17:57:28 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:57:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-tagmem-irc 17:58:20 +Raman 17:58:23 -Masinter 17:58:24 +Masinter 17:59:01 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/att-0108/tag-weekly.html 17:59:31 +jrees 17:59:56 +??P8 18:00:04 zakim, ?? is me 18:00:04 +Stuart; got it 18:00:13 zakim, please call ht-781 18:00:14 ok, ht; the call is being made 18:00:16 +Ht 18:00:19 zakim, who is on the phone 18:00:19 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Stuart 18:00:24 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:00:24 On the phone I see Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht 18:00:47 +DanC.a 18:01:32 ScribeNick: ht 18:01:34 CACM Article: The Rest Of The Story -- See http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/raman/publications/beyond-web20-cacm-2009/ 18:01:37 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 18:01:43 Chair: Stuart Williams 18:01:45 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:01:45 On the phone I see Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht, DanC.a 18:01:50 Meeting: TAG telcon 18:02:22 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/att-0108/tag-weekly.html 18:02:22 Regrets: Ashok, Norm(partial), John Kemp 18:02:43 Topic: Admin 18:02:44 noah has joined #tagmem 18:03:04 +[IBMCambridge] 18:03:25 SW: Agenda? 18:03:43 DC: Flyby of OAuth 18:03:54 SW: At the end, if poss. 18:03:57 +dorchard 18:04:18 NM: Requests came in to fix some broken links 18:04:27 dorchard has joined #tagmem 18:04:27 zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me 18:04:27 +noah; got it 18:04:28 ... in the ??? finding 18:04:47 SW: Minutes from 22 Jan? 18:04:50 DO: Pending. . . 18:05:14 SW: Hold approval to next week 18:05:55 SW: This is my last call or meeting of any kind in the chair, NM will chair our meeting next week, 5 Feb, and going forward 18:05:58 DC: Regrets 18:06:05 SW: JR to scribe 18:06:31 DO: Also last official meeting for DO and NW. . . 18:06:59 SW: Traditional allows outgoing TAG members as guests until the first F2F 18:07:12 NM: I'm happy to go with that 18:07:47 ... Anyone with a concern can say so now, or in private email 18:08:27 SW: No obligation to attend outside official terms, but informal overlap helps the transition 18:08:46 s/first F2F/end of the first F2F/ 18:09:06 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:09:12 Topic: ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection 18:09:40 ACTION-200 due next week 18:09:40 ACTION-200 Revise "Uniform Access to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case due date now next week 18:09:46 JR: ACTION-200, to add a use case, is nearly ready, but not done yet 18:09:51 Zakim, call timbl-work 18:09:51 ok, timbl; the call is being made 18:09:53 +Timbl 18:10:12 SW: Topic for f2f? 18:10:26 JR: Yes, I think ISSUE-57 should be on the f2f agenda 18:11:20 feel free to give a different due date 18:11:29 (darn; date of next ftf is not on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ ) 18:11:37 SW: ACTION-184 appears to have generated some activity 18:12:21 URI for explanation of issue? 18:12:22 JR: I've worked through the 303 story with Lisa D of IETF in a series of emails 18:12:54 sorry, don't know how to find this 18:12:57 ... DBooth has pointed out the value-add of having a URI for the redirected-to URI as well 18:13:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html 18:13:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/issues/57 18:14:28 q+ to ask JR about the implication he heard that he had not persuaded Lisa 18:14:36 opps.. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/51 18:15:00 opps.. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 18:15:49 zakim, who is here? 18:15:49 On the phone I see Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht, DanC.a, noah, dorchard, Timbl 18:15:50 JR: I was accused of undermining httpRange-14, I'm in favor in general, but I thought pushing hard on IANA was going too far 18:15:51 On IRC I see timbl, dorchard, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, masinter`, jar, raman, ht, Norm, trackbot, DanC 18:16:01 e.g. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby 18:16:12 LM: What's the issue? 18:16:25 SW: Entries in IANA registry for link relations 18:16:32 FWIW: that URI provided by DanC is 404 18:16:43 ... Given that they are intended to denote relaations 18:16:52 ... So we would like 303s, per httpRange-14 18:16:54 "permathread" = recurrent discussion 18:17:04 Larry asks: What problem does the httpRange-14 rule solve? 18:17:21 s/relaations/relations/ 18:17:34 q? 18:17:34 q+ 18:17:34 SW: [glosses the httpRange-14 resolution] 18:17:49 q- later 18:17:56 ack ht 18:17:56 ht, you wanted to ask JR about the implication he heard that he had not persuaded Lisa 18:18:30 ack tim 18:18:51 HT: So did I understand right JR? You succeeded in communicating your concerns to Lisa, but did not succeed in convincing to actually put up the redirects? 18:18:59 HT: Is it the case that you explained the situation to Lisa, she understood, but you got no agreement to implement 303 redirects at these URIs 18:19:33 JR: yes, oversimplifying a bit 18:19:44 dc:creator 18:20:13 TBL: [example of a URI for a protein returning with 200 leading to confusion] 18:20:31 LM: IETF/IESG have a complex relationship with IANA 18:20:56 ... It's not always easy for IESG people to make things happen on that website 18:21:01 In way, W3C would be more logical advisor to IANA's web site. 18:21:19 (I'd be grumpy at raman for taking my place in the queue if he didn't say what I was gonna say ;-) 18:21:35 q? 18:22:15 TBL: The issue resolution may not be perfect, but it has the advantage that we can stop spending _huge_ amounts of person-time continuing to discuss it 18:23:02 I fear we are about to back into the whole httpRange business. If it's worth reopening, I think we should do it with great care, and perhaps after a few weeks' of sitting on the preliminary decision to do so. History suggests that it will be difficult and time consuming to do better than we already have. 18:23:02 s/it/alternative, equally imperfect, solutions/ 18:23:02 ack DanC 18:23:06 sure... but I just did (with Mark & Lisa) - the resolution didn't help me avoid the talking-time... 18:23:30 . http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby 18:23:44 <- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html 18:23:48 Is relation:describedby a relation or a document? 18:23:51 DC: If the argument didn't persuade, then maybe we should reopen the issue 18:24:46 since I'm still a guest, I'm not sure it's in order to say that I don't like httpRange-14 very much, but I'm not sure it's worth TAG time talking about it more 18:25:21 http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby 18:25:27 is 404 18:25:36 Larry... your opinion is certainly noted... and it's quite in order for you to offer it. 18:25:41 q+ jar 18:25:43 DC: If the IANA website were abusing web security guidelines, we would push hard until we got a resolution 18:26:50 LM: I think it's at least worth getting a writeup of the outcome of this effort 18:27:00 (Is the URI standard quite clear on " Why can't a single string identify a relation for some purposes and a document for others?") 18:27:08 Larry... FYI some of the working concensus beyond httpRange-14 is detailed in http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/ 18:27:13 q+ 18:27:15 q? 18:27:21 DC: The crucial point is Why can't a single string identify a relation for some purposes and 18:27:21 a document for others? 18:27:29 s/"Why/Why 18:27:35 s/?/?"/ 18:27:40 (is "concensus" an en-uk spelling or just a common typo?) 18:27:48 ack jar 18:28:18 LM: I think it's worth distinguishing between identify and denote---when I say "I'm parked out back" it's not me, it's my car, and that's not a problem 18:28:29 JR: True, but not I think exactly relevant 18:29:04 JR: Having summarized the standard arguments, I went to the RFCs 18:29:08 q+ to move to POWDER LC 18:29:16 q+ to ask for the source of http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby 18:29:23 ... I think 2616 says you can't return a 200 for a URI which identifies a relation 18:29:39 -1 404 18:29:55 ... But Mark Nottingham basically said the spec. wasn't meant to be read that way 18:30:18 JR: So that line didn't fly either 18:30:39 JR: Lisa didn't think going directly to IANA wouldn't help 18:30:59 JR: Note that the registry hasn't been published yet, which is why the URIs aren't there yet 18:31:07 TBL: They could use a hash? 18:31:17 ack noah 18:31:18 " If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be 18:31:18 considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/"," 18:31:18 JR: No, because they want to use relative URIs 18:31:27 (in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03) 18:32:08 NM: As JR said, the points we're hearing are the ones we discussed at length in the httpRange-14 discussion 18:32:53 ... Uniformity is a real value, and "using the same string..." compromises that 18:32:58 q+ 18:33:21 NM: Either we should re-open this, and prepare to spend a substantial amount of time on it 18:33:43 ... or we should just accept that our advice will never be completely adopted 18:33:48 q+ timblee to strongly disfavor opening a new http range 14 discussion with IANA for all valeus of IANA. 18:33:49 ack tim 18:33:58 s/directly to IANA wouldn't help/directly to IANA would help/ 18:34:06 q- timbl 18:35:08 TBL: Given that IANA haven't spent a lot of time using URIs like this in ways that raise the problems, we could spend a _lot_ of time trying to educate them, and then we would have to do that for many other people 18:35:29 ... It's not that different from the move from plain text to HTML 18:35:33 q+ jar -- problem with putting registry at w3.org 18:35:37 ... We could just wait 18:35:46 q? 18:35:57 q+ jar to note problem with putting registry at w3.org 18:36:06 TBL: Or we could ask to have the registry run at www.w3.org instead, and then we can do the redirect 18:36:26 q- timblee 18:36:31 ack jar 18:36:31 jar, you wanted to note problem with putting registry at w3.org 18:36:39 ... There is real growth in systems which depend on the 303 convention, and I would not like to make trouble for them 18:37:09 q+ 18:37:15 JR: I believe putting a w3.org URI in an RFC is not allowed 18:37:22 there's no problem doing that 18:37:41 s/systems/systems, particularly in the Linked Data area,/ 18:37:41 As chair for next week, I would like to come out of discussions like this knowing whether we expect to schedule further discussion next week, and if so with what goals? 18:38:16 (yes, ACTION-184 is done to my satisfaction) 18:38:17 SW: So, JR, is ACTION-184 done? 18:38:19 JR: Yes. 18:38:35 TBL: We could send them a HOW-TO for Apache servers. . . 18:38:43 JR: No-one objected on the grounds of difficulty 18:39:17 SW: Should the "move registry to w3.org" be put on the W3C-IETF Liaison call agenda 18:39:23 DC: Too slow 18:39:35 don't need liaison, just ask MNot. 18:39:45 agreed. 18:39:57 close action-184 18:39:57 ACTION-184 contact Lisa D of IESG, cc www-tag, to explain about 303, with cool URIs and webarch as references. closed 18:39:57 if mnot doesn't agree, you can always write your own alternative link header document 18:40:00 Trackbot, ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham 18:40:00 Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'Trackbot, ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 18:40:10 Trackbot, ACTION to Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham 18:40:10 Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'Trackbot, ACTION to Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 18:40:13 ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham 18:40:13 Created ACTION-217 - Raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-05]. 18:41:01 q+ to note http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#semlink 18:41:19 SW: We've had a reminder from the POWDER WG that they are nearing the end of their Last Call period, about to request CR: http://www.w3.org/mid/497DD071.2070707@philarcher.org 18:41:30 ... Anyone interested in reviewing 18:41:37 sorry, i already spoke 18:41:41 q- mas 18:41:42 q- 18:41:46 ack DanC 18:41:46 DanC, you wanted to note http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#semlink 18:41:58 "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby" 18:42:15 DC: In section 1.4.1 of their document, the very URI we were just discussing appears 18:42:16 http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#semlink 18:42:50 "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby" in powder... 18:43:00 DC: Are we happy that they think it's a relation and IANA are serving it as a document 18:43:22 No! 18:43:32 s/document/document?/ 18:43:39 (wierd... which is the document in last call? I'm confused...) 18:44:01 I think it's http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/ 18:44:32 http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/ 18:44:35 well, i thought so, because that's the 'latest version' link 18:44:39 "This is the Second Last Call draft" 18:44:58 no iana link in http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#semlink 18:45:13 http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html 18:45:26 what's wdrs:describedby ? 18:45:44 ah... http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby 18:46:52 http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html#atom 18:47:21 Bug: You click on "latest version " and you get an earlier version from http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html 18:47:28 "he full URI of describedby is http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby -" 18:49:34 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/ 18:50:01 http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#semlink 18:50:26 DC: I propose to focus on the published Last Call draft, dated 2008-11-14 18:50:40 ... describedBy is central to their design, right? 18:51:55 the full URI is http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby 18:52:12 xmlns:wdrs="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#" 18:52:40 collapsedescribed by 18:52:41 Type expandloadedProperty 18:52:41 Comment An RDF property to link to a POWDER document. Provided for use in RDFa, ATOM etc. 18:52:41 IsDefinedBy expandfetchsemlink 18:52:41 Label described by 18:52:41 Range opt off expandloadedPOWDER document 18:52:47 -------- 18:53:53 (wierd... I can't find an HTML spec citations) 18:54:22 "using the link element to relate an XHTML document" 18:55:05 http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081114.html#assoc-markup 18:55:21 http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby works 18:57:15 Full HTML source is at http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/example_4_2.html and we ought to be able to follow noses to specs :-) 18:58:13 I propose we say: at a glance, we can see some struggles around HTML spec, but that's understandable; otherwise, noting we didn't do a thorough review, we don't find any architectural issues 18:58:24 HST does not think the RDFa reference is helpful :-( 18:58:47 DC: Straw poll on the above suggestion 18:59:13 LM: Only just looking at this for the first time, it's interesting, I have a lot of questions 18:59:51 I would prefer from taste and UI "described by" to be called "description document" 18:59:52 TVR: They should get their story right wrt what part of (X)HTML they are depending on 19:00:01 (I'm already up to 2 saying "let's study this more"; doubt my proposal is going to fly) 19:00:18 I assume they've come to peace with the wdrs:describedby vs. iana.org.../describedby issue - aliases are not so nice. but MNot's thing isn't an RFC yet, so they can't use it, as their pub date precedes his. 19:00:22 TVR: They need to be _very_ explicit about this, which they haven't done 19:00:39 ... it's a bit of a mess as of now 19:02:11 [scribe got distracted] 19:02:45 http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/ 19:03:03 SW: I need a volunteer to coordinate, or this gets left to individuals 19:03:04 The set of documents 19:03:48 SW: OK, hearing none, I will tell Phil Archer that he may or may not hear from individuals, but no official TAG input to be waited for 19:03:52 +1 "several members are studying and may have comments" as stuart said 19:04:38 Topic: ISSUE-51 (selfDescribingWeb-51): (short) well known formats and URI based extensibility 19:05:06 NM: No progress, waiting on last week's minutes 19:05:20 irc is at http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-tagmem-irc 19:05:37 ACTION-216 due next week 19:05:37 ACTION-216 Publish SDW finding, with 4 changes as noted in minutes of 22 Jan 2009 tag telcon due 29 jan 2009 due date now next week 19:05:43 NM: I will publish internally to tag@w3.org to enable last-minute review 19:05:46 q+ 19:06:00 ack Dan 19:06:26 DC: Critical path to publish was HST, NM and NW 19:06:37 NM: NW dependency was for the diagram 19:06:44 TBL: I am happy with the diagram 19:06:57 DC: Critical path is down to NM and HST 19:08:07 Topic: ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41): (short) What are good practices for designing extensible XMLlanguages and for handling versioning? 19:08:13 SW: DO, where are we? 19:08:54 DO: I believe I am going to do some final cleanup, and then publish it as a white paper over my name, which did not command TAG consensus 19:09:13 SW: We agreed that we need to carefully minute what we decided 19:09:28 NM: Is it the TAG publishing without consensus, or is it Dave's document? 19:09:47 Jar, is your discussion with IANA folks in email or unrecorded? 19:09:56 NM: No-consensus, but a TAG document, editor DO, or personal document, author DO, with substantial impact from TAG discussion 19:10:03 TVR: I prefer the latter 19:10:15 SW: That's what I thought we decided 19:10:20 I didn't talk to IANA. The conversation is in private email, with Mark N (Yahoo!) and Lisa D (IETF). 19:10:20 Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard (not the TAG) as a note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input. 19:10:41 works for me 19:10:45 s/I didn't/Tim, I didn't/ 19:11:05 yes, W3C Note 19:11:19 Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard (not the TAG) as a W3C Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input. 19:12:18 NM: I thought it would be a note from Dave as an individual? 19:12:23 ack danc 19:12:30 HT: Does W3C process allow notes from individuals. 19:12:32 HST: I don't think individual W3C Notes are possible 19:12:34 DC: Correct 19:12:56 I don't think WG notes require group consensus on content; just consensus on desirability of publication 19:13:05 this is from memory. 19:13:09 Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard (not the TAG) as a W3C Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents. 19:13:30 indeed, strike "not the TAG" 19:13:38 Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents. 19:13:44 Jonathan, I had hoped that the TAG would publish as a NOTE. I'm still very disappointed in this result. 19:13:48 aye 19:14:00 sorry? isn't that what we just said? 19:14:03 s/by as/by David Orchard as author as/ 19:14:18 Can notes have authors, or just editors, per the process? 19:14:48 dorchard, I don't understand your disappointment 19:14:56 scribenick: noah 19:15:03 scribe: Noah Mendelsohn 19:15:19 SW: I want to be sure this is what we decided in Dec., so discouraging input from those not there. 19:15:23 Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents. 19:15:33 SW: Anyone opposed? Any abstentions? 19:15:35 Silence. 19:15:41 RESOLUTION: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents. 19:15:42 -Ht 19:16:04 HST will contribute to the resurrected XML / Errors / Postel's Law thread by the time his action is due, 30/1/09 19:16:17 topic: Issue-20 Error handling 19:16:25 HST would like to be recorded as joining in the motion of thanks to SW which he expects will be forthcoming 19:16:30 SW: There's an action to Henry http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/199 19:17:20 SW: There was some back and forth on the list about tag soup and error handling. Henry had action to follow up. Larry made a useful posting. Should we schedule further discussion? 19:17:27 LM: I'd like some chance to prepare for discussion. 19:19:08 +1 2 weeks 19:19:54 ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 Feb 2009 telcon 19:19:54 Created ACTION-218 - Schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 Feb 2009 telcon [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-05]. 19:20:59 topic: ISSUE-58 Scalability of URI access 19:21:02 +Norm 19:21:06 SW: Let's skip since Norm isn't here. 19:21:14 masinter has joined #tagmem 19:21:19 SW: Norm, welcome. 19:21:33 my IRC connection was lost, sorry 19:22:09 NW: Re ACTION-163, I am working with Ted, and will continue to do so after my tenure ends. Target 19 Feb 2009. 19:22:13 missed last 10 minutes of IRC 19:23:00 I've updated date on action 163 19:23:27 topic: Issue-1 w3cMediaType 19:23:43 I'm updating the status to pending review; I suppose we should 19:23:43 announce the decision(s) that we have made and solicit feedback, 19:23:43 esp from Mark Baker and the (heirs of?) the XMLP WG. 19:23:43 [Dan Connolly] 19:24:03 DC: Someone made a joke about this pending for almost a decade. We made a few pertinent decisions, especially to approve the finding. 19:24:23 DC: Tried to figure out status in July 2006, didn't write anything down. 19:24:44 SW: What decision did we make? 19:24:49 DC: To publish the finding. 19:25:10 SW: Does the finding answer the question? 19:25:37 SW: So proposal is to address the xmlp group now? 19:25:46 LM: Is this an architectural issue or process? 19:25:57 DC: We accepted as architectural. We goofed. 19:26:26 LM: There are both technical and process issues. 19:26:57 Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use 19:26:57 TAG Finding 30 April 2004 19:26:57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 19:26:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 19:27:08 The finding is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime 19:27:57 mark baker's original question http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0063 19:28:16 We recommend that section 7.1 of [RFC3023] be amended to something like the following: 19:28:16 The use of the charset parameter, when the charset is reliably known and agrees with the encoding declaration, is RECOMMENDED, since this information can be used by non-XML processors to determine authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity. 19:28:17 We recommend that section 7.1 of [RFC3023] be amended to something like the following: 19:28:17 The use of the charset parameter, when the charset is reliably known and agrees with the encoding declaration, is RECOMMENDED, since this information can be used by non-XML processors to determine authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity. 19:28:40 LM: W3C is change controller of 3023, so you have authority to do that. 19:28:48 I think we need to find way to get 3023 *finished* 19:29:13 NM: Write token for 3023bis is somewhere between Chris and Henry, right? 19:29:24 SW: So, we can't close this right now. 19:29:57 +1 thanks Dave, Norm, Stuart 19:30:10 thanks, all, need to drop off phone 19:30:16 -Masinter 19:30:35 topic: Thank yous to outgoing members 19:31:10 Thanks to you all! 19:31:13 TBL: Thank you to Dave, Norm and Stuart for your wonderful service. Working with you has been a great pleasure. 19:31:13 Au revoir. 19:31:27 -Norm 19:31:56 NM: As incoming chair, I have growing insight for just how much great work you've done for us Stuart, thank you! 19:32:09 -dorchard 19:32:40 Thanks Stuart - it's been a pleasure to have you preside 19:32:40 -Raman 19:32:44 -noah 19:32:52 -jrees 19:32:58 -Stuart 19:33:01 -Timbl 19:36:28 Never mind .. my machine has learned them 19:38:01 disconnecting the lone participant, DanC.a, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM 19:38:04 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:38:05 Attendees were Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht, DanC.a, dorchard, noah, Timbl, Norm 19:45:46 looking forward to it. 20:43:54 Norm has joined #tagmem 21:17:35 Norm has joined #tagmem 21:30:52 Zakim has left #tagmem 22:20:43 Norm has joined #tagmem 22:45:07 Norm has joined #tagmem