17:42:10 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:42:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-tagmem-irc 17:42:12 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:42:13 Zakim has joined #tagmem 17:42:15 Zakim, this will be TAG 17:42:15 ok, trackbot-ng; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes 17:42:17 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 17:42:19 Date: 29 November 2007 17:52:37 raman has joined #tagmem 17:55:24 Rhys has joined #tagmem 17:57:12 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:57:19 + +014837aaaa 17:57:40 zakim, aaaa is Rhys 17:57:40 +Rhys; got it 17:57:51 Noah_WashDC has joined #tagmem 17:57:53 +Norm 17:58:11 zakim, please call ht-781 17:58:11 ok, ht; the call is being made 17:58:12 +Ht 17:58:30 +John_Slatin 17:58:50 +??P7 17:59:09 zakim, mute John_Slatin 17:59:10 John_Slatin should now be muted 17:59:15 zakim, ?? is me 17:59:15 +Stuart; got it 17:59:29 zakim, unmute John_Slatin 17:59:29 John_Slatin should no longer be muted 17:59:29 zakim, John is Noah 17:59:30 +Noah; got it 17:59:42 zakim, John_Slatin is me 17:59:42 sorry, Noah_WashDC, I do not recognize a party named 'John_Slatin' 17:59:47 +Raman 18:03:09 Chair: Stuart Williams 18:03:18 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 18:03:23 ScribeNick: ht 18:04:08 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/29-agenda.html 18:04:21 Topic: Review of agenda 18:04:32 SW: Added item 6, review request 18:04:50 DanC has joined #tagmem 18:04:56 Item 5 wrt PW in the clear is to confirm a missing action on DO 18:04:56 +DanC.a 18:05:52 TVR: My plan for my action-?? is to just lightly link up Norm's blog entry on implicit namespaces and a document I wrote some years ago 18:06:35 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/9167 18:07:13 so include "ACTION-25" in your message somewhere 18:07:29 s/action-??/ACTION-25/ 18:07:33 dorchard has joined #tagmem 18:07:36 Topic: Minutes of last meeting 18:07:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/15-minutes 18:07:55 I'm at risk for 6 Dec; birthday celebration 18:08:01 SW: Approved as posted 18:08:08 Topic: Next meeting 18:08:32 TVR regrets 6 Dec 18:08:34 SW: 6 December meeting scribe RL 18:08:47 NW: Regrets for 6 Dec 18:09:15 Topic: End of year break 18:09:34 SW: Propose last call for this year on 13 Dec, first call of new year on 10 Jan 2008 18:09:59 SW: Next f2f is 26--28 February 2008 18:10:23 RESOLVED: Last call for this year on 13 Dec, first call of new year on 10 Jan 2008 18:10:40 Topic: abbreviatedURIs-56 (ISSUE-56) 18:11:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0033 18:11:07 SW: I followed up on ACTION-77 18:11:16 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0025 18:11:32 WG chair replied formally with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0033 18:11:36 agenda + Nov ftf meeting records: propose to withdraw ACTION-76 18:12:09 SW: We asked them to put some quite strong language to prevent use of CURIEs where URIs are expected 18:12:24 ... The WG chair pushed back 18:12:33 ... In the context of HTML role 18:12:59 ... But now there's a new publication elsewhere and asked us to comment on it there 18:13:07 s/WG chair/editor in an informal response/ 18:13:27 NW: I regret the multiple publications of this document 18:14:32 NM: Quotes from the WG's official response "This version of the document includes a normative 18:14:32 definition of CURIEs that is the source of your concerns. The section on 18:14:32 CURIEs was included as a matter of convenience and will be removed from 18:14:32 later versions of the document. 18:14:34 " 18:14:41 +1 focus on particular attributes with a history of URI reference values 18:15:18 q? 18:15:39 NM: Since they're now planning a separate document, the point about health warning is once again relevant 18:15:48 (I think it's premature to factor curies out of the RDFa spec, but it's largely an editorial matter, and I'm not the editor.) 18:16:13 ... because that document is no longer in the context of a particular attribute or attributes. . . 18:16:55 SW: So we're now invited to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ 18:18:00 DC: So what are the use cases? 18:18:30 Well, what I said was, it looks like they are doing what we suggested, which is to not duplicate the normative definition of CURIEs (to the extent we're OK with there being any definition of CURIEs, which I'll put aside for a second). 18:18:36 NM: role, I think 18:19:20 DC: I think role is only in use much today in ARIA (accessible Javascript) 18:19:32 (What I meant was: role is a technical approach, and I'm still interested to know about the use case. sounds like it's URI-based extensibility a la microformats class kludges.) 18:19:37 We've said that if there is a normative definition of CURIE, that definition should be accompanied by a general admonition not to use CURIEs where URIs are expected. Since the XHTML Role specification in question will no longer carry a definition for CURIEs, I don't think we can ask them for the health warning. 18:20:01 I do think we can check that none of the particular attributes (e.g. @role) that allow CURIEs also allow URI refs. 18:20:33 DC, TVR: [discussion of use of 'role' and 'class' which scribe did not keep up with] 18:20:48 I think they define role to expect URIorCURIE 18:21:09 DC: Role is URI-based? 18:21:44 TVR: Original spec. didn't say. WAI used it with QNames/URIs for taxonomies 18:22:06 ... there are certainly non-URI uses out there 18:22:11 q+ 18:22:25 SW: RDFa have an interest in CURIEs, so do the OWL 1.1 folks 18:22:29 ack DanC 18:22:29 ack DanC 18:22:54 DC: I'm interested in use cases and/or customers, not technologies. . . 18:23:18 ... Creative Commons people are waiting, NewsML were, but maybe they rolled their own 18:23:55 TVR: NewsML will proceed with or without W3C 18:24:27 q? 18:24:42 q+ to follow up on Noah's point about health warning 18:25:04 q? 18:25:30 DC: I was happy with their using their own abbreviation in their own language 18:25:35 ack ht 18:25:35 ht, you wanted to follow up on Noah's point about health warning 18:25:50 ... It's when they propose factoring it out and making it general that I get worried 18:25:53 (happy, since their abbrevation mechanism is clearly grounded in real, good URIs) 18:26:23 HT: I think I disagree with the implications of Noah's clarification above 18:27:22 HT: Since they've pulled it out, there needs to be a health warning in the place they've specced it on its own 18:27:39 NM: Right, not at the point where they spec. the role attribute 18:27:56 ... But we should check that the 'role' spec. does _not_ allow vanilla URIs 18:28:52 ACTION: Henry to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ 18:28:52 Created ACTION-80 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-12-06]. 18:28:56 HT: OK, we agree. A warning is needed, but with the definition of CURIEs 18:29:03 ACTION: Norm to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ 18:29:03 Sorry, couldn't find user - Norm 18:29:12 ACTION: Stuart to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ 18:29:12 Created ACTION-81 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-12-06]. 18:29:25 trackbot-ng, status 18:29:36 ACTION: Norman to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ 18:29:36 Created ACTION-82 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ [on Norman Walsh - due 2007-12-06]. 18:30:12 Topic: binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30) 18:31:08 SW: HST wrote a draft response [member only] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Nov/0071.html 18:31:13 Regarding EXI before I forget. Henry's draft says: The proposed EXI format is the best technology for the job; 18:31:23 ... We will return to this item when DO joins the call 18:31:38 I wonder if it might best be "the best choice for the job". 18:31:50 or suitable choice 18:32:32 Topic: Review Request "Access Control for Cross-site Requests" 18:32:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0050 18:33:09 SW: We should be involved, right? 18:33:12 ... Volunteers? 18:33:31 DC: Did our concerns get captured in a test case 18:33:49 ... Security threat models perhaps not appropriate for a test. . . 18:33:53 +Dave_Orchard 18:33:59 SW: I think a fresh review is called for 18:34:14 (I can't do a fresh review; I've already looked at it.) 18:34:27 ACTION: Stuart to review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/ 18:34:27 Created ACTION-83 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/ [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-12-06]. 18:34:44 ACTION: David to review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/ 18:34:44 Created ACTION-84 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/ [on David Orchard - due 2007-12-06]. 18:34:57 DO: DC, did you publish comments? 18:35:03 long HTTP header field name in WD-access-control http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Jul/0000.html 18:35:12 SW: I sent our comments on the previous draft 18:35:49 DO: Anything else, DC? 18:36:06 DC: I think they pretty much covered the threat model issue 18:36:29 ... I was also concerned that the doc. make clear what the problem was 18:36:44 ... They added a small bit on that, I guess I'm satisfied 18:36:55 SW: We'll return to this when the reviews are done 18:37:12 Topic: Issue passwordsInTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52) 18:37:32 SW: I believe we discussed this last time and agreed that you would do another editorial pass, publish and invite comment 18:37:39 ... but there was no official action 18:38:55 q+ to ask who from WSC has been active so far 18:39:23 12 Nov draft was discussed... 18:39:28 ACTION: David to produce another draft of Passwords in the Clear finding, based on comments from 15 November telcon, publish it and invite comment 18:39:28 Created ACTION-85 - Produce another draft of Passwords in the Clear finding, based on comments from 15 November telcon, publish it and invite comment [on David Orchard - due 2007-12-06]. 18:39:51 ack danc 18:39:51 DanC, you wanted to ask who from WSC has been active so far 18:39:51 DO: Will try to do this by the end of the week 18:40:16 DC: Which people in WSC are paying attention? 18:40:30 SW: They are waiting on a draft from us/a request to comment from us 18:40:51 ... In addition to Thomas Roessler and Mez, Hal from BEA was most vocal 18:41:09 DC: What about the TPAC meeting? 18:41:25 SW: The above 3 18:42:08 DO: There was input from a number of folk, at least 5 or 6, plus Tyler Close on the phone -- I got a lot of input from the meeting minutes 18:42:35 DO: So do I get review from them first, or just publish 18:42:41 DC: Just publish 18:42:43 DO: Will do 18:42:47 (them? us, rather, yes?) 18:43:04 Topic: # 18:43:04 * 18:43:04 # Issue binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30) 18:43:23 DO: I'm happy with HST's packaging 18:43:40 more specifically, I'm very happy with HST's packaging 18:43:57 HST: I will edit to take account of NM's wording suggestion 18:44:19 I see some extra underbar (_) chars in the version of the note that came through my email. 18:44:57 Ah, I guess those are for emphasis, but somehow underbar doesn't do that for me. Prefer perhaps >XXXX< to emphasize XXXX 18:45:07 q? 18:46:33 ACTION: Henry to make editorial corrections to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Nov/0096.html and post that to the EXI WG on behalf of the TAG 18:46:33 Created ACTION-86 - Make editorial corrections to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Nov/0096.html and post that to the EXI WG on behalf of the TAG [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-12-06]. 18:46:39 q? 18:46:57 Topic: Issue namespaceDocument-8 18:47:00 Also: "_No_ aspect of the messaging should suggest" it's not clear that the use of the word messaging here is quite unambiguous 18:47:18 (I'm looking at the diffs .. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/diff_20071005.html bummed I didn't manage to look at them carefully before the meeting) 18:47:54 SW: HST has published a new draft, completing Action 65 18:47:56 (ah... yes... 4.1 and 4.2 separate cases... I remember asking for that.) 18:48:10 ... Action 66 has been overtaken 18:49:54 q? 18:50:06 HST: New draft is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/ 18:50:27 q+ to note { n:key range xsd:anyURI } and ask how xsd:anyURI relates to xsd:string (and wonder about RDF plain literals) 18:50:32 ... Mostly added a new section to embody agreement to discuss NS vs NS-DOC by cases 18:51:04 q? 18:51:13 ack DanC 18:51:13 DanC, you wanted to note { n:key range xsd:anyURI } and ask how xsd:anyURI relates to xsd:string (and wonder about RDF plain literals) 18:51:23 nature:key "http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"; 18:52:32 DC: You changed nature:key from Object Property to Datatype Property 18:53:14 HST: Yes, decided not to include ^^ syntax. . . 18:53:20 ACTION: Dan try examples from ns8 draft in OWL tools 18:53:20 Created ACTION-87 - Try examples from ns8 draft in OWL tools [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-12-06]. 18:53:20 DC: Yeah, understood 18:54:04 SW: Are we ready to go with this one? 18:54:16 (what diff tool did you use? that's cool.) 18:54:19 DC: Yes, but not in a rush. . . 18:55:01 Dom announced it somewhere, spec-prod? chairs? 18:55:20 ACTION: Norman to review http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/ 18:55:20 Created ACTION-88 - Review http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/ [on Norman Walsh - due 2007-12-06]. 18:55:44 Topic: Overdue action review 18:56:01 q+ 18:56:03 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue 18:56:07 SW: Need to cull these if any overtaken or need postponed 18:56:39 q+ to say that I'd like to claim 50 as complete 18:56:48 ack danc 18:57:53 ack me 18:57:53 Rhys, you wanted to say that I'd like to claim 50 as complete 18:58:50 ACTION: DanC note the old submission about logout button under passwordsInTheClear 18:58:50 Created ACTION-89 - Note the old submission about logout button under passwordsInTheClear [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-12-06]. 18:59:32 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/74 19:00:19 this one, I think... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/ 19:00:26 so put that pointer in a note and note yours closed. 19:00:36 please 19:02:03 HST believes http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/15-minutes#item06 actually discharges action 78, marked as needs review 19:02:26 s/action 78/action 69/ 19:02:42 78 doesn't seem to be pending review yet here 19:05:04 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda 19:07:02 ping issue http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1 19:07:17 Topic: General discussion 19:07:28 fielding 6 Nov http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0101.html ? 19:07:40 TVR: Anyone looking at the 'ping' attribute in HTML5 draft? 19:07:52 DO: Do we need an issue for this? 19:08:49 DC: My first reaction was negative, but I am now not so sure 19:09:20 TVR: My primary concern was that this is buried amongst so much other stuff, it's not getting the review it deserves 19:09:35 DO: I agree -- I think Roy's analysis is compelling, this is bad 19:10:05 TVR: HTML 5 discussion has gone off onto question of whether users understand GET vs POST 19:10:27 DC: So this is related to Issue 7: When to use GET vs. POST 19:10:43 ... We could reopen that for discussion of this matter 19:10:58 SW: Moved and seconded, I will reopen the issue 19:11:05 ... So, someone explain? 19:11:17 DC: I run news.org, a newspaper website 19:12:01 ... When DO follows a link from my site to one of my advertisers, I would like Audit Bureau of Circulation to get a notification 19:12:15 ... Today this is handled by masses of complex Javascript 19:12:27 ... 'ping' is a declarative way of achieving the same thing 19:12:58 ... I need to check that this is indeed what the spec. says 19:13:13 HST: I'd like to review the materials before further discussion 19:13:40 TVR: I'd also like TAG input on my message to www-tag last week, harking back to a video example from before that 19:13:54 Subject: Toward URL-Equality For Web Servers And Web Clients 19:13:54 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:31:32 -0800 (11:31 CST) 19:13:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0025.html 19:14:31 SW: An agenda item for a future meeting. . . 19:15:18 Topic: TAG blog 19:15:29 NM: What is status? Concerns raised, where are we? 19:16:09 TVR: Compromise -- blog wherever we like, post a pointer to it on the TAG blog 19:16:19 NM: Persistence is a problem 19:16:21 q+ 19:16:26 q+ 19:16:42 NM: There is real value to having stuff in W3C space 19:16:45 ack ht 19:16:46 q+ to support TVR. I don't intend to stop using my blog for TAG related items 19:16:59 (I acknowledge Noah's concerns, but I'm not inspired with any specific way to improve the situation.) 19:17:24 ack do 19:17:24 dorchard, you wanted to support TVR. I don't intend to stop using my blog for TAG related items 19:17:58 HST: I have been holding off on several possible postings because of the possibility that we will move/change 19:18:20 DO: I am happy with working decentralized 19:18:21 (I'm open to all manner of mix-and-match... TVR's write-elsewhere-and-abstract-on-w3.org is OK by me, though I acknowledge Noah's persistence concerns.) 19:19:07 NM: I don't have a problem with that, but I would also like to have something in W3C space for the commitment that that represents 19:19:26 q+ to ask raman, as one of the people with strong motivation for a TAG blog 19:20:42 ack stuart 19:20:42 Stuart, you wanted to ask raman, as one of the people with strong motivation for a TAG blog 19:20:54 I think this issue about the TAG members blogging. I've had my domain up and running for almost 12 years now, so 15-20 years more is likely. 19:23:07 http://www.w3.org/blog/tag 19:24:31 I missed the QA rebranding as well. 19:24:57 and it never occurred to me that QA was not Quality Assurance. 19:26:19 hmm.. I could add a TAG blog to pacificspirit.com if the TAG would like 19:28:42 some specific things I can do: get "Q&A Weblog" spelled out as "Question and Answer Weblog" 19:30:31 and look into a better link from specific items http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/11/a_story_about_namespaces_mime.html to http://www.w3.org/blog/tag/ 19:30:59 (re openid support... that's an important feature, to me, and it seems to have been taken back out of /QA/ ... I wonder what's up with that.) 19:32:01 ("for" or "against" isn't helpful, to me; for what we have or for something else is more helpful.) 19:32:47 -Rhys 19:33:52 -Dave_Orchard 19:33:53 -Norm 19:34:09 Zakim, I hung up; why didn't you notice? 19:34:09 I don't understand your question, DanC. 19:34:10 -Ht 19:34:11 Zakim, drop danc 19:34:11 DanC.a is being disconnected 19:34:13 -DanC.a 19:34:15 -Stuart 19:34:32 -Noah 19:34:34 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:34:35 Attendees were +014837aaaa, Rhys, Norm, Ht, John_Slatin, Stuart, Noah, Raman, DanC.a, Dave_Orchard 19:35:25 zakim, bye 19:35:25 Zakim has left #tagmem 19:35:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:35:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-tagmem-minutes.html ht 19:35:51 for reference, the explicit re-branding: http://www.w3.org/News/2007#item222 Quality Assurance Activity Completes Its Work, QA Becomes the Q&A Weblog 19:36:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:36:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-tagmem-minutes.html ht