IRC log of tagmem on 2002-11-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:52:11 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2002/11/04-tagmem-irc#T21-30-49
19:52:16 [DanC]: RRSAgent, bye
19:52:16 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items
19:52:25 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:52:32 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2002/11/11-tagmem-irc#T19-52-25
19:54:02 [Chris]: ChAcl says there are no resources there
19:55:48 [DanC]: try http://www.w3.org/2002/11/11-tagmem-irc*,access*
19:55:49 [Zakim]: TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:55:55 [Zakim]: +Ian
19:56:20 [MJDuerst]: MJDuerst has joined #tagmem
19:56:25 [DaveO]: DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:56:38 [Zakim]: +Chris
19:58:03 [Zakim]: +Norm
19:58:21 [Norm]: Norm has joined #tagmem
19:58:49 [DaveO]: I will not be on the call until I see something in IRC that I need to be involved in. I'm currently dialed into the wsdl wg meeting.
19:59:23 [Norm]: Is that an ongoing, weekly conflict for you, DaveO?
19:59:48 [Chris]: dan - yes, that url was what gave me the error message but I was trying to avoid putting the url into the log
19:59:57 [Stuart]: dailing
20:00:29 [Zakim]: +??P2
20:00:36 [Norm]: zakim, ??p2 is Stuart
20:00:37 [Zakim]: +Stuart; got it
20:01:48 [Zakim]: +??P3
20:01:58 [Ian]: zakim, ??P3 is Paul
20:01:59 [Zakim]: +Paul; got it
20:02:05 [Chris]: zakim, ??P3 is Paul
20:02:06 [Zakim]: sorry, Chris, I do not recognize a party named '??P3'
20:02:33 [PaulC]: PaulC has joined #tagmem
20:02:35 [Zakim]: +DanC
20:02:54 [tim-gone]: tim-gone has joined #tagmem
20:03:20 [Zakim]: +TBray
20:03:44 [Ian]: Present: SW, DC, CL, PC, NW, TB, IJ
20:03:49 [Ian]: Regrets: RF
20:03:56 [Ian]: Lurking: DO
20:04:05 [Zakim]: +TimBL
20:04:26 [Ian]: SW Chair, IJ Scribe
20:04:32 [Ian]: Present: SW, DC, CL, PC, NW, TB, IJ, TBL
20:04:40 [Ian]: Accept 4 Nov minutes?
20:04:42 [DaveO]: Norm, it isn't an ongoing conflict.
20:04:46 [Ian]: http://www.w3.org/2002/11/04-tag-summary
20:04:50 [DaveO]: Just a F2F.
20:04:54 [TBray]: TBray has joined #tagmem
20:05:15 [Ian]: SW: Accepted 4 Nov minutes (no dissent).
20:05:27 [Ian]: Comments on this agenda?
20:05:32 [Ian]: http://www.w3.org/2002/11/11-tag
20:06:35 [DanC]: hmm... why at the end, rather than where it is? " 1. xlinkScope-23"
20:06:37 [Ian]: PC: Please leave a few minutes to clarify where xlink/hlink discussions are taking place, whether we can expect a reply from the HTML WG.
20:07:00 [DanC]: Zakim, remind us in 65 minutes to discuss xlinkScope-23
20:07:01 [Zakim]: ok, DanC
20:07:19 [Ian]: ----------
20:07:21 [Ian]: Meeting planning
20:07:50 [Ian]: [No regrets for TAG ftf meeting but from RF; DC half day]
20:08:05 [Ian]: http://www.w3.org/2002/11/18-tag-agenda
20:08:32 [Ian]: [Agenda, meeting info]
20:08:56 [Ian]: IJ: Please use AC registration form for things like AC reception night of TAG ftf meeting.
20:09:01 [Ian]: ---------------
20:09:06 [Ian]: Presentations at AC meeting.
20:09:14 [Ian]: See tag@w3.org archive for links to drafts of slides.
20:10:00 [Ian]: TB: Presentations need to be brutally short
20:10:38 [Ian]: IJ: Talks should be no longer than 10 minutes each (to leave 30 minutes for discussion)
20:10:57 [Ian]: CL: Refer from xlink summary from slides.
20:11:37 [Zakim]: +DOrchard
20:12:22 [Ian]: TB: Add Stuart's xlink writeup to AC package.
20:12:55 [Ian]: PC: These slides will exist long after AC meeting and be referenced from agenda; helpful to point into reading material for more info.
20:13:00 [Ian]: PC: Use unobtrusive URIs
20:13:17 [Ian]: CL: Put code examples in other pages.
20:13:25 [Chris]: and link to them
20:14:52 [Ian]: TB: Can my slides stay on textuality?
20:17:18 [DanC]: odd thing about the slidemaker is that the Overview.html doesn't point to the all.htm file... I gotta get that fixed sometime.
20:17:32 [Ian]: SW: Please make comments on slides on the mailing list.
20:17:44 [Ian]: IJ: I will put people's html source on the web and run slidemaker over it.
20:18:32 [Ian]: Action IJ: Talk to Comm Team about three TAG contributions to AC rep dossier: summary, xlink summary, arch doc.
20:18:50 [Ian]: Martin, can you join?
20:19:04 [MJDuerst]: Yes. please give me a minute.
20:19:55 [Zakim]: +Martin
20:20:18 [DanC]: pub deadline is 13Nov per announcement 4Sep. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002JulSep/0096.html
20:20:20 [Ian]: Issue 1. IRIEverywhere-27
20:20:24 [Ian]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#IRIEverywhere-27
20:20:39 [Stuart]: q?
20:20:45 [Ian]: TB: I found a draft IRI 02, published today. Is that the one to look at?
20:20:54 [Chris]: url of that draft, please?
20:21:49 [Ian]: http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-02.txt
20:21:58 [Ian]: (Path from TAG issues list right to it...)
20:22:07 [Ian]: [NW summarizes the issue]
20:22:09 [MJDuerst]: officially at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-02.txt
20:22:18 [Ian]: NW: Should W3C docs refer to IRIs in the future?
20:22:52 [Ian]: [Some sense that issues 15 and 17 bound at the hip]
20:23:07 [MJDuerst]: http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html
20:23:08 [Ian]: TB: Martin, what's the 50k view of this issue?
20:23:13 [Chris]: clear deendency, not the same issue though
20:23:26 [Ian]: MD: IRIs in concept have been around as far back as 1995 and 1996.
20:23:54 [Ian]: MD: We have been actively lately on a draft.
20:24:25 [Ian]: MD: Area director at IETF said that when we think it's ready to go to last call, he will issue a last call in the IESG as well.
20:24:52 [Ian]: MD: We've received a lot of comment on the draft through the years. Lately, comments have been "move on with this"
20:25:04 [TBray]: q+
20:25:42 [DanC]: one test case, in a question from RDFCore to XML Core, 14May2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002May/0003.html
20:25:46 [Chris]: MD" yes, IRI should be used everywhere
20:25:56 [Ian]: MD: My position (and that of the I18N WG, I think) is expressed by the Character Model spec : you should use IRIs basically everywhere. I personally think that in practice, IRIs will pop up in practice more readily.
20:26:07 [Chris]: MD: already in use, but underspacified
20:26:29 [Ian]: ack DanC
20:26:30 [Zakim]: DanC, you wanted to ask if the I18N WG is maintaining a test collection to go with the IRI draft
20:26:33 [Chris]: MD: less likely to see in XLink rle attribute etc, but popular on web pages
20:26:46 [Ian]: MD: There is a test collection (currently 1 test).
20:26:49 [Chris]: MD: test collection - one test!
20:27:24 [Ian]: MD: We have a "test" for bidi.
20:27:51 [Ian]: MD: I tried to have a lot of examples; if you see places where more examples would be helpful, please tell us.
20:28:00 [Ian]: TB: General remarks:
20:28:23 [Chris]: MD: the one excample helped gwet consensus between Mozilla, Opera and Microsoft
20:28:24 [Ian]: TB: 1) Whether IRIs are a good idea or not, I have a concern about the instability of the current IRI spec.
20:28:25 [Zakim]: -DOrchard
20:28:38 [Ian]: TB: So process issue about pointing to the spec.
20:29:04 [Ian]: PC: Relationship to charmod needs to be explicit.
20:29:31 [Ian]: TB: 2) Software needs to know whether it's dealing with an IRI or URI.
20:29:37 [DanC]: yeah, I'm getting to the point where my technical concerns are addressed, and the dominant issue is process: what to cite as an IRI spec? [and please split charmod in 3 parts]
20:29:53 [Chris]: q+
20:30:04 [Stuart]: ack TBray
20:30:14 [Ian]: TB: 3) I still have major heartburn about the case issue; examples are so non-sensible (uppercase E7 diff from lowercase e7 gives me heartburn).
20:30:24 [Ian]: TB: 4) There are parts of the IRI spec that I just didn't understand.
20:30:59 [Ian]: TB: There may be additional work required to reveal some unspoken assumptions.
20:31:37 [Ian]: CL: There are a number of ways to deal with the case-sensitivity of hex escapes (CL lists three possibilities).
20:32:00 [DanC]: I prefer "you SHOULD use %7e; %7E is NOT RECOMMENDED"
20:32:01 [Ian]: MD: On relationship to Charmod: At some point, some pieces of the IRI draft were in Charmod (e.g., conversion procedure).
20:32:13 [Ian]: MD: But we decided to separate the specs; Charmod points to IRI draft.
20:32:23 [Chris]: a) allow %7e and %7E, say they are exactly equivalent, but no implication that hello and Hello are equivalent
20:32:39 [Chris]: b) allow both, say they are different (yuk)
20:32:44 [Ian]: MD: Charmod says "W3C specs should/must use IRIs where URIs would be used"
20:32:57 [Chris]: c) only allow %7e, %7E is invalid
20:33:15 [timbl2]: q+ to wonder All non-canonical-utf8 URIs are notvalid URIs? UTF-8 equivalent URIs are consisered equivalent? Or are IRIs just like URIrefs - strings for indirectly giving a URI in an actual document.
20:33:21 [Ian]: MD: For Xpointer, separate issue about encoding/decoding using UTF-8.
20:33:22 [Chris]: ack ChrisL
20:33:32 [Chris]: ack Chris
20:33:37 [Stuart]: ack Chris
20:33:59 [Ian]: MD: Charmod can't advance without the RFC.
20:34:18 [Ian]: [There are several people who suggest splitting charmod; moving forward one reason.]
20:34:30 [DanC]: yes, please split charmod in 3; did we (the TAG) request that, Chris? have you heard back?
20:34:31 [Chris]: which is why I suggested splitting charmod into several pieces
20:34:45 [Chris]: yes, we did request that and no, we have not heard back
20:35:08 [Chris]: q+
20:35:39 [Ian]: MD: We think this is a URI issue first (case of hex escapes); once decided for URIs, do the same thing for IRIs.
20:36:01 [Ian]: MD: On the clarity of the IRI spec, please don't hesitate to send comments.
20:37:36 [Ian]: TB: Could the IRI draft assert that in hex escaping, lowercase must always be used?
20:37:51 [DanC]: that seems silly, TBray; you're going to pretend there are no URIs/IRIs that use upper-case %7E?
20:38:01 [DanC]: or that all of them are wrong
20:38:02 [Ian]: MD: Current deployment is different - some places use uppercase.
20:38:02 [DanC]: ?
20:38:37 [DanC]: "canonical form"?
20:38:42 [Chris]: hence my suggestion to decouple case insensitivity of hex escapes (which are not characters) from case insensitivity of characters
20:39:03 [MJDuerst]: Chris: that goes without saying
20:39:14 [Chris]: but yes, drawback is an extra layer of processing, however light, beyond binary string comparison
20:39:28 [TBray]: couldn't insist on upper or lower case for URis, but could conceivably for IRIs
20:39:37 [Ian]: TBL: Will IRIs have the same role as URI references?
20:39:40 [Chris]: martin, anything which is important enough to go without saying had probably better be said ;-)
20:39:51 [Ian]: TBL: Same space of identifiers, but just a syntax convention?
20:40:08 [Stuart]: q?
20:40:10 [MJDuerst]: but for IRIs, it isn't that important. It's important when converting from IRI to URI,
20:40:13 [Ian]: TBL: What is being proposed fundamentally: where do IRIs fit in?
20:40:18 [Stuart]: ack TimBl
20:40:19 [Zakim]: Timbl, you wanted to wonder All non-canonical-utf8 URIs are notvalid URIs? UTF-8 equivalent URIs are consisered equivalent? Or are IRIs just like URIrefs - strings for indirectly
20:40:20 [TBray]: q+
20:40:22 [Zakim]: ... giving a URI in an actual document.
20:40:28 [Ian]: CL: Maybe we should just propose that the IRI editors get on with it.
20:41:06 [Ian]: CL: When I proposed that %7e and %7E be made equivalent, I was not proposing that "e" and "E" be equivalent.
20:41:21 [Ian]: (i.e., the ascii characters "e" and "E").
20:42:01 [timbl2]: %7e is 3 characters in a IRI but 1 character in a URI
20:42:09 [DanC]: er... %7E is three chars in the URI spec so far
20:42:11 [Ian]: [One model of URIs is that this is just a syntax issue: whether you use hex escapes or other character representation in the string.]
20:43:02 [MJDuerst]: if possible, IRI and URI should be as similar as possible, except for the larger repertoire
20:43:08 [MJDuerst]: of characters that can be used in IRI
20:43:11 [Ian]: [Comparison of URIs is character-by-character. Question of whether "%" as part of "%7e" is a character, or whether "%7e" is the cahracter.]
20:43:32 [DanC]: the URI http://x/%7E has 12 characters in it.
20:43:36 [Stuart]: q+ to ask if there will be a new Schema datatype for IRI
20:43:56 [Chris]: cool! namespaces says compare *on characters* so declare hex escapers as not characters. like ncrs in xml
20:44:34 [Ian]: TBL, DC read the URI spec in a way that says that "%" is a character; since in that spec characters are ASCII.
20:44:38 [DanC]: ok, but hex escapers have not, yet, been so declared.
20:44:51 [TBray]: q?
20:45:02 [Chris]: ack Chris
20:45:18 [Ian]: TBL: There are a number of ways to go from here. I think that even if you define equivalence in the IRI spec, you need to have a warning in the URI spec.
20:45:41 [Ian]: MD: You could also say that when you convert from IRI to URI you always use lowercase.
20:45:57 [Chris]: use lowecase *for hex escapes* (clarification)
20:46:12 [Chris]: seconded
20:46:17 [Ian]: [Martin didn't say "for hex escapes" but I assume that he meant that.]
20:46:27 [Ian]: TB: We should say that IRIs are a good idea.
20:46:28 [MJDuerst]: yes.
20:46:29 [Chris]: TimBray: propose IRIs are a good idea
20:46:39 [Ian]: TB: We should not tell W3C WGs to use IRIs until they are baked.
20:47:01 [Ian]: TB: In the arch doc we should say "Don't hex escape things that don't need escaping. Use lowercase when you do."
20:47:16 [DanC]: yes, that is: the space of resource identifiers should/can/does use the repository of Unicode characters.
20:47:17 [Chris]: (but he did say "when converting from IRI to URI" which implies hexification)
20:47:18 [Ian]: TB: I think these are things we could do today usefully.
20:47:21 [Stuart]: q?
20:47:31 [Stuart]: ack TBray
20:47:46 [Stuart]: ack DanC
20:47:51 [MJDuerst]: q+Martin
20:47:59 [Ian]: DC: I am comfortable with the idea of agreeing to use more than 90 characters in an identifier.
20:48:37 [Ian]: DC: Character space of URIs should be Unicode.
20:48:52 [timbl2]: q+ to propose we encorage Martin in doing URIs and and move on, and ask to know when there is a well-define relationship between the URI and IRI.
20:48:53 [Ian]: DC: When you are naming resources, you should not be limited to 90 some characters.
20:48:58 [Ian]: ack Stuart
20:48:59 [Zakim]: Stuart, you wanted to ask if there will be a new Schema datatype for IRI
20:49:06 [Ian]: SW: Will we get help from Schema datatypes?
20:49:07 [DanC]: 90 is not related to the length
20:49:13 [Stuart]: ack Stuart
20:49:29 [Ian]: DC: The schema type is anyURI. Its lexical space is unconstrained.
20:49:40 [Ian]: DC: There might be a thing or two (e.g., spaces).
20:49:46 [Ian]: MD: Only a problem if you make a list type.
20:49:55 [Ian]: DC: But you can have a list of strings, so dealt with.
20:50:39 [MJDuerst]: I think value space and lex space are IRI, but a mapping to URIs is given by a pointer to XLink
20:51:04 [MJDuerst]: XLink has the main part of the conversion from IRI to URI, but not the details
20:51:45 [Ian]: DC: In HTTP, you need to escape spaces.
20:52:05 [Ian]: DC: There are no URIs with spaces in them.
20:52:20 [Ian]: TBL: So anyURI is already an IRI-like thing.
20:52:21 [Chris]: no URIs, or no HTTP URIs?
20:52:23 [Stuart]: ack Martin
20:52:27 [DanC]: reading http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI ...
20:52:46 [Chris]: is file:///C/My Documents a URI?
20:52:57 [TBray]: is anyURI architecturally broken because of lack of clarity as to whether it's a URI or IRI?
20:53:10 [Ian]: MD: Some specs already referring to preliminary versions of IRI spec. I think that we shouldn't tell WGs to delete their refs and replace them later; just to upgrade when appropriate.
20:53:18 [DanC]: "An anyURI value can be absolute or relative, and may have an optional fragment identifier (i.e., it may be a URI Reference)."
20:53:19 [Ian]: TBL: I am against the TAG spending time on something fluffy.
20:53:25 [Chris]: all URIs are IRIs
20:53:51 [DanC]: illegal, equivalent, or NOT RECOMMENDED.
20:53:55 [Ian]: TBL: Until we clarify these issues, we should not emphasize their use yet.
20:54:18 [Chris]: IRI is not really 'fluffy'. It just needs to make some decisions and ship.
20:54:22 [Stuart]: MD Agree on the case thing.
20:54:35 [Ian]: MD: Earlier URI specs talked about equivalence, but practice went in other directions.
20:54:36 [DanC]: phpht. can't find a specification of anyURI lexical->value mapping.
20:54:50 [Stuart]: q?
20:55:13 [ndw]: ndw has joined #tagmem
20:56:10 [Chris]: DC:any breakage is not recent
20:56:28 [Chris]: TBL: should we work on "URI are broken"
20:56:39 [Chris]: CL: No, I18N WG is on it
20:56:49 [Chris]: TBL: No, they are not, Martin just said so
20:56:57 [Chris]: Stuart: next steps?
20:57:46 [Chris]: TB: Universe of resource identifiers should be unicode characters
20:58:16 [Chris]: TB: Say 'we approve of IRI work'
20:58:23 [Zakim]: -Norm
20:59:07 [Chris]: TB: Should *not* say to WGs to drop URI and gofor IRI because IRI is not final yet
20:59:53 [Chris]: PC: Important what TAG says, we should be careful what we are stating or seen to state
21:00:14 [Chris]: TB: Do not suggestthatall specs should be using IRI now
21:00:28 [Chris]: MD: For href,XLink already uses the
21:00:47 [DanC]: IRIs are already in HTML 4. XHTML 1, XLink, RDF 1.0x
21:00:58 [DanC]: ... and XML Schema
21:01:03 [Chris]: CL: existing Recs say the same stuff
21:01:07 [Ian]: DC: XML Schema cites XLink
21:01:26 [Chris]: this ID is taking stuff from existing Recs so that future Recs can all point to one place
21:01:39 [Ian]: TB: We could assert in the arch doc that it must be crystal clear when referring to resource ids whether you are talking about URIs or something else.
21:02:01 [Chris]: TB: Must be crytal clear when software has to deal with URI or IRI - software must not have to guess
21:02:09 [Ian]: TB: "When prescribing resource identifiers, a spec MUST be clear about whether it's talking about URIs or something else; don't make software guess."
21:02:19 [Ian]: TBL: A lot of people will think that IRIs are different from URIs.
21:02:41 [Chris]: TBL: Confusion similar to URIrefs, people with think IRI is different to URI.
21:02:49 [Chris]: Specs should use the IRI production
21:02:58 [Chris]: TBL: Specs should use the IRI production
21:03:25 [Ian]: TBL: I think we should write the whole lot based on a clean IRI proposal.
21:03:25 [Stuart]: ack TimBL
21:03:27 [Zakim]: Timbl, you wanted to propose we encorage Martin in doing URIs and and move on, and ask to know when there is a well-define relationship between the URI and IRI.
21:03:31 [Chris]: TBL: we should write u the issue once there is a final IRI spec
21:04:01 [Ian]: DC: What's the estimate for building a test collection?
21:04:08 [Chris]: DC: how long to get a test collection together?
21:04:09 [Ian]: DC: TB has some cases, I have a few.
21:04:21 [Stuart]: ack DanCon
21:04:32 [Stuart]: ack DanC
21:04:33 [Zakim]: DanC, you wanted to say that a test collection is top on my wish-list for this stuff
21:05:11 [Ian]: MD: Test cases are on the top of my list.
21:05:23 [Ian]: DC: It would take me about 4 months; need to get consensus around test cases.
21:05:28 [Ian]: DC: That takes time.
21:05:46 [timbl2]: How many of the following are true? For every IRI there is a corresponding URI? For every URI there existys a single IRI? All URIs before this spec are still valid after this spec? If two URIs are ASCIIchar for char identical then the equivalent IRIs are uniced char for char compatible? etc etc etc...
21:06:09 [Ian]: DC: What should the namespaces 1.x spec say?
21:06:54 [Ian]: TB: Not appropriate for namespaces 1.x to go to IRIs today.
21:06:57 [Chris]: TimBL, I note that three of your questions are about URI to IRI mapping, wheras the data flow is the other way
21:07:07 [Ian]: DC: But software is perfectly happy today with IRIs (in my experience).
21:07:41 [Ian]: TB: I don't think it's ok for namespaces 1.x to point to Unicode today; I think it's appropriate *today* to point to RFC2396.
21:07:43 [MJDuerst]: q+Martin
21:07:55 [Ian]: DC: So what should software do when it gets an IRI?
21:08:03 [Ian]: TB: I would expect software not to notice.
21:08:27 [Ian]: SW: This topic on our agenda Monday morning.
21:08:32 [Ian]: (at ftf meeting)
21:08:57 [DanC]: hmm... morning of the ftf... I gotta find a proxy for my position on this then.
21:09:03 [Chris]: IETF Proposed Standard good enough for W3C specs to reference?
21:09:06 [Ian]: MD: I can attend ftf meeting Monday morning to talk about this.
21:09:51 [Ian]: MD: I'd like the TAG to tell us how to address the case issue.
21:09:57 [Ian]: CL: Can't you just pick one approach?
21:10:26 [Ian]: MD: Current approach is that uppercase and lowercase are different in escapes, and SHOULD convert to lowercase.
21:10:45 [Chris]: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-02.txt
21:10:47 [DanC]: that current approach is what I prefer.
21:10:55 [Chris]: on our reading list for f2f
21:11:47 [Zakim]: -Martin
21:11:52 [Ian]: =======================
21:11:55 [Ian]: Arch doc
21:12:00 [Zakim]: DanC, you asked to be reminded at this time to discuss xlinkScope-23
21:12:57 [timbl2]: My question was, are the guarantees which the spec gives mentione din the spec? Guaranteews of consistency etc?
21:13:13 [Ian]: IJ: To get arch doc to TR page, can we resolve big issues here, then I will incorporate and get ok's from two TAG participants.
21:13:18 [MJDuerst]: Tim, the spec doesn't give any guarantees. You need implementations for that.
21:13:22 [timbl2]: IRI spec
21:14:03 [DanC]: "consistency etc" leaves a lot of room.
21:14:48 [Ian]: IJ: What needs to be done?
21:15:22 [Ian]: SW: On URI terminology, can we commit to consistency on what RFC2396 becomes?
21:15:25 [Ian]: q+
21:15:29 [MJDuerst]: Stuart, Ian: I have noted that Roy won't come to the f2f. Does he plan to call in by phone?
21:15:30 [Ian]: ack Martin
21:15:55 [Ian]: IJ: I wouldn't want to commit to something that doesn't exist yet.
21:15:58 [Ian]: CL, DC: Agreed.
21:15:59 [Chris]: no, need to see it
21:16:04 [MJDuerst]: If Roy plans to call in for some time, it would definitely be good to have him for the IRI and casing
21:16:14 [Ian]: [Agreement that terminology shouldn't diverge.]
21:16:15 [MJDuerst]: discussion, but then 9:00 would be very early for him.
21:16:22 [Stuart]: q?
21:16:35 [Ian]: ack Ian
21:16:41 [Ian]: SW: I can live without such a statement, then.
21:17:16 [Ian]: DC: RF has released an internet draft of the URI spec with the non-controversial changes. He is working on the next draft, where we will have to defend our position.
21:17:50 [Ian]: DC: I wouldn't emphasize reading this draft (if you're only going to read this spec once).
21:18:30 [Ian]: TB: I can commit to reading it and providing feedback.
21:18:35 [DanC]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/WD-webarch-20021107 is good enough for me.
21:18:45 [Ian]: DC: 7/11 draft is good enough for me. Enough of an improvement that I endorse publication.
21:18:48 [Ian]: PC: +1
21:19:21 [Ian]: DC: Please be conservative about changes.
21:19:31 [Ian]: IJ: I may insert editors notes.
21:20:07 [Ian]: Action item review:
21:20:12 [Ian]: 1. 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).
21:20:14 [Ian]: CL: Please continue
21:20:17 [Ian]: # Action DC 2002/11/04: Review "Meaning" to see if there's any part of self-describing Web for the arch doc.
21:20:19 [Ian]: DC: Please continue.
21:20:21 [Ian]: ======================
21:20:22 [Chris]: ok, I will send my edits (for my action item) for the *next* publication
21:20:30 [Ian]: XLink scope
21:20:36 [Ian]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xlinkScope-23
21:20:49 [Ian]: PC: I have some concerns that we aren't in the center of discussion on this ite.
21:20:51 [Ian]: item
21:21:44 [Ian]: PC: We haven't yet received comments back on what we sent to the HTML WG.
21:21:58 [Ian]: PC: Are we going to engage with the HTML WG?
21:23:14 [Ian]: [Some discussion on communication with other groups.]
21:23:43 [Ian]: TBL: I think that HTML WG thinks they've made their point.
21:23:59 [Ian]: SW: I have sent email on two occasions to the HTML WG but not have not gotten a reply from Steven.
21:24:39 [Chris]: q+
21:24:44 [Ian]: DC: We've not invited the HTML WG to participate on www-tag.
21:24:52 [Stuart]: q?
21:25:10 [Ian]: SW: A message was sent to the HTML WG list, but didn't reach the archive.
21:25:30 [Chris]: www-html-editors but not in archives. norm has a recipt though
21:25:45 [DanC]: indeed... can't find it in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/
21:26:13 [Ian]: TB: I think we've done the right thing. I presume that they're busy.
21:27:22 [Ian]: PC: As far as I'm concerned, there's no point that this be on our ftf agenda since we've had no feedback.
21:27:40 [Chris]: zakim, queue?
21:27:41 [Zakim]: I see Chris on the speaker queue
21:27:45 [Chris]: zakim, queue?
21:27:46 [Zakim]: I see Chris on the speaker queue
21:28:00 [Chris]: zakim, queue?
21:28:01 [Zakim]: I see Chris on the speaker queue
21:28:08 [Ian]: DC: We don't have a message from Steven on behalf of the WG.
21:28:34 [timbl2]: For the HTML WG,
21:28:34 [timbl2]: Steven Pemberton
21:28:34 [timbl2]: Chair
21:28:34 [Ian]: SW: Yes, we do. The first message was on behalf of the WG; I have asked for confirmation from Steven that this is still their reply.
21:28:39 [Ian]: ack Chris
21:28:56 [timbl2]: For the HTML WG,
21:28:57 [timbl2]: Steven Pemberton
21:28:57 [timbl2]: Chair
21:29:06 [Ian]: CL: I think the HTML WG owes us a response since we sent a request to their list.
21:29:19 [timbl2]: For the HTML WG,
21:29:20 [timbl2]: Steven Pemberton
21:29:20 [timbl2]: Chair
21:29:38 [timbl2]: Message senbt 26 spe 2002
21:29:50 [Ian]: CL: There are also other WGs we should be discussing this with.
21:29:51 [timbl2]: to www-tag
21:30:00 [Ian]: q?
21:30:14 [Chris]: CL: HTML wg is not the only client of hypermedia linking
21:30:25 [Stuart]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0188.html
21:30:28 [Ian]: PC: I'm concerned that more of a plan isn't in place for how to take this question forward.
21:30:50 [Ian]: PC: One answer is to wait until the Tech Plenary.
21:31:10 [Ian]: CL: I expect the Tech PLenary to produce a plan, not the technical solution, however.
21:31:11 [Chris]: its a long way off, in march
21:31:38 [Chris]: so that date pretty much ensures that HTML WG will not use the results, if any, of the march meeting
21:32:09 [Ian]: TBL: I think the TAG has a duty to solve this issue; I don't think that discussion has been moved out of the TAG.
21:33:30 [Ian]: TB: I know that several of us have put a lot of work into discussion on www-tag. I sympathize with PC's concern, and agree with TBL that new technical arguments have been brought forward and consensus not yet achieved.
21:33:43 [Ian]: TB: I think SW has done the right thing asking the HTML WG where we stand.
21:34:00 [Ian]: SW: Does the TAG hold the same opinion as formulated at the ftf meeting?
21:34:22 [Ian]: SW: I've had no commentary yet on the summary.
21:34:58 [Ian]: TB: Mimasa pointed HTML WG to the summary on 28 Oct; no commentary from them yet.
21:35:24 [Ian]: TB: Thus, I think we should not drop this, but should not proceed far in the face of no new info from the HTML WG.
21:35:31 [Ian]: SW: Should we spend time on this at the ftf meeting?
21:35:38 [Ian]: TB: SW's summary is cogent.
21:35:42 [Ian]: DC: But contains no proposal.
21:36:27 [Ian]: TBL: TAG could comment on some arguments that SW has summarized.
21:36:34 [DanC]: gee... it's only a 1-day ftf; if somebody wants xlink23 on there, I'd like that somebody to make a proposal.
21:37:29 [Zakim]: -TBray
21:37:32 [Ian]: ADJOURNED
21:37:38 [Zakim]: -Stuart
21:37:39 [Zakim]: -Ian
21:37:40 [Ian]: RRSAgent, stop