IRC log of tagmem on 2002-02-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:37:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:37:22 []
topic is: TAG teleconference 4 Jan 2002
14:37:22 []
Users on #tagmem: RRSAgent DanC Ian @tim-mit
14:37:26 [DanC]
re my action: charset is *not* defined across all media types:
14:37:27 [DanC]
14:37:29 [DanC]
For example, the "charset" parameter is applicable to any subtype of
14:37:29 [DanC]
"text", while the "boundary" parameter is required for any subtype of
14:37:29 [DanC]
the "multipart" media type.
14:37:29 [DanC]
There are NO globally-meaningful parameters that apply to all media
14:37:29 [DanC]
14:37:32 [DanC]
14:37:36 [DanC]
15:27:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
15:27:27 [tim-mit]
Zakim, this is TAG
15:27:28 [Zakim]
ok, tim-mit
15:28:58 [tim-mit]
15:29:30 [tim-mit] <- Agenda
15:29:31 [TimBray]
TimBray has joined #tagmem
15:30:45 [tim-mit]
tim-mit has changed the topic to: TAG Jan 4
15:30:58 [tim-mit]
tim-mit has changed the topic to: TAG Feb 4
15:31:30 [Zakim]
15:31:34 [tim-mit]
Good aftrenoon Tim
15:31:42 [tim-mit]
Zakim, ??P! is PaulC
15:31:43 [Zakim]
sorry, tim-mit, I do not recognize a party named '??P!'
15:32:29 [Zakim]
15:32:30 [Zakim]
15:32:39 [Zakim]
15:33:03 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
15:33:13 [Zakim]
15:33:16 [tim-mit]
Zakim, ??P1 is PaulC
15:33:17 [Zakim]
+PaulC; got it
15:33:39 [DanC]
what happened in the last 7 seconds?
15:33:45 [DanC]
I saw STL catch up, then I saw it was over.
15:33:54 [TimBray]
Pats kicked a field goal
15:33:55 [Ian]
Patriots kicked field goal from 50 yards out.
15:35:00 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
15:35:00 [tim-mit]
Zakim, who is here
15:35:01 [Zakim]
I see TimBL, PaulC, Ian, NWalsh, TBray, DanC
15:35:01 [Zakim]
tim-mit, you need to end that query with '?'
15:35:27 [Zakim]
15:35:37 [Norm]
15:35:55 [Ian]
zakim, talk to the hand.
15:35:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'talk to the hand.', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help
15:36:10 [Ian]
zakim, ??P2 is Roy.
15:36:11 [Zakim]
+Roy.; got it
15:36:16 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
15:36:17 [Zakim]
I see TimBL, PaulC, Ian, NWalsh, TBray, DanC, Roy.
15:36:56 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:36:56 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
15:38:04 [Ian]
TBL: Anybody want to add to list of arch threads?
15:38:31 [Ian]
TBL: Process for getting issues to this agenda is TAG participants bringing to the meeting.
15:38:33 [Zakim]
15:38:46 [Ian]
zakim, ??P5 is Stuart
15:38:47 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
15:39:00 [Ian]
NW: Please break into two groups.
15:39:09 [Ian]
TBL: The ones we've accepted are on the issues list:
15:39:10 [tim-mit]
15:39:29 [TimBray]
I seem to be muted...
15:40:00 [TimBray]
Zakim, unumte TimBray
15:40:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unumte TimBray', TimBray. Try /msg Zakim help
15:40:09 [TimBray]
Zakim, unmute TimBray
15:40:10 [Zakim]
sorry, TimBray, I do not see a party named 'TimBray'
15:40:26 [tim-mit]
Ti,m, Zakim knows you as TBray
15:40:44 [Norm]
Thank you, Ian. Now I understand, it makes more sense :-)
15:40:53 [Ian]
IJ: My intention was to only have issues list have accepted/declined issues. Big dump in agenda is things to choose from.
15:40:58 [TimBray]
Zakim, unmute TBray
15:40:59 [Zakim]
TBray should no longer be muted
15:41:23 [Zakim]
15:41:25 [Ian]
IJ: I would like to work as follows:
15:41:28 [DanC]
if there's a page called the "agenda", please don't fill it with stuff that we don't actually plan to talk about
15:41:29 [Ian]
- Keep big dump in each new agenda.
15:41:30 [Zakim]
15:41:58 [Ian]
- TimBL would then move his top 5 items to a separate section so people could see what we will actually talk about at a glance.
15:42:17 [Ian]
DanC, I note that w3m does this, by the way: there are things that are carried forward and may not get talked about.
15:42:27 [Ian]
15:42:37 [Ian]
TBL: I propose that we accept the following as an issue:
15:42:43 [DanC]
Norm, in the w3m agenda, they plan to talk about each of the carried-forward things.
15:42:47 [DanC]
15:43:17 [Ian]
TBL: "Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?. Raised by Aaron Schwartz.
15:43:17 [Ian]
15:43:34 [Ian]
DC: I'd rather not. I don't know how we can contribute to life as we know it by addressing this.
15:43:41 [Ian]
CL: I think it's reasonable to ack certain problems.
15:43:47 [Ian]
..we can't just ignore it.
15:43:50 [Ian]
DC: Yes we can...
15:44:18 [Ian]
Issue raised by:
15:44:39 [Ian]
TBL: @@ starting to extend MIME type spec unofficially.
15:45:04 [Ian]
TBL: We could pronounce that it would be good if mime types became first-class objects.
15:45:14 [TimBray]
will re-dial; can't seem to get unmuted
15:45:23 [TimBray]
this issue has an IETF feel to me
15:45:24 [Ian]
zakim, unmute TimBray
15:45:25 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a party named 'TimBray'
15:45:31 [Zakim]
15:45:48 [Zakim]
15:45:55 [Ian]
DC: I don't agree there's a problem. I agree that people talk about this a lot.
15:46:18 [Ian]
RF: MIME types are resources. As long as you have a well-established namespace, they become URIs whether people like it or not.
15:47:03 [Ian]
RF: People who control MIME type space don't think they should be URIs.
15:47:05 [Ian]
CL: That's an issue.
15:47:20 [Ian]
TB: RDDL has a convention for making URI of a MIME type.
15:47:29 [Ian]
CL: Various specs are solving this problem in different ways.
15:47:39 [DanC]
we have evidence that they're doing it different ways?
15:47:49 [Ian]
CL: ...people who don't buy into this can avoid this process. People who do should do the same way.
15:48:13 [Ian]
TBL: Could have new URI scheme.
15:48:52 [Ian]
TBL to DC: Mapping is different from RDDL to Don Eastlake.
15:48:56 [Ian]
CL: And canonical XML.
15:49:04 [Ian]
DC: Are you sure they're different?
15:49:08 [Dave]
Dave has joined #tagmem
15:49:15 [Ian]
TBL: Don Eastlask was involved in canonical xml work.
15:49:22 [Ian]
15:49:39 [Ian]
Resolved: Add this question as an issue.
15:49:46 [Ian]
Action: IJ add to issues list.
15:50:17 [Ian]
Action RF: Summarize different approaches for mapping.
15:50:23 [Ian]
15:50:26 [DanC]
what's the name?
15:50:32 [DanC]
oh well.
15:50:44 [DanC]
where are we now?
15:50:46 [Ian]
DanC, feel free to suggest. Not critical to me here.
15:50:49 [Ian]
15:51:39 [Ian]
TBL: Suggest * Possible technical development: QUERY method in HTTP. propose raise this., to address oustanding need. Pseudothreads include:
15:51:39 [Ian]
1. Background information on GET and XForms (was: GET should be enco uraged...) Micah Dubinko (Thu, Jan 24 2002)
15:51:39 [Ian]
2. RE: Background information on GET and XForms (was: GET should be encouraged...) Martin Duerst (Sun, Jan 27 2002)
15:52:46 [Ian]
TBL: Create another method for idempotent actions to be like POST, or GET + body?
15:53:14 [Ian]
Proposed: Expand issue whenToUseGet-7 to include this question.
15:53:26 [Ian]
15:53:54 [Ian]
15:54:04 [Ian]
* Architecture doc issues Raised by Tim Bray, who disagrees strongly with: "The namespace document (with the namespace URI) is a place for the language publisher to keep definitive material about a namespace. Schema languages are ideal for this." I think some discussion around this will be useful, and I woul hope to have a TAg statement at the end of it -TBL.
15:54:07 [Ian]
TBL: Propose to raise as issue.
15:54:14 [Ian]
TB: I disagree with your summary of our disagreement.
15:54:36 [Ian]
Resolved: Add this as issue.
15:54:40 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
15:54:44 [Ian]
Action IJ: Add this as issue.
15:55:08 [Ian]
15:55:29 [Ian]
uriMediaType-9 (for previous issue)
15:55:41 [Ian]
15:55:45 [Ian]
TBL: Language bindings
15:55:56 [Ian]
* Language bindings for extending functionality. "Language binding was explicitly dropped from XSLT 2.0, in the recognition that a common approach was required across the W3C." Raised by Jim Fuller. p
15:56:05 [Ian]
TB: I fail to understand the issue here.
15:56:33 [Ian]
15:56:48 [Ian]
"Language binding was explicitly dropped from XSLT 2.0, in the recognition
15:56:48 [Ian]
that a common approach was required across the W3C.
15:56:48 [Ian]
15:56:57 [Ian]
TB: Rat-hole alert. :)
15:57:18 [Ian]
TBL: This is about API bindings.
15:57:52 [Ian]
NW: When we published XSLT 1.1, it included language bindings (for how to do function calls from xslt). It created a firestorm.
15:58:03 [Ian]
...Nobody could agree that we should do this (in the xslt WG).
15:58:16 [Ian]
...I have no confidence that this should be done across all possible bindings.
15:58:33 [Ian]
CL: I agree that most xslt implementations allow you to do this (by extensions).
15:58:43 [Ian]
NW: Extension functions are an interoperability hole.
15:59:56 [Ian]
DC: I'm torn on this. I like how xslt extensions work in general (but for too many 404s). On the other hand, there are a lot of places in w3c specs for APis; they use central registries for tokes.
16:00:28 [Ian]
NW: I observe that publishes some common extension functions. Publish definitions. Implemented in various xslt processors.
16:00:41 [Ian] can use function_available to find if they are available.
16:01:17 [Ian]
[Debate whether W3C should standardize a runtime library]
16:01:49 [Ian]
PC: Issue here is not whether there should be a std set of functionalities accessible from xslt. Issue is whether xslt spec (or another) should standardize the exensibility mechanism that allows any extension function to be used.
16:01:57 [Ian]
...this is a rat-hole since would have to work across languages.
16:02:08 [Ian]'d have to map datatypes across languages; no easy task.
16:02:14 [DanC]
the function-available bit is what I'd want to look at, if anything. (SAX has such a thing, using URIs; yeah! DOM has one, that doesn't, last I looked. Boo.)
16:02:17 [Ian]
TBL: This is normally done on the platform, not where W3C has normally been.
16:02:39 [Ian]
TBL: Do we go down this rat-hole or go after other fish?
16:02:51 [Ian]
No one jumps up and down to take this one.
16:03:18 [Ian]
Resolved: No action.
16:03:50 [Ian]
[Read: Don't add to issues list.]
16:03:58 [Ian]
16:04:26 [DanC]
16:04:26 [Ian]
Is this nsMediaType-3: Relationship between media types and namespaces?
16:04:33 [DanC]
the svg diagram has a bug
16:04:37 [Ian]
Refer to TB's proposal:
16:05:43 [Ian]
See also TAG findings:
16:06:24 [DanC]
16:07:20 [Ian]
TBL Proposal: Namespace on root determines subsequent behavior; outermost piece rules.
16:07:29 [Ian]
TB: There are important exceptions.
16:07:55 [Dave]
16:08:30 [Ian]
NW: The template is essentially "copy me", except when elements in xslt namespace found. But by its nature, can't be another template. Problem I have with calling this an xhtml document is that it wouldn't validate as an xhtml document.
16:08:56 [Chris]
16:09:10 [TimBray]
16:09:22 [Ian]
DC: I'm trying to figure out whether we're designing what we want or describing what's already there.
16:09:32 [Ian]
...clearly there are several protocols already there.
16:09:58 [Ian]'s clear what happens when you hand a mixed document to an xslt processor. Also clear if you hand to html processor (though outside the spec).
16:10:14 [Ian] there are lots of protocols (what your browser does, what your xslt processor does, etc.).
16:10:20 [Ian] which game are we playing here?
16:10:46 [Ian]
DO: Trying to make the xslt with xhtml look like xhtml seems like a stretch to me.
16:11:16 [DanC]
i.e. if we're playing the "describe what exists" game, the architecture is: an XML document doesn't say what its purpose is; you have to have a protocol and a document before you know what the "meaning" is.
16:11:20 [Ian]
DO: ...You could use xslt to create a soap document. This is not just about xhtml at the root element.
16:11:23 [Norm]
16:11:45 [DanC]
if we're playing the "design what we want" game, I might agree that we want to be able to just look at a document to see what it means.
16:11:52 [Ian]
DO: XSLT is using xhtml at the top as a short hand. I don't think you can use the toplevel element as a guaranteed deciding factor. The fact that there is xslt in the document says that it's an xslt document.
16:12:17 [tim-mit]
16:12:21 [Ian]
DO: What happens if we have two vocabs that both say that they want to be the "first thing". What about xslt and xquery in the same document? They will argue over who is more important.
16:12:31 [tim-mit]
chair acks DanC
16:12:33 [Norm]
16:12:40 [Ian]
DO: Sounds like author needs to specify what the top-level processor should be.
16:12:40 [tim-mit]
chair acks Dave
16:12:43 [tim-mit]
chair acks Chris
16:13:07 [Ian]
CL: This is a result of the arch that we have: a single document that has things hanging off it. We might have instead a wrapper that says "here are the pieces".
16:13:12 [DanC]
how is a "wrapper" different from a document?
16:13:29 [Ian]
CL: The template (wrapper?) is the basis of what the document will be.
16:13:42 [Ian]
CL: The template would be the primary thing, and other documents would be derived from it.
16:13:57 [tim-mit]
chair acks TimBray
16:13:58 [Ian]
CL: I see a stylesheet-type linkthat points off to the real document.
16:14:28 [Ian]
TB: I agree in general that namespace dispatching is appropriate and is better done contextually. But I think that trying to make a strong statement about the root element namespace may create more problems than it solves.
16:14:36 [Chris]
wrapper is like a manifest, there might not e "a" top document
16:14:48 [Chris]
web, not a tree
16:14:52 [Ian]
TB: I can come up with scenarios where you might want to reach into the middle of a document and do some things without regard to context.
16:15:03 [DanC]
er... how is a wapper/manifest distinguishable from a top document?
16:15:04 [Ian]
TB: I don't want to send everything as application/xml and doing everything by namespace.
16:15:26 [Ian]
PC to TB: If you don't believe you should dispatch on namespaces, what should you dispatch on?
16:15:31 [Ian]
TB: Media types if you can.
16:15:32 [Chris]
it doesn't get presented. its more like a zipfile and a table of contents
16:15:56 [Ian]
TB: It's more efficient to tell recipient what you're sending when you know what it is.
16:16:04 [Chris]
16:16:13 [Ian]
NW: I wanted to point out that the single template example in XSLT is syntactic sugar.
16:16:24 [Ian]
NW: I think CL got it right: this is a packaging issue.
16:16:26 [DanC]
re wrapper/manifest, seems like the RDDL vs. XML Schema stuff; I don't see any fundamental difference: either can point to the other.
16:16:33 [Ian]
zakim, who is on the queue?
16:16:34 [Zakim]
I see Norm, Chris on the speaker queue
16:16:37 [DanC]
16:17:07 [Ian]
TBL: The TAG should be able to tell people that people can be able to tell what a document is by looking at the bits in it and the MIME type.
16:17:20 [Chris]
16:17:22 [Dave]
Dave so totally agrees with Norm
16:17:46 [Dave]
on the survival without packaging issue
16:18:13 [Ian]
TBL: You can consider the embedded xslt as an object.
16:18:30 [Norm]
16:18:57 [DanC]
16:19:02 [Ian]
TBL: When I write a new spec and embed that content in an xhtml document, do I have to say "Start with me?" somehow for that bit?
16:19:04 [Stuart]
16:19:21 [Ian]
TBL: I'm worried by TB's statement that he will want to pull out content from the middle of a document based on its namespace.
16:19:38 [Ian]
TBL: I want to be able to say "I got the following from so-and-so and I totally disagree with it."
16:19:39 [Dave]
16:19:46 [TimBray]
16:20:01 [Ian]
TBL: How will I ever send a package without you delving into it andpulling something out and considering it a document?
16:20:05 [Norm]
You can't legislate morality.
16:20:21 [TimBray]
I want to build a table of the XLinks in a document
16:20:55 [TimBray]
I want to run through and look for content with xml:lang="ja"
16:20:57 [Ian]
CL: If you look at the template, it tells you that, after transform, what processor should get the content.
16:21:11 [Ian]
CL: You get advance warning that N is the namespace you'll end up with as the root.
16:21:55 [Ian]
NW: I did not mean to generalize that all embedded stuff is syntactic sugar. Just clarifying that xslt case is syn. sugar.
16:22:11 [Ian]
NW: I think that you would try to prevent someone from looking inside is not enforceable.
16:22:27 [Ian]
TBL: What decides when it's ok to look inside?
16:22:33 [Ian]
TBL: What criteria do you use?
16:22:34 [Dave]
Encrypt it?
16:22:50 [Ian]
NW: I decide. Not clear to me algorithm I use to decide.
16:22:54 [DanC]
a link-checker is a pretty good case of a tool that's likely to look inside.
16:22:59 [Ian]
TBL: But you do it when you understand that something is a package.
16:23:06 [TimBray]
I want to reach into a doc and check for elements with dig sigs and check them
16:23:16 [Ian]
NW: You sent me something that I didn't recognize at all, but I see that there's some SVG, so I look at the picture.
16:23:24 [DanC]
16:23:28 [Norm]
16:23:38 [Norm]
chair acks chris
16:23:41 [Ian]
IJ: Same rule for accessibility: Let the user decide.
16:23:45 [Roy]
16:23:57 [Ian]
DC: I get nervous if we are designing the world we want since no software does this.
16:24:29 [Ian]
TBL: I'd like to look at a clean world, then look at the real world and see why people are doing different things. In some cases, the only difference is attitude.
16:24:54 [Ian]
TBL: We have not got people burying SVG in XHTMl.
16:24:58 [Ian]
CL: Yes, we do.
16:25:12 [Ian]
DC: If we had code that had a common model, I'd be happy to specify it.
16:25:14 [Roy]
Packaging is not relevant to this discussion.
16:25:15 [Ian]
SW: Questions:
16:25:29 [Ian]
1) In general, is the MIME type redundant information? Can it always be derived from the content?
16:25:38 [Ian] sense is that it's not redundant.
16:25:46 [DanC]
packaging seems to be relevant because people keep saying "packaing" when this comes up. I don't understand the relevance either, Roy, but I can't dispute it.
16:25:48 [Roy]
Answer: no
16:26:14 [Chris]
XSmiles is a good example where SVG, XHTML, XSL, XForms, XML Events, SMIL can all be mixed up in one document and do something
16:26:41 [Ian]
SW: Can you have content for which mime type cannot be derived from content? (e.g., mixed content that might validate in different ways).
16:27:01 [Ian]
DO: Interesting question - how do you know which pieces of content are targetting different processors? SOAP solves this problem.
16:27:02 [DanC]
16:27:11 [Roy]
All content can be recognized as multiple types.
16:27:21 [tim-mit]
.me acks DanC
16:27:24 [tim-mit]
.me acks Stuart
16:27:36 [DanC]
I disagree, dave. SOAP doesn't "solve" the multiple-protocols issue. I can take a SOAP document and look at it in emacs, which is not what the SOAP headers call for.
16:28:10 [Stuart]
So in general media-typing adds info that cannot be derived from the document content?
16:28:26 [Ian]
TB: I stand by my claim that you can legitimately look inside a document and ignore container elements (see examples above).
16:28:47 [Ian]
(e.g., build a table of contents of documents a resource links to)
16:28:50 [tim-mit]
16:29:00 [Dave]
16:29:21 [DanC]
hear hear!
16:29:25 [Norm]
16:29:30 [Norm]
16:29:30 [Ian]
TB: I have spent a lot of time fighting for generic markup: one great virtue of generic markup is that it may be reused in ways author did not predict.
16:29:39 [tim-mit]
16:29:43 [DanC]
this is the Principle of Lease Power in action.
16:29:54 [Ian]
This is a strong argument in WAI domain: Author proposes, user disposes.
16:30:04 [Ian]
RF: Lots of issues stacked up:
16:30:13 [Chris]
"X-Smiles was released as open source in the beginning of the year 2001.
16:30:14 [Ian]
RF: Does namespace always reflect media type? No.
16:30:23 [Chris]
16:30:24 [TimBray]
what's top-level element of X-Smiles?
16:30:27 [Ian]
RF: Can you inspect content and derive media type? No.
16:30:41 [Chris]
xsmiles is an implementation, not a namespace
16:30:45 [Ian]
RF: Media type and namespace overlaps structural content and purpose of how author intends content to be used.
16:30:55 [Chris]
you can have whatever top-level element that you want
16:31:04 [Ian]
RF: No matter how you look at document, can be interpreted as being in different namespaces.
16:31:29 [Ian]
RF: Point of the media type is to convey author's intention, not how user can interpret the message.
16:31:48 [Roy]
16:32:33 [Ian]
DC: There are many ways to look at document; not sure whether we are going to specify some preferred ones.
16:32:59 [Ian]
TBL: Some confusion here about what specs should say. Lots of talk about processing models. I think our job in specs is to say what a document type means; not what you do with it.
16:33:25 [Ian]
TBL: Things get clearer when you talk about what a document means rather than what to do with it.
16:33:43 [Ian]
TBL: E.g., commerce relies on knowing that something is an invoice, whether you put it on the wall, trash it, etc.
16:33:56 [Chris]
q+ I have a counterexample
16:33:59 [Dave]
I have to leave now. I'm comfortable with talking about this for a bit longer, but we need clear resolution of what
16:34:07 [Dave]
we believe or don't.
16:34:15 [Ian]
DC: It's not the bytes in the content that make something an invoice, it's the context (message you sent me).
16:34:37 [Ian]
TBL: specifications of languages should be written so that they explain meaning of a document if you get bits and a mime type.
16:35:48 [Ian]
TBL: That something is an invoice is based on a human-understandable protocol.
16:35:52 [Chris]
16:35:54 [Chris]
16:36:04 [Ian]
...but we need to be able, in general, to make this crisp, and be able to do crisply in the Web architecture.
16:36:15 [DanC]
16:36:27 [Chris]
q- I have a counterexample
16:37:03 [Norm]
16:37:19 [Zakim]
16:37:20 [Roy]
16:37:51 [tim-mit]
chair acks Chris
16:38:03 [Ian]
NW: Sounds like TBL is suggesting that, based on bits sent and media type, recipient can't do anything but what author said.
16:38:14 [Ian]
TBL: No. I don't tell you anything about what you can do with it.
16:38:22 [Ian]
TBL: Meaning of document is independent of what you can do with it.
16:38:24 [Stuart]
16:38:33 [DanC]
I totally disagree; the meaning of an invoice has everything to do what what you're expected to do with it.
16:38:56 [Ian]
NW, DC: Doesn't make sense.
16:39:14 [TimBray]
somebody having sex with their phone?
16:39:15 [Ian]
RF: It really sounds like these issues are wrapping themselves around the general issue of what a media type is on the Web.
16:39:38 [Ian]
RF: We need to write down philosophy down in a livable form.
16:39:54 [Stuart]
+1 I'd question whether documents have multiple interpretations and the meaning of a document can depend on the interpretation it is subject to.
16:40:10 [tim-mit]
16:40:11 [Dave]
Dave has quit
16:40:12 [Stuart]
Thats was +1 to DanC
16:40:20 [Ian]
TBL: There is a DesignIssues document on this:
16:40:24 [DanC]
16:41:16 [Ian]
Refer to TB's findings:
16:41:19 [Ian]
16:41:22 [TimBray]
16:41:42 [Ian]
TB: I got comments from PC.
16:41:53 [Ian]
...I would do some slight rewrites.
16:42:14 [Ian]
TBL: My feeling is that this is tied up in what we're discussing now.
16:42:29 [Ian]
TB: We might want to leave out part on namespace-based dispatching.
16:42:35 [Ian]
SW: I sent comments to TB as well.
16:42:53 [Ian]
SW: One question: can we advise people to register w3c recs as a means of registering a mime type?
16:43:08 [Ian]
TB: This was raised by TBL. But bureaucratically, IETF requires a form.
16:43:16 [Ian]
CL: Yes, I had suggested that this form be an appendix.
16:43:57 [Ian]
RF: You can put a media-type registration document inside a W3C spec.
16:44:25 [Ian]
TBL: Form should be part of the spec.
16:44:41 [Ian]
16:45:44 [Chris]
form is not top level element
16:45:53 [Chris]
its a form inside a w3cd document
16:45:57 [Ian]
TBL: Change title from "TAG findings".
16:46:06 [Ian]
TB: Put "Draft" in front.
16:46:40 [Ian]
Resolved: Make this public incorporating TB's changes.
16:46:45 [Ian]
Action TB: Update, then IJ update and make public.
16:47:12 [Ian]
16:47:47 [Ian]
Starting points for PUT access to W3C Web site
16:47:51 [Ian]
16:48:09 [Ian]
16:48:13 [Ian]
Action item review:
16:48:26 [Ian]
DC: Verify that parameter names are local to each MIME type.
16:49:07 [Ian]
16:50:19 [Ian]
TBL: Should we recommend that all xml mime types have a charset parameter?
16:50:20 [Ian]
CL: No.
16:50:34 [Ian]
CL: I would object to assuming that everything has charset no matter what the spec says.
16:51:16 [Ian]
Agenda for next week: How do we resolve the problem in processing where there is a reference to charset that may not be defined?
16:51:28 [Ian]
16:51:39 [Ian]
PC: Pending: Draft a response to Duane Nickull on www-tag with recommendation to contact Web Services Architecture Working Group.
16:51:43 [Ian]
16:51:47 [DanC]
pls record it as "continued" unless he tells us what it's pending on.
16:51:53 [Ian]
16:52:20 [Ian]
CL: Regrets for 12 February ftf meeting.
16:52:57 [Ian]
TB: Will we meet in Hawaii?
16:53:03 [DanC]
in what way is the Hawaii meeting at risk?
16:53:14 [Ian]
Proposed: 5 May (Sunday)
16:53:16 [Chris]
Sunday 5 May
16:53:54 [Ian]
Resolved: 5 May TAG meets in Hawaii.
16:54:02 [DanC]
clarification: 13 May telcon is what's at risk, not 5 May ftf
16:54:40 [Ian]
TBL: I would have no problem with non-Team meeting on 13 May teleconf.
16:55:09 [Ian]
Resolved: Plan to meet 13 May sans Team.
16:55:14 [Ian]
16:55:15 [Ian]
How we work
16:55:36 [Ian]
TBL: Should we set as our goal to use formal models where appropriate?
16:55:50 [Ian]
(e.g., mathematical relation between HTTP requests and responses).
16:55:57 [Ian]
....DC has used Larch to model HTTP.
16:56:18 [DanC]
larch modelling, for what it's worth.
16:56:45 [Ian]
RF: I think someone who wants to see a model happen should write the model.
16:57:03 [tim-mit]
16:57:10 [tim-mit]
16:57:19 [Ian]
RF: With formal models, I usually run into a problem with a need to make simplifying assumptions about how the technology works.
16:57:45 [Ian]
RF: Usually, it's the things that make technology difficult are the parts that you most need to understand (and are difficult to model formally).
16:58:04 [Ian]
RF: E.g., edge cases are added over time as people in a WG realize that edge cases are tough to describe formally.
16:58:15 [Chris]
16:58:20 [Ian]
RF:...if you don't understand the (messy) edge cases, you don't understand the system.
16:58:24 [TimBray]
gotta go, bye
16:58:29 [Ian]
TBL: Formal model lets you see invariants.
16:58:29 [Zakim]
16:58:36 [TimBray]
TimBray has quit
16:58:57 [Ian]
PC: I'm a little concerned spending time on formal definitions when our charter is for higher-level descriptions of architecture.
16:59:10 [Ian]
PC: For formal modeling, I'd prefer to allocate to a WG.
16:59:26 [Ian]
PC: I think formal modeling is very valuable, but not sure that first TAG should take this one.
16:59:45 [Ian]
DC: I'd be surprised if we did something that didn't lend itself to formalization.
17:00:05 [Ian]
17:00:10 [Ian]
Next meeting: 12 Feb ftf
17:00:20 [Roy]
Roy has quit
17:00:22 [Zakim]
17:00:25 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:27 [Zakim]
17:00:30 [Zakim]
17:00:34 [Zakim]
17:00:38 [Zakim]
17:00:40 [Zakim]
TAG_Monthly()10:30AM has ended
17:01:22 [Norm]
Bye, all!
17:01:25 [Norm]
Norm has quit
17:05:01 [Stuart]
Stuart has quit
17:23:56 [Chris]
Chris has left #tagmem
17:33:23 [Ian]
Ian has quit