IRC log of tagmem on 2003-11-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:25:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:26:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:26:04 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
19:26:04 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
19:26:28 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to:
19:51:58 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:59:10 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:59:17 [Zakim]
20:00:31 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:00:55 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P1 is me
20:01:13 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:01:26 [Zakim]
20:01:54 [Zakim]
20:01:59 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:01:59 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
20:02:00 [Zakim]
20:02:34 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:02:44 [Ian]
Regrets: CL
20:02:52 [Ian]
At risk: PC
20:03:14 [Ian]
NW: I may have to drop off suddenly; excuse me in advance.
20:03:28 [Zakim]
20:03:43 [Ian]
[RF back in 10 mins]
20:03:48 [Zakim]
20:04:27 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Stuart, DOrchard, Tim_Bray, Ian
20:04:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DaveO, TBray, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, Norm
20:05:09 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
20:05:16 [Zakim]
20:05:39 [Zakim]
20:06:18 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p4 is PaulC
20:06:18 [Zakim]
+PaulC; got it
20:06:46 [Stuart]
zakim, who is hre
20:06:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is hre', Stuart
20:06:52 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:06:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Stuart, DOrchard, Tim_Bray, Ian, DanC, PaulC
20:06:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanC, DaveO, TBray, Stuart, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ian, Norm
20:07:34 [Ian]
Roll call: PC, SW, DC, IJ, NW, DO, TB.
20:07:40 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:07:43 [Ian]
Regrets: CL.
20:07:45 [Ian]
TBL arriving
20:07:48 [Ian]
RF back in a few.
20:07:58 [Ian]
Resolved to accept minutes of 27 Oct teleconf
20:08:05 [Ian]
20:08:14 [Ian]
Accept the minutes of the 3 Nov teleconference?
20:08:20 [Ian]
NW: I skimmed, looks ok.
20:08:32 [DanC]
interesting... XMLVersioning-41
20:08:50 [Ian]
DO: Please do not accept the 3 Nov minutes as accurate record.
20:08:55 [Ian]
DO: I will review them over the next few days.
20:09:10 [Zakim]
20:09:18 [Ian]
Accept this agenda?
20:09:28 [Ian]
20:10:14 [Ian]
zakim, ??P4 is Paul
20:10:14 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named '??P4'
20:10:19 [Ian]
zakim, mute PaulC
20:10:19 [Zakim]
PaulC should now be muted
20:10:27 [Ian]
zakim, unmute PaulC
20:10:27 [Zakim]
PaulC should no longer be muted
20:11:49 [Ian]
20:11:54 [Ian]
Tech Plenary expectations
20:12:07 [Ian]
SW: Meeting M + T is lesser of all evils; maximizes head count.
20:12:36 [Ian]
NW, TBL: We have conflicts.
20:12:46 [TBray]
20:12:51 [Ian]
DC: I'd suggest Th and Fri instead
20:13:18 [Ian]
TBray: I suggest that instead we use the whole time to liaise.
20:13:28 [Ian]
...with other groups who will be meeting there.
20:13:56 [TBray]
20:14:48 [Norm]
20:14:50 [Ian]
SW: I have the feeling no good fit for NW, or perhaps CL except for Friday.
20:14:58 [Ian]
IJ has conflicts Th/Fri
20:15:03 [Ian]
ack DanC
20:15:03 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to express a preference for Th/Fr TAG and to 2nd bray's proposal, ammended to include a social time, such as dinner
20:15:41 [Ian]
DC: If the TAG meets, I'll be there. If we don't spend a whole day meeting, I'd like to distribute task of organizing liaison and also a TAG social meeting.
20:15:46 [Ian]
NW: I'm happy to do as TB suggests.
20:15:48 [timbl]
q+ dave paul
20:15:51 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:16:11 [Stuart]
ack dave
20:17:18 [Ian]
DO: I'd like to use some ftf time to go over findings (e.g., extensibility finding)
20:17:43 [Ian]
DO: Maybe we could set aside one day to look at TAG material.
20:17:43 [TBray]
20:17:45 [Stuart]
ack paul
20:17:59 [Ian]
PC: Heads-up for scheduling on the margin.
20:18:20 [Ian]
PC: Recall that there may be new TAG participants.
20:18:37 [Ian]
PC: It would be appropriate to have a ftf meeting early in the year to get them engaged.
20:19:01 [Ian]
PC: My original proposal was that we not meet in March, but rather ftf in February to bring on new folks.
20:19:10 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:19:50 [Ian]
TBray: For me the tech plenary is a valuable opportunity to liaise. It's not easy for me to go to the south of France for just one day.
20:20:25 [Ian]
TBray: So I am willing to go if we either have a first-rate ftf meeting or to do real liaison work.
20:21:35 [Zakim]
20:21:43 [Ian]
TBL: I would be happy to attend the RDF core meeting one day and a tag ftf the other day.
20:22:20 [DanC]
s/RDF Core/RDF Interest/
20:22:25 [DaveO]
20:24:36 [Ian]
ack DaveO
20:24:42 [Ian]
DO: I'd like the TAG to meet the week of the TP.
20:25:16 [Ian]
DO: TAG mtg in jan/feb looking tough for me.
20:25:33 [Ian]
DO: I have a strong pref for week of TP.
20:25:41 [TBray]
20:26:05 [Ian]
SW: Propose to use the TP week for liaisons, and TAG ftf meeting on Tuesday.
20:26:32 [Ian]
SW: I will arrange liaisons (with help) with other groups during the week.
20:26:36 [Ian]
Brainstorm list of groups:
20:26:43 [Ian]
HTML WG (xlink)
20:26:47 [Ian]
I18N (charmod)
20:27:13 [Ian]
Web Services (wsdl + REST, issue 37)
20:27:38 [Ian]
PC: Meet with Schema about extensibility.
20:28:23 [DaveO]
I agree with Stuart's proposal and vote yes.
20:28:46 [Ian]
20:30:19 [Ian]
20:30:28 [Ian]
- TAG meeting Tuesday
20:30:35 [Ian]
- Arrange to liaise with other groups around that.
20:30:39 [Ian]
PC: XML Core on ID?
20:30:57 [Ian]
IJ: When is the binary xml workshop?
20:31:30 [timbl]
q+ to point out that this is all reather dependent on the other groupos being able to make time on their schedules
20:31:47 [Ian]
TB, TBL, NW: Like the proposal.
20:31:52 [DanC]
DC too
20:32:15 [Ian]
Resolved: Adopt proposal for meeting during tech plenary week.
20:33:05 [Ian]
PC: Do we plan to invite old and new participants at the first meeting of new folks?
20:33:12 [Ian]
SW, DO: Yes
20:34:22 [Ian]
TBL: What about a video conf earlier than tech plenary? E.g., January.
20:34:47 [Ian]
SW: One reason to wait until Feb is for new participants.
20:35:37 [Ian]
Action SW: Explore possibility of TAG videolink mtg in February, with help from PC.
20:35:51 [Ian]
20:35:54 [Ian]
ack TBray
20:35:56 [Ian]
ack timbl
20:35:56 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to point out that this is all reather dependent on the other groupos being able to make time on their schedules
20:36:07 [Ian]
20:36:09 [Ian]
20:36:19 [Ian]
1.2 TAG Nov face-to-face meeting agenda
20:36:29 [TBray]
We'll be flexible and available, I'd hope that they would too.
20:36:30 [Ian]
Meeting and agenda page
20:36:37 [Ian]
20:36:52 [Ian]
SW: My proposal was to have people send written reviews of the arch doc.
20:37:03 [TBray]
BTW, we'd be available for liaisons on Tuesday too, right?
20:37:21 [Ian]
DC: I can't read anything new between now and meeting.
20:37:24 [Ian]
20:38:09 [Ian]
IJ: I was planning to have next editor's draft tomorrow.
20:38:24 [Ian]
DC: That will be counter-productive in my opinion.
20:38:45 [Ian]
DC: Please get endorsement before you ask for objections.
20:39:08 [Ian]
[27 Oct draft:]
20:39:44 [DanC]
s/in my opinion/for my purposes/
20:40:21 [Ian]
RF: I will do a review of 11 Nov draft.
20:40:27 [Norm]
So will I
20:40:30 [Ian]
TBL: I expect to download before getting on plane.
20:40:47 [timbl]
Trouble is, I was going to edit slides on the plane.
20:41:14 [Ian]
DC: Re ftf agenda and last call decision: I think it would be great to say at the meeting "Yes, this doc is ready for last call." I think that we are likely to make more edits.
20:41:53 [Norm]
20:41:56 [Ian]
TBray: I'd like to have a TAG decision on the substance of my request.
20:41:57 [Ian]
20:42:34 [Ian]
DO: I can agree to no more major structural changes, but not to point on new material (since NW and I have been working on extensibility and versioning material).
20:42:38 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:42:54 [Ian]
NW: I am unhappy with the current extensibility section and would like it fixed.
20:43:31 [Ian]
20:44:03 [Ian]
TBray: I think that abstractcomponentrefs is not cooked enough to be in the arch doc.
20:44:39 [DaveO]
grumble. I did my action item to create material in abstractcomponentrefs for inclusion in the web arch....
20:45:08 [TBray]
yeah, but it's a way harder issue.
20:45:56 [Norm]
20:46:19 [TBray]
ack Ian
20:46:20 [Ian]
IJ: I don't have need to make big structural changes; I suspect TAG may want to at FTF meeting.
20:46:20 [Ian]
20:46:21 [TBray]
ack Norm
20:46:24 [timbl]
q+ paul
20:46:38 [Ian]
NW: My comment was that nobody on the TAG should make substantial changes except for versinoing sectino.
20:46:40 [Ian]
ack paul
20:46:46 [Ian]
PC: I think the TAG needs to be date-driven.
20:46:54 [Ian]
20:47:05 [TBray]
+1 to Norm's formulation
20:47:28 [Ian]
ack Ian
20:47:47 [Ian]
IJ: I would like to walk through my announced intentions before I make a complete commitment.
20:47:54 [Ian]
PC: I think we need to be date-driven at this point.
20:48:06 [timbl]
Ian, did the rep'n diagram have text in the "representation" box?
20:49:48 [Ian]
DC: I am not yet satisfied that the TAG ftf meeting is clear enough about which document we'll be discussing.
20:49:49 [timbl]
I think the diagram is misleading now.
20:51:01 [DanC]
W3C process calls for ftf agendas 2 weeks in advance. I expect documents to stabilize in at that time. I gather I'm not gonna get what I want this time.
20:53:05 [Ian]
REsolved: If IJ finishes draft by tomorrow, we will review that at the ftf meeting.
20:53:16 [TBray]
not now
20:53:37 [DanC]
I can't seem to find my last end-to-end review... I'm pretty sure it was a bit before 1Aug.
20:54:10 [Ian]
[TAG will review AC meeting slides at ftf meeting]
20:54:29 [Ian]
20:54:49 [Ian]
2.2 XML Versioning (XMLVersioning-41)
20:54:58 [Ian]
Proposal from DO:
20:55:07 [Ian]
20:55:14 [Ian]
Proposal from IJ:
20:55:23 [Ian]
20:55:54 [timbl]
20:56:13 [Ian]
20:56:54 [timbl]
The latter is Ian's shortened version for arch doc
20:56:55 [Ian]
[IJ summarizes]
20:57:08 [Ian]
DO: We talked about use of namespaces names on the thread.
20:57:49 [Ian]
IJ: See status section for my expectations regarding namespaces.
20:58:04 [DanC]
status section of what?
20:58:52 [TBray]
4.6.2 of
20:59:40 [DaveO]
20:59:50 [Stuart]
q+ paul
20:59:53 [Norm]
q+ to note that Ian said "only make backwards compatible" but left that out of his proposed text
21:00:03 [Stuart]
q- paul
21:00:13 [TBray]
q+ to agree with Stuart's comment that the level of detail in webarch and the walsh/orchard draft is violently different
21:00:18 [Ian_]
Ian_ has joined #tagmem
21:00:27 [timbl]
q+ to note that the ownership and change issues with nmaepsaces are similar to te problems with document in general, and expectation shoudl be set.
21:00:54 [Ian_]
DC: Not all namespaces have owners. Delegated ownership is a special case.
21:00:55 [Ian_]
DC: I'd prefer to generalize rather than limit scope.
21:01:00 [Ian_]
DC: The general point is that the Web community agrees on what URIs mean. This is just one case of that.
21:01:09 [Stuart]
ack danC
21:01:09 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to note problems with "Only namespace owner can change namespace"
21:01:28 [Ian_]
IJ: I wanted to address issue of "changing namespaces" by saying "Document your change expectations"
21:01:44 [Ian_]
TBL: I think we can include the specific case of http; you lose a lot of power in generalizing.
21:01:51 [Ian_]
DO: What about URN?
21:01:58 [Ian_]
TBL: What if they use a UUID? Depends on the URN scheme.
21:02:34 [Ian_]
NW: The URI Scheme shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion.
21:03:01 [Ian_]
TBL: HTTP allows you to own a URI, through DNS delegation, you have a right to declare what it means. In those circumstances, it makes sense to state your change expectations.
21:03:19 [Stuart]
ack DaveO
21:03:29 [Ian_]
[TBL seems to assert IJ's proposal to include a good practice note to document change policy]
21:03:37 [Ian_]
21:04:10 [Ian_]
DO: One of the problems I had with IJ's proposal is that it didn't include all of the good practice notes that were in our text. In particular, requiring a processing model for extensions.
21:04:20 [DanC]
[good practice notes are fine in specific cases of general principles; but if we can't say what the general principle is, we haven't done our job]
21:04:28 [Ian_]
q+ to respond to DO
21:05:29 [timbl]
s/User agent/agent/
21:06:03 [DanC]
is there some reason to rush this discussion?
21:06:38 [Norm]
I want some text in the 11 Nov webarch draft.
21:06:55 [DanC]
ah; I see, thx Norm.
21:06:59 [Ian_]
q- Ian_
21:07:08 [Ian_]
DO: I think these strategies need to be called out even more.
21:07:14 [Stuart]
ack PaulC
21:07:18 [Zakim]
21:07:21 [Zakim]
21:07:24 [Ian_]
PC: I have not yet read IJ's proposal since he sent Friday.
21:07:48 [Ian_]
PC: Stability of namespaces should appear in finding.
21:08:19 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
21:08:25 [Ian_]
PC: I would support more advice on namespace change policies.
21:08:25 [timbl]
q+ to say yes there is something.
21:08:58 [Ian_]
PC: There seems to be a tremendous amount of content on single-namespace languages; less on multiple namespace strategies.
21:09:07 [Ian_]
PC: Is the finding focused on a single namespace problem?
21:09:22 [timbl]
q+ to say yes there is something. : Note that a condition of documents reaching CR status will be that the clauses 2 and 3 will no longer be usable, to give the specification the necessary stability.
21:09:29 [Ian_]
DO: That is one of the splits in the finding. The finding doesn't go into enough detail on pros and cons of extension strategies.
21:10:48 [Ian_]
PC: I was just pointing to IJ's point on stability.
21:11:19 [DaveO]
ian, that's somewhat incorrect. "details on pros and cons of extension strategies on the use of multiple namespaces".
21:11:20 [Ian_]
PC: I think we have to seriously consider talking about mixed namespace docs since that's one of our issues.
21:12:27 [Ian_]
TBL: namespace policy for W3C specs is linked from W3C Guide.
21:12:44 [Ian_]
TBL: The requirement is to indicate change policy; also when namespace becomes fixed (at CR).
21:13:20 [DanC]
it is policy.
21:13:35 [Ian_]
PC: We could include W3C policy as an example in arch doc.
21:13:43 [Norm]
ack norm
21:13:43 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to note that Ian said "only make backwards compatible" but left that out of his proposed text
21:14:07 [Ian_]
NW: Warning about putting namespace material in section on namespaces.
21:14:20 [Ian_]
[IJ expects to include xrefs]
21:14:34 [Ian_]
NW: For draft tomorrow, I'd like for us to err on the side of including more text rather than less.
21:15:09 [Ian_]
NW: The one critical piece not in IJ's proposal is forwards/backwards, closed/open systems, development times.
21:15:35 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:15:35 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to agree with Stuart's comment that the level of detail in webarch and the walsh/orchard draft is violently different
21:15:48 [Ian_]
TBray: I don't think the community is close on semantics or even desirability of mixed namespace docs. I don't think we can go there yet.
21:16:14 [Ian_]
TBray: I have just read IJ's text. I agree with IJ's point that the level of detail of DO/NW text is greater than rest of arch doc.
21:16:32 [Ian_]
TBray: I would by and large be ok with IJ's text.
21:16:52 [Ian_]
TBray: I think IJ has come close to an 80/20 point.
21:17:19 [Ian_]
TBray: On for/back compatibility, I don't know that it is required to be included. I agree that the finding should have the details since these are complex issues.
21:17:49 [Ian_]
TBray: I am concerned that if you talk about f/b compatibility, you fall over the slippery slope that might require 8 pages of details.
21:18:03 [Ian_]
TBray: Perhaps mention f/b compatibility as an example of what's important, with a link to the finding.
21:18:34 [Ian_]
DO: Do you think additional material is required to be sufficient?
21:18:52 [Ian_]
TBray: IJ's draft is close to being sufficient. It's fine for the arch doc to point off to findings for more detail.
21:19:45 [Stuart]
ack timbl
21:19:45 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to note that the ownership and change issues with nmaepsaces are similar to te problems with document in general, and expectation shoudl be set. and to say yes
21:19:48 [Zakim]
... there is something. and to say yes there is something. : Note that a condition of documents reaching CR status will be that the clauses 2 and 3
21:19:52 [Zakim]
... will no longer be usable, to give the specification the necessary stability.
21:20:04 [Ian_]
TBray: I don't think IJ's draft is seriously lacking anything. Mention of f/b compatibility a good idea.
21:20:42 [Ian_]
TBL: On the issue of mixed namespaces, it may be worth saying that if you are designing a mixed name doc in XML right now, no general solution. But that if you do so for RDF, there is a well-defined solution.
21:21:30 [timbl]
There is a well-defined solution for mixing of RDF ontologies.
21:21:58 [timbl]
RDF does not provdie a solution for how to mix arbitrary XML namespaces for non-RDF applications.
21:24:11 [Ian_]
DO: I propose to work with IJ to find a middle ground.
21:24:11 [Ian_]
21:24:21 [Ian_]
DC: It's ok for me if last call draft says nothing about versioning.
21:24:22 [Stuart]
ack DanC
21:24:44 [Norm]
21:24:47 [Ian_]
TBray: I"d be happier with IJ's most recent draft rather than nothing.
21:25:06 [Ian_]
DC: The tactic of putting more text in and cutting back is not working for me.
21:25:33 [Ian_]
NW: I would like the arch doc to include some text in the arch doc.
21:25:49 [TBray]
21:26:25 [DaveO]
21:26:25 [Ian_]
NW: I am happier with IJ's text than nothing; but I'd like to work with IJ to include a few more things in tomorrow's draft, and discuss at ftf meeting.
21:26:42 [timbl]
I would be OK with skipping versioning for the arch doc last call in the interests of expediancy of consesnsus of tag. Would be happier with ian's current text, if consesnus of tag.
21:26:48 [Ian_]
NW: My slightly preferred solution is to add all of DO/NW good practice notes for discussion at ftf meeting.
21:27:01 [Zakim]
21:27:02 [Ian_]
PC: I have to go; I'm flexible on solution.
21:27:06 [Norm]
21:27:08 [Norm]
ack norm
21:27:27 [Ian_]
TBray: I am sympathetic for a subgroup to work on some text for inclusion in tomorrow's draft.
21:27:36 [Ian_]
TBray: I am not excited about adding a lot more stuff.
21:28:06 [Norm]
21:28:17 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:28:18 [Ian_]
TBray: note that I'm a big fan of the finding. But I think we need to stick closer to IJ's level of detail and length.
21:28:43 [Ian_]
DO: I would be disappointed if IJ's draft was the extent of material that was included in the arch doc.
21:29:24 [DanC]
I got lost somewhere; In Vancouver, we had a list of the issues that were critical path for last call for a "backward looking" last call. Now versioning seems to be in there. I guess I'll have to pay more attention.
21:29:26 [Ian_]
DO: I believe more material needs to be in the arch doc (in particular good practice notes); the arch doc will go through Rec track. I think that things that don't go through the Rec track will not be taken as seriously, not get as much review, etc.
21:29:34 [Stuart]
21:29:37 [Ian_]
ack DaveO
21:30:37 [Stuart]
ack Stuart
21:30:45 [Ian_]
SW: If the TAG agrees that we consider versioning that important, we can put a separate doc through the Rec track.
21:31:58 [timbl]
q+ to ask about timing
21:32:40 [Ian_]
DO: I think the middle ground for this text is closer to the middle.
21:32:46 [Ian_]
21:32:52 [TBray]
For the record: IMHO Ian's text is better leaving this uncovered, but Ian is coming close to the 80/20 point and I don't want to see it get much longer than that
21:33:12 [Ian_]
DC: So there's no principles in here about versioning.
21:33:56 [Stuart]
ack DanC
21:33:58 [Ian_]
TBL: Perhaps we need to get into sync on the timing of this.
21:34:05 [TBray]
I think procedurally the right thing to do is let Stuart and Norm/Dave saw off what they can by tomorrow.
21:34:17 [TBray]
er s/Stuart/Ian/
21:34:17 [Ian_]
TBL: My assumption is that we will dot I's and cross T's if we are to be on last call track soon.
21:34:23 [Stuart]
21:35:06 [Ian_]
TBL: We are going to find small things we want to clean up in the existing text.
21:35:16 [DanC]
is that a question from the chair? NO! we are *not* anywhere near "last call sign off". I think 2/3rds of the current draft isn't endorsed by various tag memebers.
21:35:21 [Ian_]
TBL: The versioning text is interesting, but i need to look more closely at the text.
21:36:16 [Ian_]
TBL: In any case, we need a disclaimer that we are not done by virtue of going to last call.
21:36:27 [Ian_]
TBL: We will need a place to put ongoing ideas for the next draft.
21:36:37 [Norm]
As I said before, I will be sorely disappointed if we don't say something about this topic in V1.0 of the webarch document.
21:36:55 [DanC]
I hear you norm, but I'm not clear why.
21:37:33 [Ian_]
21:37:46 [Ian_]
ack timbl
21:37:46 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to ask about timing
21:38:14 [Ian_]
TBray: I hear some consensus to hand this off to DO/NW/IJ to come up with something short enough and includes enough material.
21:38:47 [Ian_]
21:38:54 [DaveO]
and I'll want to have an ad-hoc group on abstract component refs
21:38:55 [Ian_]
RRSAgent, stop