17:50:00 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:50:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-tagmem-irc 17:50:06 Zakim has joined #tagmem 17:50:13 zakim, this will be tag 17:50:13 ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 17:51:02 Ten minutes!? 17:51:06 Crikey! 17:51:12 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 17:53:08 raman has joined #tagmem 17:53:34 any one have thoughts on what the filename for my hash in url finding should be? 17:53:55 hash-in-url.html 17:54:08 It's currently hash-in-url.html 17:54:32 we think alike;-) that's what is in cvs at present. 17:54:41 :-) 17:54:53 shouldn't it be the valentine-day's pinks? 17:54:58 or at least chocolates? 17:55:27 so... raman that's your work on webApplicationState-60? 17:55:56 Stewart -- could you give me a pointer to the TAGissue that this finding addresses so I make the appropriate noises in the right places in the abstract? 17:56:02 well... it's 'blues' when it can't be 'pinks'. 17:56:33 Ok.. that'll be jonathan and/or me. 17:56:57 I'd ask to be excused but for abbrevURIs. 17:57:16 we're expecting timbl? interesting; he gave regrets for an earlier meeting today 17:57:33 yes... he gave regrets for 21st 17:57:50 ie. yes I am expecting him today 17:58:08 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:58:15 +Raman 17:58:52 +??P1 17:59:02 zakim, ??p1 is me 17:59:02 +Stuart; got it 17:59:54 f2f agenda? we did that last week, no? 17:59:54 Ashok has joined #tagmem 17:59:55 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60 18:00:25 I don't see any specific questions about the ftf agenda in the today's agenda. I don't have any general input. 18:00:36 I don't see any @@s in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/26-agenda 18:01:10 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:01:28 things that don't have @@s are done, in my book 18:02:27 zakim, mute me 18:02:27 Stuart should now be muted 18:02:43 zakim, unmute me 18:02:43 Stuart should no longer be muted 18:03:14 noah has joined #tagmem 18:03:24 +Norm 18:03:34 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:04:16 Meeting:TAG Telcon 18:04:22 Chair: Stuart Williams 18:04:25 +DanC 18:04:29 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 18:04:36 ScribeNick: ht 18:04:46 zakim, who is here? 18:04:47 On the phone I see Raman, Stuart, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC 18:04:49 On IRC I see noah, Ashok, raman, DanC_lap, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, Norm, ht, trackbot-ng 18:05:02 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/14-agenda 18:05:07 zakim, please call ht-781 18:05:07 ok, ht; the call is being made 18:05:09 +Ht 18:05:44 +alanr 18:06:58 jar has joined #tagmem 18:07:06 zakim, alan is jar 18:07:06 +jar; got it 18:08:18 SW: DO will join late 18:08:30 SW: Agenda slightly changed since yesterday's version 18:09:43 +DanC.a 18:09:47 RESOLVED: Minutes of previous meeting approved: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/07-minutes 18:09:56 +TimBL 18:10:18 zakim, disconnect DanC 18:10:18 DanC is being disconnected 18:10:19 -DanC 18:10:26 Zakim, who's on the phone? 18:10:26 On the phone I see Raman, Stuart, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm, Noah_Mendelsohn, Ht, jar, DanC.a, TimBL 18:10:33 Zakim, I am DanC 18:10:33 ok, DanC_lap, I now associate you with DanC.a 18:10:52 Zakim, DanC.a is DanC 18:10:52 +DanC; got it 18:11:18 SW: Meeting on 21 Feb, DanC to scribe 18:11:33 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:11:49 SW: Regrets from TBL for 21 Feb 18:12:09 Topic: Issue abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56) 18:12:24 See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56 18:12:56 SW: NW, HST and SW have reviewed 18:12:58 Norm's comments seemed OK to me. I particularly liked Henry's comment on QNames in attribute values. 18:13:06 NW: To summarize: Just Say No 18:13:20 DC: It's in their charter 18:13:31 TBL: It addresses a real need 18:13:58 DC: Is it in their charter? 18:14:07 JR: Yes it is 18:14:16 s/It's in their charter/Is it in theor charter?/ 18:14:25 s/or/ir 18:14:59 q+ 18:15:02 DC: So, NW, still opposed 18:15:05 ? 18:15:32 q? 18:15:43 NW: Yes -- I think the proposed solution is too confusable with QNames and URIs themselves 18:15:47 q+ to ask how much of the rationale for CURIE is the claim that QNames don't work in attributes. 18:16:30 NW: The "Not appropriate for attr vals" argument is just wrong 18:16:53 TBL: QNames weren't intented for content at all, see WebArch for dangers 18:17:17 NW: They didn't point to that at all, if that's what they meant, the argument works equally well against CURIEs 18:17:49 18:17:50 NW: They use both the xmlns...= and other mechanisms to establish prefix binding 18:18:16 q? 18:18:39 DC: If you know to look for a CURIE, you know to look for this 'prefix' property 18:19:15 NW: But there are no limits on the number of ways different specs could specify prefix binding mechanism 18:19:52 ack timbl 18:19:53 NW: Whereas at least for xmlns, XSLT knows how to find the binding 18:20:00 ack noah 18:20:00 noah, you wanted to ask how much of the rationale for CURIE is the claim that QNames don't work in attributes. 18:20:31 NM: Saying "Can't use QNames in attr vals" is too simple 18:20:44 ... So how much of the rest of their argument goes away 18:20:58 ... Does the whole thing go away? 18:20:59 q+ to mention improving XML in general (bare params are qnames, qnames ana URIs interchangable in some way, etc , but also mention N3 18:21:02 HST: No 18:21:43 NW: No, the req't is to use isbn:1234 to identify something, and 1234 is not an (XML) Name, so isbn:1234 isn't a QName 18:22:27 SW: DC asks what we're doing with this agenda item 18:23:15 ... we have to decide to endorse some or all of the comments 18:23:21 HT: Or add some new ones 18:23:44 HT: I wrote mine as input to a TAG comment 18:24:01 SW: I wrote mine directly to the WG, TAG could endorse 18:24:05 NW: ditto 18:24:06 q+ 18:24:16 q? 18:24:20 ack timbl 18:24:20 timbl, you wanted to mention improving XML in general (bare params are qnames, qnames ana URIs interchangable in some way, etc , but also mention N3 18:25:01 How about XML Namespaces 1.1 5th Edition? 18:25:08 (yeah... where is XML 1.1 in the process? why not fix this isbn:1234 problem while we're fixing the unicode issues?) 18:25:16 FYI... my input landed on www-html-editor@w3.org http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0007.html 18:25:29 TBL: Clean thing to do is fix this for everyone, because you can't use URIs and QNames interchangeably, either in attr values, or as elt names 18:25:47 q+ to ask about allowing isbn:1234 in XML 1.1 18:25:50 (I suppose I should admit that I personally have at best mixed feelings about the XML 1.0 5th edition proposal, so the proposal above was made somewhat in jest.) 18:25:57 ... Pbly ridiculous to think about the TAG proposing an XML 2.0 18:26:28 ... I mostly use N3, where prefixed names and URIs are interchangeable 18:26:33 but n3 (unlike sparql) doesn't support isbn:1234 18:26:46 ... but it's not embeddable, because it uses angle brackets 18:26:46 ack ht 18:26:53 scribenick: SW 18:26:56 n3 will probably pick up isbn:1234 from sparql 18:27:06 ht: two distinct things... 18:27:09 Yes. 18:27:15 :123 being different from 1234 18:27:23 (and from 123!) 18:28:07 q+ to note that the QName datatypte doesn't fit XML Schema's definition of a datatype 18:28:09 Henry, we do have the problem that XML Schema doesn't quite clearly allow for new primtive types. 18:28:18 ... first: if framed as a new xsd datatype with lexical and values space... and mappings... and a constraint to being used only in new languages... 18:28:28 Certainly using it in a Schema Structures document would be problematic, unless you would propose it as a subtype of string? 18:28:35 +Dave_Orchard 18:28:42 ...then, fine... go ahead, but stay away from href. 18:29:00 q+ to give an example: the value of a QName isn't determined by its lexical form: abc:def means one thing when abc: is bound one way and another when abc: is bound another way 18:29:12 ...the Schema WG is in serious discussion about allowing new xsd datatypes. 18:29:29 I'm not happy prejudging the pros and cons of whether XML Schema should allow for user defined primitives. The upsides are clear, but it raises very serious interoperability concerns for Schemas in particular. 18:29:56 (what's not a valid URI?) 18:30:05 ...second: I observe that if we did all of that they would not get what they wanted because it would not make htp:12345 a URI. 18:30:14 Anything of the form ...#1234 18:30:42 let's fix that bug that 1234 isn't a name. 18:30:46 s/htp:/....#/ 18:31:00 Norm: What Henry means is, if those ...s resolve to somethign of media type application/xml, then 1234 isn't a good fragid per the pertinent specs. 18:31:13 1234 is a perfectly good name in many business contexts, ISBN being the one already introduced in this conversation. 18:31:35 ht: is unaware of a media type where [didn't catch] is a valid ??? 18:31:39 Yes Dan, but the question is, which media types allow for them in fragids? 18:31:49 has curie:isbn:12345 been proposed?... 18:31:54 q+ to observe that I'm not sure Henry is right about the HTML 4.01 case. 12.2.1 does not say that @name on "a" has to be an NCName AFAICS 18:32:12 ht: refers to email to XML core. 18:32:35 Norm, when you come up on the queue, could you also clarify XHTML? I would have thought that would be more restrictive, for better or worse? 18:32:59 q? 18:33:17 ack danc 18:33:17 DanC, you wanted to ask about allowing isbn:1234 in XML 1.1 and to note that the QName datatypte doesn't fit XML Schema's definition of a datatype and to give an example: the value 18:33:17 scribenick: ht 18:33:20 ... of a QName isn't determined by its lexical form: abc:def means one thing when abc: is bound one way and another when abc: is bound another way 18:33:51 q+ to talk about XML 1.0 5th edition 18:34:08 DC: XML 1.0 5e is where in the process? We're asking them to change how names are parsed, can we do this too? 18:34:11 q+ to whone about scripting languages and JSON etc 18:34:29 q+ daveo 18:34:33 q? 18:34:44 I wonder what happens in E4X 18:34:54 ack norm 18:34:54 Norm, you wanted to observe that I'm not sure Henry is right about the HTML 4.01 case. 12.2.1 does not say that @name on "a" has to be an NCName AFAICS 18:34:57 DC: QName is inconsistently defined in Schema -- abc:xyz can denote two distinct values at two points in a document 18:35:36 (the use of #123 is widely practice, all the way back to the 1st HTML document I ever saw; I got TimBL to change the WorldWideWeb app to use #z1 but the rest of the world doesn't bother.) 18:35:37 NW: In both HTML and XHTML you can use the NAME attribute on anchors, which doesn't say anything about being an NCname 18:35:56 ... I don't think we can or should allow 1234 to be an element or attribute name 18:36:00 DC: Why not 18:36:23 NW: I don't know of any programming language which doesn't distinguish between identifiers and numbers 18:36:28 q? 18:36:33 in json, I can have a key called 1234 18:36:56 TBL: XML is close to a programming language, and I don't want to have a number/name confusion 18:37:01 (even in the javascript case, some xml names have to be mangled in order to fit. so 1234 would have to get mangled in some cases. such is life.) 18:37:06 q? 18:37:21 TVR: JSON today allows numeric keys, which _ipso facto_ can't be mapped to XML 18:37:42 TBL: Same pblm in e4x 18:38:02 DC: Some XML names (minus signs) already fail to map to Javascript names 18:38:05 q+ to say (briefly) that the reviews are negative. there's a real problem & we should figure 18:38:07 out how to be constructive 18:38:53 close action-80 18:38:53 ACTION-80 Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ closed 18:39:01 close action-81 18:39:01 ACTION-81 Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ closed 18:39:07 ack noah 18:39:07 noah, you wanted to talk about XML 1.0 5th edition 18:39:07 close action-82 18:39:07 ACTION-82 Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ closed 18:39:07 SW: What about the three comments on the table: Deem relevant actions closed, endorse them to the WG, add anything further ? 18:39:29 NW: Further discussion of names/numbers/XML vNext out of order? 18:40:13 SW: Yes -- we'll discuss that another time 18:40:21 q? 18:40:28 ack tim 18:40:28 timbl, you wanted to whone about scripting languages and JSON etc 18:40:28 q- 18:40:34 ack dav 18:40:36 ack daveo 18:41:22 DO: Did DC say that XML 1.1 had become XML 1.0 5e -- true? 18:41:31 NM: Not quite 18:41:54 ack jar 18:41:54 jar, you wanted to say (briefly) that the reviews are negative. there's a real problem & we should figure 18:41:54 DO: I would have concerns in our future discussion 18:42:35 Strongly concur with Jonathan. 18:42:50 (I think it's quite reasonable for curies to go 5 different ways in 5 contexts; abbreviations are a per-language, local design issue.) 18:42:51 JR: I'm concerned that the three reviews are largely negative, but the problem is real, and they're asking for help to stop it going in 5 different directions 18:42:53 TAG saying "no" will just get us ignored; may html5 be a lesson to all 18:43:11 DC: So what should they do? 18:43:46 JR: We need to at least recognise their requirements 18:43:53 q? 18:43:57 ... not asking that we give the solution 18:44:14 (I think the thing to do is to change the fact that 1234 is not a name in XML, or at least in namespaces) 18:44:56 q? 18:44:59 -1 use say that curie is an XML schema data type. it's not. 18:45:10 HT: I would not object if they were clear that this is a new datatype for new uses 18:45:16 -Dave_Orchard 18:45:20 +DOrchard 18:45:47 NW: I could go with that, but not with taking a position on defining a new built-in simple type 18:45:52 q+ 18:45:59 q+ to ask for a list of what softwre would have to be changed. Strt with N3 serializers. 18:46:08 s/built-in/primitive/ 18:46:53 NW: Certainly premature to ask Schema WG to add CURIEs to the next edition 18:47:00 ... What is your proposal HT? 18:48:03 HT: Three things resolved/changed: 1) xmlns binding only; 2) new contexts/new languages only; 3) Provide a simple type definition derived from xs:string 18:48:08 q+ 18:48:32 Ah, if you think derived from xs:string does it, then maybe, but I would have thought that like xs:QName it should not be derived from xs:string. 18:50:38 SW: In my review I didn't take an overall position, but I do think that for a spec. aimed at language developers/designers is an XSD datatype, so they should provide that, including both lexical and value 18:51:02 ... The thing they keep saying is that QNames are a subset of CURIEs, but that's clearly false wrt the value 18:51:26 dorchard has joined #tagmem 18:51:29 ... they should clean that up 18:51:52 ... Those are the two substantive parts of my review 18:52:05 ack Stuart 18:52:40 ack timbl 18:52:40 timbl, you wanted to ask for a list of what softwre would have to be changed. Strt with N3 serializers. 18:52:45 DC: Can't have a datatype, because the value is not determined by the lexical form 18:53:49 (n3 is one of the "5 or six different ways" that CURIEs are going, as jar said, ht.) 18:54:12 TBL: What software would have to change? We would have to change N3 to accept the kind of things that CURIEs will construct 18:54:27 shouldn't needed changes to n3 be balanced against other implementations, and what their needs are? 18:54:46 yes, n3 changes should be balanced against all the other changes 18:55:08 ht, the implications of qnames go way beyond xml - that this is not clear is i think a deficiency of their introduction 18:55:13 NM: So you think this will expand the range of URIs to which these things map 18:55:38 q+ to tell the story of #1 vs #z1 and note that the HTML community uses #1 happily despite specs and seems extremely unlikely to do otherwise, so the html5 spec just specifies it. 18:55:39 TBL: I will have to change the syntax of N3 to no longer restrict to QNames 18:55:45 People will start to use things of th for m htp://\/dfjhdfhjs/dsfjhfs/sdf//isbn#1234567 18:56:06 q? 18:56:09 ht: they already do 18:56:10 Yes, but just as a clarification, you won't necessarily have to support the CURIE compact syntax or prefix bindings in particular. 18:56:21 HT: They are already writing such URIs, why will CURIEs make this worse? 18:56:21 ht, standardization! the same curies for everyone who does curies 18:56:29 JK! 18:56:40 You will have to make your own compact syntax in N3 capable of dealing with the expanded range of "URIs", I.e. with numerics. 18:56:49 q- 18:57:07 SW: We have three reviews that could stand as they are 18:57:08 I was joking that we should open up the full XML 2.0 discussion now. 18:57:32 ... Propose the TAG endorse all three comments 18:57:39 HST, TVR, others: No 18:57:45 SW: Propose the TAG say nothing 18:57:47 DC: No 18:58:26 TVR: I've heard the TAG express some doubts, but I don't think we've looked hard at their use cases, maybe we should get one of them to talk to us 18:58:26 +1 invite somebody 18:58:40 +1 to fix the restriction on XML 18:58:45 HT: -1, we don't need to 18:58:54 I concur with Henry 18:58:58 +1 to HT taking the ball 18:59:31 HT: I will put together a consensus proposal but not until next week 18:59:37 +1 to ht to taking the ball - i'm happy to help but can't do it all 18:59:55 TVR: What would that proposal look like? 19:00:02 tag should not do design (in this case). should be socratic, i think 19:01:34 (where does 4 weeks come from?) 19:01:39 HST: Proposal would be of the form: fix these bugs, and we have no further objections -- might not be what we would have done, but that's not our job 19:02:09 HST: 4 weeks was my confusion, this is not a Last Call WD, we are not under explicit time pressure 19:02:22 +1 HT to synthesize something and get jar to look at it for next week 19:02:31 TBL: SHould include a discussion of what else will have to change 19:02:57 ... Does it mean we have to accept identifiers which begin with digits? 19:03:24 curies are not specific to xhtml. i agree with ht that correct point of action is not obvious 19:03:30 ACTION: HST, with help from JR, to try to formulate something which pulls our input together 19:03:30 Sorry, couldn't find user - HST, 19:03:50 trackbot-ng, status 19:03:51 ACTION: Henry S, with help from JR, to try to formulate something which pulls our input together 19:03:51 Created ACTION-100 - S, with help from JR, to try to formulate something which pulls our input together [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2008-02-21]. 19:04:48 Topic: httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57) 19:05:01 See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 19:05:14 See http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/ 19:05:37 SW: There was some uncertainty in our interactions with them 19:05:54 ... We thing the diagram change is crucial to TAG approval 19:06:07 ... NW is waiting for a final draft to do a further full pass 19:07:02 ... We should go back to them and say we need a final draft 19:07:13 HST: Do you mean we should wait for last call 19:07:17 (there's nothing minor about the change to the diagram.) 19:07:19 q+ to say I don't want a last call, I'd just like the next draft. Hopeflly with revised diagrams and finished "TODOs" 19:07:26 q- 19:07:29 +1 next draft 19:07:40 DC: Not if we think we will have comments 19:07:50 HST: What was the disconnect? 19:08:17 SW: We thought @@ meant ' We will do more ', but it actually meant ' What does the TAG think of this change '? 19:08:31 ... and there's the diagram issue 19:09:06 DC: I think we didn't communicate the diagram to the clearly enough -- I think I got 'hunh?' feedback from them 19:09:24 SW: Can you, DC, clear that up 19:09:39 DC: Yes, with help from TimBL -- would take 45 mins 19:10:08 diagramming tool: i like omnigraffle ... 19:10:26 ACTION: Dan, Tim to produce Visio diagram to send to Leo 19:10:26 Sorry, couldn't find user - Dan, 19:10:40 ACTION: Dan , Tim to produce Visio diagram to send to Leo 19:10:40 Created ACTION-101 - , Tim to produce Visio diagram to send to Leo [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-02-21]. 19:10:54 trackbot-ng, status 19:10:56 I was liking violet for the versioning files.. 19:11:29 yes, I like violet. if timbl can stand it, we'll use that, maybe 19:11:41 SW: I need to set some expectations with SWEO, they are short on time 19:11:44 violet is nice in that I know how to get RDF/OWL from it 19:12:05 DanC, I improved (I think :-) your stylesheets for that purpose, will send to you 19:12:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Feb/0021 19:12:39 (I struggle a bit with email interactions with SWEO; I keep finding their mail stuck in my klunky spam defenses.) 19:12:59 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#distinguishing 19:14:00 DC: Should Tuesday night group look at this? 19:14:10 TBL: [Maybe] 19:14:32 cswg is not a discussion really.... we had about 50 people at the last one 19:14:35 q? 19:16:32 ack norm 19:16:32 Norm, you wanted to say I don't want a last call, I'd just like the next draft. Hopeflly with revised diagrams and finished "TODOs" 19:17:21 NW: I do not require a Last Call draft, will review the next draft they complete 19:17:26 SW: I will go back to Leo 19:17:35 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#distinguishing 19:18:30 it almost ended in dec. renewed until april 19:20:01 "This is a First Public Working Draft of an intended W3C Interest Group Note giving a tutorial explaining decisions of the TAG for newcomers to Semantic Web technologies" 19:20:05 SW: I would like to see this end up as a NOTE, rather than be dropped 19:20:37 "Febr 2008 - The SWEO Interest group ends." http://www.w3.org/2006/07/sweoig-charter.html#schedule 19:21:12 q+ 19:23:07 q+ 19:23:22 q+ to suggest it is unfair to hold comments we have now til later 19:25:20 ecd 19:25:36 apologies for typing in the wrong buffer 19:28:05 Exit Ralph nodding stage left 19:28:24 -Ht 19:28:35 scribenick noah 19:28:38 Exit Henry, panicing 19:28:48 SW: The rest of HTTP Redirections will be on next week's agenda. 19:28:52 topic: F2F 19:29:10 SW: Draft of F2f Agenda is posted. Looks pretty full. Comments solicited. 19:29:23 (places that need work will are marked how? I looked for @@'s and didn't find them.) 19:30:00 -Norm 19:30:01 -jar 19:30:01 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:30:02 ADJOURNED 19:30:03 -Raman 19:30:09 -DOrchard 19:30:14 -Noah_Mendelsohn 19:30:16 Exeunt, chased by a bear 19:30:50 -TimBL 19:31:03 Zakim, drop DanC 19:31:03 DanC is being disconnected 19:31:04 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:31:05 Attendees were Raman, Stuart, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht, alanr, jar, TimBL, Dave_Orchard, DOrchard 19:48:02 Norm has joined #tagmem 19:50:59 raman has left #tagmem 20:45:45 jar has joined #tagmem 20:53:22 jar has joined #tagmem 21:38:11 Zakim has left #tagmem 21:58:40 timbl has left #tagmem