08:11:16 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 08:11:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/09/21-tagmem-irc 08:11:55 Roy has joined #tagmem 08:11:58 Meeting: W3C TAG Morning of 21 Sep 08:12:04 Scribe: Norm 08:12:05 ScribeNick: Norm 08:12:10 Regrets: Ed 08:12:16 Chair: Vincent 08:14:41 Topic: 3.4 Issues List Cleanup 08:15:14 Vincent: identified about a dozen issues that look like they're in a questionable status 08:15:39 ...we're just going to see what the state is, not spend a lot of time on any of them 08:15:53 ...HTTPSubstrate-16? 08:16:26 ...12 May 2004, deferred 08:16:33 Roy: Updated in Boston? 08:17:19 timbl: Action was on Roy to write something; that action was dropped on 10 Aug 2004 08:18:01 Roy: Area directors said, if you think the RFC applies, it does. If you say it doesn't, it doesn't. 08:18:19 noah_away has joined #tagmem 08:19:44 timbl: Let's update the issue to point to this discussion and leave it deferred 08:19:55 ...if we're going to check some things, we should leave them open 08:20:45 Vincent has joined #tagmem 08:20:50 ... and check them periodically 08:21:04 Vincent: xlinkScope-23? 08:21:50 ...status is unclear. Per transition history, it's still open, but on 27 Mar 2005 DanC asserted it was closed in Basel 08:22:17 ht: There's new information here, we've published a first WD of XLink 1.1. 08:24:27 ht: there are three branches to the criticism: (1) you can't have two linking attributes on the same element; (2) you have to use the namespace on the attribute; and (3) you have to have two attributes: xlink:type and xlink:href 08:24:32 ...We've fixed (3) in XLink 1.1. 08:25:35 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag#htxl 08:25:36 Norm: I think the paragraph in 4.5.2 of WebArch V1 closes this issue 08:25:46 General agreement 08:26:35 Vincent: contentPresentatio-26? 08:26:46 s/tatio-/tation/ 08:27:03 ...last action was on Chris to draft a finding, which was done 08:27:20 ...but it's clearly a draft 08:27:36 Norm: I think 4.3 of WebArch V1 closes this issue 08:28:42 Vincent: I don't think there's anything in the finding that isn't in WebArch, it's just presented differently 08:29:11 timbl: I agree we can close the issue, I wonder if the draft finding should be taken off the list of drafts and move it to a list of historical findings 08:29:25 ...or ask Chris if he'd be willing to finish it in his spare time 08:31:09 ACTION: Vincent to ask Chris if he's interested in finishing it, in which case we'll review it, or if he's content to have it moved to an "historical documents" section 08:31:42 Vincent: IRIEverywhere-27 08:32:01 ...last discussion in May 2004 08:32:33 Roy: we should add links to the finished IRI spec (RFC 3987) 08:32:52 Roy: the original question was, should XML use IRI? Now that it has a definition that's been agreed upon, yes, they should 08:33:04 Noah asks about the direction Schema chose 08:33:34 ht: Schema decided not to rename anyURI, but we agreed it should be used for IRIs now 08:33:46 timbl: because it's not constrained? 08:33:53 ht: right, the constraints are insufficient to interefere with IRI 08:34:36 ...general consensus was that the constraints were more trouble than they're worth 08:35:15 ...discussion in the Schema WG ensued...the WG decided to back out all syntactic checking of anyURI 08:35:37 ...anyURI is a synonym for string that you use to document your intent. Applications are allowed to do what they want after validity assessment 08:35:47 timbl: that's clear when it comes to schema. 08:36:00 ...there were two parts, what to do about the fact that it isn't an RFC? 08:36:02 ...that's been fixed 08:36:09 ...and should we encourage folks to use them 08:36:35 ht: but beware of the security constraints (phishing attempts) 08:37:01 noah: we could clarify a point of confusion in that http doesn't use IRI 08:37:15 Roy: but that's not a confusion; http doesn't use href attributes either 08:37:37 noah: it's a potentially confusing that they aren't IRI on the wire 08:38:08 Roy: but that's true now, the toolbar doesn't send what you type now, it adds the http:// part, changes spaces, etc. 08:39:25 Roy: the issues is named IRIEverywhere, but the real question was in XML. In XML and HTML, I think they should use it. The focus there should be on making I18N content easy to use 08:39:44 ...web servers don't *want* IRI, it gives them lots of new names for the same resource 08:40:33 noah: I'm speculating that it might be worth it for the TAG to set down basically what Roy just said. You might think that URIs are all historical accidents now, but that's not true, it's intentional that there are two layers here. 08:40:54 ...I don't feel invested enough to say for sure that we should do it, but it looks like a possibility 08:42:12 http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html 08:43:01 Some discussion of mappings and identity in URI/IRI 08:47:22 Summary of conclusion: We should deprecate passing IRIs in non-canonical form (As we have for URIs). Also we should change the namespace spec as it is inconsistent with reality of different equivalent URIs. But there are more things in the conclusion 08:50:13 Norm: Getting agreement that you *should* use canonical forms for namespace URIs and you *should not* use two different spellings for the same thing is probably pretty easy. It'll be trickier to get agreement on how much canonicalization you have to do 08:51:39 noah: I thought a compromise had been reached that for things like namespaces, we'd do "equal/not equal" so that we had interoperability, etc. 08:52:13 ...this means you can have two attributes with namespace names that are the same under some other comparison rules 08:52:35 timbl: you can never say that two things are different, you can only tell if they're the same 08:53:02 ...it says that if you use two different URIs for the namespace name that look different but are the same, it's ok 08:53:13 ...what it should say is that it doesn't catch that error, it may still be an error 08:53:37 noah: it doesn't define ok, it just makes two piles, valid and not valid 08:54:02 Norm: timbl seems to be suggesting a new class "not invalid" and we don't have 08:54:43 Tim: No, I'm not 08:55:00 http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#dt-identical 08:55:27 s/http/Let's see what Namespaces 1.1 actually says, http/ 08:56:19 ht: I don't think there's a bug here 08:56:29 timbl: supposing I write a parser which canonicalizes? 08:56:38 ht: then it isn't Namespaces 1.1 conformant 08:56:58 timbl: then I think that's a problem because canonicalization is useful 08:57:19 ...canonicalization is something that a library might do 08:57:30 From: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#uniqAttrs 08:57:33 ...and if we're recommending C14N then it's a good thing to do 08:57:40 In XML documents conforming to this specification, no tag may contain two attributes which: 08:57:41 have identical names, or 08:57:41 have qualified names with the same local part and with prefixes which have been bound to namespace names that are identical. 08:58:16 Roy: what this document says is that you can't do that C14N 09:00:07 noah: that's what this spec says, I don't see any reason why we couldn't define another layer with a different spec that asserted more agressive checks 09:00:53 ht: the IRI spec itself blesses this in 5.x.x 09:01:12 Roy: that's ok, but the false statement is in the examples in 2.3 of Namespaces 1.1 09:02:22 Roy: It's wrong to say that these URIs are different for purposes of identifying namespaces 09:02:54 ...IRIs don't identify different things depending on the context in which they're used 09:03:22 ht: I'm pretty sure "identifying" here is intended to refer to the word "idnetical" above although it's open to the broader interpretation Roy made 09:04:06 Roy: it would be better if it said it isn't necessary to C14N the strings, but if a user does that, it's a user error. 09:04:10 ht: that's a real substantive change 09:04:28 noah: it's very important to me that the spec define the same behavior for all implementations 09:05:10 ...we have to say that all implementations must do this or must not, what you can't do is open up the interop holes 09:06:21 Roy: I'll accept the notion that it's desirable not to get user problem reports, I don't think there's any situation where all software will give the same behavior in the case of user error 09:06:36 Bug: 'To conform to this specification, a processor MUST report violations of namespace well-formedness, with the exception that it is not REQUIRED to check that namespace names are legal IRIs." 09:07:02 Noah continues to extole the virtues of string compare for interop 09:07:05 Should be 'To conform to this specification, a namespace-validating processor MUST report violations of namespace well-formedness, with the exception that it is not REQUIRED to check that namespace names are legal IRIs." 09:08:31 timbl: asks about using two Xlink attributes 09:09:05 ht: one of them, and only one of them, is character-for-character the same as the character-for-character string that defines the XLink namesapce 09:09:24 ht: calling them URIs was a mistake and calling them IRIs now is a mistake. It's a convenient fiction that htey are URIs 09:10:01 timbl: I agree from the point of view of XML processing, you can treat them as strings, however the fact that they're separated from the URI spec (that you shouldn't derference them) is wrong 09:10:46 noah: I'd have said there is a resource with many spellings. There is an XLink spec that defines a namespace. Per the webarch, that resource has a number of spellings. But we're going to restrict it further and say that we're only going ot recognize one of the legal spellings. 09:11:29 timbl: first, I'd note that they picked a C14N name, but whether or not they picked a C14N processor would work fine 09:12:34 Some discussion about how a C14N processor would introduce both some rejected documents and some documents where the namespaces changed 09:13:31 ht: we should consider pointing out that many different forms of the IRI for this namespace will retreive the representation (if you choose to provid eone) but only the one that is cahracter-for-character identical to the one listed will match the namespce 09:14:04 Roy: I don't have any problem with the namespace spec requiring C14N but I do have a problem with it requiring that one *not* be used 09:15:05 Roy: C14N produces a detectable syntactic error where the current spec only has a semantic problem 09:15:47 ht demonstrates the problem with two URIs that are the same after C14N 09:18:00 noah: I thin specs should separate definition of a language from what processors must do 09:18:33 ...the XML spec has a history of mixing those notions 09:18:48 ht: I'm still not clear if the followin gproposition is acceptable 09:18:50 I don't have any problem with the namespace spec defining simple string comparison for the validation process. I do have a problem with it requiring that C14N not be done, since that interferes with the proper detection of errors in content. 09:19:34 ht: proposition: the example I gave above is a namespace well-formed document. 09:20:02 Not just that this is what the spec says, but also that it is reasonable for it to continue saying that 09:20:25 Roy: I agree that it's a namespace well-formed document, but that's a user error 09:20:37 ...at some point in the process we have to allow tools to tell the user that it is an error 09:20:52 noah: but the way I'd do that is with another spec that has a different name 09:21:43 ht: I'm happy to suggest to the Core WG that they should add a statement along the lines of "users should not use different spelling of the same URIs in the same document" 09:22:12 timbl: how about defining another term in the document, "URI C14N well-formedness", that is (a) well-formed and (b) all the IRIs are canonical 09:22:41 timbl: If they are all C14N then it's C14N well-formed. 09:23:32 noah: the other thing that occurs to me is that there are specs that build on this spec 09:24:20 noah: the fact that you can do this means, for example, that you should be able to build a query system that can distinguish between them 09:25:36 timbl: IRI canonicalization is something that should be in QT F&O 09:25:50 timbl: It should do the scheme-independent IRI canonicalization 09:26:08 ht points out that we should be using the word "normalization" not "canonicalization" 09:27:51 ht quotes from the IRI spec 09:28:03 describing the rules for normalization 09:28:11 (for syntax-based normalization) 09:28:19 beyond that is scheme-based normalization 09:28:28 roy: you can do more and more and more normalizatoin to narrow the semantic errors 09:28:51 Roy: no matter what you do, if a user creates content that looks like the bogus example, it will be a semantic error eventually 09:29:50 Roy: as long as the namespaces document doesn't say that this use is valid and correct and not an error, it's wrong. 09:30:11 Roy: The namespace doesn't restrict itself to a particular process of valdation 09:31:26 timbl: this spec needs to do two things, define a syntax and then for something that conforms to that syntax it defines in some sense the meaning 09:31:42 ...at this very low level, the syntax is just the xmlns: stuff 09:32:04 ...the syntax is namespace well-formedness. for things that are namespace well-formed, it defines the interpretation of the document 09:32:11 noah: I think that's in the Infoset rec 09:32:35 ...it has a particular grammar, so there are things that are defined with non-terminals, so some specs may build directly on that 09:33:13 ht reviews the conformance sections of Namespaces 1.1 09:37:22 timbl expresses some concern about the phrase "a processor must report violations". Some processors don't want to report things. 09:40:01 s/as long as the namespaces document doesn't say that this use is valid and correct and not an error, it's wrong./as long as namespaces document says that [the example of differently spelled equivalent URIs being used in two xmlns attributes] is valid and correct and not an error, it's wrong. It needs to allow for semantic errors to be detected./ 09:41:32 Vincent: Let's try to conclude on IRIEverywhere-27 09:41:40 ...certainly there's something to do here 09:42:00 ...I heard two proposals: one is just an addendum to say good practice is not to use two spellings 09:42:09 ...and one which has more to do with changing the spec 09:43:01 ht: I think Core will likely accept, first to say that you shouldn't take advantage of this loophole, and second to change the language so that it's clear that it only applies to the process of doing a particular validation comparison 09:45:50 Roy: the definition in Namespaces 1.1 is currently contradicting the IRI spec and the IRI spec wins. 09:45:58 ...it's currently an error whether the W3C chooses to fix it or not. 09:47:03 Roy: I want it to make clear somewhere that all of the examples in 2.3 do not actually represent different namespaces. They are distinct names. 09:48:56 q+ to say that we should encorage the use of canonical forms, asking core to define a iri-normalized namespace well-formed document. 09:49:05 Zakim has joined #tagmem 09:49:16 Zakim, this is TAG 09:49:16 sorry, timbl, I do not see a conference named 'TAG' in progress or scheduled at this time 09:49:45 Zakim, that's because we are not using the phone. But it still is TAG. 09:49:45 I don't understand you, timbl 09:51:34 q+ to say that we should encorage the use of canonical forms, asking core to define a iri-normalized namespace well-formed document. 09:51:57 ACTION: ht and Norm to report the Namespaces/URI/IRI discussion to XML Core 09:52:12 q+ tim2 to talk about relative URIs 09:53:43 q? 10:22:49 q? 10:24:43 ack timbl 10:24:43 timbl, you wanted to say that we should encorage the use of canonical forms, asking core to define a iri-normalized namespace well-formed document. 10:25:11 ack tim2 10:25:11 tim2, you wanted to talk about relative URIs 10:27:03 timbl: encoding, for example, a SOAP query to a service. If there are namespaces that are local to the service, then they could be a lot shorter. 10:27:11 ...saving kilobytes of space 10:28:06 Norm suggests that that particular can of worms can't be reopened 10:28:20 Vincent: metadataInURI-31? 10:28:32 Tim agrees to leave it as an architectural bug left untouched 10:28:38 http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-tagmem-minutes.html#item11 10:29:32 noah: A lot of this happened before I joined the TAG. The last status change was 7 Feb 2005, see URI above 10:30:01 ...I thought Stuart was going to take the lead 10:30:59 Roy: should I do this? I fed a lot of text to Stuart before 10:31:03 Norm: I think we should do this still 10:32:43 Roy: there are a couple of other related things I'm already on the hook for 10:32:55 ...I'm hopefully just about to breach the surface for the first time in 6 months 10:34:05 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 10:34:13 Roy and Noah will work it out 10:35:13 ACTION: Roy and Noah to make progress on metadataInURI-31 10:35:18 Vincent: mixedUIXMLNamespace-33? 10:35:35 Vincent: xmlIDSemantics-32? 10:35:39 Roy: close it 10:35:40 Norm: +1 10:35:49 Norm: xml:id Version 1.0 is a Recommendation 10:36:37 RESOLVED: close it 10:37:17 ...with a link to the Rec 10:37:23 Vincent: mixedUIXMLNamespace-33? 10:37:46 ...about mixing XML languages; basically compound documents 10:37:53 ...we now have a working group working on it 10:38:28 Norm: We're going to have to review the CDF work, let's leave this open until we do 10:39:07 Danc: we should make sure we review their requirements 10:39:41 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDRReqs-20050809/ CDF requirements 10:40:03 DanC attempts to nominate timbl to review it 10:40:22 timbl attempts to include noah 10:40:52 timbl: this is related to Avalon 10:41:01 s/Avalon/Noah's presentation of Avalon/ 10:41:50 DanC summarizes the issue; UI means "documenty" 10:43:13 ACTION: timbl and noah to review CDF requirements and report back 10:44:38 Some discussion of what answer timbl might have in mind 10:45:02 ht: points out that this issue is hugely complicated at the moment at the coordination level 10:45:40 ...there are lengthy, incompatible "best practices" documents out there 10:45:43 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2005JulSep/0164.html Minutes, 16 September HypertextCG call (Schema special edition) [member confidential] 10:46:16 ht: Schema/RELAX NG/NVL all play into it 10:46:44 s/NVL/NVDL/ 10:47:06 ht: NVDL is an attempt to say how to split out a multi-namespace document and validate the separate parts 10:47:29 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/04schema-hacking/ my work confirming that mathml/html/etc can be combined using XSD 10:48:11 timbl: suggests that it's unreasonable to try toslve this problem with multiple schema languages. write the schemas in the same language 10:49:14 Norm/Noah suggest that sometimes it might make sense 10:49:20 Norm points out the MathML in DocBook example 10:51:23 Vincent tries to pull us back to the topic at hand :-) 10:51:40 Vincent: xmlFunctions-34? 10:51:58 ...not very clear from the issues list 10:53:25 Norm: I think the XML Processing Model charter has part to bear on this, suggest that we leave it open for now 10:55:36 We'll leave it open for now 10:55:44 Vincent: putMediaType-38? 10:56:07 ...in May 2005, Roy reopened the issue with 10:56:13 ...http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005May/0001.html 10:56:38 Roy: there was general agreement that the summary is accurate 10:56:50 ...the next step is to do a finding 10:56:58 DanC suggests we could just say the mail message addresses the issue 10:57:17 ...or update the existing finding from whence this came 10:58:25 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html Authoritative Metadata TAG Finding 25 February 2004 10:58:30 Roy: I think it makes sense to update that finding 10:58:51 ACTION: Roy to update Authoritative Metadata finding to include resolution of putMediaType-38 10:59:16 Vincent: rdfURIMeaning-39? 10:59:36 ...last action was in Feb 2003 10:59:39 ...where are we? 11:00:25 DanC: Nothing much has changed, or we could ask the Sem Web Best Practices WG 11:01:49 ...the question here is if I say "x is a car" and someone else defined "car", have I agreed to his definition? 11:02:05 ...suppose that schema document also says things about other resources? 11:02:20 ...if it expresses political views, do I also agree to those views as well as the definition of car? 11:02:37 noah: I would have thought that I understood the risk, even if I didn't agree 11:04:46 timbl extends the example to say ask what happens if the definition of car is extended to refer to the tax code 11:05:16 ...the tax code is defined in terms of the law of the land, its constitution, etc. 11:05:57 timbl: now what happens if someone says I have a car and also says that democratic forms of government are evil 11:06:12 ...now if you say you want to buy a car, by extension you could be held to have those beliefs 11:06:49 timbl: there's no well-defined way to extract the definition of car from the pile of knowledge 11:07:29 Vincent: thanks for the clarification 11:07:49 ...so a possible action would be to go to SWBP WG? 11:08:40 dorchard has joined #tagmem 11:09:42 This issue was discussed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/ 11:10:09 Roy: if we could go to someone to produce a definitive question, that would help 11:10:18 DanC: we could also ask the world if it's ok to withdraw this 11:10:34 timbl: or we could defer it until we've done a whole lot of basic SemWeb architecture stuff 11:11:34 RESOLVED: leave it open for now 11:11:59 DanC will notify the SW CG that we talked about it and decided not to do anything now 11:12:10 Vincent: URIGoodPractice-40 11:13:06 ...waiting on Roy's actoin 11:13:28 Roy's action remains; he'll write something up 11:14:00 Vincent: DerivedResources-43? 11:14:23 ...last event was at f2f meeting, May 2004 11:15:18 dorchard: XInclude was told that it was using fragids incorrectly and I didn't understand why 11:15:28 ...this may also bear on the processing model 11:16:44 ht: I think this connects up to the question of internal links in HTML documents transformed by XSLT in the browser 11:16:54 ...if it's retriving the HTML, there isn't any 11:17:13 ...if it's retrieving the XML, then it should find the XML anchor and do something with it 11:17:32 noah: in fact the stylesheet may have constructed new anchors 11:18:17 timbl: in this case, and a lot of other cases, the only really consistent rule seems to be "after all the xml functions have been resolved" 11:18:33 Webarch 3.2.1 says: "The Internet Media Type defines the syntax and semantics of the fragment identifier (introduced in Fragment Identifiers (§2.6)), if any, that may be used in conjunction with a representation." 11:18:44 dorchard: if it's after all processing, then I think XInclude was doing the right thing 11:18:53 ...XInclude was performing it after processing 11:19:05 q+ to ask about arch doc instructions on fragid interpretation 11:19:08 timbl: the self describing nature of documents is very important 11:19:10 q+ to offer an alternative (more conservative?) story about what processing you should do before interpreting fragids 11:19:53 dorchard makes an assertion about a processor's context 11:19:59 ack noah 11:19:59 noah, you wanted to ask about arch doc instructions on fragid interpretation 11:20:00 there is disagreement about that assertion 11:20:34 timbl: the point I wanted to make is that it's important that there be a definitive, single thing that you do if you're just given a document. 11:20:38 DanC: pointers to doc1.txt#xyz should refer to the same thing, regardless of where they came from 11:20:44 ...the meaning of the document must be shared by all parties 11:21:43 timbl: that's the way it is today 11:21:58 noah: i'm trying to ground this in what the webarch says in 3.2.1 11:22:06 (scribe: copy quote from above) 11:22:54 noah: henry gets an XML document and he wants to style it with an XSLT stylesheet 11:23:00 (interesting... timbl's privacy policy xinclude example shows this is pretty much the same as rdfURIMeaning-39 ) 11:23:04 ...it's going to produce HTML that has a set of IDs in it 11:23:22 ...now he clicks on a link in the HTML, what's licensed to happen 11:23:31 ...the media type was application/xml 11:24:27 (has the meeting agreed how long this issue list cleanup item should take?) 11:25:10 ...there are two ways that the spec for the media type could have been written: one says I only refer to the XML; another is that I could have said that if there's a stylesheet PI, then you must transform it and the correct interpretation is in that which results from the transform 11:25:18 ...the media type spec could say all manner of things 11:25:48 Norm: i agree that the media type spec could have said that 11:25:59 noah: but I'm saying the media type spec wins 11:26:11 Norm: Yes, but I think that's problematic. 11:26:27 q+ to note that if XSLT is to be used for this purpose, then it has to be able to output an Internet media Type paired with a representation. 11:26:37 (why is the case of no media type spec interesting?) 11:26:45 q? 11:26:52 tim, XSLT does have an output media type mechanism 11:26:56 ack ht 11:26:56 ht, you wanted to offer an alternative (more conservative?) story about what processing you should do before interpreting fragids 11:26:57 ack ht 11:27:53 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#output XSLT section 16 Output, including media-type attribute 11:28:17 ht: (on whiteboard) we have an XML document with a stylesheet PI. The XML includes and
. And the stylesheet produces and when it's transformed 11:30:00 This is all a problem stemming from the inadequate architecture around PIs which are kludges. 11:30:12 Norm suggested that it created a new document with a new media type 11:30:38 how would this be any less of a problem if the stylesheet PI was an element or an attribute, tim? 11:31:14 I think another interesting case is if the user agent used a heuristic, rather than anything in the retrieved document, to decide to apply a stylesheet. 11:31:30 I'm tempted to say that this last example is the one that will teach us most. 11:31:53 ht: timbl advanced a position which said that there should be a story about what the default processing should be and that's what you should resolve the fragid against. I think I would offer an alternative which is that if a UA has performed a set of processing based on the signals in the doucment, then it should be allowed to interpret the resulting fragids against the transformations it's produced. It's coherent and we should be allowed to say it's coherent t 11:31:53 o say 11:31:59 my wish for this issue is that the xinclude text/plain->xml example and this links-in-style-result examples are presented 11:32:01 scribe lost the end of that 11:32:10 my wish for this issue is that the xinclude text/plain->xml example and this links-in-style-result examples are presented in some document, if only to clarify the questions 11:32:17 ack timbl 11:32:17 timbl, you wanted to note that if XSLT is to be used for this purpose, then it has to be able to output an Internet media Type paired with a representation. 11:32:19 ack timbl 11:32:39 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#output XSLT section 16 Output, including media-type attribute 11:34:34 Vincent: there's no clear conclusion here 11:34:43 Roy: the actual text in the URI specification doesn't have any issues having to do with this 11:35:00 ...read 3.5 of the RFC for the actual definitions 11:35:31 (sounds to me like all this can be answered in the xml media type spec) 11:35:45 Vincent: I don't see anything to decide now 11:35:50 timbl: we need to argue about it more 11:36:23 Vincent: There are two more issues, let's spend not more than 15 minutes to review these issues after lunch 11:36:41 Adjourned for lunch 11:38:29 what's all this about having no spec for the XML media type? I just followed my nose thru iana and ended up at RFC3023 12:32:18 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 12:42:49 noah_away has joined #tagmem 12:45:39 Scribe: DanC 12:45:46 ScribeNick: DanC_EDI 12:45:52 scribe for Thu AM: DO 12:47:09 discussion of start time for tomorrow... 8:30 or 9am? 12:47:36 seems to be 9am, and HT will accomodate you a bit earlier 12:48:17 Topic: Issue abstractComponentRefs-37 12:49:29 VQ: we discussed this at the June ftf... 12:50:00 (what is it that's so out of date?) 12:50:41 DO: WSDL WG asked... 12:51:59 ack DanC_lap 12:52:03 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Sep/0007.html [Fwd: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0] (abstractComponentRefs-37 ) 12:52:11 q+ to talk about language definition 12:52:19 http://example.org/TicketAgent.wsdl20#xmlns(xsTicketAgent=http://example.org/TicketAgent.xsd) 12:52:19 wsdl.elementDeclaration(xsTicketAgent:listFlightsRequest) 12:52:22 q+ henry to say whatever he was going to interrupt withh :) 12:52:30 oooops sorry 12:52:34 q- henry 12:53:14 should be http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query#SparqlQuery 12:57:05 q+ 12:59:05 discussion of multiple symbol spaces in WSDL... 12:59:14 ack ht 12:59:14 ht, you wanted to talk about language definition 12:59:27 a? 12:59:31 q? 12:59:34 DO: the TAG already told the WSDL WG this is OK; we had a chance to advise against this and didnt 13:00:17 DanC: I have always argued that multiple symbol spaces are trouble. At least we should encourage the use of barenames and unambiguous local names 13:00:20 HT: I don't think so 13:00:22 PERSON_TITLE 13:00:28 BOOK_TITLE 13:00:49 HT: there are [10?] cases in HTML where there's an element and attribute with the same name 13:02:18 HT: I've [considered? advocated?] a pattern where symbol spaces are mapped into uri space a la concat($targetNS, "element", $elementName)... 13:02:47 ... but even that doesn't allow for the difference between title elements on books vs. title elements on [what was the other one?] 13:03:23 HT: as we discussed in June in Cambridge, there are different targets for naming... 13:04:08 Henry's note on that to TAG working group: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0046.html 13:04:13 ... schema and WSDL WGs have targeted specific components arising from particular defining documents, and Dan was targeting "the p element" sort of independently of definition document 13:05:54 HT: I'm not happy starting with the notion that [something?] is a function of namespace, sort/symbol-space, and localname. I'd prefer to start with the notion of language, where a language may include terms from multiple namespaces... 13:06:00 Similar note from Henry to the Schema IG List (member-only) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Jun/0051.html 13:06:03 q+ re not using namespaces 13:07:04 HT: ... and I think the case of not using namespaces should be on the same footing. As well as the case where languages change namespaces between versions and those that change versions without changing namespaces. I'd like to tell a story about non-XML languages, e.g. css 13:07:29 ... it's not clear that we have URIs for CSS properties. 13:07:33 q+ to disagree with the non-ns languages having URIs without magic., and to mention the idea of default namespace URIs by mime type 13:07:35 ... and we should 13:07:54 HT: my thinking: 13:08:00 (1) a language is set of versions 13:08:44 (2) a version is (primarily) a mapping from sorts x names (x definition language?) => definitions 13:09:07 ... and one of the things a definition should have is a set of versions for which it's valid 13:09:55 HT: what I don't have a clear answer to yet is: who's on top? 13:10:12 [?] 13:10:38 ack timbl 13:10:39 timbl, you wanted to disagree with the non-ns languages having URIs without magic., and to mention the idea of default namespace URIs by mime type 13:12:29 TBL: yes, a language is a good thing to define. Let's keep version separate: a language is a grammar and corresponding definitions... 13:13:54 ... I'm less inclined to give URIs to things that don't use namespaces [that's what he said, but I can't imagine it's what he meant]. 13:14:06 q+ to respond on mime types 13:14:33 ... I am interested to connect default namespaces to mime types, a la "the default namespace for this media type is XYZ" 13:16:01 ... so yes, the XML parser would get another parameter, similar to base URI 13:17:31 HT: grandfathering namespaces in conflicts with deployed XSLT stylesheets 13:18:43 HT: I'd like to have a URI for "the p element in docbook", where docbook has no ns 13:18:57 ack danc_lap 13:18:57 DanC_lap, you wanted to comment on not using namespaces 13:19:01 TBL: no I; I'm happy to [something] 13:19:06 . http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#use-namespaces 13:20:24 TBL: no, I'm happy to let namespace-less languages left behind, if it hurts the architecture to bother with them 13:20:32 q- 13:20:45 DanC: indeed, the webarch REC says you SHOULD use namespaces. 13:22:14 HT: so... is this language/sort/definition stuff something the TAG is interested in? 13:22:30 DanC: yes, but the burden is on you to argue that we should bother with namespace-less docs 13:23:52 TBL: language definitions can only sometimes be decomposed into separate a separate definition of each term 13:24:55 q+ to talk about compound document example 13:24:58 HT: I expect these definitions ground out in traditional specs. 13:25:54 TBL: in RDF, the semantics is that the meaning of the document is the conjunction of the meanings of the statements, but other languages are more complicated than that 13:26:28 ack danc_lap 13:26:28 DanC_lap, you wanted to say there's lots of stuff besides sorts 13:26:43 HT: I don't claim that this [?] gives you all the information about the document. 13:27:17 s/[?]/sum of the 'semantics' of all the names/ 13:27:33 ack noah 13:27:33 noah, you wanted to talk about compound document example 13:27:56 q+ to express nervousness about encouraging a simplistic view 13:28:04 ack ht 13:28:04 ht, you wanted to express nervousness about encouraging a simplistic view 13:28:18 q+ 13:28:25 DanC: I think sort/symbol-space is one of many qualifiers... but meanwhile, in many cases, namespace#local-name is good enough, and we should encourage it 13:29:19 ack noah 13:29:52 HT: I don't think the simplistic view of namespace@local-name is something to encourage; I think it's misleading. 13:30:59 ... e.g. no Java programmer would accept package#localname as a way to refer to java classes, since there are multiple symbol space 13:31:44 HST likes the idea that if there is only one sort of thing in a language, the cost of allowing for multiple sorts in other languages should be zero 13:32:04 q+ To point out that the fact that that XML has complexities which are used in most cases is a problem. 13:32:04 NM: I'm sympathetic to the idea of using namespace-name#localname for languages where that works, but I don't like it as short-hand. I like one name construction idiom for each language. 13:32:19 ack timbl 13:32:19 timbl, you wanted to point out that the fact that that XML has complexities which are used in most cases is a problem. 13:32:54 TimBL: I think it's worth pointing out that a single symbol space has its advantages 13:33:55 ... and I like a simple prefix mechanism consistent with fragment identifier syntax, e.g. p_ for wsdl ports 13:34:10 Dave and Henry ask: why not use "/" 13:34:24 TimBl answers: because I want to do this in a fragid 13:35:44 DO: so why p_ rather than what WSDL does... 13:36:41 (missed some stuff about whether you need a new media type, or just a new xpointer scheme, or whatever) 13:37:48 NM: with the xml media type and XPointer, you point to element information items, not WSDL interfaces etc. 13:37:52 ... right? 13:38:05 q+ to point out why xpointer schemes are easier than mime types 13:38:42 HT: right; I don't think anybody's arguing for using straight xpointer/xml... 13:38:58 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy. In rhetoric and cognitive linguistics, metonymy (in Greek meta = after/later and onoma = name) is the use of a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity. 13:39:19 DanC: some of the response to my comment to WSDL seemed to be arguing for just existing xpointer 13:39:41 NM: an xpointer scheme can resolve to things other than the markup [infoset], right? 13:39:55 HT: I think I convined Makoto otherwise, so we should check the next draft 13:40:10 q? 13:40:13 ack norm 13:40:13 Norm, you wanted to point out why xpointer schemes are easier than mime types 13:41:02 Tim's shorthand proposal (e.g. e_person for 'thing with name person of sort e...' requires a new media type to specify the parsing of the fragid wrt _ 13:42:34 NDW: the advantage of a new xpointer scheme over media types is... [scribe didn't get the point and it seemed to disappear]. Xpointer has fallback. 13:42:45 The new-XPointer WSDL approach requires registering a new xpointer scheme 13:43:48 HST claims that unknown-media-type fails much earlier in the stack than unknown-XPointer-scheme, with the consequence that it's easier for mere mortals to add support for new XPointer scheme than for new media type 13:44:52 DO: I'd like HT to look at his languages story w.r.t. the draft finding on versioning with the UML diagram. 13:46:03 HT: yes... 13:46:08 ack danc_lap 13:46:08 DanC_lap, you wanted to re-state my original proposal 13:48:26 DanC: It should be standardized that target-ns#SparqlQuery refers to the sparq interface 13:52:51 http://www.w3.org/2003/10/06-tag-summary#abstractComponentRefs-37 13:53:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0075.html 13:55:15 q? 13:55:21 http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent?wsdl;wsdl-interface=TicketAgent 13:55:28 q+ to talk about changing wsdl understanding of component construction 13:56:44 q- 13:57:52 from last call WSDL 2: 13:57:53 http://example.org/TicketAgent.wsdl20#xmlns(xsTicketAgent=http://example.org/TicketAgent.xsd) 13:57:53 wsdl.elementDeclaration(xsTicketAgent:listFlightsRequest) 13:57:59 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050803/#wsdl-iri-references 13:58:33 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030 13:58:47 "As for the particulars of the syntax, the TAG does not wish to delve into syntax design of the WSD fragment identifier syntax, believing that the WSD WG is better qualified for such activities. Members of the TAG did express support for Option 1 in the Namespace name and fragment identifier syntax section, but this is not a consensus opinion and the TAG plans no further elaboration on the WSD specific syntax" 14:09:22 q+ to point out the W3C TR policy parallel, which calls Noah's and my understanding from June into question 14:10:47 ack danc 14:13:03 q+ 14:13:17 q+ to ask if "Dan's problem" is really just "Dan's problem"? isn't it the more typical case of how URIs work, i.e. something very architectural? you can find out about doc#term by deferencing doc and looking inside, but you might also find out from other parts of the web; but the info from other parts of the web really shouldn't disagree with doc 14:13:51 q+ 14:14:04 ack ht 14:14:04 ht, you wanted to point out the W3C TR policy parallel, which calls Noah's and my understanding from June into question 14:14:23 [scribe has gotten too involved in discussion to scribe much] 14:14:29 HST now thinks that HTML P is an example of hard cases make bad law 14:14:31 q+ to compare Henry's generic lunch protocol with a generic resource which has many translations and versions. 14:14:40 ack noah 14:14:41 yes, to some extent, henry 14:14:55 ack danc_lap 14:14:55 DanC_lap, you wanted to ask if "Dan's problem" is really just "Dan's problem"? isn't it the more typical case of how URIs work, i.e. something very architectural? you can find out 14:14:58 ... about doc#term by deferencing doc and looking inside, but you might also find out from other parts of the web; but the info from other parts of the web really shouldn't 14:15:01 ... disagree with doc 14:17:12 ack timbl 14:17:12 timbl, you wanted to compare Henry's generic lunch protocol with a generic resource which has many translations and versions. 14:19:02 noah, I don't know about "which is more important", but I think it's a bug, w.r.t. web architecture, if documents disagree about what other documents say. 14:19:43 ... and so we shouldn't encourage URIs for "what doc1 says, according to doc2". "what doc1 says" shouldn't need to be qualified. 14:19:47 HST recalls that last week we observed that wrt Dan's example, for "the way normal URIs work", that the Wayback machine gives you a way to be clear about a particular 'edition' of the lunch protocol 14:20:59 q+ to query TBL about that 14:21:06 ack ht 14:21:06 ht, you wanted to query TBL about that 14:26:19 q+ to ask about the single namespace doc't bug??? 14:27:04 ack ht 14:27:04 ht, you wanted to ask about the single namespace doc't bug??? 14:54:01 ... resuming from break 14:54:16 HT: seem to be 2 things: (1) what info you need in the URI (2) how you package them up 14:59:02 DanC: take (a) "must map qnames to URIs" and (b) URIs should be unambiguous; put those together, and there should be an unambiguous URIs for the SparqlQuery interface 15:01:42 NDW: so they gave you a mapping; you don't like it? 15:02:02 DanC: they didn't give me a mapping irrespective of WSDL doc addr 15:04:18 [timbl wonders whether DanC meant "unique" rather than "unambiguous" ] 15:05:51 http://norman.walsh.name/fortag/20050920-202239.jpg 15:08:07 ACTION DanC: seek clarification about http://example.org/TicketAgent.wsdl20#wsdl.interface(TicketAgent) 15:08:25 note to self: including .wsdl20 extension in the namespace URI was distracting 15:08:37 and parens are inconvenient to use in RDF. 15:09:41 HT: there may be an intermediate position... stipulate that Xpointer scheme registration opens... 15:09:54 q+ re opening XPointer registration 15:10:07 q+ to * opening XPointer registration 15:10:18 ... that a scheme might refer to namespace bindings from the document [?] 15:11:03 ack timbl 15:11:03 timbl, you wanted to * opening XPointer registration 15:12:23 HT: let's talk about xpointer scheme registration under 3.11 Issue standardizedFieldValues-51 15:13:13 DO: this seems to make 2 cases where you can use namespace bindings indirectly... there was that ws-addressing thing yesterday[?] 15:17:06 TBL: can one get a WSDL description from a service by a GET on the service URI? 15:17:30 DaveO: the WS-[which?] spec has a Get[something] request that gives you [a pointer?] 15:18:02 VQ: conclusions? 15:18:20 DO: there's the action on DanC, then we'll consider updating the 37 finding or the finding on good URI practices 15:18:27 [which is good enough for me] 15:18:49 Talking about making URIs self-bootstrapping. Suppose you have a URI which is a qyery on a service. The query part has qnames which use prefixes from the WSDL document. How do you find the WSDL document? You do a WS Metadata Request call to the service. That indirectly gets you to the WSDL. 15:19:48 . ACTION RF: note that gooduri#xmlname is a useful pattern because it can be used easily in RDF 15:20:06 . ACTION RF: note in finding on good uri practices that gooduri#xmlname is a useful pattern because it can be used easily in RDF 15:20:14 Roy, if the fragid is of the form of an XML local name, then the URI gains usability in that it can be writen as a qname in RDF. 15:20:45 . ACTION RF: consider noting in finding on good uri practices that gooduri#xmlname is a useful pattern because it can be used easily in RDF 15:21:21 RF: depends on whether xmlname is unambiguous, so I may need to write more than just one sentence 15:22:08 TBL: this is something that helps users of URIs, i.e. those that write them in documents that refer 15:22:56 ACTION RF: consider noting in finding on good uri practices that gooduri#xmlname is a useful pattern because it can be used easily in RDF 15:23:48 . 15:23:48 . 15:23:49 . 15:23:54 Topic: Issue XMLVersioning-41 15:24:32 (yes, please let's have pointers to the current draft) 15:25:03 DO: I started updating a draft finding, and got some comments from noah, and it turned out that the terminology is not settled, and it's hard 15:25:25 [figuring out the terminology _is_ the problem. ] 15:25:51 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/versioning-part1.html part 1 15:25:53 David Orchard email announcing revised drafts 15:28:47 q+ to suggest re-constructing the UML diagram collaboratively 15:29:27 ack danc_lap 15:29:27 DanC_lap, you wanted to suggest re-constructing the UML diagram collaboratively 16:11:17 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 17:45:20 Zakim has left #tagmem