16:53:25 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:53:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-tagmem-irc 16:53:30 Zakim, this will be tag 16:53:30 ok, ht; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 16:55:14 Call: TAG telcon 16:55:20 Chair: Stuart Williams 16:55:28 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 16:55:33 ScribeNick: ht 16:58:08 Stuart has joined #tagmem 16:58:33 Stuart has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/13-agenda 16:58:48 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/13-agenda.html 16:59:29 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 16:59:36 +??P1 16:59:42 zakim, ?? is me 16:59:42 +Stuart; got it 17:00:34 s/Call:/Meeting:/ 17:01:08 zakim, please call ht-781 17:01:08 ok, ht; the call is being made 17:01:09 +Ht 17:01:30 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 17:01:43 Zakim, call DanC-BOS 17:01:43 ok, DanC_lap; the call is being made 17:01:45 +DanC 17:03:04 noah has joined #tagmem 17:03:10 +[IBM] 17:03:31 zakim, [IBM] is me 17:03:31 +noah; got it 17:04:29 jar has joined #tagmem 17:04:37 dialing in a minute 17:05:00 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:05:00 On the phone I see Stuart, Ht, DanC, noah 17:05:50 +Norm 17:05:56 Norm has joined #tagmem 17:06:14 + +1.617.253.aaaa 17:06:55 SW: Regrets from TV, TimBL 17:06:58 zakim, +1.617.253.aaaa is jar 17:06:58 +jar; got it 17:07:26 SW: Agenda as published: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/13-agenda.html 17:07:41 +1 ok http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/21-minutes 17:07:51 SW: Minutes from 21 February http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/21-minutes approved 17:08:15 +Dave_Orchard 17:08:19 q+ 17:08:38 SW: Minutes for f2f still coming together, please let's get them cleaned up and out 17:08:57 (Norm, which day of the ftf are you minuting? likewise Dave?) 17:08:58 q- 17:09:00 SW: Next telcon 20 March, JR to scribe 17:09:35 SW: Regrets NM for 27 March, DO for 20 March, NM at risk for 20 March 17:10:22 Topic: F2F recap 17:10:33 DO, NW: Went well 17:11:16 NM: We used to do code reviews on a project I was on, and unless everyone, or almost everyone, had actually read the code, the review was cancelled 17:12:13 ... Sometimes at our meetings, I find myself thinking, in reply to a comment, "I don't _think_ you would have said that if you had read the whole document". . . 17:12:30 ... and this feels like a bit of a downer 17:12:33 (yes, it's worthwhile to set clearer expectations about who is to read what) 17:13:03 SW: Skipping item 3 (Issue webApplicationState-60 (ISSUE-60)) in Raman's absence 17:13:30 ... Please set realistic due dates for actions to review: HST, DC 17:15:18 Topic: Issue tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54) 17:15:46 q+ 17:15:46 SW: Lengthy comment from Al Gilman on this subject: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0028 17:16:27 q+ DaveO 17:16:41 ack danc 17:16:43 q+ 17:16:49 SW: [Summarizes] -- : is a problem with existing browser implementations 17:17:12 DC: I would like to see details backing up the factual claims that AG makes 17:17:22 ... There should be tests in their test suite 17:17:50 ack noah 17:18:36 NM: Not just a browser implementation problem, but that there's a buggy dependency -- fixing it for one browser breaks it for another 17:18:44 q+ 17:19:04 ack dave 17:19:20 SW: We'll return to ARIA when TBL is on the call 17:20:12 DO: IE8 announcement includes something about namespace defaulting on unknown elements, e.g. svg elements 17:20:16 q+ 17:20:29 ... and you can put ns decls on the HTML element 17:20:32 daves blog entry: http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2008/03/06/namespaces_in_ie_8_beta_1 17:20:40 ... but serious limitations 17:20:53 ... 1) NS decls don't work for attributes 17:21:19 ... 2) Default NS decl only works once per subtree, e.g. no MathML inside SVG 17:21:20 q+ to ask if this is beta-limitations or intended design or do we know? 17:21:44 ... Since svg uses xlink:href, the first is a problem 17:21:59 ... and the embedding problem looks bad also 17:22:12 ... don't know _why_ they made these restriction 17:22:29 s/restriction/restrictions/ 17:23:05 q? 17:23:16 ... Documents ways of doing [NS decls] in IE7 using the OBJECT tag 17:23:23 ... What do we do about this? 17:23:34 q+ 17:23:44 ... What if the TAG sent a comment to the IE Team 17:23:52 ... Glad to see you're moving in this direction 17:24:04 ... could you add full NS support, please? 17:24:31 ... We should not only ask HTML 5 WG to do what we need, but the vendors as well 17:24:37 ack Danc 17:24:59 DC: DO, you could attend an HTML WG telcon and ask MS themselves 17:25:15 ack ht 17:25:27 ... Some attention from TBL on the validator architecture issue, which is good 17:26:09 HST: Question of clarification: We are talking about HTML here, yes? 17:26:15 DO: Yes 17:26:52 HST: So I'm guessing that the nesting constraint has to do with the empty tag issue: no way to tell when embedding stops 17:27:12 DO: Don't know. Do know that you can't use the XHTML namespace at all 17:27:28 regrets: +Ashok 17:27:29 NM: Where does media type feed in to this story? 17:27:54 q? 17:27:58 ack norm 17:27:58 Norm, you wanted to ask if this is beta-limitations or intended design or do we know? 17:28:03 DO: I agree that we should check on that 17:28:24 NM: In particular, do we know whether if IE 8 gets application/xhtml+xml? 17:28:26 NW: Can't tell if this is just for beta 1, not clear if this is it or we may get more? 17:28:57 DO: I _think_ this is just what's in beta 1, the feature set may evolve, but not sure 17:29:36 NM: At the show where this was announced, this came in the context of IE 8's plan to default to standards-compliant rendering 17:30:02 ... that was a big deal, leading off the press conference, so I don't think they'll go back on that 17:30:30 NW: Interesting to find out for sure about the NS stuff 17:30:44 NM: Not clear 17:31:14 (the SXSW crowd was _very_ happy about the IE8 default change) 17:31:35 NM: Please be clear that I do not speak at all for Microsoft. 17:31:51 I sure hope XHTML support exists and has standard XML namespace support. 17:32:55 SW: Feedback to browser vendors a bad idea? 17:32:58 NM: I'm just passing on my understanding of what I thought I heard at the MIX conference last week. We obviously should contact Microsoft if we want to know what they've really announced and which parts they view as commitments beyond the current IE 8 beta. 17:33:03 DC: I'm opposed -- we have a WG for this 17:33:31 HT: This is not about HTML 5, which is what the WG is aimed at. It's about the existing HTML specs. 17:33:51 HT: It seems very appropriate for W3C or TAG to say "this is interesting and useful" or "not". 17:34:07 HT: It's not entirely clear to me why we'd say that to the HTML 5 workgroup. 17:34:43 NM: But how are you supposed to know you're looking at HTML 5? 17:34:55 DC: No signal, you're supposed to assume 5 forevermore 17:35:11 (I didn't say forevermore) 17:35:28 q? 17:35:30 q+ to ask Dan about HTML5's support for namespaces. I know what I want to say to the IE team, I'm not sure what I want to say to the HTML5 wg. 17:35:37 NM: OK, so the HTML 5 WG _is_ addressing the general question of what browsers should do with _everything_ that looks like HTML 17:35:44 s/5 forevermore/5/ 17:36:13 DO: They are changing HTML 4 17:36:20 DC: They can't change the HTML 4 spec. 17:36:34 ... It was locked in 1998 17:36:48 DO: So it's an add-on that is intended to work with HTML 4 17:36:49 NM: Specifically, I asked Dan for a clarification as to whether HTML 5 documents are distinguished by, say, an HTML 5 doctype. Dan said "no, you are either a browser coded with knowledge of HTML 5 or not". I then said "I think Dan is right: handling namespace prefixes in such content is within the purvue of the HTML WG" 17:37:22 DO: I would certainly like to see the HTML 5 WG do something about namespaces in HTML 17:37:42 ... but IE8 is going to ship first, and we should try to get them to do the right thing 17:37:44 q+ to say that agree with Dan... this seems much more like partial support for XHTML (1.x) 17:38:08 ... or in particular make sure that what they do doesn't hurt more than it helps 17:38:22 DC: What I'm offering you is a low-latency forum to achieve this 17:39:42 SW: I think more interaction of the sort DC suggests would be good before we do anything 17:40:05 DO: What about asking the TAG to come to an HTML 5 WG telcon? 17:40:21 HST: I don't think we're ready for that, the TAG doesn't have an opinion on this proposal yet 17:41:29 q- 17:41:34 q- 17:42:44 q+ to ask the Chair to schedule discussion 17:42:52 . http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4 HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs 17:43:24 q? 17:44:19 q? 17:44:29 ack ht 17:44:29 ht, you wanted to ask the Chair to schedule discussion 17:45:41 ACTION: DO to send pointers to MS and Ruby Namespace proposals 17:45:41 Created ACTION-123 - Send pointers to MS and Ruby Namespace proposals [on David Orchard - due 2008-03-20]. 17:46:26 Topic: Issue UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50) 17:46:53 SW: The XRI TC have responded to our questions http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Feb/0104 17:47:16 q? 17:47:37 ... Also note the call for review of another XRI spec: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200803/msg00019.html 17:48:31 trackbot-ng, status 17:49:09 ACTION: Norman to review XRI response to our questions 17:49:09 Created ACTION-124 - Review XRI response to our questions [on Norman Walsh - due 2008-03-20]. 17:49:20 ACTION: Stuart to review XRI response to our questions 17:49:20 Created ACTION-125 - Review XRI response to our questions [on Stuart Williams - due 2008-03-20]. 17:50:19 Topic: Issue httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57) 17:50:56 SW: We've had a response to our input of the diagram to SWEO, expressing some confusion 17:51:20 ... Trying to find a date when we can have Leo and XXX for a discussion about this 17:51:29 s/XXX/Richard/ 17:52:09 (sorry; I should have noted my conflict earlier) 17:52:21 SW: Any replies to JR's message to www-tag about link-header? 17:52:38 JR: Two private replies, one positive and one suggesting a meeting 17:52:46 ... No reply from Mark Nottingham yet 17:53:09 SW: Graham Kline missed the note 17:53:24 JR: I will follow up with him and MN directly 17:53:34 s/note/note because of the BCC use/ 17:54:01 SW: Anyone yet read NM's input to the f2f: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/RepresentationResources 17:55:12 NM: I've been thinking a lot about HTTP redirections 17:55:31 ... A lot of the discussion of information resources is about whether the term is well-defined 17:56:13 ... I'm happy with it, because it captures a valuable aspect of what you know when you get a repr. of an information resource 17:56:52 ... but it seemed to me on reflection that the problems we have with repr. of e.g. me are similar to ones we have wrt repr. of generic resources 17:57:07 (I see one short response from fielding; is this the one Noah referred to? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Feb/0084.html ) 17:57:27 (hmm... there are more...) 17:57:28 ... I've had some skeptical/this doesn't help feedback, but no positive feedback yet 17:57:32 q? 17:57:43 ... I wrote it to be helpful, if it isn't, we shouldn't spend time on it 17:57:56 q? 17:58:09 ... so we should only spend time on this if/when someone says "yes, that's a useful starting point" 17:58:30 q+ to invite Noah to read the thesis statement, if there is one 17:58:42 JR: I read through it, and I think there's a lot of overlap with what the Health Care and Life Sciences group have been looking at 17:58:59 ... but we ended up in a very different place 17:59:10 ... I think it would help to have some use cases in place 17:59:29 q? 17:59:34 ack danc 17:59:34 DanC_lap, you wanted to invite Noah to read the thesis statement, if there is one 17:59:34 NM: I'm not pushing the solutions I offered, so much as the scenarios. . . 17:59:42 DC: What's the thesis statement? 18:00:51 As a quick summary: the intuition is to acknowledge that due to conneg and just general lack of consensus in the community, the current deployed use of 200 isn't sufficiently consistent and reliable for rigorous reasoning in the semantic Web. 18:01:49 NM: I commend in particular the section labelled "Why Information Resource is not the right abstraction" 18:02:04 q? 18:05:03 JR: I hope AWWSW will look at this 18:05:50 NM: That's not the same as the TAG looking at it, given that if I'm right we might want to change something in WebArch, whereas AWWSW is just trying to formalize what we have already 18:06:14 JR: But I certainly expect that once we've formalized thing, we'll be feeding back on problems 18:06:41 s/thing/things/ 18:07:15 Topic: AOB 18:07:31 HST: CURIEs comments not quite ready for review, maybe next week 18:07:41 -jar 18:07:47 -Norm 18:07:51 -Ht 18:07:53 -noah 18:08:01 -Stuart 18:08:14 RRSAgent, bye 18:08:31 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 18:08:37 RRSAgent, draft inutes 18:08:37 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft inutes', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help 18:08:46 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:08:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-tagmem-minutes.html ht 18:08:53 RRSAgent, bye 18:08:53 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-tagmem-actions.rdf : 18:08:53 ACTION: DO to send pointers to MS and Ruby Namespace proposals [1] 18:08:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-tagmem-irc#T17-45-41 18:08:53 ACTION: Norman to review XRI response to our questions [2] 18:08:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-tagmem-irc#T17-49-09 18:08:53 ACTION: Stuart to review XRI response to our questions [3] 18:08:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-tagmem-irc#T17-49-20