See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: EdRice
<Norm> ht, wrt xmlFunctions-34 do you concur that the ball wrt our draft is in your court?
<ht> Yes, sigh.
<ht> Mea culpa
<DanC> I'm OK to scribe 25 Apr
Zakim +1.604.534.aaa is Dave
Dan will scribe next week
no regrets for next week.
Resolution: Minutes approved as-is from last week
meeting in Vancouver, starting on the 4th.
Tim and Noah were concerned about 2-3 day meeting length, but neither are on the call.
<DanC> (I still prefer 2 days)
ht: I can book late flights home.
Norm: I have to leave early, so Friday needs to end early on Friday or I'll have to leave early.
<DanC> (if we go 4-5 Oct, for 2 days, both weekends are safe.)
Ed: how about a two day meeting, we just work late if need be.
<Norm> Working late would be fine by me
Vincent: Lets confirm next week with the people who are not here today.
Vincent: Last week we decided to
use our slot for a pannel discussions.
... Steve was interested in my communication, but Steve declined getting the meeting running and be a moderator.
... So, we're on the agenda with the topics, but we need to find someone else to moderate the session.
... Any suggestions?
Norm: Stuart Williams?
general round of agreement, Vicent will contact to see if he'll be in town.
ht: we could invite Ralph on the pannel as well.
DanC: I havent seen an opinion from Ralph however, he may be a better moderator.
Vincent: ok, I have a few names. I'll contact Mishai, Stewart and Ralph. Otherwise we may need more names so if you think of any please share via email.
<dorchard> Ed, that wasn't I that mentioned Ralph. I think it was Dan.
<Zakim> Norm, you wanted to comment on the June f2f
Noah: I updated the logistics page to include possible hotels.
TV and Tim are invited by Lord Jeffery Inn.
Noah: June 12th I'll provide a
dinner if you can attend.
... I'd suggest making your reservations sooner than later.
<Norm> Tell Norm your flight schedules if your flying into BDL
Vincent: I put this on for TV but he's not on the phone.
V: there are three pending actions, only one can be addressed since TV and Tim are not in.
Vincent: ht can you update us on the draft finding?
<Norm> Norm wrote -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0011.html
ht: This is stuck in my in-tray and I've been busy, it will likely be several week.
Vincent: so our actions list remains the same for now.
Vincent: To continue our
discussion from last week.
... we talked about reviewing DIX.
Dan: the context came from Lisa
and she 'may be' an area director, but I havent heard
... The area director solicits people to do the review, but when you do that review you should get back to the authors of the working groups directly
... not with Lisa.
... The authentication service - I doubt there would be much benefit for us to look into. Not really web architecture stuff per say.
... I'm more interested in DIX.
Ed: DIX is very active.
Dan: There are many documents, there is an update just today.
<DanC> new DIX draft today
Dan: should we create a TAG
... Passwords in the clear should be a TAG issue.
... The DIX issue could be looked at in many ways.
Vincent: We can make the passwords in the clear an issue at any time. Should we spend more time on the documents in front of us.
Ed: I'll look at DIX.
Vincent: ok, we have one reviewer
for DIX. When you have a better view of the status, please
present your point of view during a teleconferance.
... should we make passwords in the clear a new TAG issue?
... We need people who are committed to making progress on this.
Dan: I dont think a short finding would be worth our time, we need to talk about alternatives etc.
Ed: I can start working on it..
<DanC> (I think it should be a TAG issue; I don't know that I can work on it soon. I think it's fine to have TAG issues sit around, acknowledged but not making lots of progress, for 18 months.)
Vincnet: are there other opionions on creating a TAG issue on passwords in the clear?
Vincent: I hear a few people in
doing so.. any objections?
... does anyone obstain? No one, so we have a concensus to open this as a new issue.
RESOLUTION: We will open a new issue 52
Proposals for the name?
+1 on passwordsInTheClear
Resolution: passwordsInTheClear-52 will be the issue name.
Vincent: Ed will begin drafting.
Ed: I'll communicate this first to www-tag then start drafting..
<scribe> ACTION: Ed to communicate new issue and produce first draft finding. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
Dan: it might be worth noting,
there was a workshop a while ago with a follow-up mailing
... need to explore mailing list in relation to TAG
... we did some work in the f2f in september which may be worth linking to.
Vincent: I'll open the issue on the list.
<scribe> ACTION: Vincent to open the issue on the issues list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
Vincent: Should we close this issue now that we've published the finding? There is no open action on this issue.
Dan: are the specifics of PUT in
the new finding?
... yep.. found it.
<DanC> yes, putMediaType-38 is addressed to my satisfaction
Dan: The procedure is to announce that we have resolved the issue and solicit any feedback?
Vincent: I agree as well.
RESOLUTION: We have resolved to close putMediaType-38
Vincent: We have published a
finding in Jan. The only action still on the list is an action
for Tim regarding the policy for creating new namespaces.
... Tim is not here, but I see a new policy is being created.
... Should we wait for this new document to be published before closing this issue.
Dan: I dont remember what we wanted in the new version or not..
Vincent: We wanted the W3C policy to be in alignment with our finding.
Dan: I'm moderatly inclined to
keep Tim's action open
... I know there has been some communication on this.
Vincent: ok, so I agree we need Tim on the call before we can close this issue.
Dan: It would also be nice if we could remember why we asked Tim to make a new version.
Vincent: I'll look at the logs/minutes so we can have a more effective discussion next week.
Vincent: This is something that I dont know about at all. I understand the topic and I see that there is a draft, dated Sept 2004 by Norm. There is not much discussion regarding this.
Norm: in summary;
... The question was: Shouldnt there be a standard way to compare 'chunks' of xml.
... the answer was there is not single right answer to this question...
... Timbl pushed back on that finding and asked if we could document 'a' right answer.
... There were some comments, but I never did incorporate those comments.
... We just turned our attention to other things. I'm not sure what we should do next, I could incorporate those comments into the draft
... But we need to make sure that people understand we're producing 'a' way, and not an approved way.
Dan: Does this draft corespond to xQuery?
Norm: I suspect its reasonable close for two chunks of unvalidated content.
Dan: A really nice appendix or two would be an implementation in xQuery or something.
Norm: If the TAG asks me to revise this, I'd consider doing that.
HT: I'm not sure, this may the
top of a slippery slope
... we have the infosec spec and we have the xpath/xquery data model which either is or isnt counter to the infoset
... until we're prepared to tackle all of that I'm not sure that re-issue that finding with the narrow focus would be good.
... I havent reviewed the finding however.
Norm: no, I'm saying your application may have others that you may want to consider. There is no one right answer, even if there was one universal data model.
ht: well, I guess I need to read the finding.
<Norm> Sorry ht, I wasn't trying to send you off to the finding :-)
Vincent: The issue was raised by Tim so we should probably follow-up with Tim.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest 2 options that are OK by me: (a) leave it in the someday pile (b) ask I18N if it's an improvement worth spending effort on
Vincent: ok, I didnt feel it was
urgent, it just hasnt been discussed so I put it on the agenda
to get an update. Its clear there are not clear next steps
... ok, lets leave it for now.
Norm: I'm happy to either update it or leave it on the to-do-list as a lower priority.
ht: This is proceeding as a matter of priority. The write token is with me, I'm going to spend some time on it shortly and get it back to the group.
Vincent: we talked about this two
weeks ago, but no clear action was recorded on this.
... I'll add an action to HT on this to the issues list.
... anything else?
Vincnet: Meeting is adjourned..
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Dave: I/DanC: I/ Succeeded: s/Vincnet/Vincent/ Found Scribe: EdRice Inferring ScribeNick: EdRice Default Present: Ed_Rice, Vincent, Norm, DanC, Ht, +1.604.534.aaaa, Dave Present: Ed_Rice Vincent Norm DanC Ht +1.604.534.aaaa Dave Regrets: Tim Noah WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 18 Apr 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-minutes.html People with action items: ed vincent WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]