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]
- hmph
- 18:59:12 [DanCon]
- wierd
- 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]
- +??P0
- 18:59:57 [Stuart]
- zakim, ??p0 is me
- 18:59:57 [Zakim]
- +Stuart; got it
- 19:00:00 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 19:00:03 [Zakim]
- -Stuart
- 19:00:05 [Zakim]
- +Stuart
- 19:00:33 [Ian]
- zakim, call Ian-BOS
- 19:00:33 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian; the call is being made
- 19:00:34 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 19:01:22 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:01:41 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Bray
- 19:01:44 [Stuart]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/att-0095/TAG_issues_for_July_F2F.html
- 19:02:00 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 19:02:11 [Zakim]
- +Chris
- 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]
- +TimBL
- 19:05:29 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/06/23-tag-summary.html
- 19:05:36 [Ian]
- Accepted 30 Jun minutes
- 19:05:45 [Ian]
- # Accept this agenda?
- 19:05:52 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/06/30-tag.html
- 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]
- TBL: Ok
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/
- 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-authority 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]
- Findings
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDSemantics-32.html
- 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." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDsemantics-32.html
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html
- 19:25:02 [Ian]
- Summary from SW:
- 19:25:18 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0095.html
- 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]
- q+
- 19:28:17 [Ian]
- q-
- 19:28:23 [Stuart]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/att-0095/TAG_issues_for_July_F2F.html
- 19:29:44 [Ian]
- --------------
- 19:29:48 [Ian]
- URIEquivalence-15
- 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]
- http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0099.html
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0124
- 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?" http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#errorHandling-20
- 19:55:09 [Ian]
- 20: Schedule at ftf, try to close before last call.
- 19:55:11 [Ian]
- ---
- 19:55:13 [Ian]
- xlinkScope-23
- 19:55:28 [Ian]
- SW: Last action was to write to HTCG and XML Core WG.
- 19:55:36 [Chris]
- q+
- 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Mar/0104 " 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]
- contentTypeOverride-24
- 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]
- contentPresentation-26
- 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]
- IRIEverywhere-27
- 20:04:30 [TBray]
- q+
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- binaryXML-30
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
- 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]
- metadataInURI-31
- 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]
- xmlIDSemantics-32
- 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]
- mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
- 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]
- xmlFunctions-34
- 20:20:13 [Ian]
- TBL: No, no
- 20:20:27 [Ian]
- ---
- 20:20:33 [Ian]
- RDFinXHTML-35
- 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]
- siteData-36
- 20:21:11 [Ian]
- DC, TB: I'd like some ftf time on this.
- 20:21:13 [Norm]
- +1
- 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]
- q+
- 20:24:07 [DanCon]
- "3.2.1. Desirable Characteristics of Format Specifications"
- 20:24:37 [Chris]
- 3.2.2.2. Final-form v. Reusable conflicts in some ways with cp26
- 20:25:44 [Ian]
- Check out:
- 20:25:50 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/People/Bos/DesignGuide/introduction
- 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]
- ADJOURNED
- 20:29:48 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 20:29:50 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Bray
- 20:29:51 [Zakim]
- -Stuart
- 20:29:51 [Ian]
- RRSAgent, stop