IRC log of tagmem on 2003-02-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:04:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
20:05:11 [Ian]
On the call: Norm, TimBray, Paul, Ian
20:05:23 [Ian]
Regrets: SW, TBL, DC, CL
20:05:28 [DanC-AIM]
Zakim misses ralph, I guess.
20:08:19 [TBray]
Dan, you going to get onto the phone?
20:09:25 [DanC-AIM]
Not sure.
20:10:54 [TBray]
wondering on your thoughts on trying to re-use rel= and type= for RDDL... I gave up on it
20:11:06 [TBray]
rel= and type= on <html:a I mean
20:13:58 [DanC-AIM]
I'd have to try it out in practice, code it up, to have much of a opinion
20:14:54 [TBray]
there's some fuzz in the X?HTML specs as to whether it's supposed to be a NAME, and how you can have new values other than the precooked ones
20:15:10 [TBray]
depends on the profile= if I understand it
20:16:07 [TBray]
check correspondence from Sandro in my recent posting of my minimal RDDL alternative
20:18:54 [Ian]
David Orchard joins
20:19:08 [Ian]
20:19:13 [Ian]
20:19:26 [Ian]
Accept 6-7 Feb face-to-face minutes?
20:19:36 [Ian]
NW: Looked ok to me.
20:19:52 [Ian]
TB: Some confusion noted by PG was cleared up.
20:20:43 [TBray]
20:21:45 [Ian]
TB: People worried about XML ID are usually worried about it because they want better semantics for frag ids.
20:22:22 [Ian]
[TB happy with 28/32]
20:22:31 [Ian]
NW: Ftf minutes approved.
20:22:42 [Ian]
NW: This agenda accepted.
20:22:47 [Ian]
Approve deep linking finding?
20:22:51 [Ian]
20:23:39 [Ian]
IJ: Please note changes documented here:
20:24:17 [Ian]
20:24:21 [Ian]
TB: I"m ok with these changes.
20:24:37 [Ian]
NW: Any objections to approving this finding?
20:24:44 [Ian]
PC: I haven't read it.
20:24:54 [Ian]
NW: Finding approved.
20:25:49 [Ian]
TB: When I announced this, I cc'd Janet. I think this one should run through the PR mechanism.
20:26:22 [Ian]
PC: Is this in the arch doc?
20:26:29 [Ian]
TB: Suggest best practice for arch doc.
20:27:01 [Ian]
PC: I'm ok to do PR around this finding, but wonder if this should wait until the Membership has accepted this document.
20:27:25 [Ian]
NW: We could also give community 7 days and then turn on PR machinery.
20:28:15 [Ian]
PC: I'm ok if the message is "This is a finding from W3C's TAG."
20:29:24 [Ian]
TB: We might want to beef up the status section to say "this is not an official position of W3C"
20:29:35 [Ian]
IJ: I will add such a disclaimer.
20:30:06 [Ian]
Action IJ: Announce approved finding to www-tag. AFter one week, talk to JD about PR.
20:30:55 [Ian]
20:31:11 [Ian]
Next meeting: 24 February.
20:31:15 [Ian]
IJ: Regrets.
20:31:33 [Ian]
(Likely at least)
20:31:58 [Ian]
NW: Important for that meeting's agenda - review of presentations to be done at Tech Plenary.
20:33:41 [Ian]
NW: I will have my slides done by 21 Feb.
20:33:47 [Ian]
PC: I hope to be done then too.
20:34:11 [Ian]
NW/IJ: Work on agenda for 24 Feb.
20:34:39 [Ian]
NW: I will plan to Chair next week (even though SW may be back).
20:35:35 [Ian]
Resolved: No meeting 3 March. Presumed following meeting 10 March.
20:35:37 [Ian]
20:36:43 [Ian]
May ftf meeting
20:37:03 [Ian]
PC: I think our plan to meet 21-23 May is at risk.
20:37:30 [Ian]
PC: W3C Track includes TAG session afternoon of 21 May.
20:39:09 [Ian]
NW: I might be able to meet 19 May, but that's the AC meeting
20:39:56 [Ian]
TB: What about all of Friday?
20:40:00 [Ian]
(23 May()
20:40:14 [Ian]
NW: The Friday conflict is the W3C Town meeting.
20:40:15 [TBray]
That was PC asknig about Friday
20:41:52 [Ian]
NW Proposes: 24-25 May.
20:42:01 [Ian]
NW: Hmm, Memorial day is 26 May.
20:42:33 [Ian]
DO (with some hesitation), TB: 24-25 May ok.
20:43:12 [Ian]
What about: 22 Day, 23 Morning, 24 Morning
20:43:19 [Ian]
DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ: Yes.
20:43:34 [Ian]
Action IJ: Start email thread on tag to suggest these dates to TAG.
20:43:46 [Ian]
NW: Talk about this again at next week's meeting.
20:43:53 [Ian]
20:44:57 [Ian]
IJ: Keio Team said we can meet 14-15 Nov (and stay at Keio guest house, meet there)
20:45:48 [Ian]
TB, PC, DO, NW, IJ: 14-15 ok.
20:46:11 [Ian]
Action IJ: Start separate thread on tag to try to get confirmation of these dates.
20:46:15 [Ian]
20:46:34 [Ian]
* Completed Action PC 2003/02/06: Report TAG's tech plenary plan to tech plenary planning committee (Done).
20:46:45 [Ian]
Talk about tech plenary presentations at next week's meeting.
20:47:14 [Ian]
20:47:25 [Ian]
NW: 21 (afternoon), 22, 23 July in Vancouver works for me.
20:48:12 [Ian]
IJ: Vancouver folks can go ahead and start planning this meeting!
20:48:18 [Ian]
NW: Thanks to the Vancouver folks again!
20:48:26 [Ian]
20:48:36 [Ian]
1.2 Mailing list management
20:48:36 [Ian]
* Action SW: Send draft mailing list policy to (See preliminary announcement)
20:48:56 [Ian]
[Left open]
20:49:23 [Ian]
20:49:24 [Ian]
1.3 Other stuff
20:49:24 [Ian]
* Action IJ 2003/02/06: Fix issues list to show that actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions. IJ is working with PLH on this.
20:49:50 [Ian]
IJ: Progress on this; I'll keep you posted.
20:49:54 [Ian]
* Completed Action IJ 2003/02/06: Explain how TAG participants can edit the source of the arch document. (Done)
20:50:00 [Ian]
20:50:25 [Ian]
NW: Other new issues than metadata hook?
20:50:32 [Ian]
TB: I've seen no other new issues proposals.
20:50:43 [Ian]
NW: Move site metadata hook to next week's meeting?
20:51:00 [Ian]
20:51:05 [Ian]
2.2 Issues
20:51:05 [Ian]
* deepLinking-25
20:51:05 [Ian]
o Action TB 2003/02/06: Send URI equiv draft finding to
20:51:05 [Ian]
o Completed Action IJ 2003/02/06: Publish Deep Linking finding as accepted finding. See revised Deep Linking finding. Approve this draft?
20:51:14 [Ian]
TB: URI equiv draft not done yet.
20:51:24 [Ian]
[Approved above.]
20:51:33 [Ian]
20:51:40 [Ian]
# namespaceDocument-8
20:51:40 [Ian]
* Completed Action PC, TB 2003/01/13: Write up a Working Draft that recommends a data format for namespace docs (not compulsory) and that such a document should follow the Rec track process. (Done)
20:51:44 [Ian]
20:51:59 [Ian]
TB: The document SHOULD include the pros and cons of its approach; that's in the cover email.
20:52:08 [Ian]
NW: What is next step for this document?
20:52:27 [Ian]
TB: Feedback so far has been modest in volume but very supportive.
20:52:38 [Ian]
PC: For discussion at Tech Plenary.
20:53:15 [Ian]
TB: I'm interested in feedback from TBL (Can he live with this?) and DanC (Can we use existing HTML infrastructure?).
20:53:50 [Ian]
NW: Put on next week's agenda for DC/TBL feedback before planery.
20:53:54 [Ian]
20:54:09 [Ian]
20:54:14 [Ian]
# xmlFunctions-34
20:54:14 [Ian]
* Action TBL 2003/02/06: State the issue with a reference to XML Core work. Deadline 17 Feb.
20:54:24 [Ian]
[No evidence done.]
20:55:21 [Ian]
20:55:28 [Ian]
20:55:28 [Ian]
20:55:29 [Ian]
* mixedNamespaceMeaning-13
20:55:29 [Ian]
o Completed Action SW 2003/02/06: Report to www-tag on disposition of this issue. (Done)
20:56:25 [Ian]
20:58:03 [Ian]
NW: On RDFinXHTML-35, why is this different from RDF in Docbook or RDF in SVG?
20:59:44 [Ian]
21:00:01 [Ian]
q+ NW
21:00:41 [Ian]
21:00:50 [Ian]
TB: Can we close issue 30?
21:00:53 [Ian]
IJ: No, need a finding.
21:01:25 [Ian]
DO: I think CL text is a survey but not a position.
21:01:57 [Ian]
DO: I am pleased that CL included some suggsetions.
21:02:26 [Ian]
TB: I think that what is missing is a discussion of some of the problems:
21:02:37 [Ian]
a) Do you optimize for case where both parties know vocabulary?
21:02:44 [Ian]
b) Optimize for short or long message case?
21:02:53 [Ian]
c) Optimize for dense/sparse markup case?
21:03:05 [Ian]
TB: On the face, it seems that it's at least difficult to hit a sweet spot that works well for all cases.
21:03:24 [Ian]
DO: It would be useful to document the decision tree graph.
21:04:22 [Ian]
For (a), the other side of the coin is "does it need to be self-describing?"
21:05:02 [Ian]
TB: I don't think people are talking about binhex-ing data.
21:05:24 [Ian]
DO: XML-as-binary v. Binary-in-XML --- are these clearly separable?
21:05:27 [Ian]
TB: I think so.
21:05:49 [Ian]
TB: There are people who would like to jam multimedia into XML messages who are otherwise perfectly happy with the syntax of XML.
21:06:13 [Ian]
DO: Perhaps there's a fourth axis about including binary info in XML.
21:06:25 [Ian]
TB: I was hoping Schema would provide a lightweight way to include binary info.
21:06:41 [Ian]
TB: You have to do a lot of declaration machinery to say that a piece of content is binhexed.
21:07:24 [Ian]
TB: What I would add to the survey is solution space.
21:07:43 [Ian]
TB: I think W3C shouldn't do anything until there's a proposal that can cover a substantial part of the solution space.
21:08:25 [Ian]
Action TB: Write to www-tag with his thoughts on adding to survey.
21:09:08 [Norm]
Ian: under URIEquivalence-15 you describe TBLs action wrt generic metadata as "completed"
21:09:36 [Ian]
He did his action.
21:09:38 [Norm]
Oh, but maybe it is. Nevermind.
21:09:56 [Ian]
21:13:09 [Ian]
21:13:22 [Ian]
See email from Larry Masinter
21:13:24 [Ian]
21:14:43 [Ian]
TB: I think that it's but tone of note needs to be revised: don't use unobviously different URIs to talk about the same thing.
21:14:55 [Ian]
Action TB: Do another draft of URI Comparision bearing in mind DC comments from ftf meeting.
21:15:03 [Ian]
(I.e., DC presentation)
21:15:47 [Ian]
IJ: I will make sure draft findnig is back in agenda.
21:16:46 [Ian]
TB: I will have this done by the end of this month.
21:17:11 [Ian]
PC: There have been messages on HTTP as substrate
21:20:33 [Ian]
21:21:38 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop