IRC log of tagmem on 2012-12-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:54:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-tagmem-irc
17:54:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:55:01 [plinss]
zakim, this will be tag
17:55:01 [Zakim]
ok, plinss; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
17:57:23 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
17:58:06 [Eliot]
Eliot has joined #tagmem
17:59:36 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
17:59:56 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
18:00:10 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
18:00:15 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
18:00:16 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:00:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Microsoft]
18:00:32 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
18:00:39 [Zakim]
+Masinter
18:00:42 [Zakim]
+plinss
18:00:52 [Noah]
Noah has joined #tagmem
18:01:16 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
18:01:19 [Eliot]
Zakim, Microsoft is Eliot
18:01:19 [Zakim]
+Eliot; got it
18:01:40 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:01:45 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Ashok_Malhotra has joined #tagmem
18:01:52 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:01:58 [Noah]
zakim, ipcaller is me
18:01:58 [Zakim]
+Noah; got it
18:02:31 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
18:03:20 [Norm]
zakim, passcode?
18:03:20 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm
18:03:36 [Zakim]
+Mary_Holstege
18:03:42 [Norm]
zakim, Mary_Holstege is me
18:03:42 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
18:03:56 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
18:03:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, plinss, Eliot, JeniT, Noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm
18:03:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ashok_Malhotra, Noah, JeniT, Eliot, Norm, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, trackbot, plinss, Yves
18:04:35 [masinter]
+1 welcome
18:04:41 [Eliot]
Thanks!
18:04:57 [Ashok_Malhotra]
scribenick: Ashok_Malhotra
18:05:10 [Noah]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-agenda
18:05:15 [Ashok_Malhotra]
chair: Noah_Mendelsohn
18:05:33 [Ashok_Malhotra]
regrets: Henry_Thompson, Tim_Berners-Lee
18:05:53 [Ashok_Malhotra]
meeting: TAG-Weekly
18:06:25 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Topic: Admin
18:06:37 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Peter_linsss can scribe next week
18:06:42 [Noah]
Minutes from last week (29 November): http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes
18:06:50 [masinter]
i wonder if the topic could be broader than rescending our request
18:06:55 [Zakim]
+Yves
18:07:16 [Ashok_Malhotra]
RESOLVED: Minutes from 29-November approved
18:07:43 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: TAG Candidates are available -- 9 for 4 seats
18:08:22 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Per agreement from the candidates, election position statements are now public. The expectation is that discussion will be held on the www-tag mailing list.
18:08:29 [masinter]
I think it's great to have people think the TAG is important enough to talk about who should be on it
18:08:48 [Noah]
ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food
18:08:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-770 - Reserve January TAG space/food [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-12-13].
18:08:54 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Next f2f Jan 14-16 at Cambridge, MA
18:09:09 [Noah]
ACTION-769?
18:09:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-769 -- Noah Mendelsohn to informally inform Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical matters for his consideration -- due 2012-12-06 -- OPEN
18:09:09 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769
18:09:26 [masinter]
we should reconsider our process
18:09:30 [Noah]
close ACTION-769
18:09:30 [trackbot]
ACTION-769 Informally inform Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical matters for his consideration closed
18:09:34 [masinter]
closing the action is fine
18:10:01 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Topic: ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML Unification
18:10:53 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: We had mtg on 24 March 2010 Sam Ruby joined us. You can read details. Pointer from agenda.
18:11:24 [JeniT]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#item05
18:12:02 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: There is now a draft ...
18:12:19 [Eliot]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
18:12:19 [Norm]
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/
18:12:22 [masinter]
q+ to remind point raised last week about the broader issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03
18:13:02 [Noah]
Title: Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents
18:14:14 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Henri Sivonen has requested we rescind our request to publish in TR space and publish the spec as a note
18:15:08 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: People assumed the status was to publish as a Rec. Henri requests we rescind that.
18:15:25 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: HTML WG wants us to create guidance in 2 weeks
18:16:17 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... let's limit discussion today to whether we we should stick with our decision to publish as a REC
18:16:21 [Noah]
ack mext
18:16:24 [Noah]
ack next
18:16:25 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to remind point raised last week about the broader issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03
18:16:35 [Norm]
q+ to ask for clarification about the ambiguity in the way the question has been framed
18:16:39 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... let's work through Henri's arguments
18:17:43 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: In the narrow space ... we made a request which has no formal standing
18:18:16 [Noah]
ack next
18:18:18 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask for clarification about the ambiguity in the way the question has been framed
18:18:25 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: This may be chance to restate or modify it's advice
18:18:27 [masinter]
q?
18:18:50 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Norm: Does TAG want to publsh as REC or not?
18:19:04 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/publsh/publish/
18:19:05 [Noah]
ack next
18:19:56 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: Our request did not ask the document to be published as a REC
18:20:02 [masinter]
i'm not interested in making a different request, at this point
18:20:17 [Noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.html
18:20:23 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: HT's mail ask that it be published as a REC
18:20:24 [masinter]
it's the wrong time in the process
18:21:00 [Noah]
First email from Henry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.html
18:22:15 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: They do not need our advice on the narrow question of what to do with this doc. They need advice on the braoder issues of what should or should not be a REC
18:22:31 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: We have opportunity to clarify our REC
18:22:55 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Jeni: We should say we support it being on REC track
18:23:21 [masinter]
i'm convinced
18:23:57 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Peter: If it is on REC track what would be CR exit criteria
18:23:57 [masinter]
don't want to deep end on the process
18:24:00 [Noah]
Henry: "As such it makes sense, on the usual
18:24:00 [Noah]
grounds of avoiding duplication of effort and promoting
18:24:00 [Noah]
interoperability with respect to a requirement on W3C technology, that
18:24:00 [Noah]
the W3C issue a Recommendation addressing that requirement."
18:24:17 [Ashok_Malhotra]
q+
18:24:22 [Noah]
"Note that for _definitional_
18:24:22 [Noah]
specifications such as this one progressing to REC does _not_ require
18:24:22 [Noah]
implementation, since it is only referring specifications/documents
18:24:22 [Noah]
which may include implementable conformance requirements involving
18:24:23 [Noah]
the definition(s) provided."
18:24:35 [masinter]
I disagree with HT that implementations aren't needed
18:24:53 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Ashok: That's the real question
18:24:56 [masinter]
q+ to disagree that polyglot can't be implemented or tested
18:25:00 [JeniT]
q+ to ask Eliot if he agrees that polyglot is a definition specification
18:25:11 [Noah]
q?
18:25:26 [Noah]
ack next
18:26:40 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Peter: There could be a test suite of documents that parse both as XML and HTML
18:26:40 [JeniT]
Peter: possible tests are documents that parse as both HTML and XML
18:27:11 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... we need to consider what CR criteria are
18:27:19 [Noah]
q+ to say TAG doesn't need to get into exit criteria
18:27:31 [Noah]
ack next
18:27:33 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to disagree that polyglot can't be implemented or tested
18:27:33 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... documents produce same DOM on various parsers
18:29:11 [masinter]
it's part of the value of moving something to Rec that you have demonstrated implementation and interoeprability
18:29:21 [Noah]
LM: I think exit criteria and tests for these definitional documents are both possible and useful. Part of what makes RECs valuable.
18:29:23 [Noah]
ack next
18:29:24 [Zakim]
JeniT, you wanted to ask Eliot if he agrees that polyglot is a definition specification
18:30:11 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Jeni: Is Polyglot a definitional specification?
18:30:36 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Eloit: Yes, it is a definitional specification
18:30:48 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/Eloit/Eliot/
18:31:09 [Noah]
ack next
18:31:10 [Zakim]
Noah, you wanted to say TAG doesn't need to get into exit criteria
18:31:22 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: It is more than a definitional spec ... it says if you follw the spec you get some benefits
18:31:29 [Noah]
LM: It's not just definitional. It promises benefits.
18:31:31 [Noah]
JT: I agree.
18:31:50 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Jeni: It also defines the impact
18:32:08 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Promises a certain kind of comparibility
18:32:12 [Zakim]
-Norm
18:32:25 [JeniT]
it doesn't just define terminology, is my point
18:32:34 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/comparibility/compatibility/
18:33:07 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:33:07 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: We do not have to dive too deep into what the exit criteria could be
18:33:16 [Zakim]
+Norm
18:33:59 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: The benefits are not in question, we make a request, we did not say REC or NOTE
18:34:17 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Yves: Henri's request is a bit stronger
18:34:25 [Yves]
s/is/seems/
18:35:34 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: They would welcome guidance ... perhaps a NOTE is fine ... REC is desirable ... or it's up to you
18:35:35 [masinter]
q+ to argue about TAG scope
18:36:20 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Norm: I interpret Henri's note as saying don't publish anything at all
18:36:21 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.html
18:36:41 [Noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0006.html
18:36:52 [Noah]
Since the document should only document conclusions drawn from normative
18:36:52 [Noah]
statements made elsewhere, the Polyglot document itself should not be
18:36:52 [Noah]
normative, because there's a risk of erroneous conclusions getting held up
18:37:52 [masinter]
are we talking about Henri's request to the TAG or the formal objection in HTML-WG?
18:37:56 [masinter]
q?
18:38:21 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: His technical argument is that polyglot does not matter ... folks can front-end with a HTML pardser
18:38:34 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/pardser/parser/
18:38:49 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: TAG should focus on the broader issues
18:38:58 [Ashok_Malhotra]
q+
18:39:24 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: We have 2 week window to provide guidance
18:40:02 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... we can say to want to keep our original request as stated
18:40:32 [Noah]
ack next
18:40:32 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: I am ok ... we may have more to say later
18:40:33 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to argue about TAG scope
18:40:35 [Noah]
ack next
18:40:59 [Noah]
AM: What would be the real practical differences?
18:41:19 [masinter]
it's harder for other standards organizations to normatively reference a non-Rec
18:41:24 [Noah]
NM: I >think< there's less explicit/implied commitment to maintain it?
18:41:46 [masinter]
q+ to point out the relationship of W3C recommendations in the world of standards
18:41:55 [Noah]
YL: You can make make change requests on Notes.
18:42:09 [Noah]
NM: Yes, but don't you have more responsibilities to fix Notes.
18:42:11 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: With a REC we have to fix bugs
18:42:13 [Noah]
YL: Not necessarily.
18:42:29 [Noah]
YL: I think you're right that we >ought< to do something with a Rec.
18:42:54 [masinter]
the scope of responsibility is W3C, not the "working group", working groups can't make long-term commitments, but the consortium can. There is too much emphasis
18:42:55 [Noah]
YL: The main question is do we >Recommend< using Polyglot and/or having multiple recs?
18:43:05 [Noah]
q?
18:43:12 [masinter]
q?
18:43:13 [masinter]
ack
18:43:15 [Noah]
ack next
18:43:17 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to point out the relationship of W3C recommendations in the world of standards
18:43:39 [Noah]
RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.
18:43:45 [Noah]
RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.
18:43:50 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: REC have normative implications
18:43:56 [Noah]
LM: RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.
18:44:08 [Noah]
q+
18:44:27 [Noah]
ack next
18:45:26 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: I have a strong preference to be REC because I want this document to be citable ...
18:46:09 [Ashok_Malhotra]
e.g. someone may decide that legal documents must be polyglot and a REC makes that easier to say
18:47:48 [masinter]
I hate to say this (since I've argued against Findings vs. Recs from the TAG), but i'm wondering if this stuff about Rec vs. Note might qualify for a 'finding'
18:47:52 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/legal/legal insurance/
18:48:32 [Noah]
. PROPOSAL: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to do so. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request.
18:49:14 [masinter]
very close
18:49:23 [masinter]
"several" => "most" ?
18:49:49 [masinter]
zakim, who's here?
18:49:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, plinss, Eliot, JeniT, Noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Yves, Norm
18:49:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah, JeniT, Eliot, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, ht, trackbot, plinss, Yves
18:49:54 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Yves: Add why having a REC would be useful
18:49:58 [Noah]
The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. We are also aware
18:49:58 [Noah]
that, if published, polyglot would still be just one way of achieving HTML/XML interoperation.
18:51:11 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: If it is short we could do a resolution. If it is longer we should have someone wants to draft email text
18:51:24 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/wants to/
18:51:28 [masinter]
cut the last sentence?
18:52:21 [Noah]
. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes beyond the earlier request.
18:52:49 [masinter]
i liked the previous wording better, except for the last sentence
18:53:55 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Jeni: We should follow up with a rationale
18:54:22 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Resolution is for us ... only folks who read our minutes will see it.
18:54:28 [masinter]
would like to ask Eliot what he thinks would be helpful
18:54:32 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... so we need a email message
18:55:49 [masinter]
does the TAG want to do a REC on "Normative" ?
18:55:58 [Noah]
q?
18:56:02 [masinter]
since it isn't defined in the process
18:56:04 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: I think we should draft the email
18:56:42 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Norm, are you ok with this?
18:56:47 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Norm: Yes
18:56:57 [masinter]
ask Eliot to reference Task Force report
18:57:16 [masinter]
I propose your first resolution, sans last sentence
18:57:27 [Noah]
. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes beyond the earlier request.
18:57:56 [JeniT]
. PROPOSED RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request.
18:58:48 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Anyone opposed
18:58:50 [Noah]
RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request.
18:58:56 [Noah]
Agreed without dissent.
18:59:03 [masinter]
I didn't want to promise an email until we talk about the 'bigger issue'
18:59:04 [Noah]
RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request.
18:59:16 [Ashok_Malhotra]
RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request.
18:59:40 [Ashok_Malhotra]
q+
19:00:24 [Noah]
AM: One thought... in Henri's request to us, he quoted the XML/HTML task force report saying polyglot not very useful.
19:00:35 [Norm]
q+
19:00:40 [Noah]
ack nex
19:00:44 [Noah]
ack next
19:01:06 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Makes sense to me ... can we add to the email wording
19:01:21 [JeniT]
+1 to Norm
19:01:29 [Noah]
+2 to Norm
19:01:51 [Ashok_Malhotra]
'Norm: We should argue its general utility rather than it solves some great problem
19:02:19 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/some great/structured content on the web/
19:02:23 [Noah]
NW: The TAG should cite specifically the uses advocated by Sam Ruby, Henry Thompson, etc.
19:02:36 [Noah]
LM: Does report say that?
19:02:41 [Noah]
NW: Was beyond our scope.
19:02:51 [masinter]
could we suggest to the polyglot editor reference the task force report?
19:03:28 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Norm: No, the report answered the qustion it was asked which was "does it solve the structured content on the web" problem
19:03:36 [masinter]
email vs. finding vs. rec track document?
19:04:01 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Norm: This is my personal position
19:04:03 [JeniT]
masinter, maybe we start with email see how big it gets
19:04:11 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:04:43 [masinter]
Jeni, should we try to address the microdata as rec issue too?
19:05:11 [Noah]
ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG?
19:05:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-771 - Draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-12-13].
19:05:34 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: Should scope of email be broader to cover other what constitutes a REC issues?
19:06:07 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: Wikipedia entry is enlightening
19:06:46 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... it can be something you cite or it may be something you must use for some situation
19:07:38 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: I like what you said but let's start with the narrow case of the Polyglot document
19:08:32 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Larry do you think we should do the general case first
19:08:42 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Any other thoughts?
19:09:07 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Could have something for us to consider next week?
19:09:13 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Jeni: Yes
19:10:05 [Noah]
I'm a little curious where the AB/TAG line is in this. It's somewhat process, somewhat technical I think.
19:10:12 [JeniT]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.html
19:10:23 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: We may want to get more clarification on the dual use of "normative" ... how interesting something has to be before W3C considers it as a REC
19:11:30 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: The W3C process does not define normative ... not clear about scope ... we may need to do some process work
19:12:15 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: The AB is mainly concerned with operational issue like finance ... not so interested in process
19:12:29 [Noah]
From TAG charter "The TAG's scope is limited to technical issues about Web architecture. The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team."
19:13:17 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Discussion about "process"
19:13:33 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: This is about the maning of "normative".
19:13:56 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: We can draft note to AB about our concerns
19:14:17 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: If we had a QA group they could take it on
19:14:45 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Who owns process document?
19:15:10 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Yves: The AB and team. Ian Jacobs was the last editor or process document
19:15:39 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Where is "normative" defined?
19:16:12 [Noah]
FWIW, the word normative does not appear in the process document, except to discuss its own normative references.
19:16:23 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Jeni: There is no recommendation as to whether something should be a REC or A NOTE
19:16:30 [Ashok_Malhotra]
s/A/a/
19:17:11 [Noah]
From the process document: "A correction becomes normative -- of equal status as the text in the published Recommendation -- through one of the processes described below."
19:17:28 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Process document has some discussion of "normative"
19:18:17 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: Let's start with the email ... then we can expand to a document
19:18:27 [Ashok_Malhotra]
... if it feels right
19:18:46 [Noah]
A quick search suggests that the process document defines what it is for a correction to be normative, but not for the base spec to be normative. That seems consistent with the view that normative is a characteristic of a reference between one document and another.
19:19:08 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: We could discuss these in the context of the Microdata spec ... I will send out a note
19:19:35 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: I think this is worthy of a REC
19:19:53 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Noah: Please write email and I will put on the agenda
19:20:15 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Larry: Let's wait till we get the email wording from Jeni
19:23:17 [Zakim]
-JeniT
19:23:20 [Zakim]
-Masinter
19:23:21 [Eliot]
Thanks for inviting me. As to whether Polyglot should be a rec, I believe doing do will benefit those who implement the spec.
19:23:22 [Zakim]
-Yves
19:23:22 [Zakim]
-plinss
19:23:23 [Noah]
ADJOURNED
19:23:28 [Zakim]
-Eliot
19:23:33 [Zakim]
-Noah
19:24:32 [Ashok_Malhotra]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:24:45 [Ashok_Malhotra]
rrsagent, pointer?
19:24:45 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-tagmem-irc#T19-24-45
19:29:43 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
19:29:44 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:29:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were Masinter, plinss, Eliot, JeniT, Noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm, Yves
19:42:27 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:54:55 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:27:40 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:27:53 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
20:58:25 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
21:02:30 [Eliot]
Eliot has joined #tagmem
21:28:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
21:42:16 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
22:02:06 [Eliot]
Eliot has joined #tagmem
22:09:13 [darobin]
darobin has joined #tagmem
22:24:20 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
23:50:30 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem