IRC log of tagmem on 2005-08-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:08:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:08:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:09:22 [DanC]
tbl struggles to confirm for 6sep... software...
17:09:37 [DanC]
VQ: agenda comments?
17:09:55 [DanC]
-> 12 july minutes
17:10:02 [Ed]
17:10:22 [DanC]
VQ: I made a small change re attendance 12 July
17:10:30 [timbl_]
Regrests for 6th Sept and 13th
17:10:30 [DanC]
RESOLVED to approve 12 July minutes
17:10:46 [DanC]
17:11:17 [DanC]
above is not 12 July but 23 Aug
17:11:31 [DanC]
RESOLVED to approve 12 July minutes.
17:11:49 [ht]
HST regrets for 13 September
17:12:01 [DanC]
-> minutes 12 July
17:12:34 [DanC]
VQ: upcoming telcons... grid...
17:13:14 [DanC]
Topic: Administrative (roll call, review of minutes, agenda)
17:13:21 [timbl_]
Also, Regrets for 4th October
17:14:06 [DanC]
HT: still working on getting somebody from [missed] to our ftf
17:14:32 [timbl_]
Also, regrets for 8 and (29 is AC meeting) November
17:15:06 [DanC]
Topic: Preparing agenda for Edinburgh f2f (20-22 Sep)
17:15:32 [DanC]
VQ: agenda page is in progress
17:15:57 [DanC]
VQ: meeting goals? our June meeting focussed on long-term plans...
17:16:51 [DanC]
VQ: perhaps try to close some issues this time?
17:17:25 [Vincent]
ack danc
17:18:04 [DanC]
DanC: re authentication, I'm prepared to discuss, but not sure I'll get my writing assignment done
17:18:15 [DanC]
... e.g. openid
17:18:30 [DanC]
HT: sounds plausible
17:19:14 [DanC]
HT: I have an XML 2005 paper in progress that's relevant to a number of issues/actions on languages/namespaces/etc.
17:19:22 [DanC]
[ooh... nice trick... a 2-fer]
17:19:46 [Vincent]
ack danc
17:19:46 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ... re URI scheme and certain vendors
17:20:51 [DanC]
VQ: see also next item for today
17:21:52 [DanC]
DanC: maybe namespaceDocument-8...
17:22:10 [DanC]
Ed: let's review priorities from Jun ftf...
17:22:42 [DanC]
(looking at )
17:23:35 [DanC]
... e.g. grid
17:23:56 [DanC]
DanC: seems like we had several lists; do you remember which one?
17:24:00 [DanC]
VQ: I think so
17:25:01 [DanC]
(er... agenda request or something? still shows "no decision" )
17:25:37 [DanC]
Topic: Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI Schemes
17:27:12 [timbl_]
17:29:57 [DanC]
"The dav: scheme is a poor use of this valuable shared resource, and should not be used as a precedent."
17:31:29 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to send [0024] in the name of the TAG to [hmm... where, exactly?]
17:32:07 [DanC]
" Please send any comments to the
17:32:07 [DanC]
> or mailing lists by 2005-08-09."
17:32:16 [timbl_]
Cc the authors, with cc: to
17:32:55 [DanC]
so RESOLVED. action timbl
17:32:58 [DanC]
^ quoted from
17:32:58 [DanC]
> From: On Behalf Of The IESG
17:32:58 [DanC]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:33 PM
17:32:58 [DanC]
> To: IETF-Announce
17:32:58 [DanC]
> Subject: Last Call: 'Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI
17:33:11 [DanC]
17:34:06 [DanC]
rather, action HT
17:34:55 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: send individual comment on dav: to ietf
17:35:53 [DanC]
HT: reply to?
17:35:56 [DanC]
17:35:59 [DanC]
HT: copy www-tag?
17:36:02 [DanC]
TBL: yes
17:36:25 [DanC]
Topic: namespaceDocument-8
17:38:10 [DanC]
-> Revisiting namespaceDocument-8 Norman Walsh (Friday, 24 June)
17:38:18 [DanC]
NDW: yes, there was some discussion...
17:38:37 [DanC]
... (a) JB objects to GRDDL alone on the basis that it doesn't ensure human-readability
17:38:44 [DanC]
... (b) [missed]
17:38:55 [DanC]
ack danc
17:38:55 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask for a particular namespace to focus on... xquery? xml schema? hypothetical-ml?
17:39:32 [ht]
17:39:32 [Norm]
17:39:41 [Norm]
17:41:41 [DanC]
DanC: yes, let's focus on
17:42:01 [DanC]
HT: so which...?
17:42:36 [DanC]
NDW: backing up... we've considered alternatives to RDDL 1.0, but since then RDDL 1.0 deployment is becoming more and more substantial; e.g. microsoft...
17:42:55 [DanC]
... and we have GRDDL that can work either way...
17:43:53 [DanC]
NDW: yes, 2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml is written in the dialect with large deployment
17:44:38 [DanC]
DanC: so is that "valid"?
17:44:49 [DanC]
HT: well, it's valid modular XHTML, but that's not supported by
17:45:16 [DanC]
DanC: so text/xml by design?
17:45:40 [DanC]
NDW: well, I meant meant application/xhtml+xml
17:45:47 [DanC]
(try .htaccess, maybe)
17:46:28 [DanC]
$ HEAD ''
17:46:37 [DanC]
Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9
17:47:28 [DanC]
DanC: so which media types are preferred? acceptable? for RDDL, application/xhtml+xml ? is application/xml ok?
17:47:51 [DanC]
HT: I think the answer is the same as for XHTML. so no, not application/xml
17:49:06 [DanC]
HT: applicatin/xml is acceptable in some circumstances, e.g. when the client asks for it
17:50:12 [Norm]
17:50:56 [Norm]
17:51:02 [DanC]
<ns0:purpose xmlns:ns0=""
17:51:06 [Norm]
17:51:19 [DanC]
I get 404 @
17:51:50 [DanC]
4xx conflicts with "should make respresentation available". 2xx conflicts with our decision on httpRange-14
17:53:08 [DanC]
NDW: namespace names interact with deployed RDDL...
17:53:17 [DanC]
DanC: well, not necessarily the RDF output
17:53:22 [DanC]
NDW: right
17:54:19 [DanC]
DanC: so W3C namespace policy... could we have a W3C REC for RDDL that endorses
17:54:31 [ht]
After some effort, hst concludes that norm's rddl1 example is identical the the existing XMLSchema namespace document plus GRDDL link, so, I will edit in those changes so the namespace doc't can be used for testing . . .
17:54:54 [DanC]
TimBL: ah... hmm... we'd need assurance that has similar policies as; e.g. that if they go poof W3C could take it over.
17:55:25 [DanC]
... not sure that's existing W3C policy yet
17:55:46 [DanC]
(checking ...)
17:55:49 [Norm]
Note, ht, that my grddl XSL stylesheet has no normative weight so I think it may be premature to add it to the official Schema namespace
17:56:18 [ht]
RDDL has no normative weight, but it's been at the namespace URI for years!
17:56:31 [Norm]
Fair enough
17:56:37 [ht]
All this stuff is there to encourage experimentation, IMHO
17:57:16 [DanC]
"For Recommendation Track documents, the persistence policy for the namespace MUST use the template shown below."
17:59:31 [DanC]
several: seems quite reasonable to keep in the namespace name, though yes, W3C policy as written conflicts with that so far.
18:00:26 [DanC]
VQ: this reminds me of "Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc" action from
18:00:34 [DanC]
TimBL: yes, that's in progress...
18:01:22 [timbl_]
18:01:28 [timbl_]
That is Ian's latest draft
18:01:45 [DanC]
v 1.25 2005/08/18 15:08:07
18:02:35 [DanC]
TimBL: see esp new material in 4. Namespace Changes over Time
18:03:18 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:03:18 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say I think I'm in sync with ndw's draft on ns8
18:04:54 [DanC]
DanC: I wonder about depending on other than text/html ...
18:07:01 [DanC]
18:07:43 [DanC]
.. [missed...]
18:07:55 [DanC]
HT: RDDL 1.0 supports DTD-based validation...
18:08:24 [DanC]
DanC: I could do class/rel stuff ala microformats... with relax-ng if you like
18:09:04 [DanC]
NDW: JB suggests RDDL 1.0 or the attribute-based thing...
18:09:23 [DanC]
HT: if we have the GRDDL wildcard, do we need another RDDL dialect besides 1.0?
18:09:24 [DanC]
DanC: no
18:09:43 [Ed]
Ed agrees.. we dont need 2.0
18:10:17 [DanC]
NDW: so RDDL 1.0, or other human-readable with GRDDL [that's what I wanted to hear; not sure that's what he said]
18:10:52 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng
18:11:44 [DanC]
ACTION NDW: follow-up on namespaceDocument-8, based on DanC's vanilla XHTML example
18:12:44 [DanC]
VQ: plan to close at the ftf? or take more time?
18:13:13 [DanC]
NDW: well, provided we get the writing and the feedback, let's try to close it. but there's considerable risk in that schedule
18:13:15 [DanC]
DanC: yeah.
18:13:32 [DanC]
18:13:33 [DanC]
18:13:42 [DanC]
Topic: Reviewing a few pending actions
18:14:01 [DanC]
ACTION Tim: to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc [continues]
18:14:14 [DanC]
no news on David Orchard to contextualize his scenarios ...
18:14:25 [DanC]
yeah... errata and issues.html#14
18:14:52 [DanC]
VQ: done? HT: prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion
18:15:06 [DanC]
HT: that was for the previous [June] ftf
18:15:36 [DanC]
HT: hmm... I need to check back with the XML Schema WG about pointing to the p element, but as for this action, pls consider it closed.
18:15:37 [DanC]
VQ: very well
18:15:59 [Norm]
18:16:39 [DanC]
DC: httpRange-14 isn't closed in the issues list...
18:16:54 [DanC]
VQ: yes, that's straightforward for me to fix
18:17:28 [DanC]
q+ to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than message-ids
18:18:15 [Vincent]
ack DanC
18:18:15 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than message-ids
18:18:53 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to find better numbers for the errata
18:21:05 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to acknowledge that Typo in Status , Typo in Status, Missing anchor messages report actual problems
18:21:12 [DanC]
18:21:17 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm ot produce an erratum document
18:21:21 [ht]
I note that the Schema WG has agreed that they will distinguish between errata and corrigenda, henceforth
18:22:13 [DanC]
I minuted errata as "problem". they're synonyms, yes?
18:22:37 [Zakim]
18:22:46 [DanC]
NDW: I'm willing to scribe next week.
18:22:56 [DanC]
VQ: if I can't find Roy, then yes, please.
18:23:16 [Zakim]
18:23:17 [Zakim]
18:23:19 [Zakim]
18:23:20 [Zakim]
18:23:22 [Zakim]
18:23:24 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
18:23:26 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Ed, Ht, TimBL, Tayeb/JeffB, Vincent, DanC
18:29:04 [Vincent]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:29:04 [RRSAgent]
18:32:43 [Vincent]
Dan, don't forget to make the log readable
18:35:11 [ht_not_at_desk]
errata are the bugs/problems, some of which get corrigenda, that is, fixes
20:31:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
20:41:15 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
22:26:42 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
23:16:32 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
23:26:50 [Norm]
Nope, resorts to email.
23:53:02 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem