IRC log of tagmem on 2005-01-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:02:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
20:02:16 [RRSAgent]
is logging to
20:03:13 [Stuart]
zakim, this is tag
20:03:13 [Zakim]
ok, Stuart; that matches TAG_Weekly()2:30PM
20:03:24 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:03:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy_Fielding, Stuart
20:03:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, Chris, DanC, Norm
20:03:44 [Zakim]
20:05:06 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
20:05:06 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
20:05:08 [Zakim]
20:07:52 [Zakim]
20:08:54 [Zakim]
20:09:32 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:09:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy_Fielding, Stuart, Norm, Chris, DanC, TimBL
20:09:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, Chris, DanC
20:10:10 [Chris]
Meeting: TAG telcon
20:10:14 [Chris]
Chair: Stuart
20:10:29 [tim-phone]
tim-phone has joined #tagmem
20:10:33 [tim-phone]
if you can from the unforgiving minute get 60 seconds worth of distance run ....
20:10:46 [Chris]
20:10:58 [Chris]
Scribe: Chris
20:12:08 [DanC]
q+ to request an agendum on uri scheme registry reivew, W3C/IETF telcon 27 Jan
20:12:20 [Chris]
Regrets: Paul, Ian
20:12:37 [Chris]
Topic: Agenda review
20:12:47 [DanC]
(side note on review of agenda: this agenda is not exhaustive w.r.t. action items in the group; sigh.)
20:13:00 [Chris]
DC: IETF call
20:13:22 [Chris]
Topic: Next meeting
20:13:28 [Chris]
SKW: Regrets
20:14:06 [Chris]
SKW: transition telcons before new TAG participants terms
20:14:13 [Chris]
TBL: No objection
20:14:28 [Chris]
SKW: VQ agreed to work o agenda for first f2f
20:15:02 [Chris]
NW: Volunteer to chair the telcon next week
20:15:13 [Chris]
RF: Volunteer to scribe next week
20:15:33 [Chris]
Topic: approve agenda
20:15:50 [Chris]
SKW: Did not note that we accepted minutes of previous meeting
20:15:58 [DanC]
yes they do, stuart: "Minutes of 20 Dec 2004 accepted." --
20:16:02 [Chris]
NW: No objection
20:16:07 [Chris]
TBL: Seconded
20:16:16 [Chris]
RESOLVED; accept minutes of last meeting
20:16:40 [Stuart]
20:16:44 [Chris]
Topic: public discussion of extensibility and versioning
20:16:55 [Chris]
20:17:02 [Chris]
Noahs email
20:17:40 [Chris]
SKW: which list - schema-dev, www-tag, etc
20:18:13 [Chris]
CL: Asking ppl to subscribe to www-tag gets them a high volume list; better to go on schema-dev
20:18:51 [Chris]
DC: As long as its public, fine with me. if its more general than just schema, should be on www-tag
20:19:13 [Chris]
SKW: So, schema-specific stuff on schema-dev
20:19:41 [Chris]
ACTION Stuart: respond to Noah citing xml-schema-dev as forum for schema specific versioning discussion
20:20:04 [DanC]
(if anybody is seeking a shared forum where both the schema WG and the TAG are obliged to pay attention, we don't yet have one)
20:20:31 [Chris]
SKW: Joint meeting with schema 14 Feb at regular TAG telcon slot
20:20:43 [Chris]
Topic: Tech Plenary
20:21:04 [Chris]
SKW: Net outcome: A single proposed Panel session on theme of Extensibility and Versioning. Paul Downey (BT) is owning the session for TPPC.
20:21:04 [Chris]
Anticipating participation from TAG (volunteers?)and other WG's inc. XML Schema and QA-WG.
20:21:24 [Chris]
SKW: Steve Bratt said just one session
20:22:03 [Chris]
SKW: Perhaps DO, HT, NM on panel?
20:22:22 [Stuart]
20:22:23 [Chris]
Plenary agenda:
20:22:39 [Chris]
20:23:57 [Chris]
CL: I'm interested in Cross-Specifications Test Suites
20:24:07 [Chris]
NW: Interested in XML futures
20:24:36 [DanC]
(I feel similarly to CL re test foo)
20:24:41 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:25:09 [Chris]
Topic: TAG f2f
20:25:20 [Chris]
SKW: VQ is assembling an agenda
20:25:37 [Chris]
... TAG liaisons tracking table started
20:27:32 [Chris]
SKW: little other interest in extensibility outside of XML and schema
20:27:48 [Chris]
20:27:59 [Chris]
DC: Is thuis up to date and maintained?
20:28:06 [Chris]
SKW: Yes, ffeel free to update
20:28:17 [Chris]
20:28:23 [Chris]
20:29:15 [DanC]
(actually, what I asked was: does the page currently know everything stuart knows, and he said yes.)
20:29:16 [Chris]
RF: when are we meeting:
20:29:22 [Chris]
SKW: Mon 9-12
20:29:42 [Chris]
NW: plan to be there, may be slightly delayed'
20:30:22 [Chris]
Topic: QA Review
20:30:39 [Stuart]
20:30:41 [Chris]
CL: my draft
20:31:19 [Chris]
spec is
20:32:30 [DanC]
(yes, it has a pleasant style to it. plenty of whitespace, not horribly long)
20:33:47 [DanC]
(ah... now I see why I didn't read Chris's msg; went to tag, not to www-tag; and yet it's in the technical part of our agenda. disconnect, for me.)
20:35:23 [Chris]
20:36:48 [Zakim]
20:37:19 [Chris]
its not clear whether the review is public yet, since we have not agreed to it
20:37:33 [Stuart]
ack dan
20:37:33 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to request an agendum on uri scheme registry reivew, W3C/IETF telcon 27 Jan and to
20:38:04 [Chris]
DC: seems like a fine review, wish oit was sent to them directly
20:38:58 [Chris]
DC: Not read carefully. Critical to fix the optional conformance bit
20:39:38 [Chris]
(discussion - who owns and umbrella spec, what if its another WG). Cross-spec conformance
20:39:45 [DanC]
20:40:49 [Chris]
SKW: Needs to clearly indicate which section is being discussed
20:41:07 [Chris]
SKW: Overal l positive tone not conveyed by tesxt, add a prefix on that
20:41:23 [tim-phone]
timbl notes character set problems with that table.
20:41:26 [Chris]
SKW: Discussion at TP on these comments? CL available
20:41:34 [Chris]
CL: Sure
20:42:13 [Chris]
SKW: Who owns this after Chris turns into a pumpkin?
20:43:39 [Chris]
TBL: Can an external person contribute, or is this a tunnelling out of alumni until their actions are all done or transferred
20:44:22 [Chris]
CL: Does not seem like too much work
20:44:33 [Chris]
TBL: precedent, we invited DO to do similar
20:44:40 [Chris]
CL: OK agreed
20:44:51 [Chris]
SKW: Splendid
20:45:09 [Chris]
SKW: Is this suitable to send as TAG feedback?
20:45:18 [Chris]
RF: No objection
20:45:26 [Chris]
(no objections)
20:45:47 [Chris]
TBL: Abstain, did not get chance to read the comments. Support the TAG sending it
20:46:02 [Chris]
NM: Abstain too, have not reviewed
20:46:19 [Chris]
20:46:51 [DanC]
(I think "abstain" puts a motion at risk of failing due to lack of support, while "concur" does not)
20:47:20 [Chris]
SKW: Support CL
20:47:22 [Chris]
Please send Last Call review comments on this document before that date to, the publicly archived list
20:47:35 [DanC]
I gather we are so RESOLVED.
20:47:36 [Chris]
ACTION Chris: Clean up and submit
20:47:50 [Chris]
RESOLVED: These , cleaned up are TAG comments
20:48:03 [Chris]
Topic: IETF URI Registry
20:48:13 [DanC]
20:48:32 [DanC]
Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis
20:48:46 [Chris]
20:48:48 [DanC]
20:49:16 [Chris]
DC: new process drafted, a provisionl and a final registry
20:49:26 [Chris]
... good to cite WebArch
20:49:45 [Chris]
... IRI everywhere is related to this
20:49:59 [tim-phone]
20:50:04 [Chris]
... if you care about this, time is running out to fix/change tings
20:50:32 [Chris]
RF: they are ready to produce another draft
20:50:44 [Chris]
RF: probably best to wait for the new draft
20:51:16 [Chris]
SKW; could have multiple provisional registrations for the same URI scheme?
20:51:24 [Chris]
DC: yes, but not the permanent one
20:52:32 [Chris]
TBL: (scribe missed)
20:52:45 [Chris]
SKW: Larry asked us to review new schemes.
20:53:03 [Chris]
DC: expert review of new schemes as they move to permanent registry
20:53:09 [Chris]
TBL: Who assigns it?
20:53:25 [Chris]
DC: IESG last call, then its allocated
20:53:38 [Stuart]
SKW: Larry asked us to review and comment on revision of the URI scheme registration process.
20:54:20 [Chris]
RF: If anyone raises a non-uniqueness then it would halt the IESG review
20:54:56 [Chris]
RF: Next draft wil make it more clear tat the permanent registry is unique. provisional registrsations that clas with permanent als not allowed
20:55:17 [Chris]
TBL: No warning on provisional clashes?
20:55:51 [Chris]
DC: Any sane (machine readable) registry can produce uniqueness
20:56:11 [Chris]
NM: Early/late registration - late can have an inadvertent clash
20:57:21 [Chris]
DC: 27 Jan IETF/W3C telcon
20:58:13 [Chris]
DC: Next IETF is when??
20:58:15 [DanC]
"6-11 Mar 2005 Minneapolis, MN?
20:58:15 [DanC]
62nd IETF"
20:58:22 [Chris]
... 6-11 March
20:58:34 [Chris]
RF: Its not a WG so no meeting then
20:59:00 [Chris]
Topic: XML Chunk Equality
20:59:25 [Chris]
SKW: Suggested posting as a note, or a finding
20:59:51 [Chris]
SKW: TBL asked for reasons for different types of equality, when to use each one
21:00:52 [DanC]
"ACTION: NDW to make editorial improvements, point to other different schemes, why use them, things to avoid in XML Chunk Equality."
21:01:03 [Chris]
NW: Took some actions to improove the doc in this way. no due date. Not completed yet
21:01:06 [DanC]
21:01:40 [Chris]
SKW: So, discuss more once this revision is done
21:02:10 [Chris]
NW: Due date depends on XSL/XQ specification schedule... tell you next week
21:03:43 [DanC]
"pc: good to see when F&O deep= works and when it does not"
21:03:53 [Chris]
TBL: Equality characterized by a number of parameters?
21:04:17 [Chris]
NW: Yes, deep= has options that can be set. Namespace-related options
21:04:45 [Stuart]
Use cases from the Issur raising:
21:04:49 [Stuart]
Cases I am aware of:
21:04:49 [Stuart]
- XML itself uses it for an external entity
21:04:49 [Stuart]
- XML schema has the "Deep equality" issue as to when any two chunks
21:04:49 [Stuart]
are "equal".
21:04:49 [Stuart]
- RDF has a "XML Literal" data type which it handles transparently. It
21:04:50 [Stuart]
needs a notion of when two chunks are the same.
21:04:52 [Stuart]
- XML-DSig signs, and therefore ensures the integrity of, a chunk of XML
21:04:58 [DanC]
(timbl, why are you surprised that RSS feeds don't have namespaces? consumers don't require them. people naturally do the minimum work that achieves their goal.)
21:05:03 [Chris]
TBL: Amazed at how much RSS has no namespace
21:06:00 [Chris]
NW: question is of unused but declared namespaces?
21:06:18 [Chris]
DC: case of two non namespaced docs, equal or not???
21:06:48 [Chris]
F(equal) -> Yes | No | dunno
21:06:55 [DanC]
i.e. did <p> in doc1 mean what <p> in doc2 meant?
21:08:08 [Chris]
NM: (starts to say something interesting, but phone fades)
21:08:47 [Chris]
Topic: Mark Baker issue on WS-Addressing
21:09:06 [DanC]
(the best way to provoke a response is to threaten harm, somehow; i.e. start talking about the next topic, threatining somebody's ability to comment on the previous topic)
21:09:21 [Chris]
21:09:36 [Chris]
DC; Read hoim to say he was happy
21:09:45 [Chris]
21:10:25 [Chris]
WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols
21:11:00 [Chris]
DC: (reads from email)
21:12:24 [timbl]
21:12:53 [timbl]
21:13:00 [Chris]
DC: its not a new issue
21:13:29 [Chris]
NM: SOAP will wind up putting the URI where HTTP wants it, but will also be in the SAP header too
21:13:44 [Chris]
... is it a flaw to carry the info in an additional place?
21:14:08 [DanC]
(doesn't seem like a new issue, to me; seems like issue )
21:14:25 [Stuart]
ack tim
21:14:33 [Stuart]
ack tim
21:14:42 [Chris]
TBL: Arch of the WS-* specs is not yet written.
21:15:13 [Chris]
... identify an endpoint in ws, but actually send it to a different URI of the service, which has some connection, but the sever has a URI
21:15:43 [Chris]
... so its a service end point, and the service can talk about multiple objects
21:15:50 [Chris]
objects and services are distinct
21:16:56 [Chris]
... another achitecture, get on the URI of a book, but behind the scenes its broken down into multiple services, checking financials and stock etc so it looks atomic but i ssplit up behind the scenes
21:17:40 [Chris]
... not clear wheter to support marks issue because its not clear what architecture it is fitting into
21:18:04 [Chris]
... good to involve DO here, finsd how WS folks tend to do this
21:18:18 [Chris]
... may be some defacto or emergent architecture
21:18:45 [Chris]
.... can't say its broken unless we can point to the part that breaks
21:19:08 [Chris]
DC: Prefer to discuss whether to add this as an issue, not the summary of the eventual finding
21:19:15 [Chris]
TBL: Happy to add it to the list
21:19:28 [Chris]
NM: or work it outafter some fact finding first
21:19:37 [Chris]
21:20:28 [Chris]
RF: seems the direction of all ws specs is to be binding neutral, but no statement that a given binding is required
21:20:39 [DanC]
21:20:49 [Chris]
... so entirely separate architectures all described as web services
21:20:56 [Chris]
... support adding it as an issue
21:21:22 [Chris]
SKW: TP liaison with WS Addressing
21:22:04 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: edit to reflect avaialability and interest
21:22:11 [Chris]
NM: Suggest asking Mark Nottingham
21:22:44 [Chris]
SKW: Calls question to add as an issue
21:22:54 [Chris]
DC: endpointRefs-NN
21:23:01 [Chris]
DC: Aye
21:23:12 [Chris]
CL: Concurr
21:23:15 [Chris]
RF: Yes
21:23:21 [timbl]
21:23:21 [Chris]
NW: Yes
21:23:28 [Chris]
SKW Concurr
21:23:29 [Stuart]
21:23:41 [Chris]
NM: Yes
21:24:01 [Chris]
RESOLVED: New issue endpointRefs-NN
21:24:07 [Chris]
salt NN to taste
21:24:18 [DanC]
(tradition is to announce new issues. I'm not in a position do that)
21:24:23 [DanC]
21:24:28 [Chris]
ACTION Stuart: Tell mark Nottingham we added the isse and would like to discuss it
21:24:46 [Chris]
21:24:59 [Chris]
tag-announce and www-tag?
21:25:06 [Chris]
SKW: End of agenda
21:25:11 [Chris]
DC: Seconded :)
21:25:22 [Zakim]
21:25:29 [Chris]
21:25:44 [Zakim]
21:26:19 [Zakim]
21:26:33 [Chris]
rrsagent, bye
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Stuart to respond to Noah citing xml-schema-dev as forum for schema specific versioning discussion [1]
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to Clean up and submit [2]
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanC to edit to reflect avaialability and interest [3]
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Stuart to Tell mark Nottingham we added the isse and would like to discuss it [4]
21:26:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in