IRC log of tagmem on 2003-10-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:32:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:45:46 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #tagmem
18:51:20 [ChrisL]
18:51:29 [Ian]
18:51:48 [ChrisL]
re joint action item about svg and linking
18:51:50 [ChrisL]
18:52:00 [ChrisL]
please link to svg 1.1 not 1.0
18:52:23 [Ian]
18:53:19 [ChrisL]
and (following link above) it seems fairly clear that SVG uses XLink as is; i don't understand the wording "Section 17.1 of the SVG specification suggests that interaction with an a link involves retrieving a representation of a resource, identified by the XLink href attribute: "By activating these links (by clicking with the mouse, through keyboard input, and voice commands), users may visit these resources." " in the arch doc
18:53:35 [ChrisL]
1.0 has that, 1.1 hav better and less wooly language
18:53:39 [Ian]
18:53:54 [ChrisL]
oh - it does if i scroll down a bit
18:54:00 [ChrisL]
ok so wat was wrong with it?
18:54:15 [ChrisL]
it seems informative; the ref ro xlink is normative
18:54:39 [Ian]
I'll re-examine it.
18:55:02 [ChrisL]
Our action was re
18:55:19 [Ian]
18:55:27 [ChrisL]
however, apart from removing 'suggest' which seems overly tentative, that section looks ok
18:56:13 [ChrisL]
a better part of the spec to quote would be an earlier sentence from the same para
18:56:15 [ChrisL]
The remote resource (the destination for the link) is defined by a URI specified by the XLink href attribute on the 'a' element.
18:56:46 [ChrisL]
that seems to lead much more clearly from svg, to the a element, to the href attribute as specified by xlink
18:57:46 [ChrisL]
my only other criticism is that links in the arch doc go to the references only
18:57:58 [ChrisL]
so section 5.4 of the XLink 1.0 [XLink10] specification
18:58:15 [ChrisL]
I would prefer to see a direct link to 5.4 as well
18:58:22 [ChrisL]
18:58:29 [Norm]
Zakim, what's the passcode?
18:58:29 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Norm
18:58:33 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:58:34 [ChrisL]
after all, important resources should have uris
18:58:40 [Zakim]
18:59:03 [ChrisL]
zakim, phone chris-work
18:59:03 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisL; the call is being made
18:59:04 [Zakim]
18:59:34 [ChrisL]
we seem to have a modem or fax machine on the line
18:59:45 [ChrisL]
rrsagent, pointer?
18:59:45 [RRSAgent]
18:59:53 [ndw_]
ndw_ has joined #tagmem
19:00:10 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:00:54 [ChrisL]
is it just me or does everyone hear that awful noise?
19:01:12 [ChrisL]
zakim, who is here?
19:01:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Chris
19:01:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, ndw_, ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:01:40 [ChrisL]
norm, do you get a bad noise onthe phone?
19:01:57 [ndw_]
Norm, not really. I heard your voice once, briefly, but it's been pretty quiet since then
19:02:16 [Norm]
I heard you again. Can you hear me?
19:02:18 [Zakim]
19:02:27 [ChrisL]
I get terrible distortion
19:02:27 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:02:27 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:02:28 [Zakim]
19:02:31 [Norm]
We can't hear you, Chris
19:02:32 [ChrisL]
someone is speaking?
19:02:49 [Zakim]
19:02:49 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
19:02:52 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
19:02:53 [Zakim]
19:02:54 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:02:54 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:02:55 [Zakim]
19:02:57 [ChrisL]
no idea what is being said or who is saying it
19:03:05 [Zakim]
19:03:12 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris, Tim_Bray, Ian, Norm
19:03:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Norm, ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian
19:03:22 [Norm]
Zakim, who's talking?
19:03:37 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Chris (65%), Ian (17%)
19:03:45 [Norm]
Zakim, mute norm
19:03:45 [Zakim]
Norm should now be muted
19:03:49 [Ian]
zakim, mute Chris
19:03:49 [Zakim]
Chris should now be muted
19:03:53 [Zakim]
19:03:56 [Zakim]
19:04:03 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute me
19:04:03 [Zakim]
Norm should no longer be muted
19:04:07 [ChrisL]
zakim, phone chris-work
19:04:07 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisL; the call is being made
19:04:08 [Zakim]
19:04:09 [Zakim]
19:04:37 [Norm]
Zakim, who's here?
19:04:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris, Ian, Norm, Tim_Bray
19:04:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Norm, ChrisL, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian
19:04:42 [Ian]
19:04:49 [Ian]
Regrets: SW, DC
19:06:57 [Zakim]
19:07:01 [ChrisL]
I assert that Ian and i have completed our action item
19:07:13 [ChrisL]
19:07:13 [Ian]
zakim, P5 is Paul
19:07:13 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'P5'
19:07:19 [Ian]
zakim, ??P5 is Paul
19:07:19 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
19:08:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.949.679.aaaa
19:08:34 [aaaa]
19:08:41 [Ian]
zakim, aaaa is Roy
19:08:41 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:08:42 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:09:05 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
19:09:15 [Zakim]
19:09:48 [Ian]
Roll call: NW (Chair), TBL, RF, CL, TB, PC, IJ
19:09:57 [Ian]
Regrets: DC, SW
19:10:04 [Ian]
Not sure: DO
19:10:15 [Ian]
19:10:37 [Ian]
Accept the minutes of the 6-8 Oct ftf in Bristol?
19:10:44 [Ian]
19:11:07 [Ian]
Resolved: Accepted
19:11:16 [Ian]
Accept this agenda?
19:11:26 [Ian]
19:11:33 [Ian]
Next meeting: 27 Oct 2003 teleconference
19:11:39 [Ian]
Regrets: TB, IJ, PC (at risk)
19:12:00 [Ian]
Reminder: Action items related to Arch Document due 22 October.
19:12:29 [Ian]
[Look at upcoming agendas]
19:12:54 [Ian]
1.1 TAG update at Nov 2003 AC meeting.
19:13:00 [Ian]
CL: DO sent in first draft
19:13:19 [Ian]
19:13:42 [Ian]
agenda+ 3023 update from TB
19:14:05 [Ian]
NW: The expectation is that next week we will walk through slides.
19:14:15 [Ian]
CL: How much should I incorporate from summary for AC highlight?
19:14:44 [Ian]
NW: Incorporate what you think is appropriate; punch up as necessary.
19:15:00 [Ian]
19:15:09 [Ian]
19:15:15 [Ian]
19:15:36 [Ian]
19:15:37 [Zakim]
19:15:53 [Ian]
Summary of options from DO
19:16:35 [Zakim]
19:16:42 [Zakim]
19:17:18 [Ian]
Draft finding:
19:17:28 [Ian]
19:18:00 [Ian]
q+ with some comments about finding: (1) publish as HTML, tell stroy, what is conclusion to arch argument?
19:18:15 [Ian]
q+ with some comments about finding: (1) publish as HTML, tell stroy, what is conclusion to arch argument
19:18:21 [Ian]
19:19:40 [ChrisL]
q+ to talk about balanced parens
19:20:11 [Ian]
[Background on draft finding from DO]
19:20:53 [ChrisL]
19:21:32 [Ian]
TBray: There needs to be more structure of this document to point out (1) here's what we think you should do (2) here's the raw data.
19:21:51 [Ian]
TBray: Not clear why raw data there. I think it's useful to have that data there.
19:22:39 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:22:50 [Ian]
IJ: Should I publish?
19:23:00 [Ian]
DO: Yes, after my next round of updates.
19:23:56 [Ian]
(1) pull out refs to people and put in acks section.
19:24:14 [Ian]
(2) time-sensitive information that belongs in status section.
19:27:14 [ChrisL]
ij: add an ack section
19:27:35 [ChrisL]
ij: 2.1 requirements are from wsdl wg, doc does not say so, might be tag reqts
19:28:20 [ChrisL]
ij: not clear in section 1 what the problem is. not defined what an abstract component *is*
19:29:00 [ChrisL]
ij: shrin grecommendations,tel a story, state the problem clearly. not clear where reqts go
19:29:08 [ChrisL]
do: reqts guide the solution
19:29:26 [ChrisL]
ij: are these the only requirements
19:29:51 [ChrisL]
do: true there might be others
19:29:56 [Ian]
ack ChrisL
19:29:56 [Zakim]
ChrisL, you wanted to talk about balanced parens
19:30:10 [TBray]
19:30:16 [Ian]
CL: Re balanced parens; are we saying that in general balanced parens are bad in URIs?
19:30:22 [Ian]
RF: Yers.
19:30:24 [Ian]
RF: Yes
19:30:27 [ChrisL]
19:30:37 [Ian]
CL: In that case, we have some problems with xpointer framework...
19:30:38 [ChrisL]
PointerPart ::= SchemeName '(' SchemeData ')'
19:30:43 [Roy]
is broken, as stated earlier
19:30:53 [ChrisL]
EscapedData ::= NormalChar | '^(' | '^)' | '^^' | '(' SchemeData ')'
19:30:53 [Ian]
TBray: Roy has publicly flamed xpointer in the past.
19:31:22 [ChrisL]
so we are saying, as the TAG, that XPointer Framework and dependent specs are *broken*? or not?
19:31:22 [Ian]
DO: Hence wording in the finding - I don't think that the TAG has made an explicit recommendation that xpointer is broken.
19:31:42 [Ian]
DO: Some TAG participants have said that balanced parens are a bad idea. Some of the participants have agreed, or not actively pushed back.
19:32:33 [Ian]
RF: I've seen many bad designs in which parens are used; I've seen no designs that actually required parentheses.
19:32:47 [Ian]
RF: I've seen some cases where parens were used *internally*, but not exposed.
19:33:05 [Ian]
RF: Xpointer produces invalid fragments since the URI spec does not allow those characters.
19:33:17 [ChrisL]
RF: xptr spec uses illegal characters not allowed in fragment identifiers
19:33:33 [Ian]
19:33:57 [ChrisL]
cl: however, the syntax used in XML will be escaped when used on the wire as per usual
19:34:36 [Ian]
19:34:39 [Ian]
19:34:43 [Ian]
19:35:41 [Ian]
CL: I have concerns that some folks on the TAG feel a recent W3C Rec is broken.
19:35:54 [Ian]
CL: And that the finding uses the xpointer syntax.
19:36:08 [Ian]
CL: I'd be ok pointing out (1) this is the syntax and (2) there are problems with it.
19:36:16 [Ian]
RF: I'm ok with presentation as is in the draft finding.
19:37:04 [Ian]
DO: Maybe the TAG should have an issue on parens in frag identifier syntax; tied to xpointer.
19:37:15 [Ian]
CL: This affects SVG as well, which has its own fragment syntax.
19:37:39 [ChrisL]
which uses parens as per what was believed to be correct current practice
19:38:05 [Ian]
DO: I'm not sure that we would recommend xpointer to wsdl wg even if we said parens ok.
19:38:39 [Ian]
DO: Do we want a finding on good URI practices?
19:38:41 [Ian]
CL, TB: Yes.
19:39:24 [Ian]
[TB seeks title for issue regarding URI design]
19:39:32 [ChrisL] has no link to an implementation report
19:39:46 [Ian]
PC: Has anyone done this work on best practices for URI design?
19:40:01 [Ian]
RF: It's not in the spec (since hard to get consensus on that...).
19:40:39 [Ian]
PC: I'm concerned that, while useful, documenting good practice might be too much of a challenge.
19:40:47 [Ian]
RF: The info is there, in various places.
19:41:13 [Ian]
RF: Some info is in TBL's DesignIssues
19:41:14 [TBray]
19:41:32 [Ian]
RF: If I get excited, I'll add as an appendix of RFC2396 bis
19:41:58 [ndw]
19:42:47 [Ian]
DO: Should the TAG start on this and then fold into RFC2396?
19:43:14 [Ian]
RF: It's always useful to seed the clouds, but people tend NOT to agree on how to design a URI space. They tend to not agree strongly.
19:43:31 [ndw]
look at what? and don't do that?
19:43:32 [Ian]
IJ: This is also related to URI-squatting.
19:43:48 [TBray]
Look at what Vignette does and don't do that
19:43:53 [Ian]
DO: Even enumeration of choices (even if some agree, some don't) still useful.
19:44:02 [Ian]
DO: Another survey..
19:44:11 [ndw]
What does Vignette do?
19:44:21 [TBray]
produces unspeakably horrible URIs
19:44:43 [Ian]
RF: Also sounds like arch doc.
19:45:34 [TBray]
Principles: don't put in the name of the product e.g.
19:45:35 [Ian]
DO: Hmm, seems like finding a better place for this level of detail rather than in arch doc, especially if the material is controversial.
19:45:40 [ndw]
19:45:41 [TBray]
Principle: consider putting in dates
19:45:48 [ndw]
ack TBray
19:47:08 [Ian]
TBray: I think that we should adopt this as an issue.
19:47:16 [Ian]
"What are good practices for URI construction?"
19:47:32 [Roy]
I will take that as an action item
19:49:06 [Ian]
Resolved: Add issue URIGoodPractice-40
19:49:09 [Ian]
Action IJ: Add to issues list.
19:49:17 [Ian]
Action RF: Draft finding for this issue.
19:49:41 [Ian]
NW: This should allow DO to simplify his finding a little.
19:50:27 [Ian]
NW: Is this in the critical path for last call?
19:50:32 [Ian]
[Nobody thinks it is.]
19:51:05 [Ian]
DO: Other comments on draft finding abstractComponentRefs-37?
19:52:59 [Ian]
19:53:06 [Ian]
Review of 3023-related actions
19:53:14 [Ian]
[Update from TB on various liaisons]
19:53:24 [Ian]
Actions 2003/10/08:
19:53:24 [Ian]
- NW to liaise with Paul Grosso and the XML Core WG
19:53:24 [Ian]
- TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
19:53:24 [Ian]
- TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml 1.1.
19:53:24 [Ian]
- TBL and DC will talk to the Architecture Domain Lead.
19:54:40 [Ian]
NW: I spoke to the Core WG about this last Weds. There was general agreement that a revision of 3023 would be a good thing, and that XML 1.1 should point to an updated version.
19:55:10 [Ian]
NW: In addition, the Core WG felt it would be nice if 3023 used xpointer syntax for frag ids for xml. I told them that the TAG was unlikely to push for that.
19:55:28 [Ian]
- TBL and DC to liaise with the IETF regarding obsoleting RFC 3023.
19:55:40 [Ian]
TBL: We talked to the IETF about this.
19:55:49 [ChrisL]
tim (bray) did you read the xml cg minutes
19:55:51 [ChrisL]
19:56:05 [Ian]
CL: There was discussion at that meeting.
19:56:52 [ChrisL]
19:58:08 [ChrisL]
tbl: good direction in general, but not for this iteration
19:58:23 [ChrisL]
tbl: happy to leave it in son-of-3023 this time round
19:59:56 [ChrisL]
tbl: does tag have anopinion on that, xml fragid syntax
20:00:54 [ChrisL]
people use barename id pointers currently
20:00:55 [ndw]
20:01:05 [Roy]
I would prefer that the "id" issue be settled first.
20:01:10 [ndw]
ack ndw
20:01:30 [ChrisL]
tb: people do not use application/xml they use a more specific type 9docbook, svg, whatever)
20:02:20 [ChrisL]
nw: in favor of having a generic fragment syntax to prevent each one having to define the same minimum stuff
20:02:30 [ChrisL]
nw: like xptr framework syntax
20:03:05 [ChrisL]
tb: so no consensus on what the pointer should be or whether it is needed
20:03:30 [Ian]
- TB to talk to authors of 3023 about inclusion as appendix in xml 1.1.
20:03:44 [Ian]
TBray: I'm less optimistic about getting this revised.
20:04:01 [ChrisL]
tb: talksed to the 3023 editors at the oreilly camp. sstl is not ken to work on revision. murata-san wants to wait until w3c has a policy on charsets. kohn is no longer involved
20:04:11 [Ian]
20:04:26 [ChrisL]
tb: arch doc says 3023 is wrong, simon says "and?"
20:04:59 [Ian]
TBray: I think we have made our position clear; it's written up in arch doc; there's not much else we can do.
20:05:23 [Ian]
RF: You can write a short draft and publish it as a proposed std.
20:05:31 [Ian]
RF: Have the RFC editor mark 3023 as updated.
20:05:38 [Ian]
RF: You don't need the original editors to write an update spec.
20:07:26 [Ian]
Action CL: Draft update to 3023 for review by the TAG (on www-tag).
20:07:30 [TBray]
Chris: check out "xml2rfc" tool, just type that into Google
20:07:56 [Ian]
RF: I'll point CL out some examples.
20:08:00 [ChrisL]
thanks, tim
20:08:12 [Ian]
20:08:32 [Ian]
2.3 Review of Architecture Document writing assignments
20:08:52 [Roy]
xslt for RFC generation can be found at
20:09:31 [Roy]
RFC 2732 is an update spec
20:11:12 [Ian]
IJ: I have been doing desxcription in OWL
20:12:17 [Ian]
TBray: I'd prefer circles and arrows diagrams to UML.
20:12:52 [Ian]
DO: We'd only be using a small piece of UML.
20:15:30 [Ian]
IJ: I would like to get TBL to work with me on this offline.
20:16:01 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:16:58 [Ian]
TBray: Any action items in 2.3 (agenda) that are in grave risk of not being done?
20:18:17 [Zakim]
20:18:33 [TBray]
Oh hell emergency, prob won't be back, I'm OK on action items. Sorry
20:18:39 [Ian]
20:18:39 [Ian]
20:18:55 [DaveO]
I guess it should be stated for the record that moving from visio as I proposed to OWL for diagrams effectively cuts me out of being able to edit said diagrams. I am concerned that this will set a default for all future diagrams, such as the extensibility/versioning diagram.
20:19:33 [Ian]
IJ: What do I replace "URIs identify (i.e., name) resources." with?
20:19:47 [Ian]
IJ: Can RF feed me some text while RFC2396 is being revised?
20:20:26 [Ian]
RF: There's no controversy about the term "refer".
20:20:57 [timbl]
DaveO, you can't state things for the record without saying them in the meeting.
20:21:07 [Ian]
RF: Just delete "i.e., name".
20:21:10 [Ian]
IJ: I can do that.
20:21:21 [timbl]
We'll have you editing owl in now time 0.1 :-)
20:21:30 [Ian]
IJ: I think that RF's action is not critical path.
20:22:09 [Ian]
IJ: What about TBL's action from July?
20:22:46 [Ian]
TBL: Please don't drop this action.
20:23:20 [Ian]
20:23:26 [Roy]
20:23:28 [Zakim]
20:23:29 [Zakim]
20:23:32 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
20:23:37 [Zakim]
20:23:39 [Zakim]
20:23:40 [DaveO]
It's in IRC, therefore it's on record.
20:23:45 [Zakim]
20:23:49 [Zakim]
20:23:53 [Zakim]
20:23:54 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
20:24:45 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop