15:57:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
15:57:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc
15:57:27 <Stuart> zakim, this will be tag
15:57:27 <Zakim> ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()12:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:57:48 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has now started
15:57:55 <Zakim> +Raman
15:59:20 <ht> Meeting: TAG
15:59:27 <ht> Chair: Norm Walsh
15:59:30 <raman> raman has left #tagmem
15:59:33 <ht> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
15:59:38 <ht> ScribeNick: ht
16:00:02 <Zakim> +DanC
16:00:37 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
16:00:37 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
16:00:38 <Rhys> Rhys has joined #tagmem
16:00:39 <Zakim> +Ht
16:00:43 <raman> raman has joined #tagmem
16:01:28 <Noah> Noah has joined #tagmem
16:01:29 <Zakim> +??P8
16:01:44 <ht> zakim, ? is Stuart
16:01:44 <Zakim> +Stuart; got it
16:01:52 <Zakim> +Rhys
16:02:00 <Zakim> +Norm
16:02:08 <Norm> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see Raman, DanC, Ht, Stuart, Rhys, Norm
16:02:35 <Zakim> +Noah_Mendelsohn
16:02:52 <DanC> regrets: TimBL
16:03:11 <Norm> Regrets: TimBL
16:03:16 <ht> topic: agena
16:03:18 <Norm> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Raman, DanC, Ht, Stuart, Rhys, Norm, Noah_Mendelsohn
16:03:26 <ht> s/agena/Agenda/
16:06:14 <ht> Action: Stuart to put up straw poll to try to find a new slot for this meeting
16:06:14 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-8 - Put up straw poll to try to find a new slot for this meeting [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-08-20].
16:06:46 <ht> NW: Agenda recently updated -- accepted as posted http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/13-agenda.html
16:07:18 <ht> NW: RESOLVED that minutes of 16/7/07 are approved
16:07:28 <ht> Topic: Next meeting
16:07:34 <Norm> ack DanC 
16:07:34 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about "RESOLUTION: We will open a new issue named "HTTP Redirections""
16:07:35 <ht> RL withdraws his regrets
16:07:47 <ht> NM says he is at risk
16:08:02 <ht> We already have regrets from TBL
16:08:25 <ht> DC: SW, have you created the issue?
16:08:48 <ht> SW: Wasn't aware we'd chosen a name, will go ahead ASAP with "HTTP Redirections"
16:09:07 <ht> Action: SW to create new TAG issue called "HTTP Redirections" per minutes of 16/7/07
16:09:08 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-9 - Create new TAG issue called \"HTTP Redirections\" per minutes of 16/7/07 [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-08-20].
16:09:23 <Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Jul/0031.html
16:09:24 <ht> Topic: Technical Plenary planning
16:09:36 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/mid/C4B3FB61F7970A4391A5C10BAA1C3F0DC2F086@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net
16:09:51 <ht> NW: Any suggestions?
16:09:58 <Rhys> Rhys prefers Stuart's URI
16:10:04 <ht> SW: I sent the above as a starter
16:10:14 <ht> ... URI-based extensibility
16:10:22 <ht> ... Web 2.0
16:10:30 <Noah> q+ to ask how close the first proposed topic comes to HTML 5 extensibility
16:10:30 <ht> ... HTTP URIs rule
16:11:07 <Norm> ack DanC 
16:11:07 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to relay http://www.molly.com/2007/08/11/dear-w3c-dear-wasp/
16:11:10 <DanC> q+ to offer to re-play his "nofollow is like marquee" story re "The Importance URI based Extensibility"
16:11:10 <ht> TVR: Challenge is how to raise these, or any topics, in a way that works for the TP
16:11:17 <ht> ack DanC
16:11:17 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to offer to re-play his "nofollow is like marquee" story re "The Importance URI based Extensibility"
16:13:17 <ht> DC: Molly Holzschlag has asked for observer status at the HTML WG meeting, which is fine with me, and has made some suggestions for a TP session (see link)
16:13:55 <ht> NW: Who is WaSP (Web Standards Project) -- relation with WHAT WG?
16:14:01 <ht> HST: They've been around for a long time
16:14:37 <Norm> q+ To point out that HTML/HTML5 extensibility looks like a good topic
16:14:55 <ht> DC: They have pushed for a more aggressive attempt to support standards than W3C has pursued, in that W3C has a policy of not making public criticisms of its members if at all possible
16:15:37 <Rhys> q+
16:15:44 <ht> DC: I also think we could talk about the relationship between rel='nofollow' and <marquee> -- if the latter is bad, why isn't the former?
16:16:32 <ht> NM: Wrt URI-based extensibility, is that where we talk about HTML 5 extensibility, or does that need a separate heading/slot/bullet?
16:16:36 <Norm> ack no
16:16:36 <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to point out that HTML/HTML5 extensibility looks like a good topic
16:16:39 <Norm> ack noah
16:16:39 <Zakim> Noah, you wanted to ask how close the first proposed topic comes to HTML 5 extensibility
16:16:43 <Norm> q+ To point out that HTML/HTML5 extensibility looks like a good topic
16:17:26 <ht> TVR: Even if it is covered, the title doesn't communicate that
16:18:05 <Norm> ack norm
16:18:05 <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to point out that HTML/HTML5 extensibility looks like a good topic
16:18:09 <ht> Various: The overall topic is a big one
16:18:19 <ht> NW: TP is a good place to talk about big topic
16:18:31 <ht> TVR: Start with the smaller (HTML5) topic, and then enlarge
16:19:22 <ht> SW: The topic emerged from our call discussion about follow-your-nose, we had trouble articulating exactly what we wanted, so it seemed a good topic
16:19:24 <Noah> Now that I think about it: the need for distributed extensibility is, as a requirement.  Applying URI-based extensibility in particular is the Web-compatible way of achieving such extensibility.
16:19:46 <Noah> s/distributed extensibility/distributed HTML 5 extensibility/
16:20:04 <ht> NW: So, do we have consensus?  Should we address HTML5 extensibiliyt
16:20:07 <Rhys> +1 to the broader topic
16:20:09 <Rhys> ack me
16:20:15 <ht> HST: I thought we had consensus on the broader topic
16:20:36 <ht> NW: I'm happy to go to the broad topic
16:21:20 <ht> NM: Once you agree on distributed extensibility as a requirement for HTML5, you still have to agree mechanism, i.e. URI-based or not
16:21:31 <ht> DC: How much time do we have?
16:21:47 <ht> ... I could imagine a whole conference on this topic
16:22:02 <ht> NM: I thought this was for the whole day
16:22:25 <Noah> Any interest in inviting Sam Ruby to discuss his views on HTML 5 extensibility?
16:22:34 <ht> NW: The message subject is ["possible topic for TAG contribution to TP"]
16:22:58 <ht> SW: Is this the subject that we have the most affinity for?
16:23:24 <ht> DC: 'We' isn't the point - I have a specific pointI want to get across
16:24:16 <ht> NM: Molly was particularly concerned about Adobe's AIR and application construction in general, which would I guess point also to Microsoft's Silverlight
16:24:28 <ht> ack DanC
16:24:28 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-TechPlenAgenda.html
16:25:00 <ht> DC: The TP programme committee has a list of 20 topics to talk about, see link
16:26:00 <Noah> Speaking just for myself, I find some of the technical topics we're noodling on here to be more compelling than the rough list at 07-TechPlenAgenda.html
16:26:37 <Norm> Norm has joined #tagmem
16:26:39 <ht> NW: Are we ready for the chair of the TAG to go back to Steve with an overview of what we've discussed, and see where it might fit in?
16:26:50 <Norm> q?
16:26:57 <ht> Action: SW to discuss TAG slot at TP with Steve Bratt, informed by above discussion
16:26:57 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-10 - Discuss TAG slot at TP with Steve Bratt, informed by above discussion [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-08-20].
16:27:24 <ht> NW: Same question about the AC -- anything to say?
16:27:37 <ht> HST: It's half-a-day, I think we should duck
16:28:52 <ht> DC: We don't seem to be doing REC-track work -- if anybody cared I guess we'd hear about it. . .
16:29:29 <Noah> I agree with Norm, we haven't forgotten rec track work.  What we have not done is produce 3 month heartbeats so identified.
16:29:40 <ht> HST: At Extreme last week, I got a lot of good response when I pointed people to the [Alternative Representations] finding -- we could just make it a REC
16:30:07 <ht> NW: I just don't think our recent work has been REC-like, we're still looking for that
16:30:11 <DanC> (looking it up... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html is dated 1 November 2006 )
16:30:52 <ht> NM: I think a lot of our recent pubs can be seen as a heartbeat
16:31:15 <DanC> (our last WD was http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ )
16:31:27 <ht> NM: Most recent approved finding was Metadata finding, at beginning of the year
16:32:47 <ht> DC: We have to do a written report which summarises what we've done
16:33:03 <ht> ... If anyone objects, we'll here about it
16:33:38 <ht> Action: SW to tell Steve Bratt that the TAG doesn't want a slot at the AC meeting
16:33:38 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-11 - Tell Steve Bratt that the TAG doesn't want a slot at the AC meeting [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-08-20].
16:34:10 <ht> Topic: TAG blog entry: Version identifiers
16:34:24 <ht> NW: Who has not read it : HST, DC, TVR
16:34:39 <ht> NM: It's not long, shall I walk through ito
16:34:45 <ht> s/ito/it?/
16:35:00 <ht> NW: Go ahead then
16:35:12 <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/versionBlog.html
16:35:13 <ht> NM: We've gotten some pushback from DO and Mark Baker
16:35:14 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/versionBlog.html
16:37:46 <DanC> (hmm... it's not clear that the quoted GPN is quoted, especially when the one that's not quoted looks the same)
16:38:15 <ht> [Scribe not trying to transcribe NM's walkthrough]
16:38:24 <DanC> [this bit about xml 1.1 is awfully relevant, and yet it's not in there? odd.]
16:39:09 <DanC> [perhaps the xml 1.1 versioning situation fits better in a separate item.]
16:40:26 <DanC> [the "ASCII doesn't have a version identifier" example that Noah often uses isn't in here. odd.]
16:41:39 <Norm> q+ to observe that "will change in incompatible ways" asks about the future
16:41:40 <ht> q+ to be confused
16:41:48 <Norm> ack ht
16:41:48 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to be confused
16:42:51 <raman> q+ to add that finding mixes "identifying version" with the specific technique of adding a "version attribute" -- 
16:43:39 <ht> HST: There's a shift between "provide for marking version" and "when to mark version" in your prose
16:43:48 <ht> ... That seems to me to take us off track
16:44:29 <ht> NM: I think those are closely related -- if you would never want to mark the version, then the language shouldn't provide the mechanism for you to do so.
16:45:26 <Stuart> q+ to note that many of the questions the article raises are associated versioning strategy associated with (all versions of) the language.
16:46:50 <ht> HST: My understanding of the existing BPN is that if you _don't_ give people a way to mark versions, they will make one up, which will not be interoperable, so even if you don't know for sure what it will be used for, you should leave a place for it
16:47:07 <ht> NM: If you can't spec. what the version indicator means, you shouldn't have it in your spec.
16:47:19 <DanC> [I hear Noah defending his position but not convincing HT. I think the article is interesting as is, and I'd like to see it go out signed "Noah, a TAG member" and let other TAG members respond with other articles or comments.]
16:47:27 <ht> ... You will just be storing up trouble for the future, c.f. XML's version attribute
16:49:04 <ht> HST: Brings us back to the metapoint as to what the status of TAG blog entries should be -- the settled will of the TAG as a group, or an opportunity for TAG members to discuss something using the blog medium?
16:49:11 <ht> NM: DO said something similar
16:49:41 <ht> SW: I think the value of a blog would be lost if it required consensus
16:49:46 <Norm> q?
16:50:00 <ht> TVR: I agree, we shouldn't turn TAG blog entries into mini-findings
16:50:40 <ht> NM: I think we should reserve the possibility that we do both, that is, we may sometimes want to publish something _with_ consensus
16:50:55 <DanC> (sure, a little telcon preview is a good thing, from time to time)
16:51:18 <Stuart> +1 to DanC
16:51:19 <ht> ... and that I _can_ ask for telcon review on how to make the best posting I can, before I post it
16:51:31 <Norm> But not that I have to ask for it
16:52:01 <ht> NW: So it you remove "for the T A G" from the bottom, you can publish as and when you choose
16:52:03 <Norm> ack Norm 
16:52:03 <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to observe that "will change in incompatible ways" asks about the future
16:52:27 <Rhys> +1 to the proposal on blog entries
16:52:35 <Norm> q?
16:52:38 <Norm> ack raman 
16:52:38 <Zakim> raman, you wanted to add that finding mixes "identifying version" with the specific technique of adding a "version attribute" --
16:53:06 <ht> NW: I'm also not sure that I'm unhappy with the existing GPN -- I'm not happy with the idea that the spec. author has to tell in advance whether there will ever be incompatible changes
16:53:48 <ht> TVR: Just to make sure that we're not just talking about version attributes alone as the way of indicating version
16:53:57 <ht> NM: We get to namespaces in the last section
16:54:27 <ht> TVR: What about DOCTYPE line as a version identifier, which is what the HTML WG are going back and forth about
16:54:32 <Norm> q?
16:54:35 <Norm> ack Stuart 
16:54:35 <Zakim> Stuart, you wanted to note that many of the questions the article raises are associated versioning strategy associated with (all versions of) the language.
16:55:11 <DanC> (er... let's not leave posting mechanics in the someday pile, please.)
16:55:37 <ht> SW: The questions raised by the article are closely related to the terminology and analysis in the Versioning finding we're working on
16:56:06 <ht> ... I think Mark Baker's comment [link] are along the same lines
16:56:59 <ht> NM: I thought his comments (about header metadata) were strictly-speaking out of scope, because the BPN is about _in-band_ identifiers, but metadata is _out-of-band_
16:58:30 <ht> DC: Movable Type is weblog support software, in some ways the first one
16:59:11 <ht> ... Karl duBost installed it for W3C and interface it with our CVS system -- this is good, but does introduce a 15-minute delay
16:59:23 <Noah> Actually, media type is in-band from the point of view of an HTTP response, but we're talking here about specifications for and instance of particular data formats.  In general, I don't >think< it's likely that media-types play a big role in the in-the-file versioning formats.  Right?
16:59:58 <ht> ... It supports categories, so if you categorise things they get syndicated, and can then be grabbed by a web page
17:00:00 <DanC> (yes, analagous to http://www.w3.org/html/ )
17:00:40 <ht> NM: What about formatting: monospace, display, etc?
17:01:14 <ht> DC: Karl is pretty good with CSS, I don't know what would happen if I added my own. . .
17:03:11 <ht> NW: Summarising -- Karl's setup can easily be expanded to allow us to log in, author new entries, categorise them as "TAG" and feed our blog page
17:03:30 <ht> SW: Different from B2 Evolution -based blogs?
17:04:07 <ht> DC: Yes -- advantage is it's baked not fried -- that is, the HTML is constructed only once, not on demand from a SQL DB
17:04:18 <Zakim> +Dave_Orchard
17:04:54 <ht> TVR: I don't mind what the content management is as long as it doesn't get in the way by producing opaque URIs
17:05:21 <ht> DC: I think we will got good URIs from Movable Type, including year, month and words from the title
17:05:38 <ht> topic: location of the TAG blog
17:06:16 <Norm> -> http//www.w3.org/blog/tag/
17:06:16 <DanC> (do I read this correctly? 4 objections to <http://www.w3.org/tag/blog> ?)
17:08:08 <ht> That option was added late, so the no-entries may just be ones who never saw it
17:08:10 <Noah> Should we just do a prefer/live-with on the two surviving options right now on the phone?
17:08:24 <Norm> Yes, something like that.
17:08:32 <DanC> (I suspect http://www.w3.org/blog/tag/ is technically tied to b2evolution)
17:09:05 <Noah> +1
17:09:17 <Rhys> +1 to /tag/blog
17:09:24 <Norm> Proposed: http://www.w3.org/tag/blog/
17:09:57 <ht> SW: DC, can you organise the top-level 'tag' directory that we will need?
17:10:08 <ht> DC: Not without approval from TimBL. . .
17:10:38 <ht> DO: We can resolve on /tag/blog, pending approval
17:10:57 <ht> NM: I don't think we're in a great rush
17:11:13 <Norm> No objections.
17:11:17 <ht> NW: OK, lets try /tag/blog
17:11:37 <ht> Resolved: To locate the TAG blog at http://www.w3.org/tag/blog
17:11:49 <ht> Action: DC to try to reach TBL to get approval
17:11:49 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-12 - Try to reach TBL to get approval [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-08-20].
17:11:52 <Norm> Proposed title: TAG Lines
17:12:01 <ht> NW: Any objections to TAG Lines?
17:12:35 <ht> Resolved: The TAG blog will be called "TAG Lines", using the mechanisms established by Karl duBost
17:13:22 <ht> Action: DC to ask KdB if categories can be restricted to particular login lists
17:13:22 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-13 - Ask KdB if categories can be restricted to particular login lists [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-08-20].
17:13:43 <Norm> zakim, who's making noise?
17:13:55 <Zakim> Norm, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dave_Orchard (15%)
17:15:52 <ht> NM: We should try to use the description of whatever category we pick to make clear that it's for TAG members only
17:16:17 <ht> DC: I'd be happy if Yves Lafon wrote something about caching for him to use the category 'web architecture'
17:16:33 <ht> HST: Then we shouldn't use 'web architecture' for the TAG blog
17:17:02 <ht> NM: So two categories then, 'web architecture' and 'TAG Member', and I should use both for my post?
17:17:06 <ht> DC, HST: Yes
17:17:20 <ht> topic: httpRange-14 finding status
17:17:30 <Stuart> q+
17:17:42 <ht> RL: New draft coming soon, significantly changed, lots of new material
17:17:58 <Norm> ack Stuart 
17:18:25 <ht> ... available soon, then I'm mostly away until just before the f2f, so you all can review
17:18:57 <ht> SW: I think we've had problems if we try to discuss things that aren't public. . .
17:19:20 <ht> RL: My plan was to put it in public space, but not announce it publicly
17:19:31 <ht> DC: Hmmm, I'd rather it were just out there
17:19:44 <ht> RL: But I won't be available to answer comments
17:20:08 <ht> NM: I've found that just saying that works pretty well
17:20:29 <ht> RL: OK, I'll go ahead and do that
17:20:54 <ht> topic: Request from Ted Guild for BP Note on caching schema documents
17:21:44 <ht> NW: Background: W3C servers get hammered by tools which don't cache schema documents which they request very frequently
17:21:55 <ht> TVR: I don't see that this is a TAG issue
17:23:35 <ht> HST: I think it's a TAG issue, but not restricted to schema docs -- the Web provides for caching, if you anticipate large volumes of traffic from your site, or sites which use your software, to one or more stable resources, you should provide for caches 
17:23:59 <Norm> q+ davo
17:24:06 <Norm> ack davo
17:24:20 <ht> NM: More than that, I think our interest here follows from the advice to use only one URI for any given resource
17:24:53 <ht> DO: New issue or not, I think we should take it on, because it follows from our advice on avoiding multiple URIs
17:25:11 <ht> ... We should follow through on the ramifications of our recommendations
17:25:15 <DanC> (it's also true that people shy away from http URIs because they fear their server will melt down.)
17:26:01 <DanC> name brainstorm... httpCaching... hotSpot...
17:26:09 <ht> NW: I hear consensus we should take this up.  New issue, or attached to an existing one?  If new, then what name?
17:26:58 <Norm> ...representationCaching...managingHotURIs...
17:27:02 <ht> SW: schemas only?
17:27:16 <ht> TVR: No
17:27:30 <Norm> ...scalabilityOfPopularURIs
17:27:34 <ht> HST: schemas, stylesheets (XSLT, CSS, ...)
17:27:36 <Norm> ...uriScalability
17:27:37 <ht> TVR: Images
17:27:43 <ht> HST: Lists of e.g. language codes
17:27:59 <DanC> (caching proxies aren't enough in some cases... in some cases, products that ship with URIs hadcoded might as well ship with a representation hardcoded, and only phone home once every 6 months.)
17:28:03 <Stuart> ...frequentlyAccessedResources
17:28:42 <Norm> Right. Web frameworks running on end-user-machines don't have caching proxies necessarily
17:29:02 <ht> TVR: The architectural problem is in part that the publisher of a popular URI cannot in general ensure responsible caching by clients
17:29:18 <ht> q+ to point out MSoft's response
17:30:03 <Stuart> q+ to suggest advice should include advice to folk deploying such static resources to set expiry time
17:30:04 <ht> NM: But we do expect providers of e.g. popular home pages to scale up the servers in keeping with demand
17:30:28 <DanC> ("economics aside" is not a tactic I want us to take. I want us to keep economics in mind.)
17:30:35 <Norm> ack ht 
17:30:35 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to point out MSoft's response
17:30:38 <Stuart> q-
17:30:42 <ht> ... So maybe the W3C is actually at fault here -- what's the division of responsiblity between provider and consumer
17:30:57 <Noah> FWIW: I the reason I thought this discussion was useful was to >scope< the issue, which I think should go beyond caching
17:31:32 <Norm> ...scalabilityOfPopularResources
17:31:44 <Norm> scalabilityForPopularResources
17:31:59 <DanC> (I prefer URI to resource in this case, even though it's wrong. But oh well.)
17:32:25 <DanC> cachingBestPractices
17:32:35 <Noah> On economics, I agree, but when you say "ignoring economics for the moment" helps you to tease out which compromises you're making for mainly technical and which mainly economic.  I claim that if W3C's funding were like Google's, they might not bother to lock out people who hit them at the rates we see.
17:32:51 <Norm> scalabilityOfURIAccess
17:32:57 <Noah> But yes, the fact that many providers can't afford to scale is a crucial (economic) piece of the puzzle.
17:33:25 <Norm> Proposed: The TAG accept a new issue, scalabilityOfURIAccess-58
17:33:43 <DanC> aye, and I don't care about the number
17:34:02 <ht> Resolved: the TAG accepts a new issue scalabilityOfURIAccess-58
17:34:27 <ht> NW: Someone willing to summarize this and send it to the list?
17:34:45 <ht> DC: NW, did Ted Guild's message cover the background?
17:35:08 <ht> NW: Not all.  I'll take the action
17:35:11 <DanC> http://www.mnot.net/blog/2007/06/20/proxy_caching
17:35:36 <ht> NM: Do try to indicate that this isn't _just_ about caching
17:35:38 <ht> NW: Will do
17:35:40 <Zakim> -Raman
17:35:48 <ht> Action: NW to announce the new issue
17:35:48 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-14 - Announce the new issue [on Norman Walsh - due 2007-08-20].
17:35:53 <Zakim> -Dave_Orchard
17:35:55 <Zakim> -Norm
17:35:56 <Zakim> -Rhys
17:35:58 <Zakim> -Ht
17:35:59 <Zakim> -Noah_Mendelsohn
17:36:12 <Zakim> -Stuart
17:36:13 <ht> zakim, who was here?
17:36:14 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ht.
17:36:22 <ht> zakim, bye
17:36:22 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Raman, DanC, Ht, Stuart, Rhys, Norm, Noah_Mendelsohn, Dave_Orchard
17:36:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem
17:36:40 <ht> RRSAgent, make logs world-visible.
17:36:46 <ht> RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
17:37:07 <ht> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:37:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html ht
19:54:18 <Norm> Norm has joined #tagmem
20:16:31 <Norm> rrsagent, bye
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> I see 7 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-actions.rdf :
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Stuart to put up straw poll to try to find a new slot for this meeting [1]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T16-06-14
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SW to create new TAG issue called "HTTP Redirections" per minutes of 16/7/07 [2]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T16-09-07
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SW to discuss TAG slot at TP with Steve Bratt, informed by above discussion [3]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T16-26-57
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SW to tell Steve Bratt that the TAG doesn't want a slot at the AC meeting [4]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T16-33-38
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: DC to try to reach TBL to get approval [5]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T17-11-49
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: DC to ask KdB if categories can be restricted to particular login lists [6]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T17-13-22
20:16:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: NW to announce the new issue [7]
20:16:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-irc#T17-35-48