IRC log of tagmem on 2006-04-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:02:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:02:19 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [DanC]
17:02:40 [DanC]
Scribe: DanC
17:02:46 [DanC]
Chair: Vincent
17:03:00 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, DanC, Vincent, Ht, Noah_Mendelsohn
17:03:01 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Vincent, Zakim, noah, Norm, ht, DanC
17:03:11 [DanC]
agenda + Administrative
17:03:16 [DanC]
agenda + Issue xmlFunctions-34
17:03:23 [DanC]
agenda + issue namespaceState-48
17:03:29 [DanC]
agenda + State Finding
17:03:43 [DanC]
Regrets: Ed
17:04:10 [noah_lunch]
noah_lunch has joined #tagmem
17:04:43 [ht]
zakim, noah_mend is noah
17:04:43 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
17:04:53 [Zakim]
17:05:09 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
17:05:25 [Zakim]
17:05:30 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
17:05:30 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Administrative" taken up [from DanC]
17:05:41 [DanC]
Zakim, list attendees
17:05:41 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Norm, DanC, Ht, Vincent, Noah_Mendelsohn, noah, DOrchard, TimBL
17:06:07 [DanC]
-> minutes 18 Apr
17:06:35 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet 2 May, NDW to scribe. at risk: DO
17:07:16 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet 2 May, NDW to scribe. regrets DO
17:08:05 [DanC]
VQ observes "DRAFT" at top and diagnostics at the bottom
17:08:15 [DanC]
RESOLVED to approve minutes 18 Apr
17:08:30 [timbl]
17:10:12 [DanC]
VQ: agenda adjustments?
17:10:17 [DanC]
DC: June ftf... at the end?
17:10:27 [DanC]
VQ: after Vancouver ftf discussion
17:10:36 [noah]
Oct 4 and 5 is OK for me in Vancouver
17:10:50 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet in Vancouver 4-5 Oct 2006
17:11:11 [timbl]
17:12:15 [DanC]
DO: price update: opus hotel looks like 229 CAD, around USD 200. looks like I can get a meeting room in that hotel
17:12:39 [DanC]
VQ: can you send me details? DO: yes, I've got all the hosting details on a page that I'll send presently
17:13:19 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet in Vancouver Wed/Thu 4-5 Oct 2006
17:14:01 [DanC]
TBL: so that's 2 days...? VQ: yes, 2 days.
17:15:44 [DanC]
DanC: hmm... security workshop follow-up... perhaps invite some security experts from the BOS/MIT area?
17:15:54 [DanC]
NDW: I can accomodate a few
17:17:56 [DanC]
NM: an expert from MIT with practical experience sounds interesting
17:19:10 [DanC]
VQ: more on this later in the call, perhaps...
17:19:58 [DanC]
VQ: the preparation for the AC meeting seems to have converged, after some punctuated discussion
17:20:21 [DanC]
... moderator and panelists seem to be pretty much all set
17:22:29 [DanC]
VQ: one more admin item... quarterly update... I'll draft something, tomorrow, I hope...
17:22:52 [DanC]
... then I'll send it out after a couple days of collecting comments from tag
17:23:10 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:23:10 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Issue xmlFunctions-34" taken up [from DanC]
17:23:32 [DanC]
VQ: hmm... this agendum was requested by TV...
17:23:51 [DanC]
ACTION: TVR, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: summarize history of DTD/namespace/mimetype version practice, including XHTML, SOAP, and XSLT [CONTINUES]
17:24:15 [DanC]
. ACTION TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future
17:25:51 [DanC]
ACTION TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future [WITHDRAWN]
17:26:11 [DanC]
ACTION: TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future [WITHDRAWN]
17:26:29 [timbl]
17:27:34 [timbl]
17:28:40 [DanC]
ACTION: TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future [CONTINUES]
17:29:04 [DanC]
point being: that extensibility with a framework such as CDF makes sense, but extensibility in general does not. [?]
17:29:05 [timbl]
s/it/XML extensbility: Possible only with a framework providing some form of semantics
17:29:51 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:29:51 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "issue namespaceState-48" taken up [from DanC]
17:30:55 [ht] is in an odd state
17:31:03 [DanC]
-> URIs for W3C Namespaces 1.36 2006/01/20
17:31:12 [ht]
it says "A new version of this document is available. "
17:38:32 [DanC]
TBL: one comment was that "Namespace Changes over Time" doesn't make sense
17:39:16 [ht]
17:39:27 [noah]
From the finding: "Colloquially, we often speak of “adding a name” to a namespace. Here we prefer to speak of “defining a name” or otherwise licensing the interpretation of a name."
17:39:33 [Norm]
17:41:01 [DanC]
NM: section 4 could cite the finding more locally
17:41:51 [DanC]
... section 4 i.e.
17:45:12 [noah]
Suggestion (rough not exact): a) leave title of section 4 b) In that section, say something like "The TAG finding 'The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace' explains how the use of a particular namespace may evolve over time. At the W3C, it is important for a group to state clearly its expectations for how namespaces it controls will..."
17:45:29 [noah]
...and the continue with the text already in the doc, edited if necessary.
17:46:46 [DanC]
ACTION TBL: accepted on 8 Mar 2005, provide a draft of new namespace policy doc ( in progress. tbl would like to confirm with Ian that there's nothing pending on Ian's side [CONTINUES]
17:48:27 [noah]
In that section, say something like "The TAG finding 'The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace' explains how the use of a particular namespace may evolve over time. At the W3C, it is important for a group to state clearly its expectations for how use of the namespaces it controls will..."
17:48:29 [ht]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:48:40 [Zakim]
ht, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: noah (8%), Ht (14%)
17:49:25 [noah]
Dan if you commit this, you'll need to create a hyperlink for the TAG finding.
17:51:37 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
17:52:04 [Vincent]
Hi Ian
17:52:18 [Ian]
I was pinged on the topic of nsuri...
17:52:33 [Ian]
I heard:
17:52:36 [Vincent]
Dan is updating the nsuri document to add a reference to the TAG finding in section 4.
17:52:37 [Ian]
1) TAG ok with
17:52:40 [Ian]
2) Add a ref
17:52:42 [Ian]
+1 to adding ref.
17:52:55 [Ian]
The document has already been announced as "en vigeur" to the chairs.
17:52:58 [DanC] 1.52
17:53:25 [Ian]
17:54:05 [Ian]
Bjoern had expressed some concerns.
17:54:11 [Ian]
Would you like to see them?
17:54:52 [timbl]
Ian, would you like to join the call for a bit?
17:54:55 [DanC]
Ian, wanna dial in? or not bother?
17:55:10 [Ian]
17:55:15 [Ian]
zakim, what's the code?
17:55:15 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Ian
17:55:19 [DanC] v 1.63 2006/04/25 17:54:40 is obsolete
17:55:33 [Zakim]
17:56:37 [noah]
Responding to Dan's request that I hatch yet a bit more text:
17:56:41 [noah]
The draft currently says:
17:56:42 [noah]
Groups SHOULD document those expectations in [or clearly linked from] the Namespace Document.
17:57:09 [Ian]
17:57:31 [noah]
How about putting after that: "Draft TAG Finding Associating Resources with Namespaces provides additional guidance on the creation of such namespace documents."
17:57:51 [DanC]
-> Comments on URIs for W3C Namespaces Bjoern Hoehrmann 01 Feb 2006
17:59:04 [DanC]
"Specifications that define namespaces SHOULD explicitly state their policy with respect to changes in the names defined in that namespace."
18:00:42 [DanC]
HT: not sure about "this specification" indexical in the examples..
18:02:14 [ht]
"The definitions of names in this namespace will not change from those given in the June 13 2007 version of the Foonly spec [ref. dated URI]"
18:02:25 [Ian]
18:02:35 [DanC]
yes, that's an improvement to example 1, HT
18:02:49 [Vincent]
ack Ian
18:03:14 [ht]
... "Subsequent versions of thte Foonly spec which make any substantive changes will do so in a new namespace"
18:03:33 [Zakim]
18:04:47 [timbl]
For example, the namespace document could contain text along the following lines.
18:05:37 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
18:06:12 [DanC]
1.53 $ of $Date: 2006/04/25 18:05:59
18:08:48 [DanC]
1.54 $ of $Date: 2006/04/25 18:08:34
18:09:54 [DanC]
Ian, 1.54 is it. pls let Bjoern know.
18:10:02 [Ian]
18:10:03 [Ian]
18:10:33 [Ian]
Would you think that your changes will satisfy him?
18:10:44 [Ian]
(He'll let us know, certainly)
18:11:00 [DanC]
PROPOSED: that and 1.54 address namespaceState-48
18:11:21 [DanC]
I do hope these changes address his comment
18:11:31 [DanC]
18:11:35 [Ian]
Ok, thank you.
18:12:17 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: announce that the TAG has resolved namespaceState-48
18:12:54 [DanC]
VQ: I'll update our report to the AC to show we've closed another one
18:13:04 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
18:13:04 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "State Finding" taken up [from DanC]
18:13:40 [DanC]
-> draft state finding
18:13:59 [DanC]
DO: Ed did a thorough review; I think I addressed his comments...
18:14:20 [DanC]
... I reorganized some stuff, moving some stuff before examples so that I could refer to it in discussion of pros/cons
18:14:55 [DanC]
(is this changelog in email somehwere? or do I need to record it?)
18:15:24 [DanC]
-> Updated State Finding 19 Apr 2006
18:15:58 [DanC]
DO: I compared/constrasted approaches to getStockQuote a bit...
18:16:49 [DanC]
DO: I have considerable comments from Baker and Nottingham; haven't started addressing those yet
18:18:00 [DanC]
DO: I'd like to talk about this 9 May; I'm not avaiable 16 nor 23 May
18:18:48 [DanC]
NM: I see an opportunity to reduce the text in the early sections quite a bit
18:20:17 [DanC]
DO: yes, I can imagine a shorter "letter" given longer time
18:20:22 [Ian]
18:20:31 [Ian]
Ian has left #tagmem
18:20:41 [timbl]
18:21:59 [DanC]
TBL: I like abstracts that make the relevant points in one paragraph
18:22:10 [DanC]
(I think that's a high bar; I raraly meet it myself.)
18:22:15 [noah]
+1 to Tim's comment.
18:24:14 [DanC]
TBL: is this a summary? There are several types of app ... state... client... server... stateful... stateles...
18:24:56 [DanC]
... cookies is an example of the 1st; @@ is an example of the 2nd; $ZZZ is always bad
18:26:09 [Zakim]
18:26:22 [DanC]
(I'm not asking for less text, btw. I haven't read it closely enough to judge whether there's a lot of redundancy. I'm asking for the thesis statement(s) to be highlighted)
18:28:24 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: review draft state finding for 9 May
18:28:26 [timbl]
(Dave, a two-level essay: )
18:28:41 [DanC]
VQ: and I suppose Ed is another reviewer
18:29:15 [DanC]
Topic: Security Workshop follow-up
18:32:34 [DanC]
DanC: (a) community service work on passwords in the clear...
18:34:23 [DanC]
... (b) specific investigation of decentralized auth ala OpenID/SXIP
18:34:32 [DanC]
DanC: anybody intrested? a few: yes.
18:34:48 [DanC]
18:34:51 [Zakim]
18:34:53 [Zakim]
18:34:55 [Zakim]
18:34:57 [Zakim]
18:38:45 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
18:39:52 [Zakim]
18:44:53 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()12:30PM
18:44:55 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:44:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, DanC, Ht, Vincent, Noah_Mendelsohn, noah, DOrchard, TimBL, Ian
18:46:55 [timbl_]
timbl_ has left #tagmem
19:07:27 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
19:07:33 [Ian]
Hi Norm, DanC,
19:07:37 [Ian]
Does this look ok for Chairs:
19:07:44 [Ian]
Dear Chairs,
19:07:44 [Ian]
Today the TAG reviewed and made some editorial clarifications to
19:07:44 [Ian]
"URIs for W3C Namespaces" [1], which became effective 15 March
19:07:44 [Ian]
2006 [2]. A reference to the TAG finding "Associating Resources
19:07:44 [Ian]
with Namespaces" [3] was also added. I do not believe the changes
19:07:45 [Ian]
will have any impact on the publications process.
19:07:47 [Ian]
I have attached a document that highlights differences from the
19:07:49 [Ian]
version announced on 15 March.
19:07:51 [Ian]
19:25:59 [IanJ]
IanJ has joined #tagmem
20:14:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
20:53:11 [DanC]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:53:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC
20:53:32 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
20:54:14 [DanC]
Meeting: TAG Weekly
20:54:17 [DanC]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:54:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC
20:55:47 [DanC]
action -2
21:20:07 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: TAG meets 2 May; scribe: Norm per