IRC log of tagmem on 2003-03-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:52:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:52:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:57:11 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:57:18 [Zakim]
19:58:13 [Zakim]
+Guest P1 0824.a
19:58:31 [Stuart]
zakim, P1 is me
19:58:31 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named 'P1'
19:58:32 [Norm]
zakim, 0824.a is Stuart
19:58:32 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named '0824.a'
19:58:46 [Norm]
zakim, guest p1 0824.a is Stuart
19:58:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'guest p1 0824.a is Stuart', Norm
19:58:52 [Zakim]
19:59:39 [Stuart]
zakim, "Guest P1" is me
19:59:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand '"Guest P1" is me', Stuart
20:00:18 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:00:28 [Zakim]
20:01:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.949.499.aaaa
20:02:07 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:02:07 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:02:08 [Zakim]
20:02:28 [Roy]
zakim, +1.949.499.aaaa is Roy
20:02:28 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
20:02:29 [Zakim]
20:04:33 [DanC]
(hmm... is it worse to tunnel IRC thru port 80 or to do instant messaging using SOAP?)
20:04:44 [Zakim]
20:04:55 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, NW, DO, PC, IJ, RF, DC, TB
20:04:57 [Norm]
zakim, Lauren_Wood is TimBray
20:04:57 [Zakim]
+TimBray; got it
20:04:58 [Ian]
Regrets: TBL, CL
20:05:37 [Ian]
SW Chair, IJ Scribe
20:06:01 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 17 Feb minutes
20:06:06 [Ian]
20:06:10 [Ian]
This agenda:
20:06:15 [Ian]
20:06:47 [Ian]
Resolved: TAG accepts to stay extra 30 mins if necessary
20:09:53 [Ian]
20:09:56 [Ian]
Meeting planning
20:10:12 [Ian]
[No news from TBL on proposed dates\
20:10:20 [Ian]
See SW notes:
20:11:08 [Ian]
20:11:47 [Zakim]
20:12:07 [Zakim]
20:12:29 [Ian]
Resolved: TAG will meet 14-15 Nov in Japan
20:12:45 [Ian]
Action IJ: Update calendar and tell Team to update Member cal
20:12:50 [Ian]
20:12:52 [Ian]
Mailing list policy
20:13:29 [Ian]
Proposed: (1) all mail goes to www-tag and (2) bcc some messages to public-tag-announce
20:13:43 [DanC]
re Nov meeting, Stuart, let's please be careful: we have decided *exactly* what our records say we have decided, no more, no less. No more "as I recall" or "I assum" about what we've decided please.
20:13:55 [Ian]
Action IJ: Announce creation of list and operation to Chairs/Tech plenary participants
20:14:24 [Ian]
20:14:28 [Ian]
New issues
20:14:34 [Ian]
* See input from Jonathan Marsh (forwarded by Paul Cotton)
20:14:38 [Ian]
20:15:20 [DanC]
"SCUD", nee "NUN"
20:15:58 [Ian]
[PC summarizes message]
20:16:00 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:16:10 [Ian]
Quoting JM mail:
20:16:15 [Ian]
> Our mechanism maps these items to an XPointer-Framework-compatible URI
20:16:15 [Ian]
> of the form:
20:16:15 [Ian]
> {NSURI} # {SS} ( {GNAME} / {PNAME} / {NAME} )
20:16:16 [TBray]
URI for Marsh's proposal? just got into IRC
20:16:20 [Ian]
20:16:38 [Ian]
PC: On their issue:
20:16:45 [Ian]
> However, RFC 2396 states that the fragment identifier syntax is
20:16:45 [Ian]
> dependent upon the media type of the returned resource. The WSDL
20:16:45 [Ian]
> namespace URI is not (necessarily) the same as the location of the
20:16:45 [Ian]
20:16:45 [Ian]
> document. Dereferencing a WSDL namespace URI will not necessarily
20:16:47 [Ian]
> return a WSDL document, or even an XML document. For instance, it
20:16:50 [Ian]
20:16:52 [Ian]
> be HTML.
20:17:14 [Ian]
Question as posed:
20:17:19 [Ian]
> Is it wise to use fragment IDs for identifying abstract components
20:17:19 [Ian]
> within a namespace, even though it is the most natural and convenient
20:17:19 [Ian]
> mechanism? Is there another mechanism that would be preferable?
20:17:26 [Stuart]
20:17:58 [Ian]
PC: I believe that answer to this question would be germaine to the current XML Schema work on SCUDs.
20:18:15 [TBray]
SCUD really sucks as a label
20:18:29 [Ian]
DO: We talked about this in Hawaii.
20:18:32 [TBray]
20:19:20 [Ian]
DO: I explained that WSDL was going to use the namespace name for abstract pieces. I pointed out that if namespace names were to be used in this way, a number of outstanding questions, in particular double use of index.
20:19:54 [DanC]
ack danc
20:19:54 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask how this is different from issues 6 and/or 14
20:20:06 [Ian]
DC: How is this different from issues 6/14/8?
20:20:12 [DanC]
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 affects WSDL too
20:20:31 [Ian]
DC: See my Nov message (cited from issues list)
20:20:32 [Ian]
20:20:47 [Ian]
PC: How do we make progress?
20:21:02 [Ian]
TB: I probably agree with DC that there's natural overlap with issue 6.
20:21:04 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:21:21 [Ian]
TB: I think we could subsume this under issue 6, and immediately talk about it.
20:21:47 [Ian]
TB: In particular, I think Jonathan is right - that the proposed approach is architecturally wrong.
20:21:50 [Stuart]
20:21:59 [DanC]
(propose approach uses fragments/ #)
20:22:20 [Ian]
DC: I disagree with TB.
20:22:43 [Ian]
RF: Not sure that this is part of 6; 6 is about establishing an algorithm once you know the namespace. I agree it's related.
20:22:46 [DaveO]
20:22:52 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:22:57 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:23:16 [Ian]
DO: I tend to think that this is a new issue. This is about the relationship between use of a namespace name and frag ids.
20:23:36 [DanC]
ok, well, that sounds like issue fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML
20:23:40 [DaveO]
20:24:07 [Ian]
DC: My position on issue 14 is that using anything other than a hash for something that's not a document would be wrong.
20:24:08 [TBray]
20:24:11 [Ian]
20:24:57 [Ian]
DO: This is close to 28. If we said that the WSDL id refers to the concrete thing as represented in a WSDL doc, then I'd agree that it's part of 28. But now it's abstract.
20:25:24 [Ian]
SW: New issue?
20:25:45 [Ian]
Yes: DO, NW, RF, PC, TB
20:26:06 [Ian]
No: DC
20:26:23 [DanC]
it's not usual to call for a abstentions for a straw poll
20:26:23 [Ian]
Yes: +SW
20:26:52 [DaveO]
Name: Definition of abstract components with namespace names and frag ids.
20:27:22 [Ian]
Proposed: abstractComponents-37
20:27:25 [DanC]
'abstractComponent' is ok by me
20:27:38 [Ian]
Proposed: abstractComponentRefs-37
20:27:43 [DaveO]
20:27:55 [Ian]
IJ: I will use DO's title
20:28:27 [Ian]
IJ: I expect to use JM's example and question for the issue.
20:28:33 [Ian]
DO: There are some subtleties:
20:29:09 [Ian]
DO: One thing you'll notice is that they are naming things. What they've done is say that names are context sensitive. E.g., an operation and interface could be the same names. So they came up with an algorithm.
20:29:30 [Ian]
DO: Some people in the WG said don't use name constract at all, use id and ensure that's unique.
20:29:40 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:29:49 [Ian]
DO: New frag id syntax which is WSDL-specific.
20:30:01 [Ian]
DO: Thought a lot about using alternative URI schemes (e.g., URNs)
20:30:40 [Ian]
DO: Ran into problem of using HTTP scheme but desire to use new frag id syntax.
20:30:42 [Roy]
please link in (
20:31:16 [Roy]
to the issue
20:31:17 [Ian]
20:31:22 [Ian]
(Ok Roy)
20:31:27 [Roy]
20:31:28 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:32:07 [Ian]
TB: I have a big problem with the actual example in JM's message. Seems deeply unsound to specify the use of a frag id unless you know what the media type of the representation will be.
20:32:19 [Ian]
TB: E.g., if you knew this was RDF, it would be easier to accept.
20:32:45 [Ian]
ack DanC
20:32:45 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to suggest that if there are different namespaces, give each of them a different name
20:33:16 [Stuart]
q+ DaveO
20:33:21 [Ian]
DC: I like the way they've done it just fine. The general idiom is that the frag id is whatever it means when you look up the document.
20:33:34 [Ian]
DC: You might have three different MIME types where it means the same thing in all three.
20:33:37 [Ian]
20:33:47 [Ian]
ack Roy
20:33:50 [Stuart]
q+ PaulC
20:34:20 [Ian]
RF: The notion that identifiers identify documents is false. You can't use hierarchical syntax within the identifiers. The idea that it's an abstract namespace is false.
20:34:25 [DanC]
("false"? I think you mean you disagree, Roy.)
20:34:32 [Ian]
RF: This is just basic names. No need to use a frag id in this case.
20:34:51 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:34:54 [Ian]
RF: This is just a namespace that's hierarchical. What you get back with GET is independent on allocation of names.
20:34:54 [DaveO]
20:34:58 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:35:17 [Ian]
DO to TB and RF: So let's assume that what they've done is bogus. What should they be doing?
20:35:20 [Roy]
False as in not real, no reflection of reality
20:35:29 [Ian]
TB: I made suggestions:
20:35:34 [DanC]
sure, there's plenty reflection in reality.
20:35:42 [DaveO]
20:35:52 [Ian]
1) Specify what the media type is that you get when you dereference a WSDL namespace resource (removes ambiguity)
20:36:11 [Ian]
2) Abandon frag syntax, go with straightforward hierarchical syntax.
20:36:21 [Ian]
TB: Nobody has said what you'll get back from a GET.
20:36:32 [Ian]
TB: The semantics of what comes after "#" is really different in practical terms.
20:36:36 [Ian]
20:37:09 [DanC]
clarifying what I said: the general idiom docName#doodadName means whatever doodadName means as used in docName
20:37:29 [Ian]
DO: Let's assume that we agree that RDDL-foo is a good thing. What's the intersection with this question?
20:38:05 [Ian]
TB: RDDL-foo will have a well-defined semantics for frag ids....
20:38:29 [Ian]
DO: Suppose they get back a RDDL-foo document; seems like there's a conflict between RDDL-foo frag syntax and WSDL identifier syntax.
20:38:51 [Ian]
DO: Imagine that I come up with a fragment that looks fine in WSDL but is also fine in the RDDL-foo document.
20:38:57 [Ian]
DO: E.g., "#message".
20:39:18 [Ian]
DO: What if this maps to an id in the RDDL-foo document?
20:39:19 [Norm]
20:39:32 [Ian]
TB: This is an xpath on the WSDL document, isn't it?
20:39:34 [Ian]
PC: Close
20:39:46 [Ian]
PC: It's a sufficient path to identify the local named item.
20:40:01 [Ian]
TB: Seems like it's a frag id that "would like to be interpreted w.r.t. the WSDL document".
20:40:10 [Ian]
DO: What's the URI of the WSDL document?
20:40:24 [Ian]
DO: They'd like to use the namespace name; there may be N instances of a WSDL document.
20:40:40 [DanC]
yeah! put WSDL documents at their namespace name. self-describing web!
20:40:47 [Ian]
DO: The namespace name is the thing that binds them together; not the URI (which may point to something behind a firewall).
20:41:03 [Ian]
TB: Seems like abuse of URI + frags.
20:41:06 [Ian]
ack PaulC
20:41:10 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:41:14 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:41:18 [Norm]
Dave's example that demonstrates the potential confusion that can arise when fragment identifiers are used as names where the media-type is unknown is exactly why I agree with Roy that these are just names and it really is architecturally problematic to use fragment identifiers as names.
20:41:50 [Ian]
NW: Using fragids as names is making me uncomfortable.
20:42:04 [Ian]
NW: I'd be happy if we all agreed that this was a problem.
20:42:24 [TBray]
20:42:43 [Ian]
DO: I think the WSDL WG would be fine with input from the TAG on this (either "fine" or "do this instead")
20:43:16 [Ian]
DO: Not sufficient to just say "Wrong" with no counter-proposal.
20:43:23 [Stuart]
q+ PC
20:43:27 [Stuart]
20:43:47 [Ian]
DC: I think it's natural to combine port names with wsdl namespace names, look them up and find a wsdl document that tells you about the port.
20:43:55 [Stuart]
ack DaveO
20:43:56 [DanC]
ack DanC
20:43:56 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say that confusion can be cured either by changing tech. solutions or by un-confusing people
20:44:13 [Stuart]
ack PC
20:44:38 [Norm]
20:45:24 [Roy]
20:45:26 [Ian]
[PC summarizes issues, requirements]
20:46:03 [Ian]
TB: I agree that this is a real problem; not sufficient for TAG to just say "no" and go away.
20:46:21 [Ian]
TB: Does WSDL have an IANA registration in progress?
20:46:25 [Ian]
PC: Don't know.
20:46:29 [DanC]
IANA media type
20:46:39 [Ian]
DO: I think they plan on registrating a WSDL media type.
20:47:07 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:47:07 [DaveO]
20:47:10 [Ian]
TB: In RDDL discussions, idea had been floated once or twice that particular frag identifier semantics required: inclusion of pointers to other resources.
20:48:01 [DaveO]
namespace name#rddl piece (like WSDL)#WSDL frag id
20:48:10 [Ian]
TB: Suppose you have namespace N. N comes with an xml schema and a wsdl document. I would like to have a way to do what these guys are doing - to point at something in a wsdl document when all I have in my hand is the namespace URI.
20:48:42 [DanC]
(would be nice if ftf place names were included in so I could search on "Hawaii")
20:49:09 [Ian]
TB: You'd like to point into a document, and then a second fragment that identifies something referenced from that point.
20:49:48 [Ian]
SW: Why is conventional hierarchical path a bad way to go?
20:49:51 [DanC]
discussion in Hawaii of issue 8
20:49:59 [Ian]
20:50:01 [Ian]
ack Stuart
20:50:09 [Roy]
In the CMS world, a compound hierarchical document is no different from a hierarchical directory system -- all names are hierarchies and the names are separated by "/" all the way down to the smallest atom of content. WSDL defines a compound document namespace rooted at its namespace URI. So, add a slash and define the hierarchy below the namespace URI according to WSDL.
20:50:26 [DanC]
20:50:36 [Roy]
content management system
20:50:43 [TBray]
yes but Roy, how do you when you can do that?
20:51:43 [Roy]
how do you know?
20:51:43 [Ian]
PC: Xquery functions and operators document has a namespace, all functions assumed to be in that namespace. How do I identify one of the operators?
20:51:50 [TBray]
I mean, how do you know to define the hierarchy according to WSDL as opposed to some other framework?
20:52:01 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:52:10 [Norm]
With respect to what DanC said, the problem is that they aren't *names* if the meaning can change depending on what you actually happen to get back. Names and addresses aren't the same thing and fragids are part of an address. IMHO.
20:52:55 [Ian]
NW: We'd make better progress if we had a way to use names independent of fragments.
20:53:25 [TBray]
20:53:30 [Ian]
RF: I would replace the frag with the hierarchy under the WSDL syntax. They define a hierarchy. The namespace URI is a universal root. Can use a namespace hierarchy.
20:53:42 [Stuart]
ack Roy
20:54:00 [Ian]
RF: The only time a frag should be used is when the client side of a situation is given the opportunity to adjust what the original identifier identified; that's not the case here.
20:54:07 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:54:08 [DaveO]
Should http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#message(listFlightsRequest)
20:54:19 [DaveO]
become ticketagent/message/listFlightsRequest
20:54:21 [DaveO]
20:55:03 [Roy]
20:55:05 [Norm]
http://airline.wsdl/? Do you mean
20:55:05 [DanC]
this is *exactly* issue 14. How did anybody think it was otherwise?
20:55:05 [Ian]
What about ticketagent/message#listFlightsRequest?
20:55:12 [DaveO]
yes norm.
20:55:17 [Norm]
20:55:19 [Stuart]
20:55:26 [Ian]
TB: I think what IJ wrote would be just as uncomfortable.
20:55:30 [DaveO]
20:56:14 [Ian]
DC: Names take on meaning by use. They DO take on meaning as a result of GET. You walk into a room and say "Dan". If I turn my head, that encourages you to associate the name "Dan" with me.
20:56:28 [Stuart]
20:56:39 [Stuart]
ack DanC
20:56:50 [Ian]
RF: If I say to you "that's a red button" and you agree, then we've named that thing a red button.
20:56:50 [Norm]
Context sensitive names are useful, but we're talking about context-insensitive names; names that are globally unique.
20:56:51 [Ian]
DC: Yes.
20:57:15 [Ian]
RF: So if we say that the namespace doc specifies a hierarchical namespace underneath the root identifier, then surely we've named them.
20:57:17 [DaveO]
20:57:22 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:58:02 [Ian]
TB: RF's proposal seems appealing on the surface. Seems to be consensus that people want to do this.
20:58:11 [Ian]
PC: How do you know what the namespace is?
20:58:13 [Ian]
TB: That's given.
20:58:20 [Ian]
DC: You can't undo it, in general.
20:58:21 [Ian]
TB: Yes.
20:58:51 [Stuart]
20:58:57 [Ian]
TB: The problem with that - suppose I have 3 different xml schemas for a namespace. You'd have different hiearchical fan-outs depending on which schema you're talking about.
20:58:58 [DanC]
(being able to undo the combination of namespace name with localname (etc) is one of the desierata for issue 8)
21:00:13 [Ian]
TB: Solution to problem - address one of your resources in your RDDL documen.t
21:00:25 [Ian]
NW: I.e., add an indirection.
21:00:36 [Ian]
DO summarizing:
21:00:46 [Ian]
1) There'd be a URI that gives you a RDDL document, then
21:00:49 [Stuart]
ack DaveO
21:00:51 [Ian]
2) # some section, then
21:00:52 [DaveO]
http://rddldocumenturl#wsdlsection/travelagent/message and so on?
21:01:59 [Ian]
DO: I hear that use of # is not appropriate since it's not a fragment, it's an abstract thing. Also, I hear people saying "/" is fine for distinguishing namespace portion and conceptual element.
21:02:52 [Ian]
TB: I'd like to squeeze the "#" out of the middle.
21:03:23 [Ian]
ack DanC
21:03:23 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to reply to know what to do with it just from the name
21:03:52 [Ian]
DC to PC: In general, you don't know what a name means just be looking at it; you need more information about it.
21:03:57 [DaveO]
21:04:05 [Ian]
DC: I don't think that knowing what to do with it just by looking at it is a requirement.
21:04:32 [Ian]
DC: I need to think about this before agreeing to it.
21:05:01 [DanC]
I know that " knowing what to do with it just by looking at it" is *not* a requiremnt; it conflicts with the principle of URI opacity.
21:05:12 [Ian]
DO: There is another solution - don't define things abstractly. If you are going to define things in WSDL, use the frag id syntax - if you want to talk about something name pieces of your wsdl documents.
21:05:17 [DanC]
I need to think about #-less proposal before agreeing to them.
21:05:58 [Ian]
ack DaveO
21:06:01 [Ian]
ack DanC
21:06:03 [TBray]
21:06:37 [Ian]
DC: You shouldn't define things by their syntax. A message is a message. WSDL should be able to specify messages and it should be possible to have other syntaxes.
21:06:57 [Ian]
TB: I thought I heard some agreement around the following:
21:07:24 [Ian]
a) People thing that what the WSDL is trying to do is reasonable: (1) in starting with a namespace name as a basis for identification and
21:07:36 [Ian]
(2) wanting to have a hierarchical naming scheme in their conceptual framework.
21:07:47 [Ian]
b) Seems reasonable to want to tie this together in a URI
21:08:31 [Ian]
TB: At least some of us have grave concerns about use of "#" in the originally presented example (flies in the face of 2396). Therefore, the TAG and interested parties need to find a way to achieve these reasonable objectives.
21:08:38 [Ian]
21:08:50 [TBray]
21:09:07 [Ian]
DC: It seems to me to be more cost effective to say "don't use the same name to name 2 different things."
21:09:23 [Ian]
[DC suggests that he needs to reflect offline]
21:10:32 [Ian]
Above in TB comments, change "the WSDL" to "the WSDL WG"
21:10:49 [Ian]
TB: Will work in this area also help us with schemas?
21:10:55 [Ian]
DC: Yes, this is issue 6/14/8!
21:11:36 [DaveO]
I can volunteer
21:12:23 [Ian]
Action TB: Summarize key points of this discussion and relation to other issues.
21:12:59 [Ian]
Action TB: Summarize TB's opinion and relation to other issues.
21:13:05 [Ian]
Resolved: DO is owner of new issue
21:13:19 [Ian]
DO: I'd like range of possible solutions indicated.
21:13:30 [Ian]
PC suggests that DO does so by responding to TB's post.
21:13:49 [Ian]
DC: I still intend to respond on issue 6.
21:14:16 [Ian]
21:14:19 [Ian]
Architecture Document
21:14:31 [DanC]
(I apologized for not doing my bit on issue 6 yet, didn't I? If not, I hereby do so.)
21:14:49 [Ian]
Action IJ publish new draft:
21:14:54 [Ian]
21:15:40 [DaveO]
BTW, I was totally wrong about the location for where I did the whiteboard on wsdl's use of namespace names. It was boston, not hawaii. How I confused the 2 locations, I have no idea.
21:15:42 [DaveO]
21:15:59 [DanC]
at a glance, new intro looks good
21:18:25 [Ian]
IJ Two questions:
21:18:28 [TBray]
21:18:29 [Ian]
1) Leave scenario up front?
21:18:32 [Ian]
2) Send this doc to TR pgae?
21:18:39 [Ian]
DC: At a glance, I like the new intro
21:18:52 [Ian]
TB: I think this is good. I have some nits, though.
21:19:37 [Stuart]
21:19:44 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:19:54 [Ian]
TB: I'm a little embarassed about lack of progress.
21:19:57 [Ian]
RF, PC: Publish
21:20:02 [DanC]
I could live without the "1. Starting with a URI" bit. It's abstract. I could live with going straight to the concrete scenario. but I can live with 5 lines of (what I consider) inessential stuff.
21:20:32 [Ian]
TB, RF, SW: I think that "About this doc" is a bit far from the top.
21:20:57 [DanC]
I could live with putting "about this document" in the SOTD.
21:20:58 [Ian]
TB: How about losing the summary of points?
21:21:22 [Ian]
[Agreement that the list is handy for navigation purposes]
21:22:00 [Ian]
TB: Propose to move summary of principles in TOC
21:22:25 [Ian]
TB: Work right into the flow of relevant sections.
21:22:51 [Roy]
next time plus one
21:23:41 [Stuart]
ack DanC
21:23:41 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say at a glance, I like the new intro
21:23:48 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
21:23:58 [Ian]
IJ will record TAG's suggestions for draft after this TR page draft.
21:23:58 [DanC]
I don't mind a resolution to publish; I just noted we don't need one, having decided last week.
21:24:10 [Ian]
Action IJ: Request publication of TR-page draft.
21:24:24 [Ian]
# Action DC 2003/01/27: write two pages on correct and incorrect application of REST to an actual web page design
21:24:27 [Ian]
DC: Some progress
21:24:31 [Ian]
# Action DC 2003/02/06: Attempt a redrafting of 1st para under 2.2.4 of 6 Feb 2003 draft
21:24:35 [Ian]
DC: Not done
21:24:38 [Ian]
# Action DO 2003/01/27: Please send writings regarding Web services to DO grants DC license to cut and paste and put into DC writing.
21:25:06 [Ian]
DO: No progres
21:25:24 [Ian]
21:25:24 [Ian]
# Action TB 2003/01/27: Develop CP11 more: Avoid designing new protocols if you can accomplish what you want with HTTP. DC suggested describing GET/PUT/POST in a para each, then say "if your app looks like that, use HTTP". Proposal from TB to withdraw the proposal.
21:25:37 [Ian]
Action dropped; proposal withdrawn.
21:26:37 [Ian]
Review of some feedback from people at Tech Plenary:
21:26:41 [Ian]
21:26:55 [Ian]
DC: Scribes did a great job of making IRC log readable:
21:26:59 [Ian]
21:27:24 [Ian]
The TAG thanks Susan Lesch for good minutes!
21:27:43 [Ian]
21:28:06 [Ian]
DC: On behalf of URI CG, when are we going to last call?
21:28:12 [Ian]
DC: If it's different from June, please notify me.
21:28:37 [Ian]
DC: I'm particularly interested in IRIEverywhere and URIEquivalence.
21:29:01 [Ian]
RF: We had URI meeting at IETF meeting. I presented on issues related to URI spec.
21:29:12 [Ian]
RF: Feedback about creating a URI BNF element was that it would be confusing.
21:29:12 [DanC]
# summary of URI BOF meeting Larry Masinter (Fri, Mar 21 2003)
21:29:31 [Ian]
RF: Not much feedback or suggestions for better terminology.
21:29:47 [Ian]
RF: On MD's IRI - pretty much consensus in the room that IRIs not contain delimiters of URIs.
21:30:09 [Ian]
[IJ wonders whether this means that special meaning will be same in both IRIs and URIs]
21:30:32 [Ian]
RF: For URI spec, we expect go to last call sometime end of June. Progress of IRI spec depends on URI spec.
21:31:18 [Ian]
TB: Aren't we done with URIEquivalence? RF has already taken up text.
21:31:35 [DanC]
(reviewing records of
21:31:53 [Ian]
SW: Are we expecting a finding of URI Equivalence?
21:32:04 [Ian]
TB: When it showed up in 2396bis, I thought that was sufficient.
21:32:09 [Ian]
RF: Yes, I think that's best.
21:33:02 [Ian]
TB Proposal: Close URIEquivalence-15; TAG has proposed text that has been incorporated in an IETF draft. People should write to authors of that draft.
21:33:15 [Ian]
DC: Do we sufficient trust.
21:33:28 [Ian]
DC: Do we have sufficient trust in handing it off?
21:33:56 [Ian]
DC: Are we endorsing existing IETF draft or ultimate RFC?
21:34:10 [Ian]
RF: Is an endorsement necessary?
21:34:28 [Ian]
DC: Our records should include an answer to that question.
21:35:35 [Ian]
Action SW, PC: Review IETF draft to see whether text satisfies URIEquivalence-15.
21:35:38 [Roy]
21:35:40 [Ian]
(URI of draft)
21:35:59 [Ian]
21:36:09 [Ian]
21:36:09 [Ian]
21:36:09 [Ian]
# contentTypeOverride-24
21:36:09 [Ian]
* See email from DC to Voice Browser WG. Does this resolve this issue?
21:36:12 [TBray]
21:36:18 [Ian]
21:36:26 [Ian]
"Fwd: link metadata cannot override server media type"
21:36:26 [DanC]
21:37:20 [Ian]
DC: The server gets to say what the media type is. The document can't override what the server says.
21:37:53 [Ian]
DC: SMIL 2 spec also has this. That Rec has a similar bug in it. Apologies.
21:38:10 [Ian]
DC: I suggested that, like HTML docs, to use hints.
21:38:25 [Ian]
DC: They responded that server managers or servers don't get this right.
21:38:45 [Ian]
DC: They've come back since then with an intermediate position (i.e., when server is clearly misconfigured).
21:38:51 [Ian]
DC: I still can't agree to it.
21:39:34 [Ian]
IJ: Tie-in to Xinclude coercion of media type.
21:39:52 [Ian]
DC: "What the server says is right, even if the server is misconfigured. Don't mask bugs."
21:40:03 [Ian]
DC: But the problem with my position is that it's pushing water uphill.
21:40:21 [Ian]
TB: This is not just theology. This kind of sniffing almost always leads to bad results.
21:40:56 [Ian]
IJ: I thought CL had an action on this w.r.t. errorHandling-20.
21:41:14 [DanC]
21:41:29 [TBray]
21:42:30 [Ian]
TB: I got hosed by browsers, when CSS isn't served as text/css. Some browsers silently mask bad server behavior. Hard to find the source of a problem.
21:43:00 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:43:01 [Ian]
RF: Problem is browsers that don't obey specs.
21:43:33 [TBray]
Problem is that this draft spec is going to *mandate* not obeying the spec
21:43:37 [Ian]
Agreement with DC's email to Voice Browser WG: TB, NW, SW, DC, PC, DO
21:43:44 [Ian]
DC: My message didn't say much about why.
21:43:56 [Ian]
DC: We need to provide rationale.
21:44:08 [Ian]
DC: TB just told us why it's not right.
21:45:39 [Ian]
Action IJ: Draft up some language; make connection to error-handling issue.
21:46:17 [Ian]
Specifically: TAG position with rationale why to not override server value of content type
21:46:19 [Ian]
21:46:38 [Ian]
21:46:38 [Ian]
21:46:38 [Ian]
# namespaceDocument-8
21:46:38 [Ian]
* Next steps on RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray/Paul Cotton
21:46:47 [Ian]
21:46:47 [Ian]
* Next steps on RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray/Paul Cotton
21:46:51 [Ian]
21:47:22 [Ian]
TB: We may need TBL for this one.
21:47:44 [DanC]
2.2.2 namespaceDocument-8
21:47:58 [Stuart]
21:48:13 [Ian]
21:48:20 [Ian]
Resource Directory Description Language (RDDL)
21:48:31 [TBray]
21:48:36 [Ian]
DC: One objection I had - doesn't talk abou tmodularizatoin
21:48:44 [Ian]
TB: This hasn't been fixed.
21:49:02 [Ian]
DC: It's not acceptable as is because it suggests that you build invalid HTML documents.
21:49:08 [Zakim]
21:49:11 [Ian]
[DO drops off]
21:49:51 [Stuart]
21:50:18 [Ian]
DC: I think this is something of a minor point; but in general I'm less interested in HTML solutions than RDF solutions
21:50:31 [Ian]
TB: How do you solve the HTML problem?
21:50:39 [Ian]
DC: Different DOCTYPE (see HTML Modularization spec)
21:50:47 [Ian]
TB: Jonathan did that for a previous version...
21:51:16 [Ian]
[Discussion of what to do with this document.]
21:51:41 [Ian]
TB: I propose that, if we agree to the content of the proposal (modulo objection from DC), that this be put on the Rec track.
21:52:36 [DanC]
(my comment about DTD validity seems to be unminuted)
21:53:49 [Ian]
DC: For me to agree to proposal, it has to say that this spec is not the only option and that RDF and XML Schemas are examples of other options
21:54:24 [Ian]
TB and DC disagree on whether XML Schema - as -namespace doc is bad idea or reasonable idea.
21:54:36 [DanC]
"current draft" seems to be
21:54:44 [DanC]
"This Version: February 14, 2003"
21:55:12 [Roy]
[I need to go]
21:55:40 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
21:56:13 [Zakim]
21:56:14 [Ian]
SW: I am reticent about whether TAG chartered to put this kind of doc on Rec track.
21:56:50 [Ian]
DC: Would an AC rep be annoyed at TAG doing this, where there was no normal CFP?
21:57:00 [Ian]
[SW, PC agree that this is sensitive]
21:57:46 [Zakim]
21:57:46 [Ian]
21:57:47 [Zakim]
-Guest P1 0824.a
21:57:49 [Zakim]
21:57:52 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
21:57:52 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
21:57:53 [Zakim]
21:57:57 [Zakim]
21:57:58 [Zakim]
21:57:59 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop