 [DanC]

VQ: agenda comments?

17:09:55 [DanC]

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/08/Aug232005.html 12 july minutes

17:10:02 [Ed]

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/08/30-agenda.html

17:10:22 [DanC]

VQ: I made a small change re attendance 12 July

17:10:30 [timbl_]

Regrests for 6th Sept and 13th

17:10:30 [DanC]

RESOLVED to approve 12 July minutes

17:10:46 [DanC]

oops...

17:11:17 [DanC]

above is not 12 July but 23 Aug

17:11:31 [DanC]

RESOLVED to approve 12 July minutes.

17:11:49 [ht]

HST regrets for 13 September

17:12:01 [DanC]

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/07/12-minutes.html minutes 12 July

17:12:34 [DanC]

VQ: upcoming telcons... grid...

17:13:14 [DanC]

Topic: Administrative (roll call, review of minutes, agenda)

17:13:21 [timbl_]

Also, Regrets for 4th October

17:14:06 [DanC]

HT: still working on getting somebody from [missed] to our ftf

17:14:32 [timbl_]

Also, regrets for 8 and (29 is AC meeting) November

17:15:06 [DanC]

Topic: Preparing agenda for Edinburgh f2f (20-22 Sep)

17:15:32 [DanC]

VQ: agenda page is in progress

17:15:57 [DanC]

VQ: meeting goals? our June meeting focussed on long-term plans...

17:16:51 [DanC]

VQ: perhaps try to close some issues this time?

17:17:25 [Vincent]

ack danc

17:18:04 [DanC]

DanC: re authentication, I'm prepared to discuss, but not sure I'll get my writing assignment done

17:18:15 [DanC]

... e.g. openid

17:18:30 [DanC]

HT: sounds plausible

17:19:14 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

[ooh... nice trick... a 2-fer]

17:19:46 [Vincent]

ack danc

17:19:46 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to ... re URI scheme and certain vendors

17:20:51 [DanC]

VQ: see also next item for today

17:21:52 [DanC]

DanC: maybe namespaceDocument-8...

17:22:10 [DanC]

Ed: let's review priorities from Jun ftf...

17:22:42 [DanC]

(looking at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/14-16-minutes.html )

17:23:35 [DanC]

... e.g. grid

17:23:56 [DanC]

DanC: seems like we had several lists; do you remember which one?

17:24:00 [DanC]

VQ: I think so

17:25:01 [DanC]

(er... agenda request or something? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14 still shows "no decision" )

17:25:37 [DanC]

Topic: Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI Schemes

17:27:12 [timbl_]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Aug/0024.html

17:29:57 [DanC]

"The dav: scheme is a poor use of this valuable shared resource, and should not be used as a precedent."

17:31:29 [DanC]

PROPOSED: to send [0024] in the name of the TAG to [hmm... where, exactly?]

17:32:07 [DanC]

" Please send any comments to the

17:32:07 [DanC]

> iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-08-09."

17:32:16 [timbl_]

Cc the authors, with cc: to uri@w3.org?

17:32:55 [DanC]

so RESOLVED. action timbl

17:32:58 [DanC]

^ quoted from

17:32:58 [DanC]

> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org On Behalf Of The IESG

17:32:58 [DanC]

> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:33 PM

17:32:58 [DanC]

> To: IETF-Announce

17:32:58 [DanC]

> Subject: Last Call: 'Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI

17:33:11 [DanC]

oops

17:34:06 [DanC]

rather, action HT

17:34:55 [DanC]

ACTION DanC: send individual comment on dav: to ietf

17:35:53 [DanC]

HT: reply to?

17:35:56 [DanC]

DanC: uri@w3.org

17:35:59 [DanC]

HT: copy www-tag?

17:36:02 [DanC]

TBL: yes

17:36:25 [DanC]

Topic: namespaceDocument-8

17:38:10 [DanC]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0056.html Revisiting namespaceDocument-8 Norman Walsh (Friday, 24 June)

17:38:18 [DanC]

NDW: yes, there was some discussion...

17:38:37 [DanC]

... (a) JB objects to GRDDL alone on the basis that it doesn't ensure human-readability

17:38:44 [DanC]

... (b) [missed]

17:38:55 [DanC]

ack danc

17:38:55 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to ask for a particular namespace to focus on... xquery? xml schema? hypothetical-ml?

17:39:32 [ht]

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema

17:39:32 [Norm]

RDDL 1: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml

17:39:41 [Norm]

RDDL 2: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl2.xml

17:41:41 [DanC]

DanC: yes, let's focus on http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema

17:42:01 [DanC]

HT: so which...?

17:42:36 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

... and we have GRDDL that can work either way...

17:43:53 [DanC]

NDW: yes, 2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml is written in the dialect with large deployment

17:44:38 [DanC]

DanC: so is that "valid"?

17:44:49 [DanC]

HT: well, it's valid modular XHTML, but that's not supported by validat.w3.org

17:45:16 [DanC]

DanC: so text/xml by design?

17:45:40 [DanC]

NDW: well, I meant meant application/xhtml+xml

17:45:47 [DanC]

(try .htaccess, maybe)

17:46:28 [DanC]

$ HEAD 'http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml'

17:46:37 [DanC]

Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9

17:47:28 [DanC]

DanC: so which media types are preferred? acceptable? for RDDL, application/xhtml+xml ? is application/xml ok?

17:47:51 [DanC]

HT: I think the answer is the same as for XHTML. so no, not application/xml

17:49:06 [DanC]

HT: applicatin/xml is acceptable in some circumstances, e.g. when the client asks for it

17:50:12 [Norm]

http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation

17:50:56 [Norm]

http://www.rddl.org/purpose

17:51:02 [DanC]

<ns0:purpose xmlns:ns0="http://www.rddl.org/"

17:51:06 [Norm]

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd

17:51:19 [DanC]

I get 404 @ http://www.rddl.org/purpose

17:51:50 [DanC]

4xx conflicts with "should make respresentation available". 2xx conflicts with our decision on httpRange-14

17:53:08 [DanC]

NDW: namespace names interact with deployed RDDL...

17:53:17 [DanC]

DanC: well, not necessarily the RDF output

17:53:22 [DanC]

NDW: right

17:54:19 [DanC]

DanC: so W3C namespace policy... could we have a W3C REC for RDDL that endorses http://www.rddl.org/purpose?

17:54:31 [ht]

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 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

... not sure that's existing W3C policy yet

17:55:46 [DanC]

(checking http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri ...)

17:55:49 [Norm]

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 [ht]

RDDL has no normative weight, but it's been at the namespace URI for years!

17:56:31 [Norm]

Fair enough

17:56:37 [ht]

All this stuff is there to encourage experimentation, IMHO

17:57:16 [DanC]

"For Recommendation Track documents, the persistence policy for the namespace MUST use the template shown below."

17:59:31 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

TimBL: yes, that's in progress...

18:01:22 [timbl_]

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri

18:01:28 [timbl_]

That is Ian's latest draft

18:01:45 [DanC]

v 1.25 2005/08/18 15:08:07

18:02:35 [DanC]

TimBL: see esp new material in 4. Namespace Changes over Time

18:03:18 [Vincent]

ack danc

18:03:18 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to say I think I'm in sync with ndw's draft on ns8

18:04:54 [DanC]

DanC: I wonder about depending on other than text/html ...

18:07:01 [DanC]

e.g. http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view

18:07:43 [DanC]

.. [missed...]

18:07:55 [DanC]

HT: RDDL 1.0 supports DTD-based validation...

18:08:24 [DanC]

DanC: I could do class/rel stuff ala microformats... with relax-ng if you like

18:09:04 [DanC]

NDW: JB suggests RDDL 1.0 or the attribute-based thing...

18:09:23 [DanC]

HT: if we have the GRDDL wildcard, do we need another RDDL dialect besides 1.0?

18:09:24 [DanC]

DanC: no

18:09:43 [Ed]

Ed agrees.. we dont need 2.0

18:10:17 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

ACTION DanC: draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng

18:11:44 [DanC]

ACTION NDW: follow-up on namespaceDocument-8, based on DanC's vanilla XHTML example

18:12:44 [DanC]

VQ: plan to close at the ftf? or take more time?

18:13:13 [DanC]

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]

DanC: yeah.

18:13:32 [DanC]

.

18:13:33 [DanC]

.

18:13:42 [DanC]

Topic: Reviewing a few pending actions

18:14:01 [DanC]

ACTION Tim: to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc [continues]

18:14:14 [DanC]

no news on David Orchard to contextualize his scenarios ...

18:14:25 [DanC]

yeah... errata and issues.html#14

18:14:52 [DanC]

VQ: done? HT: prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion

18:15:06 [DanC]

HT: that was for the previous [June] ftf

18:15:36 [DanC]

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 [DanC]

VQ: very well

18:15:59 [Norm]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/proposed-errata.html

18:16:39 [DanC]

DC: httpRange-14 isn't closed in the issues list...

18:16:54 [DanC]

VQ: yes, that's straightforward for me to fix

18:17:28 [DanC]

q+ to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than message-ids

18:18:15 [Vincent]

ack DanC

18:18:15 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than message-ids

18:18:53 [Norm]

ACTION: Norm to find better numbers for the errata

18:21:05 [DanC]

PROPOSED: to acknowledge that Typo in Status , Typo in Status, Missing anchor messages report actual problems

18:21:12 [DanC]

so RESOLVED.

18:21:17 [Norm]

ACTION: Norm ot produce an erratum document

18:21:21 [ht]

I note that the Schema WG has agreed that they will distinguish between errata and corrigenda, henceforth

18:22:13 [DanC]

I minuted errata as "problem". they're synonyms, yes?

18:22:37 [Zakim]

-Ht

18:22:46 [DanC]

NDW: I'm willing to scribe next week.

18:22:56 [DanC]

VQ: if I can't find Roy, then yes, please.

18:23:16 [Zakim]

-TimBL

18:23:17 [Zakim]

-Norm

18:23:19 [Zakim]

-DanC

18:23:20 [Zakim]

-Ed

18:23:22 [Zakim]

-Vincent

18:23:24 [Zakim]

TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended

18:23:26 [Zakim]

Attendees were Norm, Ed, Ht, TimBL, Tayeb/JeffB, Vincent, DanC

18:29:04 [Vincent]

RRSAgent, pointer?

18:29:04 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc#T18-29-04

18:32:43 [Vincent]

Dan, don't forget to make the log readable

18:35:11 [ht_not_at_desk]

errata are the bugs/problems, some of which get corrigenda, that is, fixes

20:31:14 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #tagmem

20:41:15 [DanC]

RRSAgent, make logs world-access

22:26:42 [timbl_]

timbl_ has joined #tagmem

23:16:32 [Norm]

Norm has joined #tagmem

23:26:50 [Norm]

Nope, resorts to email.

23:53:02 [timbl_]

timbl_ has joined #tagmem