IRC log of tagmem on 2002-10-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:30:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:52:34 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
18:59:14 [timbl]
zakim, this is tag
18:59:15 [Zakim]
ok, timbl
18:59:21 [timbl]
Zakim, who is here?
18:59:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, ??P1
18:59:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, timbl
18:59:44 [Zakim]
19:00:02 [Stuart]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
19:00:03 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:00:25 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:00:33 [Ian]
Regrets: DC
19:00:36 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:00:42 [timbl]
19:01:07 [Zakim]
19:01:08 [Zakim]
19:01:16 [Norm]
zakim, what is the passcode?
19:01:18 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Norm
19:01:24 [Zakim]
19:02:02 [Roy]
zakim, ??P4 is Roy
19:02:03 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:02:08 [PaulC]
PaulC has joined #tagmem
19:02:32 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:02:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TimBL, Stuart, Ian, ??P5, Roy, Norm
19:02:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see PaulC, Norm, Roy, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, timbl
19:03:31 [Ian]
Zakim, ??P5 is Paul
19:03:32 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
19:03:53 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:04:06 [Ian]
Missing: DO, CL
19:04:20 [Ian]
Chair: SW
19:04:22 [Ian]
Scribe: IJ
19:04:45 [Ian]
Present: PC, NW, RF, SW, TBL, TB, IJ
19:04:48 [Ian]
Regrets: DC
19:05:15 [TBray]
where's the agenda?
19:05:23 [TBray]
oops wasn't looking
19:05:43 [Stuart]
19:06:19 [Zakim]
19:06:25 [Ian]
zakim, ??P7 is TBray
19:06:26 [Zakim]
+TBray; got it
19:06:28 [TBray]
zakim, ??p7 is TBray
19:06:29 [Zakim]
sorry, TBray, I do not recognize a party named '??p7'
19:06:40 [timbl]
19:06:56 [Ian]
Accept 24-25 Sep minutes
19:07:01 [Ian]
19:07:35 [Ian]
SW: Accepted.
19:07:43 [Ian]
Accept draft monthly summary?
19:07:47 [Ian]
19:08:03 [Ian]
TB: Seems fine.
19:08:16 [Zakim]
19:08:18 [Ian]
SW: Accepted draft summary. Action IJ: Send to AC/Chairs/www-tag.
19:08:31 [Ian]
Accept this agenda?
19:08:57 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to move xlinkScope forward in the agenda.
19:09:21 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to discuss how to move forward with the community.
19:10:25 [Ian]
DO: Any progress on RF work on Arch Doc?
19:10:26 [Ian]
RF: No.
19:10:32 [Ian]
RF: I have writing tasks until 10 October.
19:10:50 [Ian]
19:10:54 [Ian]
Next meeting?
19:11:15 [Ian]
SW: PC pointed out that holidays in US and Canada on 14 Oct.
19:11:20 [Ian]
TB: I have to work that day.
19:11:24 [Ian]
DO: No.
19:11:25 [Ian]
PC: No.
19:11:40 [Ian]
NW: No (in transit to ftf meeting).
19:11:59 [Ian]
TBL: No.
19:12:30 [Ian]
PC: NW and I have ftf meetings from tues-fri that week; rescheduling would be difficult for us.
19:12:39 [Ian]
Resolved: Next meeting 21 October.
19:12:42 [Ian]
19:14:41 [Ian]
[some discussion of whether vacation decision process can be improved...]
19:16:38 [Ian]
19:16:40 [Ian]
Completed actions
19:17:04 [Ian]
19:17:05 [Ian]
19:17:08 [Ian]
Meeting planning
19:17:53 [Ian]
* Reported that TAG will not have ftf meeting during that week. Awaiting news from plenary committee on TAG's role.
19:18:39 [Ian]
* FTF meeting page up
19:19:32 [Ian]
* AB didn't want to share slots; thought Arch Doc slot good idea.
19:20:06 [Ian]
1. Action SW 2002/09/24: Take to the mailing list the top three TAG questions for the AC (for Nov 2002).
19:20:10 [Ian]
[Done, to]
19:20:28 [Ian]
SW: For discussion at next meeting, not on today's agenda.
19:21:20 [Ian]
PC: I will send the TAG a URI to my slides for a 30-minute TAG talk (given in Oz, but can be reused at AC meeting).
19:21:53 [Ian]
SW: Also for next meeting - discuss the AB questions
19:22:02 [Ian]
19:22:24 [Ian]
Action PC: Lay out the groundwork for what the TAG should discuss on these issues.
19:22:48 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:23:01 [TBray]
hey chris
19:23:11 [Zakim]
19:24:03 [Ian]
Revised Action PC: Respond to IJ's summary of process issues from AB regarding TAG charter.
19:24:05 [Ian]
19:24:07 [Ian]
19:24:17 [Ian]
19:24:43 [Ian]
[SW on TAG communication]
19:25:04 [Ian]
SW: TBL and I felt we might have done a better job in communication.
19:25:27 [Ian]
SW: IJ sent me a request: that the chairs make a statement about the normative standing of communications from the TAG.
19:25:42 [TBray]
19:25:49 [Ian]
SW: My response to this is: if not been through W3C Rec track process, not normative.
19:25:50 [Ian]
19:26:35 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:26:57 [Ian]
TB: I think SW's assertion is true. However, the TAG was chartered to document what is architecturally sound; so other groups should "pay attention" to our communications even if they are not strictly normative.
19:27:04 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:27:06 [Stuart]
19:27:38 [Ian]
IJ: "Short term resolutions"
19:28:04 [TBray]
Disagree with scribe's formulation slightly: even though it may not be normative, part of Director's role is to do oversight on architectural consistency, and since
19:28:26 [TBray]
such consistency is in the TAG's purview, a WG chair might very reasonably worry about an outstanding TAG opinion that there are arch problems
19:28:30 [Ian]
"# community as possible. In some cases, a short-term resolution will be proposed while longer-term architectural directions are developed. Short-term resolutions must be public. Short-term issue resolutions are subject to appeal by Advisory Committee representatives; refer to the appeal process described in section 6 of the Process Document [PROCESS]. Note: TAG Architectural Recommendations are subject to Advisory Committee review by virtue of
19:28:30 [Ian]
the fact that they involve the Recommendation track process."
19:28:43 [Stuart]
19:28:48 [Ian]
19:28:49 [Ian]
# The TAG will act to ensure that issues are resolved quickly, consistently, and with as much consensus and agreement of the
19:28:54 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:29:34 [Chris]
19:29:39 [Ian]
TB: The issues don't go away, whether the communicatinos are normative or not.
19:30:13 [Ian]
TBL: If you disagree with us, it's important that you tell us.
19:31:15 [Ian]
TBL: I think we cautious that our communications clearly state when TAG discussion is the start, not end, of technical discussion.
19:31:40 [Ian]
TBL: Some discussion had already taken place on public lists, but discussion needs to happen in one (public) place.
19:32:15 [Ian]
[Discussion of the use of the term "normative" in this context.]
19:32:49 [Ian]
TBL: The Arch Doc is not normative in the sense of other documents on the W3C Recommendation track.
19:33:01 [Ian]
CL: Do we encourage people to design specs in line with findings?
19:33:35 [TBray]
19:33:59 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:34:08 [Ian]
TBL: Relationship between an arch spec and another is context-sensitive.
19:34:23 [Ian]
TBL: It's reasonable for people to challenge the architecture doc in some circumstances.
19:34:49 [Ian]
TBL: Findings are not Recommendations.
19:35:15 [Ian]
TBL: Even if communications not "normative", difference of opinions are important.
19:35:33 [Ian]
TB: Couldn't hurt to say again that the ftf opinions were expressed to start discussion.
19:35:44 [Ian]
19:35:55 [PaulC]
19:36:04 [Roy]
19:36:09 [Chris]
19:36:45 [timbl]
q+ to discuss direction specifically for the XLink question
19:37:02 [DaveO]
19:37:06 [Roy]
19:37:07 [Ian]
TB: I'd like to talk about strategy about moving xlink issue forward.
19:37:11 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:37:32 [TBray]
What Paul said!
19:37:45 [Ian]
PC: We've already commented that we haven't gotten enough feedback yet from W3C participants. I want to encourage the TAG to use its resources to push its WD forward aggressively.
19:37:57 [DaveO]
I had proposed that we have a matrix of all the possible designs and possible syntaxes
19:39:23 [Ian]
IJ: What is a "short term" resolution as the TAG charter says?
19:39:33 [Ian]
SW: I think that TAG findings are short-term resolutions.
19:39:43 [TBray]
agree with Stuart
19:39:44 [Ian]
SW: But we haven't had to face "dispute resolution"
19:40:16 [Ian]
19:41:25 [Ian]
IJ: I suggest that PC in his review of process issues try to comment on the "short-term resolution" part of our charter; whether it applies in practice.
19:41:34 [Ian]
[Moving on to technical issue of moving xlinkScope-23 forward.]
19:41:58 [TBray]
19:42:04 [Ian]
CL: See my email from a moment ago:
19:42:05 [Ian]
19:42:07 [Ian]
ack Chris
19:43:15 [Ian]
SW: How to we build consensus moving forward, in light of lots of discussion since ftf meeting.
19:43:18 [Ian]
ack Timbl
19:43:19 [Zakim]
Timbl, you wanted to discuss direction specifically for the XLink question
19:43:55 [Ian]
TBL: I am not sure we are converging yet on this issue. TAG could help by charting the discussion space.
19:44:13 [Ian]
TBL: Some discussion, for example, has been about "why XLink does not provide what XHTML needs".
19:44:49 [Ian]
TBL: There are other pieces as well (requirements for XHTML, requirements for mixing namespaces, etc.)
19:45:07 [Ian]
TBL: Mail threads not sufficiently powerful to resolve this one yet.
19:45:49 [Stuart]
19:45:59 [Ian]
TBL: A matrix of issues would help. Also provide history and indicate where we must move beyond history (possibly with apologies).
19:46:11 [Ian]
ack DaveO
19:46:34 [Ian]
DO: I agree with TBL here. I also agree with Noah Mendelsohn - more clearly state the costs and benefits of different proposals.
19:47:39 [Ian]
TB: I agree with DO and TBL that it's urgent that we structure this debate.
19:48:08 [Ian]
TB: A matrix of alternatives and trade-offs would be very helpful.
19:48:20 [DaveO]
For scribe: that was DO not TB on the matrix idea.
19:48:36 [DaveO]
Or at least, this particular Matrix idea ;-)
19:48:51 [Ian]
TB: I am optimistic. I also think it's important to reach out the HTML WG.
19:49:07 [Ian]
TB: Will the HTML WG be interested in engaging debate on this?
19:50:36 [DaveO]
I will soon be switching to a cell-phone, with possible loss of my connectivity.
19:50:52 [Ian]
TB: How do we encourage the HTML WG to participate in these discussions?
19:51:10 [Ian]
SW: How about participation in the matrix summary.
19:51:12 [Ian]
19:51:29 [Chris]
19:51:47 [PaulC]
19:51:48 [Ian]
[NW notes that XLink WG charter expires at end of year.]
19:51:51 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:52:16 [Ian]
TB: I send a comment on how to revise XLink to get rid of 90% of xlink:type and got friendly replies from people. Such a change might help build consensus.
19:52:55 [Ian]
IJ: I support a TAG teleconf inviting a few people to hammer out consensus.
19:53:06 [Ian]
TBL: Some concerns that it might focus too much on rehashing history.
19:53:28 [Norm]
"There is no xlink..."
19:53:45 [timbl]
19:53:48 [Ian]
[TAG chuckles at "Matrix jokes..."]
19:54:21 [Ian]
CL: Need to include the SMIL and XForms folks in the party; find out rationale for their decisions.
19:54:38 [Ian]
CL: (e.g., find out why xforms last call doc removed xlink)
19:54:39 [Stuart]
19:54:43 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:54:50 [Stuart]
ack Ian
19:54:54 [Ian]
CL: And ask SVG WG why it helped them.
19:55:10 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:55:29 [Ian]
ack PaulC
19:55:57 [Ian]
PC: I urged us to have this debate in public so that we could understand whether it is feasible for a group to use XLink (or a slightly modified alternative).
19:56:51 [Ian]
PC: The result of the process may be that XLink Rec needs work, and other WGs may want to include links in specs where they feel XLink is inappropriate.
19:56:54 [Norm]
19:56:58 [Chris]
19:57:38 [timbl]
19:57:39 [Ian]
PC: I think we may end up with a "split decision", where we recommend XLink for some cases and nothing in other cases. I think that's where we are today. Unless we speak to that problem, we'll just go around in circles.
19:57:46 [Ian]
DO: I agree with PC.
19:57:48 [Ian]
ack Norm
19:58:06 [Ian]
NW: I think PC is probably right. I have not been getting optimistic vibes from the discussion thus far.
19:58:13 [timbl]
q+ to agree af many possibleoutcomes, including new xlink, using html:a in other langauges, and so on.
19:58:36 [TBray]
19:58:42 [Ian]
NW: At the end of the day, some people will just do linking in their own namespaces, and no technical, political, or social issue will convince them; and we should accept that.
19:58:45 [Ian]
ack Chris
19:59:38 [Ian]
CL (re: PC's comment): I can't imagine we would issue a Solomonic pronouncement. I think we need more discussion focussing on technical needs.
20:00:17 [Ian]
TBL: We need to consider requirements from different areas, but we may rule some of them out.
20:00:47 [TBray]
agrees with TimBL on this
20:00:59 [Ian]
TBL: You can use xlink:a as well.
20:01:16 [TBray]
no, TBL said "you canuse <html:a>
20:01:18 [Ian]
20:01:38 [Stuart]
s/xlink:a/html:a I think
20:01:40 [Ian]
ack Timbl
20:01:41 [Zakim]
Timbl, you wanted to agree af many possibleoutcomes, including new xlink, using html:a in other langauges, and so on.
20:01:45 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:02:54 [Ian]
TB: I disagree with NW in part about whether people will dig in their heels. We need to tease out technical issues. If people continue to hold positions based on other reasons (e.g., emotional), those reasons probably won't hold.
20:04:10 [Ian]
20:04:30 [Ian]
TBL: Email will be easier than teleconf to move issue forward.
20:04:42 [TBray]
agree with TBL
20:04:54 [Ian]
20:05:04 [Ian]
SW: Who would like to edit a matrix?
20:05:57 [Ian]
IJ: I suggest surveying different groups to find out why they chose/did not chose xlink, what pros /cons are for them?
20:06:27 [Ian]
DO: I think we should prime the pump and send a proposal to the community.
20:07:02 [Zakim]
20:07:05 [Ian]
DO: I have expressed my opinion previously that I have concerns about spending a lot of time on this issue, but now that we have chosen to do so, I think we should kick off discussion with a proposal.
20:07:56 [Ian]
[Discussion of structuring follow-up]
20:10:26 [Chris]
seconded - Go Stuart!
20:11:21 [Ian]
Action SW: Draw up a neutral proposal (due 21 Oct) summarizing threads and debating points on this issue.
20:13:47 [Ian]
20:14:06 [Ian]
Arch doc revision schedule
20:14:18 [Ian]
[See proposed schedule in agenda]
20:14:36 [TBray]
I'd like the minutes to reflect that I've expressed concern about lack of input except for initial statements from HTML WG people like Steven Pemberton & Shane McCarron, especially given that some new-sounding tings have been said in the last couple of weeks
20:15:05 [TBray]
So I don't think we can make real progress until their opinions/analyses/examples are part of the discussion
20:15:45 [Ian]
IJ: I will probably turn my attention back to TAG arch doc around 17 October.
20:16:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.778.772.aaaa
20:16:46 [Ian]
zakim, aaaa is David
20:16:47 [Zakim]
+David; got it
20:16:54 [TBray]
Zakim, is DOrchard
20:16:55 [Zakim]
sorry, TBray, I do not recognize a party named ''
20:17:26 [TBray]
Zakim, +1.778.772.aaaa is DOrchard
20:17:27 [Zakim]
sorry, TBray, I do not recognize a party named '+1.778.772.aaaa'
20:17:44 [Norm]
Or is that the DaveO nature of RDDL?
20:18:36 [Ian]
# Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI properties.
20:18:36 [Ian]
* Is this still relevant given current state of Arch Document?
20:18:39 [Ian]
Done; some time ago.
20:18:45 [Ian]
20:18:45 [Ian]
20:18:45 [Ian]
# Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint) to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It was suggested that the example be about HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
20:18:47 [Ian]
No progress.
20:18:51 [Ian]
# Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on information hiding.
20:19:00 [Ian]
TB: This was discussion from the ftf meeting.
20:19:01 [Chris]
on RDDL -
20:19:15 [Ian]
TB: It's not the case that you want to expose every aspect of an information object on the Web.
20:20:01 [Ian]
TBL: I was going to write something on layering of protocols. Is that this?
20:20:28 [Ian]
"From ftf meeting TBL: The principle of information-hiding is contrary to global identifiers....Shall we put in the document something about information hiding/independent design of orthogonal specs? You should should not be able to write an xpath to peek into http headers...."
20:20:33 [Ian]
TBL: Aha.
20:20:55 [Ian]
TBL: Action continued....
20:21:01 [Ian]
# Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3, incorporating CL's existing text and TB's structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf meeting on formats).
20:21:02 [Chris]
as noted at the f2f, I was traveling from the f2f until saturday. Today is my first day back atr my desk, so i will be getting to the rewrite later today or tomorrow.
20:21:38 [Ian]
SW to CL: Expectations for when material available?
20:22:02 [Ian]
CL: I hope draft available to group by end of week.
20:22:07 [Ian]
# Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
20:22:16 [Ian]
NW: No progress.
20:22:27 [Ian]
# Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant IETF fora are for input.
20:22:55 [Ian]
RS: I will do that.
20:22:56 [Ian]
# Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint) to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It was suggested that the example be about HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
20:23:00 [Norm]
20:23:03 [Ian]
ack Ian
20:23:11 [Ian]
RF: Join for relevant discussion. [Done]
20:23:36 [Ian]
RF: I will send a message about relevant issue item when it comes up.
20:23:46 [TBray]
20:24:02 [Ian]
NW: Missing action item on versioning in general.
20:24:27 [TBray]
ecch URI archive has been spammed
20:24:50 [Ian]
DO: This was discussed 23 October; I will kick this one off (on versioning).
20:25:01 [Ian]
20:25:05 [Ian]
1. deepLinking-25
20:25:05 [Ian]
1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of finding?
20:25:14 [Ian]
TB: Pending. Will do once out of HLink soup.
20:25:42 [Ian]
20:25:53 [Ian]
RFC3023Charset-21 : Do all "shoulds" of RFC 3023 section 7.1 apply?
20:25:57 [Ian]
IJ: Are we done here?
20:26:18 [Ian]
TB: I claim that we do have consensus on the finding as revised.
20:26:32 [Ian]
Resolved: RFC3023Charset-21 closed.
20:27:40 [Ian]
20:27:41 [Ian]
1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed latest accepted v. latest draft.
20:27:50 [Ian]
Continued. SW and IJ to do more offline and report back to the WG.
20:27:53 [Ian]
20:27:54 [Stuart]
20:28:00 [Chris]
20:28:03 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:28:03 [Norm]
ack norm
20:28:09 [Chris]
20:28:10 [Zakim]
20:28:19 [Ian]
20:28:50 [Zakim]
20:28:51 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop