IRC log of tagmem on 2003-06-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:55:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:58:26 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
18:58:30 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
18:58:43 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:58:43 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I don't know what conference this is
18:58:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanCon, Stuart, Ian
18:58:47 [Norm]
zakim, this is tag
18:58:47 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
18:58:50 [Norm]
18:59:12 [DanCon]
18:59:21 [DanCon]
ah... the conference hasn't started.
18:59:33 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:59:39 [Zakim]
18:59:57 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p0 is me
18:59:57 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:00:00 [Zakim]
19:00:03 [Zakim]
19:00:05 [Zakim]
19:00:33 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:00:33 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:00:34 [Zakim]
19:01:22 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:01:41 [Zakim]
19:01:44 [Stuart]
19:02:00 [Zakim]
19:02:11 [Zakim]
19:02:30 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here
19:02:30 [Zakim]
Stuart, you need to end that query with '?'
19:02:34 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:02:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Norm, Ian, Tim_Bray, DanC, Chris
19:02:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanCon, Stuart, Ian
19:03:37 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:03:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Norm, Ian, Tim_Bray, DanC, Chris
19:03:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Norm, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanCon, Stuart, Ian
19:04:23 [Ian]
Roll call: NW, CL, SW, DC, IJ
19:04:28 [Ian]
and Tim Bray
19:05:04 [Ian]
SW (Chair), IJ (Chair)
19:05:09 [Ian]
SW (Chair), IJ (Scribe)
19:05:21 [Ian]
# Accept minutes of 30 Jun teleconference?
19:05:23 [Zakim]
19:05:29 [Ian]
19:05:36 [Ian]
Accepted 30 Jun minutes
19:05:45 [Ian]
# Accept this agenda?
19:05:52 [Ian]
19:05:58 [Ian]
Next meeting: 7 July.
19:06:01 [Ian]
Possible regrets: PC
19:06:03 [Ian]
Regrets: TBL
19:06:22 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
19:07:00 [Ian]
19:07:13 [Ian]
# Next meeting with Voice WG?
19:07:21 [Ian]
SW: IJ and I met with some reps from Voice WG last week.
19:07:25 [Ian]
SW: They are revising some proposed text.
19:07:44 [Ian]
SW: They will circulate to IJ and me for review. If all goes well, I'd like to schedule some time with them to confirm it.
19:08:24 [Ian]
Proposed: Voice WG expected to join our 7 July teleconf for a small piece.
19:08:56 [Ian]
SW: If we have material from them we'll try to include them in next week's call.
19:08:59 [Ian]
19:09:10 [Ian]
Proposed three-week summer break: No meeting 18 Aug, 25 Aug, 1 Sep
19:09:17 [Ian]
DC: Ok.
19:09:27 [timbl]
Break: ok by me
19:09:27 [Ian]
19:09:37 [DanCon]
"6. Proposed three-week summer break: No meeting 18 Aug, 25 Aug, 1 Sep"
19:09:48 [Ian]
Regrets 11 July: SW, TB
19:11:12 [TBray]
Likewise: no certainty required
19:11:33 [Ian]
So expectation is to not meet on those dates; if enough people want to, they can schedule meetings then.
19:11:37 [Ian]
19:11:42 [Ian]
27 June 2003 Working Draft of Arch Doc published.
19:11:49 [Ian]
19:12:36 [Ian]
IJ: New draft published Friday.
19:12:47 [Ian]
IJ: Comments are coming in on previous draft; I haven't read them.
19:12:53 [Ian]
IJ: TB and DC did editorial pass.
19:13:24 [Ian]
DC: Balance between story and formal spec to my liking now.
19:13:32 [Ian]
DC: I'd like to add an illustration for the travel scenario.
19:13:43 [Ian]
TB: I have discomfort on the section on authority.
19:14:12 [Ian]
TB: I don't know why we have a section if not for programmers' benefits.
19:14:31 [Ian]
DC: I think this will be connected to an issue TBL is about to raise.
19:14:42 [Ian]
(section 2.3)
19:15:10 [Ian]
SW: We are likely to be looking at this document at ftf meeting.
19:15:20 [Ian]
Action item review for Arch Doc
19:15:26 [Ian]
1. Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.
19:15:31 [Ian]
SW: RF said to leave open.
19:15:40 [Ian]
Completed action DO 2003/06/02: Write up a couple of paragraphs on extensibility for section 4.
19:15:43 [TBray]
For the record: I am substantially uncomfortable with because I don't understand what normative effect it would have on the behavior of implementors. If none, lose it. If some, specifiy it.
19:16:08 [DanCon]
keep in mind web arch impacts folks that read and write documents, not just coders, tim bray
19:16:10 [Ian]
4. Action PC 2003/06/16: Send second draft of AC announcement regarding TAG's last call expectations/thoughts and relation to AC meeting feedback.
19:16:14 [Ian]
SW: I have no update on that action,.
19:16:20 [Ian]
19:16:27 [Ian]
19:16:40 [DanCon]
(not to say I'm 100% happy with #URI-authority section as written)
19:16:46 [Ian]
New draft of "Client handling of MIME headers"
19:16:58 [Ian]
19:18:10 [Ian]
IJ: Next steps? Does anyone want to read before we say "We think we're done"?
19:18:32 [Ian]
CL: Has the SMIL IG been contacted?
19:18:36 [Ian]
IJ: No.
19:18:57 [TBray]
Scenario 2 in Sectio 2 has funny formatting; grey surround-box misshapen
19:19:27 [Ian]
Action CL, NW: Read this draft by next week.
19:19:30 [Chris]
i will review it (skimmed but not read in detail)
19:19:58 [Ian]
DC: Should this go to public-tag-review?
19:20:18 [Ian]
SW: I hesitate.
19:20:24 [DanCon]
public-tag-announce, that is
19:20:26 [Ian]
SW: People reading minutes will see this discussion.
19:20:41 [Chris]
if people want to discuss it that should happen on www-tag
19:21:09 [Ian]
Action IJ: Announce on www-tag that we expect to approve this finding in a week or so. Last chance for comments.
19:21:28 [Chris]
this is also relevant to the error handling issue
19:21:28 [Ian]
"How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?
19:21:28 [Ian]
19:21:46 [Ian]
19:22:05 [Ian]
CL: I haven't completely updated.
19:22:37 [Ian]
CL: But nearly done.
19:22:44 [Ian]
CL: We should update with latest info.
19:22:49 [Ian]
SW: Should we offer an opinion?
19:23:02 [DanCon]
"No conclusion is presented." --
19:23:11 [Ian]
CL: The XML Core WG has been discussing this. I don't think we should pick a favorite from the TAG.
19:23:16 [Ian]
NW: I agree with CL on that point.
19:23:28 [Ian]
NW: The Core WG is working on this.
19:23:58 [Ian]
IJ: Next steps?
19:24:18 [Ian]
Action CL: Revise this draft finding with new input from reviewers.
19:24:30 [Chris]
7 july
19:24:35 [Chris]
due date
19:24:46 [Ian]
19:24:52 [Ian]
Review of issues list
19:24:58 [Ian]
19:25:02 [Ian]
Summary from SW:
19:25:18 [Ian]
19:25:24 [Chris]
ironically the one i was working on today was on the "does not expect to discuss" ;-)
19:25:27 [Ian]
SW to TBL: We skipped over httpRange-14 last week.
19:25:30 [timbl]
Zakim, who is on the call?
19:25:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Norm, Ian, Tim_Bray, DanC, Chris, TimBL
19:25:46 [Ian]
TBL: I haven't talked to RF about httpRange-14 lately.
19:26:53 [Ian]
SW: Current expectation for issue 14 is (1) not required to be closed for last call draft and (2) no plan to discuss at ftf meeting
19:27:31 [Ian]
19:28:17 [Ian]
19:28:23 [Stuart]
19:29:44 [Ian]
19:29:48 [Ian]
19:29:59 [Ian]
TB: Pending, since RFC2396bis not finished.
19:31:16 [Ian]
TB: There was never a formal expression from TAG on those drafts. But every issue that arose we hammered out.
19:32:27 [Ian]
[Question of whether we should have a finding to close off the issue]
19:32:31 [Ian]
TB: I don't think we should.
19:32:41 [Ian]
CL: Mark your drafts as obsoleted.
19:33:16 [Chris]
19:34:34 [Ian]
TBL: DC made a comment in a meeting with which I agreed - there are some axioms about resolution of relative URis that are not written in rfc2396bis.
19:34:45 [Ian]
DC: I do worry about that.
19:35:25 [Ian]
TBL: Normalization of "../" and "./" for example. Need a statement about invariants.
19:35:53 [Ian]
SW: I suggest you raise an issue with RF on the URI list.
19:37:09 [Ian]
TB: W.r.t. last call, I think we have a dependence on RFC2396bis. We are stuck with a reference to a moving target for now...
19:37:32 [Ian]
[Some agreement that not much need for ftf time on this issue.]
19:37:43 [DanCon]
15 | Yes | No # my summary
19:37:43 [Ian]
DC: If there's spare time, I'd like to, but don't squeeze something else off.
19:38:08 [Ian]
19:38:16 [Ian]
# HTTPSubstrate-16
19:39:00 [Ian]
DC: I think that LM did the comparison that we asked RF to do.
19:39:12 [TBray]
19:39:42 [Ian]
DC: I think that msg merits discussion. Not sure whether in the path to last call.
19:40:07 [Ian]
DC: The business about why not create a new URI scheme is relevant here.
19:40:35 [Ian]
DC: Suppose ldap were being designed today. They could design a new protocol and make a new URI scheme. Or they could use HTTP as a substrate.
19:40:50 [Ian]
DC: The principle about don't make up new URI schemes and HTTP as substrate are related.
19:41:10 [Ian]
TB: While that's fair, I think that our comments are sufficiently general so that we don't need to change anything.
19:41:22 [Ian]
TB: If we want to provide information about when it is worth the cost, that might be ok.
19:42:14 [Ian]
16 - Resolve for last call: No. Discussion at ftf: Spare time.
19:42:29 [Ian]
19:42:29 [Ian]
# errorHandling-20
19:42:32 [Ian]
See notes from CL
19:42:35 [DanCon]
I'd like to know Orchard's sense of propority of HTTPSubstrate-16
19:42:50 [Ian]
19:43:02 [Ian]
CL: "Ignorability" is something I'd like to discuss.
19:43:22 [Ian]
CL: If you get a file and it has an attribute in a namespace that you are supposed to understand, then that's an error.
19:43:39 [Ian]
CL: But if you add your own attribute in your own namespace, considered good way to extend.
19:43:46 [Ian]
CL: I think we should stay clear of extensions to XML.
19:44:19 [Ian]
TB: Some errors depend on application...
19:44:40 [Ian]
TB: In 3.2.1 of latest arch doc, bullet on attention to error handling.
19:45:14 [Chris]
dan - yes, the notes say that and give examples of harm from silent recovery and attempted recovery
19:45:26 [Ian]
TB: We might put something in section on XML...I would kind of be inclined to declare victory based on what's in 3.2.1
19:45:37 [Chris]
ack dancon
19:45:37 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to say I'd like "silent recovery from errors considered harmful" in this last-call draft
19:45:44 [Chris]
19:45:55 [timbl]
q+ to suggest we have said a bit too much about errors - one cannot tell people what to do if they do have an error.
19:45:59 [Ian]
DC: What I want in the last call draft is that "Silent recovery from error is harmful" to be in a box; critical for last call.
19:46:46 [Ian]
CL: Notes that I sent in gave some examples of bad consequences of silent recovery.
19:47:35 [TBray]
q+ to agree with Dan about getting "silent failure considered harmful" into webarch before last call
19:47:40 [Ian]
[CL cites example of browsers that consider </p> an error and treat it as <p>, so extra vertical space]
19:48:04 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:48:13 [DanCon]
ack timbl
19:48:13 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest we have said a bit too much about errors - one cannot tell people what to do if they do have an error.
19:48:45 [Chris]
aha - be careful what specs say about errors, that sort of thing?
19:48:47 [Ian]
TBL: I'm concerned about going too far in direction of saying how to design an application.
19:49:05 [Chris]
carefully distinguish from errors (fatal) and warnings
19:49:13 [DanCon]
I share timbl's concern. I still stand by "silent recovery from errors considered harmful"
19:49:24 [Chris]
q+ to suggest this merits a little discussion time at f2f
19:49:37 [Ian]
[TBL cites example of inconsistent RDF; application-dependent scenarios]
19:50:13 [Chris]
at user option is no use in a batch job - good point TimBL
19:50:35 [Ian]
TBL: I don't like the SGML attitude of specifying the behavior of an agent. Just say what the tags mean.
19:51:24 [Ian]
TBL: Don't tie down specs with overly narrow error-handling requirements.
19:51:27 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:51:27 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to agree with Dan about getting "silent failure considered harmful" into webarch before last call
19:51:48 [Ian]
TB: I think we have consensus that "silent recovery from errors" is probably bad behavior in the context of web arch.
19:51:53 [Chris]
have separate conformance reuirements for correct docs, correct generators, and correct readers
19:52:04 [Ian]
TB: I'd like to spend some time at ftf meeting on this.
19:52:05 [Chris]
and correct user agents a s asubset of readers
19:52:26 [Ian]
TB: XML's "halt and catch fire" might have been too much...
19:52:38 [Ian]
DC: I second talking about ftf.
19:52:46 [Ian]
CL: Not sure this is in the way of last call.
19:52:55 [Ian]
CL Yes to discussion at ftf
19:53:05 [DanCon]
I think we might end up splitting it in half and closing one half.
19:53:17 [Ian]
TB: This one might not require a finding.
19:54:03 [Chris]
19:54:11 [Ian]
errorHandling-20 : What should specifications say about error handling?
19:54:30 [Ian]
CL: Specs, in the conformance section should be clear about when they are talking about documents, generators, and consumers.
19:54:42 [DanCon]
"What should specifications say about error handling?"
19:55:09 [Ian]
20: Schedule at ftf, try to close before last call.
19:55:11 [Ian]
19:55:13 [Ian]
19:55:28 [Ian]
SW: Last action was to write to HTCG and XML Core WG.
19:55:36 [Chris]
19:55:36 [Ian]
SW: I've had no feedback from either group.
19:55:57 [Ian]
CL: The XML CG has discussed. A task force to be created.
19:56:12 [Ian]
CL: The HTCG has discussed briefly. Some people seem interested....3/4 of a task force formed...
19:56:23 [TBray]
Suggest not on critical path for last cal
19:56:24 [Ian]
CL: Moving forward, but not much momentum.
19:57:01 [Ian]
Action CL: Ping the chairs of those groups asking for an update on xlinkScope-23.
19:57:42 [Ian]
SW: I set expectations that TAG would have a last look.
19:58:00 [Ian]
DC to TBL: Is what's going on with xlinkScope-23 consistent with your expectations?
19:58:23 [Stuart]
From: " We believe that since we last considered this issue, there
19:58:24 [Stuart]
has been substantially more input to the discussion, and thus we will commit
19:58:24 [Stuart]
to taking up the issue once again and, should we achieve consensus, publish
19:58:24 [Stuart]
that position as our contribution to work in this area.
19:58:24 [Stuart]
19:59:42 [Ian]
TBL: I have the feeling that the way this will be resolved "nicely" is a new version of xlink that is simpler.
19:59:57 [timbl]
than xlink or hlink
20:00:08 [Ian]
DC: My opinion is "no" and "no".
20:00:11 [Ian]
(for 23)
20:00:32 [Ian]
[CL action stands]
20:00:45 [Ian]
CL: I agree with "no" and "no"
20:00:46 [Ian]
20:00:54 [Ian]
20:01:08 [Ian]
SW: I think we'll have this resolved for last call. Probably don't need to discuss at ftf.
20:01:08 [DanCon]
on 24, I suggest yes for lc, no for ftf. (what Stuart just said)
20:01:15 [Ian]
20:01:23 [Ian]
20:01:46 [Ian]
CL: I was working on this one today.
20:02:06 [DanCon]
on 26, I guess I'm no for lc, yes for ftf
20:02:22 [Ian]
CL: I'd like to have some discussion before last call. And discussion at ftf since not yet discussed.
20:02:26 [DanCon]
(don't mind trying for 26 for lc)
20:02:34 [Ian]
CL: The finding I'm writing is a bit wordy....
20:03:19 [Ian]
CL: If we all agree, could be slipped in; but don't think it needs to be in before last call. But I'd prefer.
20:03:42 [Ian]
DC: Worth a try.
20:03:54 [Ian]
20:03:57 [Ian]
20:04:30 [TBray]
20:04:52 [Ian]
ack Chris
20:04:52 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to suggest this merits a little discussion time at f2f and to
20:04:54 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:05:13 [Ian]
TB: I think that after back and forth, we decided that the IRI draft was not cooked enough yet.
20:05:20 [Chris]
q+ to talk about a new and related issue
20:05:36 [Ian]
TB: I don't think we need to solve before last call.
20:05:47 [Ian]
TB: I don't think we need to discuss at ftf either.
20:06:20 [Ian]
ack Chris
20:06:20 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about a new and related issue
20:06:38 [Ian]
CL: New and related issue - When do you use URIs for labels for things?
20:06:50 [Ian]
[Or should you use strings]
20:07:35 [Ian]
CL: I've started a writeup on this one...
20:07:48 [timbl]
20:08:05 [Ian]
SW: I hear "no" and "no" for 27.
20:08:18 [Ian]
TBL: IRIs extend 15 into IRIs.
20:08:52 [Ian]
TBL: I think we could even work on this independent of IRI spec.
20:09:02 [TBray]
q+ to make a procedural suggestion
20:09:08 [Ian]
TBL: Is this urgent?
20:09:14 [Chris]
yes its urgent
20:09:15 [Ian]
ack timbl
20:09:18 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:09:18 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to wonder whether this merits ftf time
20:09:23 [Chris]
according to the XML activity
20:09:23 [Ian]
DC: I'd like ftf time on this one.
20:09:30 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:09:30 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to make a procedural suggestion
20:09:54 [Ian]
20:09:55 [Ian]
# fragmentInXML-28
20:10:55 [Ian]
[No actions]
20:11:08 [Ian]
DC: Please add this to the pile containing 6, 37, 38
20:11:19 [Ian]
[TBL: And soon-to-be 39]
20:11:57 [Ian]
DC: "no" and "yes"
20:12:03 [Chris]
binaryXML-30 er how to discuss member-only stuff??
20:12:05 [Ian]
20:12:08 [Ian]
20:12:39 [Ian]
CL: I'd like to do a survey for this issue.
20:12:56 [DanCon]
why does this have a "resultion summary" if it's still open?
20:13:15 [Ian]
[Dan, it should say "draft"]
20:13:37 [Ian]
Summary from CL:
20:13:45 [Ian]
20:14:15 [Ian]
TBL: I'd like to add OGC to the entry for this issues list.
20:15:01 [DanCon]
I don't see how "draft" would resolve the apprent contradition between an issue being in "assigned" state and having a "resolution summary". not urgent.
20:15:19 [Ian]
I know.. :(
20:16:01 [Ian]
SW: No and No
20:16:12 [Ian]
20:16:32 [Ian]
20:16:47 [Ian]
SW: I hope to put out for TAG review this week.
20:17:15 [Ian]
IJ: Seem slike 31 is low-hanging fruit.
20:17:32 [Ian]
SW: No, Yes.
20:17:34 [Ian]
20:17:54 [Ian]
TB: I suggest that 31 be a Yes before last call.
20:17:59 [Ian]
DC: there's some relevant text already.
20:18:07 [Ian]
TB: Make sure finding and arch doc in accord.
20:18:12 [Ian]
20:18:22 [Ian]
20:18:30 [Ian]
CL: I suggest we leave in pending.
20:18:38 [Ian]
CL: "No", "No"
20:18:42 [Ian]
20:18:50 [Ian]
20:19:14 [Ian]
No, no.
20:19:27 [timbl]
no no
20:19:40 [Ian]
CL: I'm happy to have discussion at ftf and write that up.
20:19:48 [Ian]
TBL: Connects to composable things.
20:19:49 [Ian]
20:19:56 [Ian]
20:20:13 [Ian]
TBL: No, no
20:20:27 [Ian]
20:20:33 [Ian]
20:20:34 [Ian]
DC: No, yes
20:20:45 [Ian]
DC: There is movement on this; I'd like some ftf time.
20:20:50 [Ian]
20:20:58 [Ian]
20:21:11 [Ian]
DC, TB: I'd like some ftf time on this.
20:21:13 [Norm]
20:21:16 [Ian]
TB: I don't think impacts arch doc.
20:21:21 [Ian]
DC: Agreed
20:21:27 [Ian]
20:21:28 [Chris]
no,no for me
20:21:32 [Ian]
20:21:33 [Ian]
# abstractComponentRefs-37
20:21:42 [Ian]
and * putMediaType-38
20:21:47 [Ian]
(cluster with 6 and 28)
20:22:08 [Ian]
20:23:11 [Ian]
20:23:16 [Ian]
Arch Doc
20:23:21 [Ian]
TB: Things that we need to worry about:
20:23:25 [Ian]
a) Chap 4 still missing
20:23:53 [DanCon]
"2.3. URI Authority"
20:23:53 [Ian]
TB: I think we need time at ftf to talk about sections 2.3 and 3.2.1
20:24:04 [Ian]
20:24:07 [DanCon]
"3.2.1. Desirable Characteristics of Format Specifications"
20:24:37 [Chris] Final-form v. Reusable conflicts in some ways with cp26
20:25:44 [Ian]
Check out:
20:25:50 [Ian]
20:26:19 [timbl]
Ok, so we have a commitment to put it on but nothing to reference yet.
20:27:08 [Ian]
IJ: I'd prune this section.
20:27:20 [DanCon]
ack ian
20:27:22 [Ian]
IJ: Also, some of this text not specific to Web arch.
20:27:25 [Ian]
ack DanCon
20:27:25 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to note xlinkScope-23 has a home in "3.2.4. Embedding Hyperlinks in Representations"
20:27:52 [Ian]
DC: I see xlinkscope has a home in 3.2.4
20:28:50 [Ian]
IJ: I think CL is working on too much stuff right now.
20:29:31 [Ian]
CL actions include: error handling, content/presentation
20:29:42 [Ian]
20:29:48 [Zakim]
20:29:50 [Zakim]
20:29:51 [Zakim]
20:29:51 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop