IRC log of tagmem on 2007-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:49:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:49:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:50:32 [Stuart]
zakim, this will be tag
16:50:32 [Zakim]
ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
16:54:57 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
16:55:44 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
16:55:51 [Zakim]
16:55:57 [Stuart]
zakim, ?? is me
16:55:57 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
16:56:13 [Stuart]
16:56:57 [Stuart]
Zakim, feed dan some twinkies
16:56:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'feed dan some twinkies', Stuart
16:57:26 [Zakim]
+ +019628aaaa
16:57:28 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
16:58:02 [Zakim]
16:58:10 [Zakim]
16:58:22 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, ??P2 is me
16:58:22 [Zakim]
+Noah_Bangalore; got it
16:58:26 [Zakim]
16:58:32 [Stuart]
zakim, +0 is Rhys
16:58:32 [Zakim]
+Rhys; got it
16:58:58 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here
16:58:58 [Zakim]
Stuart, you need to end that query with '?'
16:59:01 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:59:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Rhys, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL
16:59:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see raman, Rhys, RRSAgent, Zakim, Noah_Bangalore, Stuart, trackbot-ng, ht, DanC
16:59:22 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:59:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Rhys, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL
16:59:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see raman, Rhys, RRSAgent, Zakim, Noah_Bangalore, Stuart, trackbot-ng, ht, DanC
16:59:37 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:59:37 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:59:39 [Zakim]
17:00:17 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, mute me
17:00:17 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should now be muted
17:00:23 [Zakim]
17:00:24 [Zakim]
17:00:52 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: TAG 13
17:01:03 [DanC]
Chair: Stuart
17:01:05 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
17:01:05 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
17:01:09 [DanC]
Topic: Convene
17:01:13 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:01:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Rhys, Raman, Noah_Bangalore (muted), TimBL, DanC
17:01:18 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:01:18 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:42 [DanC]
SKW: one recent change to agenda; any other mods?
17:01:57 [DanC]
-> minutes 6 Sep
17:02:14 [DanC]
RESOLVED to approve minutes 6 Sep (2007/09/06 18:55:56)
17:02:25 [DanC]
Topic: Next Telcon
17:02:32 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet again 27 Sep, Rhys to scribe
17:03:05 [ht]
Regrets for 2007-09-27
17:03:55 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet 27 Sep (scribe to be confirmed)
17:04:07 [DanC]
Topic: September F2F Preparation
17:04:27 [DanC] Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2007/09/11 09:54:43
17:04:53 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, unmute me
17:04:53 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should no longer be muted
17:05:00 [DanC]
SKW: Monday part of the meeting will stop at 5pm sharp if we're to take up the offer regarding a social event
17:06:17 [DanC]
HT notes weather merits warm clothing
17:06:20 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
17:06:34 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, mute me
17:06:34 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should now be muted
17:06:50 [DanC]
SKW: monday morning scribe?
17:06:59 [DanC]
HT: OK, I'll scribe Monday 17 Sep AM
17:07:12 [DanC]
Rhys: regrets 27 Sep [?]
17:07:16 [ht]
For wind and weather forecasts, I recommend
17:08:00 [ht]
There are weather stations for both Southampton and St. Catherine's Point
17:08:52 [DanC]
Topic: Issue UrnsAndRegistries-50 (Tracker ISSUE-50)
17:09:12 [DanC]
. ACTION-33 Henry: revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding in response to F2F discussion
17:09:21 [DanC]
HT: my work on that got preempted; sorry.
17:09:30 [DanC]
HT: yes, I saw Chime's comments.
17:09:56 [DanC]
HT: the was news to me; thanks
17:10:05 [Noah_Bangalore]
I'm afraid I really need to go. FYI, I made some limited progress on the plane on the way over in reading both the terminology and strategies parts of Dave's versioning drafts. Whether I'll be able to wrap them in an email before the F2F is not clear, but I'll certainly try.
17:10:06 [DanC]
Topic: Issue contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)
17:10:23 [Noah_Bangalore]
See you Monday.
17:10:24 [Stuart]
Thanks noah...
17:10:50 [Noah_Bangalore]
Actually I'm interested in this one, I'll stay a bit.
17:10:57 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, unmute me
17:10:57 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should no longer be muted
17:11:02 [Stuart]
17:11:32 [DanC]
DC: our position on contentTypeOverride-24 is: if it says text/plain, it's text/plain
17:11:34 [ht]
ScribeNick: HT
17:11:53 [ht]
NM: By "ask for an image" do you mena in the accept header?
17:12:06 [ht]
DC: No, rather where the GET comes from, i.e. the markup around the link
17:12:09 [Stuart]
17:12:19 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, mute me
17:12:19 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should now be muted
17:12:31 [ht]
... I can't remember whether the HTML 5 spec says anything about accept header
17:12:48 [ht]
DC: I then thought about the overlap with HTTP
17:12:59 [ht]
... and drafted an internet draft containing the sniffing rules
17:13:10 [ht]
... which was enough to get Roy Fielding to join the HTML WG
17:13:23 [ht]
... and some substantive discussion is now happening
17:13:47 [ht]
... Ian Hickson says that having spent two years trying to do the right thing, and losing
17:14:08 [Stuart]
17:14:08 [ht]
... He believes that any browser that doesn't sniff will lose market share
17:14:19 [ht]
... Fielding disagrees
17:14:37 [Zakim]
17:14:51 [ht]
... Hickson has in the past suggested the TAG would have more credibility if they reopened the finding and added orange cones, that is, "in practice" exceptions
17:15:08 [Noah_Bangalore]
q+ to noodle a bit on accept headers vs. <img> tags
17:15:22 [Stuart]
ack stuart
17:15:22 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, unmute me
17:15:23 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should no longer be muted
17:15:25 [Stuart]
ack noah
17:15:25 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore, you wanted to noodle a bit on accept headers vs. <img> tags
17:15:44 [ht]
SW: I've always understood that the mime type as delivered is a statement of server intent, and that doesn't _entirely_ determine what client use must be
17:16:40 [ht]
NM: What would a new story be, if the HTML WG gets their (currently specced) way? If they add an accept header, that makes some sense
17:17:08 [ht]
but if _not_, I'm really worried -- it means you're interpreting the outcome of a protocol on the basis of something _outside_ the protocol
17:17:16 [Noah_Bangalore]
zakim, mute me
17:17:16 [Zakim]
Noah_Bangalore should now be muted
17:17:44 [ht]
SW: Should we actually open this up?
17:18:09 [Noah_Bangalore]
I'll try to clarify a bit what Henry scribed (you can fold this in when editing minutes of you like).
17:18:20 [timbl_]
I wouldlike to push back on the HTML WG
17:18:26 [DanC]
q+ to concur with TVR about the risk here
17:18:41 [ht]
TVR: I'm not sure this is a good idea, on the grounds that we've already opened up the HTML issue, and we don't yet know what the result will be
17:18:41 [DanC]
ack danc
17:18:41 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to concur with TVR about the risk here
17:18:42 [Stuart]
ack danc
17:19:00 [Noah_Bangalore]
What I was trying to say was: it was asserted that the semantics HTML 5 wants is something like "if the link was from an <img> tag, then make different assumptions about whether the returned representation is an image, regardless of Content-Type".
17:19:22 [ht]
TVR: Until we know that the HTML WG will succeed, I'm concerned about putting even more of WebArch at risk
17:19:30 [Noah_Bangalore]
What bothers me about that is that not only is that different from HTTP as specified today, you can't even specify it in terms of information that's visible at the HTTP level.
17:19:37 [timbl_]
Who at microsoft is the person who has to make that decision?
17:20:02 [Rhys]
I agree with Raman
17:20:43 [timbl_]
17:20:44 [ht]
DC: This is an issue which makes me worry about the viabililty of the HTML WG -- Ian Hickson's position is that we can't do anything that the major browsers won't come on board with. Roy Fielding's view is that that means abdicating responsiblity, and just standardise other folks bugs
17:21:16 [ht]
DO: I agree that this is not in the whole community's interest
17:21:47 [Stuart]
ack timb
17:21:52 [ht]
... We had a less than completely successful attempt to do better in the Web Services area, I don't think we should roll over here as well
17:22:42 [ht]
TBL: It's true that if we can't get the big vendors to change their minds, we're in a mess. I think the right answer is for the TAG to convince them to try to make their browser help users do better
17:22:53 [ht]
... I'm prepared to put some efforts into make this happen
17:23:21 [ht]
... For example, browsers should warn users when [missed first example] or when they have to sniff
17:23:28 [DanC]
q+ to report a bit of hope for a mozilla build with an option to make bogus mime types visible to the user, and meanwhile, a fairly serious proposal to reduce the HTTP mime type to a "hint" and introduce "application/xml; dammit=yes"
17:24:09 [DanC]
q+ to note that LMM has suggested deprecating conneg in the HTTP WG-to-be
17:24:13 [ht]
... Important to get this right _now_ -- this morning we were talking about video, and for a number of practical reasons, content negotiation between the two major approaches is going to be _very_ important
17:24:48 [ht]
... and this is going to happen again and again, so we _should_ take up the challenge and try to persuade Firefox and IE and so on
17:25:16 [Stuart]
ack DanC
17:25:16 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to report a bit of hope for a mozilla build with an option to make bogus mime types visible to the user, and meanwhile, a fairly serious proposal to reduce the
17:25:20 [Zakim]
... HTTP mime type to a "hint" and introduce "application/xml; dammit=yes" and to note that LMM has suggested deprecating conneg in the HTTP WG-to-be
17:25:22 [DanC]
17:25:24 [ht]
TVR: Sniffing is a slippery slope to disaster
17:25:43 [ht]
DC: HTTP WG is thinking about restarting at IETF
17:25:54 [ht]
... fixing bugs, issues list, no WG yet but close
17:26:08 [ht]
... Larry Masinter has filed an issue to deprecate content negotiation
17:26:34 [ht]
... Julian Reshke said he'd like a configuration option which said "show me the true mime type"
17:26:51 [ht]
... That seemed like a hopeful sign
17:27:44 [timbl_]
... application/xml;dammit
17:27:48 [ht]
... There has also been discussion [where?] of replacing or down-grading or ??? the Content-Type: header, e.g. application/xmlDamnIt
17:28:18 [timbl_]
I don't see at all how that will solve the problem that ISPs don't allow folks to control the MIME heders
17:28:19 [ht]
SW: So reopening means strengthening our arguments, or considering changing our position?
17:28:24 [Noah_Bangalore]
+1 to reopen
17:28:30 [ht]
DC: Could go either way
17:28:33 [Noah_Bangalore]
or at least a strong concur
17:28:45 [DanC]
DC, Tim, Dorchard, Noah...
17:28:48 [ht]
SW: In favour of reopening: 4
17:29:16 [Rhys]
Rhys doesn't have a strong view
17:29:18 [ht]
SW: Abstain: HST, SW
17:29:38 [ht]
17:29:50 [ht]
SW: Opposed: TVR
17:30:12 [timbl_]
17:30:13 [ht]
TBL: Do we have to reopen the issue to discuss it?
17:30:27 [ht]
TVR: I'd like to discuss it, but not change it
17:30:47 [ht]
q+ to say enforcement
17:30:51 [ht]
ack ht
17:30:51 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say enforcement
17:30:54 [DanC]
(if we just want to re-assert our position, I don't think we need to re-open it.)
17:31:06 [Noah_Bangalore]
I'm discouraged. For years we've asked ourselves whether the time is right to tell the story of the new parts of the web, like SemWeb, in an AWWW vol 2. Now it feels like we're deciding how much of V1 to withdraw. Sigh.
17:31:17 [ht]
HT: I think it's always in order to discuss how to best promote TAG findings
17:31:43 [ht]
DC: Not opening it says we're not listening
17:31:50 [Noah_Bangalore]
Not that I'm against openning the issue, just discouraged that we need to.
17:31:54 [ht]
TVR: Opening it says we were wrong
17:32:11 [Noah_Bangalore]
I also don't think that openning an issue signals a change. It signals a careful recheck, I think.
17:32:20 [ht]
DO: I guess opening it is sensible because it gives us a clean way to discuss, have actions, etc.
17:32:43 [ht]
... There's a precedent in what we did with xxx-7
17:33:06 [Noah_Bangalore]
I do have to go now. See you in Southampton. Good night!
17:33:11 [Zakim]
17:33:14 [ht]
... So if we reopen and say "We're doing this because there's new information, and we want to track that and interact appropriately"
17:33:40 [DanC]
+1 re-open (I think the economics of the issue merits re-opening it)
17:33:41 [ht]
SW: Asking again -- should the TAG reopen the issue
17:34:49 [ht]
TVR: What does opening it mean?
17:35:00 [ht]
HST: That it stays open until we close it or abandon it
17:35:16 [timbl_]
TBL: yes
17:35:47 [ht]
SW: In favour: DC, DO, TBL
17:36:13 [ht]
Abstain: HST, TVR, RL
17:36:26 [ht]
DO: If we're not going to open this, we shouldn't talk about it
17:36:33 [ht]
q+ to make a left-field suggestion
17:38:11 [ht]
HST: What about opening a new issue on "How do we deal with the fact that the HTML WG is heading down a road that is incompatible with our finding on respectMediaType-???
17:38:15 [ht]
TVR: I like that
17:38:25 [ht]
DC: I could live with it, but I think it's odd
17:38:46 [ht]
DO: Same here -- it seems like a heavy burden on our process
17:39:14 [ht]
SW: Proposal to reopen fails -- only three in favour
17:41:13 [DanC]
ScribeNick: DanC
17:41:17 [ht]
HST observes that there _was_ a majority in favour of talking about this matter. . .
17:41:58 [DanC]
SKW: proposal to re-open issue 24 didn't carry; other proposals are welcome. enough for today...
17:42:10 [DanC]
Topic: Tech-Plenary: TAG Proposal of Discussion Topic
17:42:20 [timbl_]
17:43:22 [DanC]
DO: [something] was accepted... 45 min...
17:43:50 [DanC]
... panel... with Q&A... <= 5 ppl... maybe 4...
17:43:58 [Stuart]
ok it's written as: The Importance URI based Extensibility
17:44:36 [DanC]
DO: on the panel should be advocates of short strings as used in microformats, somebody from HTML 5, etc.
17:44:40 [Stuart]
but the that seems to be different words for what has also been called distributed extensibility
17:46:10 [DanC]
DO: not sure if my role is just recruiting panelists, or MC, or participant, or what...
17:46:41 [Rhys]
I think it's fine for the MC also to be a participant in the panel.
17:46:56 [DanC]
TVR: goal of the panel?
17:46:57 [DanC]
17:46:58 [DanC]
17:47:05 [ht]
17:47:09 [DanC]
TVR: goal of the panel? this is clearly a long-running discussion.
17:47:21 [Stuart]
17:47:41 [DanC]
DO: re-inforce our message in support of decentralized language evolution
17:47:47 [Stuart]
ack Dan
17:48:36 [DanC]
DanC: goal is at least getting more of the community up to speed, if not achieving a whole lot of novel technical progress on the panel itself
17:48:42 [DanC]
TVR: ok, outreach makes sense
17:50:17 [DanC]
SKW makes suggestion to mitigate the risk that presentations would use all the time
17:50:57 [Zakim]
17:50:58 [Zakim]
17:51:11 [DanC]
((diversion back to ftf logistics; SKW notes Monday PM 5pm stop time))
17:51:39 [DanC]
((yes, pick up XMLversioning at 3:30pm Monday))
17:52:04 [DanC]
((same time window on Tues harder to predict, but agenda calls for Tag Soup))
17:52:16 [DanC]
Topic: Issue XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)
17:53:25 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
17:53:46 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:53:54 [ht]
DC: I'm still interested in the thread on forward/backward compatibility definitions
17:53:55 [dorchard]
17:53:58 [DanC]
ACTION-4 on Dan Connolly to Review definitions of partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible [DONE]
17:54:09 [Stuart]
ack d
17:54:16 [ht]
... Mark DeGraaw [sp?] has recently raised a real use case here, coming from HL7
17:54:43 [ht]
DO: I've tried to add definitions, based on information, but that did not find favor
17:55:06 [DanC]
DanC: my review (Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:57:37 -0500) said "I don't find this appealing; looks like an open research problem". DO said "let's not formalize it that deeply" which seems ok, perhaps, to me and Noah... as long as it doesn't come up in the practical examples in the scenarios part
17:55:16 [ht]
... Since I can't take it any further, I suggested dropping it
17:55:57 [ht]
... I'm also interested in Mark DeGraaw's work, since there's a clear indication there of the value that success here would provide
17:56:15 [DanC]
DanC: Marc de Graauw is working on a formalism; I found it somewhat interesting as an academic exercise, but much moreso now that he's pointed out that it's grounded in a real-world scenario: HL7
17:56:19 [ht]
SW: HST, any input?
17:56:33 [ht]
HST: I know of no solutions from the Computational Linguistics side
17:56:43 [DanC]
ACTION-27 on Dan Connolly to ask Mimasa and Mark Birbeck about feasability of using substitution groups in XHTML modularization, cc public-xml-versioning [DONE]
17:57:03 [ht]
DC: I asked, I didn't get a satisfactory answer
17:57:24 [ht]
... Subst Groups are designed for distributed extensibility
17:57:34 [ht]
scribenick: danc
17:57:49 [DanC]
HT: I'm up to speed here... I read the modularization [of XHTML] spec...
17:58:04 [DanC]
(which see ACTION-15 )
17:58:05 [ht]
17:59:37 [DanC]
HT: indeed, substitution groups are a great mechanism for distributed extensibility; I explain how...
17:59:55 [DanC]
... a couple problems, 1 minor and 1 major...
18:00:28 [DanC]
... putting things in multiple substitution groups isn't allowed in XSD-the-REC; it is in XSD-work-in-progress...
18:00:53 [timbl_]
"clean subsetting"?
18:00:59 [DanC]
... but they [XHTML] have another goal, that substitution groups don't do: "clean subsetting"
18:01:36 [DanC]
... substitution groups are bottom-up, which is why they're great for decentralized extensiblitiy...
18:01:51 [DanC]
... but XHTML modularization is also top-down; I dunno how to do that with substitution groups
18:02:09 [dorchard]
18:02:20 [DanC]
... I hope somebody finds a work-around
18:02:42 [DanC]
DC: this "clean subsetting" ... not sure I understand the motivation...
18:02:50 [DanC]
HT: you need it to build XHTML 1.1 out of modules
18:03:02 [Stuart]
ack do
18:03:11 [DanC]
[DanC isn't able to grok that right away]
18:03:52 [DanC]
DO: this is an interesting point on the design of XSD 1.1
18:04:06 [DanC]
... seems like XHTML is an important use case for XSD
18:04:22 [DanC]
[my understanding is that XHTML is _not_ widely regarded as an important use case for XSD]
18:05:19 [DanC]
(ACTION-15 is done to my satisfaction. ACTION-15 on Henry S. Thompson to Review XHTML Modularization )
18:05:50 [DanC]
HT: I'd be more interested in addressing that requirement in XSD 1.1 if I could see a clear design.
18:06:38 [DanC]
DC: DO, seen my msg about SMIL?
18:06:38 [DanC]
Subject: lots of SMIL namespaces, revisited [XMLVersioning-41 / ISSUE-41]
18:06:39 [DanC]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:52:24 -0500
18:06:50 [DanC]
DO: yes; saw that; been working on something related...
18:07:39 [DanC]
Topic: Issue abbreviatedURIs-56 (ISSUE-56)
18:07:44 [DanC]
ACTION-34 on Stuart Williams to Look at the difference between QNAME in XML and SPARQL [DONE]
18:08:20 [DanC]
SKW: SPARQL uses "abbrevited names" which are similar to QNames, but not quite the same. [summarizing ]
18:08:46 [DanC]
18:09:07 [DanC]
18:09:21 [Stuart]
ack danc
18:10:28 [DanC]
DanC: recent RDFa designs seem to not use CURIEs in the href attribute, but only in new attributes
18:11:25 [DanC]
some investigation into current status of curie, RDFa drafts, inconclusive...
18:11:34 [ht]
scribenick: ht
18:11:43 [DanC]
Issue contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)
18:12:00 [ht]
Topic: back to contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)
18:12:26 [ht]
DC: TBL asked the question: Who makes decisions about this sort of thing for the vendors?
18:13:00 [ht]
... We're planning a f2f of the HTML WG for the Tech Plenary week
18:13:29 [ht]
... and we are hoping that there will be real technical representation from all the vendors
18:14:23 [timbl_]
"sensitive mode"
18:14:29 [ht]
TBL: I don't know what a non-obtrusive way to improve the media-type problem
18:15:08 [Rhys]
'view problems' in the same sense as 'view source'?
18:15:11 [timbl_]
TBL: I think showing only a clean XML version of veiw sourcfe for copy/paste is non-destrictive
18:15:13 [ht]
DC: The best suggestion I've seen was to allow the "This is my content, show me problems rather than fixing me silently"
18:15:57 [timbl_]
Firefox > Tools > Error Console
18:16:09 [ht]
DC: Roy Fielding is taking the HTML WG discussion seriously, but I don't know how far Ian Hickson has yet succeeded in changing his mind
18:16:44 [ht]
DC: Who knows how to make a private build of Firefox? None of the people who do on the WG have stepped up so far. . .
18:17:40 [ht]
DCandTVR: Boris Zbarsky seems like the best bet. . .
18:18:07 [ht]
s/[missed first example]/show cleaned-up source on Show Source/
18:19:27 [timbl_]
18:19:36 [ht]
18:22:18 [Zakim]
18:22:20 [Zakim]
18:23:02 [Zakim]
18:23:04 [Zakim]
18:23:06 [Zakim]
18:23:32 [Zakim]
18:25:01 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
18:25:08 [ht]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:25:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
18:25:35 [ht]
DanC, I'm sorry, I have no time for minute cleanup today -- can you do that?
18:25:39 [DanC]
18:26:11 [ht]
18:30:11 [timbl_]
Hmmm,-3.647461&sspn=11.245463,22.675781&ie=UTF8&z=13&om=1 with satelite view suggests Google doesn't have the channel markers for the river
18:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM
18:35:03 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:35:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Stuart, +019628aaaa, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL, Rhys, Ht, DanC, Dave_Orchard, DOrchard
18:51:56 [DanC]
oh... timbl... what news on the blog URI?
18:52:05 [DanC]
what is it you wanted to investigate?
18:54:35 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:54:35 [RRSAgent]
18:54:47 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
20:39:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem