17:01:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:01:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/07-tagmem-irc
17:01:16 <Zakim> - +1.617.538.aaaa
17:01:51 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
17:02:07 <ht> zakim, please call ht-781
17:02:07 <Zakim> ok, ht; the call is being made
17:02:09 <Zakim> +Ht
17:02:35 <johnk> chair: noah
17:02:41 <johnk> scribe: johnk
17:02:46 <Zakim> +Noah_Mendelsohn
17:02:57 <noah> zakim, Noah_Mendelsohn is me
17:02:57 <Zakim> +noah; got it
17:02:59 <johnk> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/07-agenda
17:03:11 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:03:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Kemp, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht (muted), noah
17:03:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, masinter`, Ashok, Zakim, johnk, raman, noah, timbl, DanC, ht_home, ht, trackbot
17:03:22 <Zakim> +Masinter
17:03:28 <Zakim> +DanC
17:03:35 <masinter`> conference bridge was giving me trouble
17:03:46 <Zakim> -DanC
17:04:16 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:04:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Kemp, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht (muted), noah, Masinter
17:04:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, masinter`, Ashok, Zakim, johnk, raman, noah, timbl, DanC, ht_home, ht, trackbot
17:04:45 <Zakim> +alanr
17:05:11 <Zakim> +DanC
17:05:15 <masinter`> AlanR?
17:05:18 <timbl> duh ..
17:05:27 <timbl> Zakim, call timbl-offioce
17:05:27 <Zakim> I am sorry, timbl; I do not know a number for timbl-offioce
17:05:38 <timbl> Zakim, call timbl-office
17:05:38 <Zakim> ok, timbl; the call is being made
17:05:39 <Zakim> +Timbl
17:05:54 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:05:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Kemp, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht (muted), noah, Masinter, DanC, alanr, Timbl
17:05:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, masinter`, Ashok, Zakim, johnk, raman, noah, timbl, DanC, ht_home, ht, trackbot
17:05:58 <jar> jar has joined #tagmem
17:06:09 <jar> zakim, who is on the call?
17:06:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Kemp, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht (muted), noah, Masinter, DanC, alanr, Timbl
17:06:19 <jar> zakim, alanr is jar
17:06:19 <Zakim> +jar; got it
17:06:21 <johnk> TOPIC: convene
17:06:32 <ht> ack ht
17:06:41 <johnk> noah: any regrets?
17:07:05 <johnk> ht: might not be here next week
17:07:24 <masinter`> Out June 4 and 11, might also be out June 18
17:07:29 <masinter`> possible future regrets
17:07:36 <timbl> Regrets for May 21
17:07:53 <johnk> ht: definite regrets for next week
17:08:03 <johnk> noah: Jonathan can scribe
17:08:14 <johnk> TOPIC: Minutes Approval
17:09:32 <johnk> noah: cannot approve minutes of 2nd
17:09:48 <jar> jar has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/07-agenda
17:10:07 <johnk> noah: propose to approve 23rd minutes
17:10:22 <johnk> APPROVED minutes of 23rd April
17:10:37 <johnk> TOPIC: Admin
17:11:00 <johnk> noah: reminds he has sent a summary of matreial
17:11:12 <johnk> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 23rd April
17:11:33 <johnk> TOPIC: nameSpaceState-48
17:11:45 <johnk> noah: gives background regarding Norm's draft
17:12:04 <johnk> noah: Norm prefers not to drop entirely
17:12:31 <jar> it's short!
17:12:31 <johnk> noah: resolve this issue in email
17:12:41 <johnk> timbl: don't want to drop this either
17:12:53 <ht> +1 to publishing as a REC
17:13:07 <noah> q?
17:13:12 <johnk> noah: in addition to not dropping, do we want to have people invest time in this issue?
17:13:40 <johnk> lmm: does XML Core WG have an opinion on this issue?
17:14:00 <ht> I have scanned 2009/04/02-minutes.html, and am happy with them
17:14:18 <johnk> noah: suggest we solicit feedback on this issue in email
17:14:31 <ht> [Larry, a minor point -- I find the timestamps very distracting, can you turn them off next time, please?]
17:14:43 <ht> ack ht
17:14:48 <johnk> lmm: suggest an action to contact XML Core WG
17:15:50 <noah> q?
17:16:01 <johnk> ht: agree would be a good idea to contact them
17:16:23 <johnk> lmm: if XML Core wants us to work on this, then we should, if not, then we shouldn't
17:16:23 <ht> q+ to explain the history
17:17:05 <johnk> noah: suggest email discussion to be followed by a future agenda item
17:17:23 <johnk> noah: will anyone take this action?
17:17:30 <jar> q?
17:18:43 <masinter`> is document draft linked from issue?
17:18:53 <noah> zakim, who is speaking?
17:19:04 <Zakim> noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: noah (5%), John_Kemp (64%), Raman (46%), jar (35%)
17:19:44 <johnk> TOPIC: issue IRIEverywhere-27
17:20:02 <johnk> noah: (gives background)
17:20:26 <johnk> noah: significant concern was that 5 drafts were in roughly the same space
17:20:46 <johnk> noah: ht took an action to review these drafts and find their relation
17:20:51 <johnk> ht: action is pending review
17:20:53 <masinter`> action-263?
17:20:53 <trackbot> ACTION-263 -- Henry S. Thompson to summarize LEIRIs and "4 specs" in mail to www-tag -- due 2009-04-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:20:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/263
17:21:14 <johnk> noah: tracking this now under IRIEverywhere-27
17:21:29 <johnk> noah: shepherd?
17:21:49 <johnk> lmm: I will be the shepherd
17:22:14 <johnk> noah: Henry - would you like to lead this?
17:22:42 <DanC> (I did more formatting work this AM, fwiw. )
17:23:01 <noah> Dan, formatting on your draft with MSM?
17:23:06 <DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft-ietf.xml and http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft-ietf.html
17:23:28 <johnk> ht: (talks about recent Connolly/Sperberg-McQueen draft)
17:25:12 <DanC> (Internet Draft ~= WD; Proposed Standard ~= Candidate Rec; Draft Standard ~= Proposed Rec; Standard ~= Rec)
17:25:22 <johnk> ht: asked Martin Duerst to clarify where we stand with IRIbis
17:25:27 <johnk> ht: so far he hasn't
17:25:33 <johnk> ht: what to do next?
17:25:43 <ht> So where on that list does having an RFC number come in?
17:25:49 <DanC> q+ to look at Martin's response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0001.html
17:25:58 <ht> q- ht
17:26:03 <DanC> ack next
17:26:04 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to look at Martin's response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0001.html
17:26:19 <timbl> The .xml gives me "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below." 
17:26:23 <timbl> by the way
17:27:04 <DanC> as designed
17:27:28 <johnk> timbl: idea that if you find something hex encoded is actually UTF-8 is actually wrong
17:27:41 <noah> Dan: requirement is about non-Western search service, but I don't understand it very well.  Tim do, you know about URIs from Baidu.com. 
17:27:41 <noah> Tim: HTML meeting at TPAC.  The machinery for HTMl URLs can generate things that look like encoded IRIs but are not.  So, you cannot assume that anything hex encoded is UTF-8 is not true.
17:28:14 <timbl> This is because the HTML system has its own way of encoding params from HTML forms into URIs
17:28:19 <noah> Tim: HTML meeting at TPAC.  The machinery for HTMl URLs can generate things that look like encoded IRIs but are not.  So, the assumption that anything hex encoded is UTF-8 is not true.
17:28:49 <ht> DanC, draft-ietf.html looks better, but still two major problems: 1) it's not well-formed (try ,validate); 2) the scope of ed-notes is still unclear
17:28:53 <johnk> DanC: Martin's reply is more coherent
17:29:09 <noah> Can we copy the quote just read into our minutes here?
17:29:34 <noah> Well, the problem is that when a server gets data (in a path component, 
17:29:34 <noah> and even more in a query part), they need to know what encoding it is to 
17:29:34 <noah> make sense of it and provide a reasonable answer. The reason why you are 
17:29:34 <noah> calling this the "search engine" problem may be that this problem is 
17:29:34 <noah> most prominent with search engines, because everybody agrees that people 
17:29:35 <noah> want to search in their language, not limited to US-ASCII.
17:29:37 <noah> But it applies to any kind of query parts.
17:29:50 <noah> Some search engines have their own way to passing encoding information, 
17:29:51 <noah> as an example, in 
17:29:51 <noah> http://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%9D%92%E5%B1%B1&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, 
17:29:51 <noah> "ie" indicates input encoding (i.e. what's sent to the server, and "oe" 
17:29:51 <noah> indicates output encoding (what should be sent back).
17:29:56 <johnk> from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0001.html
17:30:18 <timbl> The HTML form convention is that the text in the text input field is in the same chset as the page istelf, and when  the parameters is encoded in a URI, the same encoding as te HTML page is made.
17:30:25 <johnk> DanC: firefox implemented it per IRI spec
17:30:28 <timbl> s/made/used/
17:31:06 <DanC> (the best way to slow down is to make test cases. here's hoping I find time)
17:31:12 <ht> zakim, mute me
17:31:12 <Zakim> Ht should now be muted
17:31:38 <johnk> DanC: two paths in their code. 
17:31:38 <noah> q?
17:31:54 <masinter`> tied up with form submission and form processing
17:32:10 <DanC> Martin's "Currently..." para bears out my experience with flags in mozilla
17:32:28 <johnk> noah: when you say implement the IRI spec - assume that this is independent of content-type used to encode form 
17:32:34 <masinter`> q+ to talk about IRI specs and normative behavior
17:32:56 <johnk> Danc: href youre looking at is inside  a doc
17:33:03 <johnk> with some encoding
17:33:15 <johnk> noah: it's not any old anchor, it's on a form
17:33:21 <johnk> submit
17:33:42 <johnk> timbl: you have to encode what someone types in, in the language in which they're typing
17:33:48 <johnk> timbl: local encoding is used
17:33:57 <johnk> danc: then someone bookmarks the URL
17:33:59 <masinter`> q+ separate out: definition of protocol element(s) -- Web Address, LEIRI, IRI -- behavior of form processing agents in producing one or more of those protocol elements -- and behavior of IRIs LEIRIs etc. in HTTP or other protocols (ftp: or file: URIs)
17:34:06 <masinter`> q+ to separate out: definition of protocol element(s) -- Web Address, LEIRI, IRI -- behavior of form processing agents in producing one or more of those protocol elements -- and behavior of IRIs LEIRIs etc. in HTTP or other protocols (ftp: or file: URIs)
17:35:01 <johnk> timbl: if someone follows bookmark, browser assumes UTF-8 and gets garbage
17:35:22 <johnk> danc: HTML5 says don't do that, use "Big5"
17:35:31 <timbl> "Big5"?
17:35:44 <johnk> danc: baidu uses big5
17:36:24 <johnk> danc: put in some chinese chars, go over wire percent-encoded
17:36:29 <jar> 香蕉
17:36:48 <johnk> danc: one of the links on that page is then copied into some other document
17:36:56 <timbl> http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=%D3%DA%B0%D9%B6%C8+
17:37:05 <johnk> danc: href=... (encoded chinese)
17:37:13 <johnk> noah: hex-encoded?
17:37:21 <johnk> danc: good question - think not
17:37:44 <johnk> danc: that uri might get passed to a script
17:37:49 <timbl> http://www.baidu.com/
17:38:03 <johnk> danc: even though script is in utf8, browser has to keep track of "big5" encoding
17:38:07 <noah> ack next
17:38:08 <Zakim> masinter`, you wanted to talk about IRI specs and normative behavior and to separate out: definition of protocol element(s) -- Web Address, LEIRI, IRI -- behavior of form
17:38:12 <Zakim> ... processing agents in producing one or more of those protocol elements -- and behavior of IRIs LEIRIs etc. in HTTP or other protocols (ftp: or file: URIs)
17:38:24 <johnk> lmm: comment about distribution of guidelines across specs.
17:38:31 <johnk> lmm: some material might be misplaced
17:38:43 <johnk> lmm: moving the guideliens aroiund might make things clearer
17:38:53 <johnk> Big5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big5
17:39:24 <johnk> lmm: URI document defines at least 3 protocol elements
17:39:43 <noah> Chair is starting to wonder what next steps are going to be after this discussion lurches to a local minimum.
17:39:52 <noah> Help?
17:39:59 <johnk> lmm: gives some syntax, but there is a separate set of advice on how to ship around URIs
17:40:38 <masinter`> three protocol elements: full URI (with or without fragment), relative URI
17:40:52 <DanC> (I count 2)
17:41:07 <DanC> ah.
17:41:18 <johnk> lmm: some of these things refer to full URI which allows a fragment, some to one without a frag
17:41:43 <johnk> lmm: you can send a path without a fragment or a full URI without a frag
17:41:57 <johnk> lmm: IRI doc could restrict itself to defining protocol elements
17:42:06 <johnk> lmm: other specs. could discuss behaviour
17:42:19 <johnk> lmm: how to take a form and data entered into a form
17:42:40 <johnk> lmm: if method is GET turn form submit URL into URI/IRI
17:42:47 <noah> q?
17:42:57 <johnk> lmm: advice is more behavioural than protocol-related
17:43:18 <johnk> noah: let's step back here
17:43:35 <johnk> noah: we took note of DanC/Michael's document
17:43:48 <johnk> noah: we noticed there were several specs. in this space
17:43:55 <masinter`> ((third area for specs are: updates to file:, http:, and other URI specs))
17:44:02 <johnk> noah: view this discussion as fact-finding on baidu space
17:44:11 <johnk> noah: noted Larry's comments
17:44:18 <johnk> noah: should the TAG do more now?
17:44:48 <johnk> DanC: interested to go around the table?
17:44:48 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:44:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Kemp, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht (muted), noah, Masinter, DanC, jar, Timbl
17:44:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see jar, RRSAgent, masinter`, Ashok, Zakim, johnk, raman, noah, timbl, DanC, ht_home, ht, trackbot
17:45:25 <johnk> noah: what, if anything, should the TAG do in this space in the next few weeks?
17:45:58 <johnk> don't feel sufficiently informed, so abstain
17:46:14 <johnk> raman: don't know what the TAG should do over and above what Dan is already doing
17:46:23 <johnk> raman: suggest 'nothing'
17:46:25 <DanC> ack ht
17:46:28 <johnk> ashok: abstain
17:47:03 <johnk> ht: only body which is in position to do more in this area is us!
17:47:12 <johnk> ht: not sure how to make something happen here
17:47:22 <johnk> ht: but something needs to happen
17:47:30 <johnk> ht: we should have a meta-discussion 
17:47:46 <johnk> ht: what should happen here, and what can the TAG do?
17:48:06 <johnk> lmm: getting better clarity around URIs on the Web is one of the more important areas of Web arch
17:48:21 <johnk> lmm: worried about it myself, and would be delighted to have fellow worriers
17:48:35 <johnk> noah: we can schedule future discussion but is there anything more concrete?
17:49:04 <johnk> lmm: willing to take an action wot work with Dan to get a list of tech issues
17:49:12 <johnk> s/wot/to/
17:49:23 <johnk> danc: need this audience to checkpoint my work
17:49:55 <johnk> danc: seems some people are involved, and would like to take away reasons for others who abstained
17:50:20 <johnk> noah: schedule discussion for next week, or wait till next draft?
17:50:37 <johnk> danc: Larry's action seems to be useful to me
17:50:47 <johnk> noah: wait for progress on action
17:51:16 <johnk> jonathan: not sure I can contribute, but if Dan writes something clear I would be happy to review
17:51:35 <johnk> noah: hearing interested concensus
17:52:05 <johnk> timbl: priority is to describe current situation
17:52:06 <DanC> (ah... yes... if LMM's action morphed to "work with ht and DanC on (a) some orientation paragraphs, (b) some issues/test cases" that would be optimal, I think)
17:52:28 <johnk> timbl: henry suggested "how the world could be better"
17:52:35 <johnk> timbl: and how to get there, if possible
17:53:02 <johnk> timbl: tag set the expectation that IRIs and URIS could be interchanged, and now we have situation where they are not
17:53:10 <johnk> timbl: should describe this
17:53:12 <jar> !
17:53:42 <johnk> ht: on the specific question of 5 specs. I meant that there is only one spec. going forward and everyone agrees
17:53:52 <johnk> timbl: that is one good area to tackle
17:54:08 <noah> q?
17:54:18 <ht> s/question of 5 specs/question of what should happen to make things better/
17:54:19 <DanC> (when did the TAG set the expectation they could be interchanged? Some of us repeatedly said they could not all along.)
17:54:23 <johnk> timbl: maybe we can draw the line on where we expect to have IRIs?
17:54:41 <johnk> timbl: if you have some things encoded, you can't use it in certain places?
17:54:52 <johnk> timbl: or all docs. use UTF-8?
17:55:05 <johnk> timbl: don't have hopes of any of these things right now
17:55:40 <noah> jk: i'll be happy to review what Dan produces
17:56:02 <johnk> noah: my answer will be factored into my proposal
17:56:27 <johnk> noah: I think I want to key on Larry, Dan and others to frame the technical issues
17:56:37 <johnk> noah: heard input on what those issues were from timbl
17:56:48 <johnk> noah: Dan said he finds this useful
17:57:02 <johnk> noah: propose assign an action to Larry,. Dan to do the analysis
17:57:10 <johnk> noah: any better/other suggestions?
17:57:49 <johnk> ACTION: DanC to work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire
17:57:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-265 - Work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-05-14].
17:58:07 <DanC> action-265 due in 2 weeks
17:58:07 <trackbot> ACTION-265 Work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire due date now in 2 weeks
17:58:08 <johnk> s/vairous/various/
17:58:12 <DanC> action-265?
17:58:12 <trackbot> ACTION-265 -- Dan Connolly to work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on the wire -- due 2009-05-14 -- OPEN
17:58:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/265
17:58:19 <noah> q?
17:59:27 <masinter`> issue-60?
17:59:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- Web Application State Management -- OPEN
17:59:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60
17:59:30 <johnk> TOPIC: webApplicationState-60
17:59:55 <johnk> noah: we published a WG, so what should we do next?
18:00:01 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #tagmem
18:00:38 <johnk> noah: Ian reminded us about patent exclusion disclosures
18:01:33 <johnk> noah: check with Ian/lawyers about patents as we are considered "invited experts"
18:01:50 <DanC> q+ to suggest aiming for Note
18:02:08 <DanC> ack danc
18:02:08 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest aiming for Note
18:02:11 <johnk> noah: understood group wants to move this draft to REC
18:02:27 <johnk> raman: this is about coming up with best practices
18:02:30 <DanC> "disappear"?
18:02:37 <johnk> raman: but w3c has nothing between 'note' and 'rec'
18:02:48 <johnk> DanC: notes don't disappear
18:02:57 <timbl> Note sounds good to me
18:03:28 <johnk> lmm: we might want to get some clarifications, but if you have nothing normative, then no "essential claim" possibilities
18:03:42 <johnk> noah: question is still about whether we call this a rec
18:04:24 <johnk> lmm: I defer to Dan on w3c process issues
18:04:55 <johnk> do we need to make this decision now?
18:05:14 <johnk> noah: some pressure to do patent disclosures if we go for 'rec'
18:05:23 <johnk> timbl: what is a "TAG finding"?
18:05:34 <johnk> timbl: what's wrong with making this a finding?
18:05:39 <johnk> noah: maybe nothing...
18:06:00 <johnk> noah: we did discuss how to get more visibility, and 'rec' is one way to do that
18:06:44 <johnk> noah: propose we take this to email
18:07:20 <noah> zakim, who is here?
18:07:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Kemp, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht, noah, Masinter, DanC, jar, Timbl
18:07:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see Ashok, jar, RRSAgent, masinter`, Zakim, johnk, raman, noah, timbl, DanC, ht_home, ht, trackbot
18:07:44 <johnk> noah: poll
18:07:54 <johnk> noah: would like to see more work in this area
18:08:20 <johnk> I guess the question is "what level of interest is there in seeing this work pursued?"
18:08:32 <DanC> q+ to say (a) the doc already says more than I knew, so I have little basis to comment (b) the HTML media type needs updating in this respece
18:08:32 <johnk> noah:
18:08:34 <johnk> yes
18:08:40 <johnk> ht: yes, but have no cycles
18:09:00 <johnk> danc: html media type needs to be updated
18:09:26 <johnk> danc: challenge is to get it reviewed by relevant audience: jquery, dojo et al
18:10:01 <johnk> timbl: work is valuable, and would like to wrap it up
18:10:32 <Zakim> -DanC
18:10:36 <johnk> timbl: we tell story in WWW + findings
18:10:42 <Zakim> +DanC
18:10:46 <johnk> timbl: make it a finding
18:11:07 <Zakim> -DanC
18:11:07 <johnk> timbl: then, what should we do to assembled what we've produced into a new arch doc?
18:11:18 <Zakim> +DanC
18:11:30 <Zakim> -DanC
18:12:29 <johnk> noah: next f2f might be a place to discuss assemblage of findings into arch doc
18:12:47 <johnk> see value to this work, should keep going
18:12:55 <johnk> ashok: see value to this as note or finding
18:13:12 <johnk> lmm: would like a more formal external review, ie. outside of TAG
18:13:36 <johnk> lmm: worth being a rec, but needs broader review, AC approval and so on
18:13:52 <johnk> noah: sounds like a suggestion to go to REC
18:13:54 <johnk> lmm: yes
18:13:58 <Zakim> -Ht
18:14:06 <johnk> lmm: important part of web arch
18:14:27 <johnk> noah: hearing "yes, let's keep working on this"
18:14:34 <noah> q?
18:14:43 <DanC> q-
18:15:59 <johnk> raman: don't see the difference between doing this as a personal blog post and doing this as TAG finding
18:16:18 <johnk> timbl: TAG findings have a role in Web community
18:16:44 <DanC> Zakim, code?
18:16:44 <Zakim> the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), DanC
18:17:23 <johnk> noah: findings have a formal goal
18:17:44 <johnk> raman: not seeing much momentum in this work
18:18:19 <johnk> raman: (seeing this as perhaps a larger problem with recent findings)
18:19:01 <johnk> noah: asking what is the next step, and if no-one is willing to help, then I can see how you would be frustrated?
18:19:22 <johnk> raman: prepared to see what happens
18:19:55 <johnk> noah: give this some thought - if you can figure out what next steps are, then lets discuss at f2f
18:20:10 <johnk> lmm: let's send out a note saying we're going to review it, and would appreciate external comment
18:20:19 <johnk> ashok: good idea
18:20:54 <johnk> ACTION: noah to send a note to www-tag pointing out that discussion is open on the WD for ISSUE-60
18:20:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-266 - Send a note to www-tag pointing out that discussion is open on the WD for ISSUE-60 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-05-14].
18:21:20 <johnk> lmm: summarize versioning work
18:21:55 <johnk> lmm: reviewed Dave's draft and wanted to reconcile work from there - wanted to see whether I was going in a "new" direction
18:22:29 <johnk> noah: can you look at background reading in this agenda and modify it if necessary?
18:22:57 <johnk> noah: propose to adjourn
18:23:03 <Zakim> -Masinter
18:23:05 <Zakim> -Raman
18:23:07 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
18:23:08 <johnk> (adjourned)
18:23:09 <Zakim> -noah
18:23:11 <Zakim> -jar
18:23:14 <timbl> Thank you, Noah
18:23:16 <Zakim> -John_Kemp
18:23:18 <Zakim> -Timbl
18:23:19 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:23:20 <Zakim> Attendees were John_Kemp, +1.617.538.aaaa, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht, noah, Masinter, DanC, Timbl, jar
18:23:33 <johnk> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:23:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/07-tagmem-minutes.html johnk
18:49:38 <johnk> rrsagent, make log public
18:49:49 <johnk> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:49:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/07-tagmem-minutes.html johnk
20:39:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem