16:49:54 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:49:54 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-irc 16:50:32 zakim, this will be tag 16:50:32 ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 16:54:57 Rhys has joined #tagmem 16:55:44 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 16:55:51 +??P0 16:55:57 zakim, ?? is me 16:55:57 +Stuart; got it 16:56:13 :-) 16:56:57 Zakim, feed dan some twinkies 16:56:57 I don't understand 'feed dan some twinkies', Stuart 16:57:26 + +019628aaaa 16:57:28 raman has joined #tagmem 16:58:02 +Raman 16:58:10 +??P2 16:58:22 zakim, ??P2 is me 16:58:22 +Noah_Bangalore; got it 16:58:26 +TimBL 16:58:32 zakim, +0 is Rhys 16:58:32 +Rhys; got it 16:58:58 zakim, who is here 16:58:58 Stuart, you need to end that query with '?' 16:59:01 zakim, who is here? 16:59:01 On the phone I see Stuart, Rhys, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL 16:59:02 On IRC I see raman, Rhys, RRSAgent, Zakim, Noah_Bangalore, Stuart, trackbot-ng, ht, DanC 16:59:22 zakim, who is here? 16:59:22 On the phone I see Stuart, Rhys, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL 16:59:23 On IRC I see raman, Rhys, RRSAgent, Zakim, Noah_Bangalore, Stuart, trackbot-ng, ht, DanC 16:59:37 zakim, please call ht-781 16:59:37 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:59:39 +Ht 17:00:17 zakim, mute me 17:00:17 Noah_Bangalore should now be muted 17:00:23 -Ht 17:00:24 +DanC 17:00:52 DanC has changed the topic to: TAG 13 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly 17:01:03 Chair: Stuart 17:01:05 Zakim, take up item 1 17:01:05 I see nothing on the agenda 17:01:09 Topic: Convene 17:01:13 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:01:13 On the phone I see Stuart, Rhys, Raman, Noah_Bangalore (muted), TimBL, DanC 17:01:18 zakim, please call ht-781 17:01:18 ok, ht; the call is being made 17:01:19 +Ht 17:01:42 SKW: one recent change to agenda; any other mods? 17:01:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes minutes 6 Sep 17:02:14 RESOLVED to approve minutes 6 Sep (2007/09/06 18:55:56) 17:02:25 Topic: Next Telcon 17:02:32 PROPOSED: to meet again 27 Sep, Rhys to scribe 17:03:05 Regrets for 2007-09-27 17:03:55 RESOLVED: to meet 27 Sep (scribe to be confirmed) 17:04:07 Topic: September F2F Preparation 17:04:27 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/17-agenda Revision: 1.14 $ of $Date: 2007/09/11 09:54:43 17:04:53 zakim, unmute me 17:04:53 Noah_Bangalore should no longer be muted 17:05:00 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 HT notes weather merits warm clothing 17:06:20 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 17:06:34 zakim, mute me 17:06:34 Noah_Bangalore should now be muted 17:06:50 SKW: monday morning scribe? 17:06:59 HT: OK, I'll scribe Monday 17 Sep AM 17:07:12 Rhys: regrets 27 Sep [?] 17:07:16 For wind and weather forecasts, I recommend http://www.xcweather.co.uk/ 17:08:00 There are weather stations for both Southampton and St. Catherine's Point 17:08:52 Topic: Issue UrnsAndRegistries-50 (Tracker ISSUE-50) 17:09:12 . ACTION-33 Henry: revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding in response to F2F discussion 17:09:21 HT: my work on that got preempted; sorry. 17:09:30 HT: yes, I saw Chime's comments. 17:09:56 HT: the http://esw.w3.org/topic/HttpUrisAreExpensive was news to me; thanks 17:10:05 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 Topic: Issue contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24) 17:10:23 See you Monday. 17:10:24 Thanks noah... 17:10:50 Actually I'm interested in this one, I'll stay a bit. 17:10:57 zakim, unmute me 17:10:57 Noah_Bangalore should no longer be muted 17:11:02 q? 17:11:32 DC: our position on contentTypeOverride-24 is: if it says text/plain, it's text/plain 17:11:34 ScribeNick: HT 17:11:53 NM: By "ask for an image" do you mena in the accept header? 17:12:06 DC: No, rather where the GET comes from, i.e. the markup around the link 17:12:09 q+ 17:12:19 zakim, mute me 17:12:19 Noah_Bangalore should now be muted 17:12:31 ... I can't remember whether the HTML 5 spec says anything about accept header 17:12:48 DC: I then thought about the overlap with HTTP 17:12:59 ... and drafted an internet draft containing the sniffing rules 17:13:10 ... which was enough to get Roy Fielding to join the HTML WG 17:13:23 ... and some substantive discussion is now happening 17:13:47 ... Ian Hickson says that having spent two years trying to do the right thing, and losing 17:14:08 q? 17:14:08 ... He believes that any browser that doesn't sniff will lose market share 17:14:19 ... Fielding disagrees 17:14:37 +Dave_Orchard 17:14:51 ... 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 q+ to noodle a bit on accept headers vs. tags 17:15:22 ack stuart 17:15:22 zakim, unmute me 17:15:23 Noah_Bangalore should no longer be muted 17:15:25 ack noah 17:15:25 Noah_Bangalore, you wanted to noodle a bit on accept headers vs. tags 17:15:44 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 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 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 zakim, mute me 17:17:16 Noah_Bangalore should now be muted 17:17:44 SW: Should we actually open this up? 17:18:09 I'll try to clarify a bit what Henry scribed (you can fold this in when editing minutes of you like). 17:18:20 I wouldlike to push back on the HTML WG 17:18:26 q+ to concur with TVR about the risk here 17:18:41 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 ack danc 17:18:41 DanC, you wanted to concur with TVR about the risk here 17:18:42 ack danc 17:19:00 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 tag, then make different assumptions about whether the returned representation is an image, regardless of Content-Type". 17:19:22 TVR: Until we know that the HTML WG will succeed, I'm concerned about putting even more of WebArch at risk 17:19:30 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 Who at microsoft is the person who has to make that decision? 17:20:02 I agree with Raman 17:20:43 q+ 17:20:44 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 DO: I agree that this is not in the whole community's interest 17:21:47 ack timb 17:21:52 ... 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 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 ... I'm prepared to put some efforts into make this happen 17:23:21 ... For example, browsers should warn users when [missed first example] or when they have to sniff 17:23:28 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 q+ to note that LMM has suggested deprecating conneg in the HTTP WG-to-be 17:24:13 ... 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 ... 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 ack DanC 17:25:16 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 ... 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 http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81 17:25:24 TVR: Sniffing is a slippery slope to disaster 17:25:43 DC: HTTP WG is thinking about restarting at IETF 17:25:54 ... fixing bugs, issues list, no WG yet but close 17:26:08 ... Larry Masinter has filed an issue to deprecate content negotiation 17:26:34 ... Julian Reshke said he'd like a configuration option which said "show me the true mime type" 17:26:51 ... That seemed like a hopeful sign 17:27:44 ... application/xml;dammit 17:27:48 ... There has also been discussion [where?] of replacing or down-grading or ??? the Content-Type: header, e.g. application/xmlDamnIt 17:28:18 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 SW: So reopening means strengthening our arguments, or considering changing our position? 17:28:24 +1 to reopen 17:28:30 DC: Could go either way 17:28:33 or at least a strong concur 17:28:45 DC, Tim, Dorchard, Noah... 17:28:48 SW: In favour of reopening: 4 17:29:16 Rhys doesn't have a strong view 17:29:18 SW: Abstain: HST, SW 17:29:38 s/HST, SW/HST, SW, RL/ 17:29:50 SW: Opposed: TVR 17:30:12 +1 17:30:13 TBL: Do we have to reopen the issue to discuss it? 17:30:27 TVR: I'd like to discuss it, but not change it 17:30:47 q+ to say enforcement 17:30:51 ack ht 17:30:51 ht, you wanted to say enforcement 17:30:54 (if we just want to re-assert our position, I don't think we need to re-open it.) 17:31:06 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: I think it's always in order to discuss how to best promote TAG findings 17:31:43 DC: Not opening it says we're not listening 17:31:50 Not that I'm against openning the issue, just discouraged that we need to. 17:31:54 TVR: Opening it says we were wrong 17:32:11 I also don't think that openning an issue signals a change. It signals a careful recheck, I think. 17:32:20 DO: I guess opening it is sensible because it gives us a clean way to discuss, have actions, etc. 17:32:43 ... There's a precedent in what we did with xxx-7 17:33:06 I do have to go now. See you in Southampton. Good night! 17:33:11 -Noah_Bangalore 17:33:14 ... 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 +1 re-open (I think the economics of the issue merits re-opening it) 17:33:41 SW: Asking again -- should the TAG reopen the issue 17:34:49 TVR: What does opening it mean? 17:35:00 HST: That it stays open until we close it or abandon it 17:35:16 TBL: yes 17:35:47 SW: In favour: DC, DO, TBL 17:36:13 Abstain: HST, TVR, RL 17:36:26 DO: If we're not going to open this, we shouldn't talk about it 17:36:33 q+ to make a left-field suggestion 17:38:11 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 TVR: I like that 17:38:25 DC: I could live with it, but I think it's odd 17:38:46 DO: Same here -- it seems like a heavy burden on our process 17:39:14 SW: Proposal to reopen fails -- only three in favour 17:41:13 ScribeNick: DanC 17:41:17 HST observes that there _was_ a majority in favour of talking about this matter. . . 17:41:58 SKW: proposal to re-open issue 24 didn't carry; other proposals are welcome. enough for today... 17:42:10 Topic: Tech-Plenary: TAG Proposal of Discussion Topic 17:42:20 ________________________________________________________ 17:43:22 DO: [something] was accepted... 45 min... 17:43:50 ... panel... with Q&A... <= 5 ppl... maybe 4... 17:43:58 ok it's written as: The Importance URI based Extensibility 17:44:36 DO: on the panel should be advocates of short strings as used in microformats, somebody from HTML 5, etc. 17:44:40 but the that seems to be different words for what has also been called distributed extensibility 17:46:10 DO: not sure if my role is just recruiting panelists, or MC, or participant, or what... 17:46:41 I think it's fine for the MC also to be a participant in the panel. 17:46:56 TVR: goal of the panel? 17:46:57 q_ 17:46:58 q+ 17:47:05 q- 17:47:09 TVR: goal of the panel? this is clearly a long-running discussion. 17:47:21 q? 17:47:41 DO: re-inforce our message in support of decentralized language evolution 17:47:47 ack Dan 17:48:36 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 TVR: ok, outreach makes sense 17:50:17 SKW makes suggestion to mitigate the risk that presentations would use all the time 17:50:57 +DOrchard 17:50:58 -Dave_Orchard 17:51:11 ((diversion back to ftf logistics; SKW notes Monday PM 5pm stop time)) 17:51:39 ((yes, pick up XMLversioning at 3:30pm Monday)) 17:52:04 ((same time window on Tues harder to predict, but agenda calls for Tag Soup)) 17:52:16 Topic: Issue XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41) 17:53:25 ScribeNick: ht 17:53:46 dorchard has joined #tagmem 17:53:54 DC: I'm still interested in the thread on forward/backward compatibility definitions 17:53:55 q+ 17:53:58 ACTION-4 on Dan Connolly to Review definitions of partial understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible [DONE] 17:54:09 ack d 17:54:16 ... Mark DeGraaw [sp?] has recently raised a real use case here, coming from HL7 17:54:43 DO: I've tried to add definitions, based on information, but that did not find favor 17:55:06 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 ... Since I can't take it any further, I suggested dropping it 17:55:57 ... 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: 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 SW: HST, any input? 17:56:33 HST: I know of no solutions from the Computational Linguistics side 17:56:43 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 DC: I asked, I didn't get a satisfactory answer 17:57:24 ... Subst Groups are designed for distributed extensibility 17:57:34 scribenick: danc 17:57:49 HT: I'm up to speed here... I read the modularization [of XHTML] spec... 17:58:04 (which see ACTION-15 ) 17:58:05 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/xhtml-modularisation-thoughts.html 17:59:37 HT: indeed, substitution groups are a great mechanism for distributed extensibility; I explain how... 17:59:55 ... a couple problems, 1 minor and 1 major... 18:00:28 ... putting things in multiple substitution groups isn't allowed in XSD-the-REC; it is in XSD-work-in-progress... 18:00:53 "clean subsetting"? 18:00:59 ... but they [XHTML] have another goal, that substitution groups don't do: "clean subsetting" 18:01:36 ... substitution groups are bottom-up, which is why they're great for decentralized extensiblitiy... 18:01:51 ... but XHTML modularization is also top-down; I dunno how to do that with substitution groups 18:02:09 q+ 18:02:20 ... I hope somebody finds a work-around 18:02:42 DC: this "clean subsetting" ... not sure I understand the motivation... 18:02:50 HT: you need it to build XHTML 1.1 out of modules 18:03:02 ack do 18:03:11 [DanC isn't able to grok that right away] 18:03:52 DO: this is an interesting point on the design of XSD 1.1 18:04:06 ... seems like XHTML is an important use case for XSD 18:04:22 [my understanding is that XHTML is _not_ widely regarded as an important use case for XSD] 18:05:19 (ACTION-15 is done to my satisfaction. ACTION-15 on Henry S. Thompson to Review XHTML Modularization ) 18:05:50 HT: I'd be more interested in addressing that requirement in XSD 1.1 if I could see a clear design. 18:06:38 DC: DO, seen my msg about SMIL? 18:06:38 Subject: lots of SMIL namespaces, revisited [XMLVersioning-41 / ISSUE-41] 18:06:39 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:52:24 -0500 18:06:50 DO: yes; saw that; been working on something related... 18:07:39 Topic: Issue abbreviatedURIs-56 (ISSUE-56) 18:07:44 ACTION-34 on Stuart Williams to Look at the difference between QNAME in XML and SPARQL [DONE] 18:08:20 SKW: SPARQL uses "abbrevited names" which are similar to QNames, but not quite the same. [summarizing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0036 ] 18:08:46 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0051.html 18:09:07 q+ 18:09:21 ack danc 18:10:28 DanC: recent RDFa designs seem to not use CURIEs in the href attribute, but only in new attributes 18:11:25 some investigation into current status of curie, RDFa drafts, inconclusive... 18:11:34 scribenick: ht 18:11:43 Issue contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24) 18:12:00 Topic: back to contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24) 18:12:26 DC: TBL asked the question: Who makes decisions about this sort of thing for the vendors? 18:13:00 ... We're planning a f2f of the HTML WG for the Tech Plenary week 18:13:29 ... and we are hoping that there will be real technical representation from all the vendors 18:14:23 "sensitive mode" 18:14:29 TBL: I don't know what a non-obtrusive way to improve the media-type problem 18:15:08 'view problems' in the same sense as 'view source'? 18:15:11 TBL: I think showing only a clean XML version of veiw sourcfe for copy/paste is non-destrictive 18:15:13 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 Firefox > Tools > Error Console 18:16:09 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 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 DCandTVR: Boris Zbarsky seems like the best bet. . . 18:18:07 s/[missed first example]/show cleaned-up source on Show Source/ 18:19:27 http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2006/10/do-you-know-boris-zbarsky/ 18:19:36 web.mit.edu/bzbarsky/www/ 18:22:18 -DOrchard 18:22:20 -Raman 18:23:02 -Ht 18:23:04 -Stuart 18:23:06 -Rhys 18:23:32 -DanC 18:25:01 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 18:25:08 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:25:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html ht 18:25:35 DanC, I'm sorry, I have no time for minute cleanup today -- can you do that? 18:25:39 yes 18:26:11 Thanks! 18:30:11 Hmmm http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Lymington&daddr=Yarmouth&sll=54.162434,-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 disconnecting the lone participant, TimBL, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM 18:35:03 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 18:35:04 Attendees were Stuart, +019628aaaa, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL, Rhys, Ht, DanC, Dave_Orchard, DOrchard 18:51:56 oh... timbl... what news on the blog URI? 18:52:05 what is it you wanted to investigate? 18:54:35 RRSAgent, pointer? 18:54:35 See http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-irc#T18-54-35 18:54:47 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 20:39:46 Zakim has left #tagmem