IRC log of tagmem on 2005-11-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:44:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:44:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc
17:50:55 [ht]
Meeting: TAG telcon
17:51:05 [ht]
Chair: Vincent Quint
17:51:10 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
17:51:21 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
17:52:01 [ht]
Agenda+ Next telcon
17:52:10 [ht]
Agenda+ This agenda
17:52:31 [ht]
Agenda+ Minutes of 18 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html
17:52:55 [ht]
Agenda+ Minutes of 25 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html
17:53:17 [ht]
agenda+ AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html
17:53:45 [ht]
agenda+ endPointRefs-47 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#endPointRefs-47
17:54:05 [ht]
agenda+ abstractComponentRefs-37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
17:54:22 [ht]
agenda+ namespaceDocument-8 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
17:54:43 [ht]
agenda+ Review pending actions http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.htmlf
17:54:53 [ht]
agenda+ AOB
17:59:06 [ht]
zakim, this will be TAG
17:59:06 [Zakim]
ok, ht; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 29 minutes ago
17:59:25 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:59:38 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
18:00:33 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
18:00:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.685.aaaa
18:01:11 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:01:11 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:01:12 [Zakim]
+Ht
18:01:32 [Ed]
Ed has joined #tagmem
18:01:34 [Zakim]
+DanC
18:01:43 [ht]
zakim, +1 is noah
18:01:43 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:01:56 [Zakim]
+Vincent_Quint
18:02:22 [Zakim]
+??P3
18:02:43 [ht]
zakim, ? is Ed
18:02:43 [Zakim]
+Ed; got it
18:02:45 [Zakim]
+TimBL
18:03:03 [dorchard]
are the minutes from last week sufficient?
18:03:44 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
18:03:47 [Vincent]
zakim, who is here
18:03:47 [Zakim]
Vincent, you need to end that query with '?'
18:04:04 [Vincent]
zakim, who is here ?
18:04:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Ht, DanC, Vincent_Quint, Ed, TimBL
18:04:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see timbl, Ed, Vincent, dorchard, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht, DanC
18:04:22 [ht]
Topic: Roll call
18:04:48 [ht]
DavidO, you dialing in?
18:05:02 [dorchard]
I'll be dialing in..
18:05:58 [ht]
David, should we wait for you?
18:06:39 [Zakim]
+Dave_Orchard
18:07:16 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
18:07:47 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
18:07:47 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Next telcon" taken up [from ht]
18:08:01 [noah_at_dinner]
noah_at_dinner has joined #tagmem
18:08:47 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
18:09:04 [ht]
Regrets from Vincent, TimBL, Henry for 8 November
18:09:09 [Zakim]
+Roy
18:09:49 [noah_sfo]
For those who didn't hear me chatting with Vincent at the start of the call: I had sent regrets but was able to get out of my meetings for about 45 mins to an hour, maybe more.
18:10:29 [ht]
Ed Rice volunteers to chair the 8 November telcon
18:10:43 [ht]
Vincent will prepare the agenda
18:10:59 [DanC]
I'm OK to scribe 8 Nov.
18:11:06 [noah_sfo]
FWIW: we had the compoundDocs. stuff scheduled for last week, and left it off this week in part on the assumption that I would not be here today. I note that Tim is unavail. next week. Maybe or maybe not it's worth trying to slip it in during the first hour or so today while I'm around. If so, give me 3 mins notice to find materials. Either way is fine with me.
18:11:36 [DanC]
regrets 15 Nov due to XML 2005
18:12:10 [DanC]
ok, color me at risk
18:12:31 [ht]
Regrets from Vincent for 15 November, Ed is at risk, Dan Connolly at risk
18:12:53 [ht]
HST is at XML 2005, hopes to make the call
18:13:41 [ht]
Noah will chair on 15 November
18:13:49 [ht]
Regrets from Norm for 15 November
18:14:40 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
18:14:40 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "This agenda" taken up [from ht]
18:14:41 [noah_sfo]
OK, I'll go find cd stuff
18:15:11 [Zakim]
+Norm
18:16:06 [ht]
Norm: June f2f logistics are being sorted out, looks good
18:17:36 [ht]
agenda+ compound documents http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
18:17:58 [DanC]
18 and 25 Oct minutes OK by me
18:18:00 [ht]
Added new agenda item on mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
18:18:08 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
18:18:08 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Minutes of 18 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html" taken up [from ht]
18:19:04 [ht]
RESOLUTION: 18 October minutes approved
18:19:09 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
18:19:10 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Minutes of 25 October http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html" taken up [from ht]
18:19:39 [ht]
RESOLUTION: 25 October minutes approved
18:20:18 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
18:20:18 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html" taken up [from ht]
18:22:16 [ht]
HST: These are not the slides that I'll speak to at the meeting, rather what goes to the attendees in advance
18:22:44 [ht]
RESOLUTION: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html for publication once the missing link is filled in
18:23:58 [ht]
ACTION: HST to produce a draft of slides in time for telcon on 22 November
18:24:05 [DanC]
(18 and 25 oct minutes edited to remove DRAFT)
18:24:31 [ht]
s/draft of slides/draft of slides for TAG slot at AC meeting/
18:24:53 [noah_sfo]
Noah is very likely to be at AC meeting as well
18:26:00 [ht]
Attendees at AC meeting: Vincent, Noah, Henry, Tim
18:26:22 [ht]
[Note that Dave Orchard will be phone-only for December f2f]
18:26:46 [ht]
s/Henry, Tim/Henry, Tim, Dan/
18:27:28 [ht]
zakim, take up agendum 11
18:27:28 [Zakim]
agendum 11. "compound documents http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#mixedUIXMLNamespace-33" taken up [from ht]
18:28:44 [ht]
NM: Took an action at f2f to review [these documents]
18:28:54 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Oct/0040.html
18:29:49 [ht]
NM: Sent [email] with my review, which was not specifically based on mixedUIXMLNamespace-33, but covers most of that stuff
18:30:45 [ht]
... CDF WG has prepared two things: 1 Requirements doc, 1 Profile
18:31:00 [ht]
... The latter has been split subsequent to first publication
18:31:19 [ht]
... They distinguish between by-reference and by-inclusion compounding
18:31:25 [ht]
ER: Why?
18:31:30 [timbl]
q+
18:31:55 [ht]
NM: Not clear -- they thought by-reference was going to be easier, but empirically it seems to me that that's not at all clear
18:31:58 [ht]
ack timbl
18:32:02 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:32:16 [ht]
TBL: Inclusion means the mixed-namespace-thing
18:32:26 [ht]
...which is our [issue]
18:32:54 [ht]
... Reference means e.g. using an Object, which doesn't raise all the hard questions
18:33:01 [ht]
NM: Makes sense
18:33:29 [ht]
... Core of our concern is the general semantics of mixed-namespace documents
18:33:41 [timbl]
"Self Describing Documents on the Web"
18:33:45 [ht]
... To what extent is a random mixed-NS document self-describing?
18:34:11 [DanC]
"WICD, or Web Integration Compound Document, is a specific embodiment of
18:34:11 [DanC]
CDF using XHTML, SVG, and CSS."
18:34:24 [ht]
... CDF is focused on UI-oriented stuff, for a bounded set of vocabs, focussing on HTML, SVG, etc.
18:34:24 [timbl]
Noah: SDDOTW is something we the TAG should get into moreo and more
18:35:01 [ht]
... So e.g. what happens when you click on a bit of real-estate rendered from a nested bit, does it propagate out, etc.
18:35:19 [timbl]
q+
18:35:33 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
18:35:36 [ht]
... I wish they'd layered this much more, separating out the general question from this more focussed one
18:35:55 [ht]
... I've had private communication from a WG member which is sympathetic to this point
18:35:56 [DanC]
q+ to question advice to generalize, unless we're confident there's implementation experience with something more general
18:36:03 [ht]
q+ to disagree with conclusion
18:36:37 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:36:38 [ht]
... Sounds also like the WG is not actually working much from the Req'ts doc. . .
18:36:52 [ht]
TBL: Thanks Noah
18:37:23 [ht]
... Counterarg't to the generalisation you argue for --- there are some things you can't do in XML until you know the semantics
18:37:36 [ht]
... I think mixedUI case is one of these
18:37:55 [ht]
... Consider RDF, the semantics of mixing is clear because it's been designed in
18:38:20 [noah_sfo]
q+ To respond on generalizing, and to point out the earlier systems have separately layered compound document semantics from UI
18:38:33 [ht]
... Similarly wrt the mixedUI case, because it has an underlying coherence, they can talk about e.g. what happens to mouse clicks
18:38:41 [DanC]
q+ DanC2 to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23
18:39:03 [ht]
... But in general, w/o that semantic info, you can only say something very shallow/weak about composition
18:39:26 [ht]
... Similarly, this feeds over into our discussion of versioning, languages, etc.
18:40:00 [ht]
... E.g. when a language has styling semantics, some versioning stories make sense, but don't necessarily generalize
18:40:06 [DanC]
ack danc
18:40:06 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to question advice to generalize, unless we're confident there's implementation experience with something more general
18:40:07 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:40:10 [Zakim]
DanC2, you wanted to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 and to ask what became of VQ's investigation of the CDF WG's media type issues
18:40:52 [ht]
DanC: Don't want to set requirements they can't meet, and the general problem is too hard to hand to them
18:41:02 [timbl]
It is difficult to go far talking about versioning without more semantics than raw XML. Hypertext and Semantic web agre example of langauge domains in which there are enough semantics to do more.
18:41:14 [ht]
... Examples I'm aware of (OpenDoc, Andrew) are not getting used
18:41:25 [ht]
NM: What about Ole, I'm using it
18:41:42 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:41:42 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to disagree with conclusion
18:41:47 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ...
18:41:49 [DanC]
q+ to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 and to ask what became of VQ's investigation of the CDF WG's media type issues
18:42:53 [Vincent]
ack noah
18:42:53 [Zakim]
noah_sfo, you wanted to respond on generalizing, and to point out the earlier systems have separately layered compound document semantics from UI
18:42:55 [ht]
DanC: did they take a position on the XLink scope question?
18:43:01 [ht]
NM: Not as far as I remember
18:43:01 [DanC_scribe]
NM: if they took a position on xlinkScope, I don't recall
18:43:30 [ht]
NM: In reply to TBL et al.'s point
18:43:44 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ...
18:43:45 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:43:45 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:44:05 [ht]
zakim, disconnect ht
18:44:05 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
18:44:06 [Zakim]
-Ht
18:44:11 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about 1) composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + .. and 2) to ask about xml processing model
18:44:13 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:44:13 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:44:15 [Zakim]
+Ht
18:44:34 [ht]
[missed some of Noah's comments]
18:45:08 [ht]
NM: Ole has an abstract notion of hierarchical (stream) story, modelled as a 'baby' FAT file system
18:45:32 [Roy]
q+ to ask if anyone remembers why this is a TAG issue and whether CDF is aware of it
18:45:40 [ht]
... If you crack open e.g. a Word document, you find such a thing, with the analogues of QNames connecting things up
18:46:05 [timbl]
q?
18:46:14 [Vincent]
ack dorchard
18:46:14 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ... and to ask about composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + ... and
18:46:18 [Zakim]
... to ask about 1) composition of transforms, specificially xinclude + xslt + .. and 2) to ask about xml processing model
18:46:19 [ht]
... CDF people could/should do something similar, was my point, w/o boiling the ocean
18:46:27 [ht]
q+ to say they're the wrong people for the job
18:46:48 [ht]
DO: Compositionality of transforms point? XInclude, XSLT, etc.. . .
18:47:03 [timbl]
q+ to say yes to Noah, teh XML functions paper really concludes that that top-dwon model of XML semantics is very important. But maybe the TAG should say it rather than CDF.
18:47:03 [ht]
NM: Not that kind of transforms, rather scale/rotate/displace
18:47:18 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:47:18 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask whether the CD requirements doc expresses a position on xlinkScope-23 and to ask what became of VQ's investigation of the CDF WG's media type issues
18:47:19 [ht]
DO: Anything about the XMLProc sort of transforms?
18:47:25 [ht]
NM: Maybe, will check
18:47:46 [ht]
DC: Vincent, what was answer about media type issue?
18:47:51 [ht]
VQ: Haven't asked yet. . .
18:48:03 [DanC_scribe]
ack roy
18:48:03 [Zakim]
Roy, you wanted to ask if anyone remembers why this is a TAG issue and whether CDF is aware of it
18:48:05 [Vincent]
ack roy
18:48:47 [ht]
RF: Why was this issue split out from a larger issue, what are we expecting from this group, are they aware we're expecting it?
18:49:14 [ht]
TBL: We're not expecting something from the specifically, but we should be keeping an eye on what they're doing
18:49:53 [ht]
RF: So I'm happy that Noah checked it, but what's it to do with us
18:50:20 [ht]
VQ: It does overlap with mixedUIXMLNamespace-33
18:50:40 [ht]
RF: So why didn't we just close the issue as soon as the CDF WG was formed?
18:51:02 [ht]
NM: Well, so much discussion about self-describing at the E'burgh f2f, I took this on in that spirit
18:51:07 [Vincent]
ack ht
18:51:07 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say they're the wrong people for the job
18:51:10 [ht]
RF: OK, that's clearer
18:52:48 [ht]
HST: I don't think the CDF is the right group of people to ask for a story about general semantic composition. Ole isn't a general story, it's still a UI/presentation focussed story
18:53:13 [Roy]
I suspect that the reason we split the issues is specifically so that the WG could be formed to address this, not the *general* issue which has a different number on our list
18:53:32 [ht]
NM: Well, I am still concerned that they can't do their job if they don't layer it better. But I hear the input I'm getting, so we're not going to feed that in to the WG as such
18:54:07 [Vincent]
ack timbl
18:54:07 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say yes to Noah, teh XML functions paper really concludes that that top-dwon model of XML semantics is very important. But maybe the TAG should say it rather
18:54:11 [Zakim]
... than CDF.
18:54:20 [ht]
... But there are other things in my email that might be useful, so can we point them at it 'officially' w/o endorsing the layering point
18:55:21 [ht]
TBL: Talking about semantic composition is important, but the CDF WG shouldn't be asked to do it generally -- I still hope the TAG will tackle that problem, under the heading of xxx-13
18:55:48 [timbl]
q?
18:55:58 [ht]
... We'll pend our xxx-33 issue until you've gone a bit further, and then have another look
18:56:27 [ht]
NM: But what about those on the WG who want to go in the generalizing direction?
18:56:44 [ht]
TBL: I think we should encourage them to focus on the UI-specific stuff
18:56:49 [Vincent]
ack danc
18:56:54 [ht]
NM: Well, that will disappoint some people
18:57:24 [dorchard]
I'm in favour of non-generalization for CDF.
18:57:55 [ht]
DC: Straw poll: a) more discussion; b) withdraw xxx-333; c) close it on basis of CDR WG existing; d) pend until CDF make more concrete progress
18:58:15 [ht]
NM: What do you prefer?
18:58:26 [timbl]
I support (d)
18:58:28 [dorchard]
dave: option d). I'd rather talk about other things.
18:58:34 [ht]
DC: (d) plus encourage them
18:58:37 [Roy]
my pref is (d)
18:58:42 [ht]
HST: (d)
18:58:48 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
18:58:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, Ht, DanC, Vincent_Quint, Ed, TimBL, Dave_Orchard, Roy, Norm
18:58:49 [Norm]
NDW: (d)
18:59:00 [Ed]
D for me as wel
18:59:00 [Vincent]
(d)
18:59:04 [noah_sfo]
Fine with me.
18:59:05 [dorchard]
we multi-task well :-)
18:59:16 [noah_sfo]
I could live with other options, but (d) is just fine.
18:59:22 [dorchard]
or shoudl I say, multi-channel well.
18:59:38 [ht]
RESOLUTION: Pend xxx-33 until we see a Last-Call WD from the CDF folk
18:59:53 [DanC]
er... something before last call would be better, really
19:00:25 [dorchard]
I don't mind reviewing b4 LC as well.
19:00:25 [ht]
ACTION: NM to follow-up to CDF that his email was not endorsed in detail by TAG
19:00:34 [noah_sfo]
ACTION: Noah to send note to CDF clarifying that earlier note was just a draft, that TAG has not to provide formal input on CDF Reqs at this point, and maybe hinting at concerns about generalizing
19:00:44 [noah_sfo]
s/maybe//
19:00:59 [ht]
s/Last-Call WD/significant progress in a public draft/
19:01:41 [ht]
VQ: Nominate RF to scribe on 15 November
19:02:31 [ht]
zakim, next agendum
19:02:31 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html" taken up [from ht]
19:03:14 [ht]
zakim, take up agendum 6
19:03:14 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "endPointRefs-47 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#endPointRefs-47" taken up [from ht]
19:03:57 [ht]
VQ: Mark Nottingham thanked us for our input, said they'd welcome more input in the next few weeks
19:04:39 [ht]
zakim, disconnect ht
19:04:39 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
19:04:40 [Zakim]
-Ht
19:04:47 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
19:04:47 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
19:04:49 [Zakim]
+Ht
19:05:37 [Zakim]
-Roy
19:06:06 [ht]
HST: Will circulate a worked example as soon as possible, hope by end of week
19:06:28 [ht]
VQ: Right, so what do we do to help them?
19:07:07 [ht]
HST: We need to talk about this in any case, if we miss their deadline so be it
19:07:26 [ht]
VQ: They have a f2f next week, at which point they will have a better sense of their deadline
19:07:36 [ht]
... So we'll return to this next week
19:07:43 [ht]
zakim, take up agendum 7
19:07:43 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "abstractComponentRefs-37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37" taken up [from ht]
19:08:12 [ht]
zakim, take up agendum 5
19:08:12 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "AC Meeting report draft http://www.w3.org/2005/11/tag-summary.html" taken up [from ht]
19:08:26 [DanC]
(for reference, our last discussion of ns8 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/11-tagmem-minutes.html#item06 )
19:08:37 [DanC]
-> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps usps
19:08:43 [ht]
zakim, take up agendum 8
19:08:43 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "namespaceDocument-8 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8" taken up [from ht]
19:09:05 [DanC]
e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps#MailPiece
19:09:27 [ht]
DC: The above URI tries to do both the RDF property thing and the document fragment thing
19:10:23 [ht]
... But it's also a class name, and you can use it in RDF
19:10:55 [ht]
TBL: Is it a convention, or is it trying to really identify two different things in two contexts?
19:11:11 [ht]
DC: I don't what to say I'm using the URI for two different things. . .
19:11:24 [ht]
... Creative use of the HTML mime type
19:11:41 [ht]
TBL: Loath to go there, because it rules out writing RDF statements about anchors
19:11:59 [ht]
... Back in June at MIT, we were working towards a position
19:12:39 [DanC]
re rdf statements about anchors, http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashSlashDuality
19:12:39 [ht]
... That when you use a fragment in a UI context which refers to e.g. a class, you fall back/coerce to a presentation you can see
19:13:03 [ht]
DC: We have to hide one (the anchor) or the other (the class)
19:13:09 [ht]
... I just want to make this OK
19:14:06 [Vincent]
q?
19:14:26 [ht]
HST: Tim, could you clarify your fall-back story wrt the redirect advice we gave for the namespace URI
19:14:42 [DanC]
(the TOC of the minutes should show fragmentInXML-28 as much as issue 8, please)
19:14:57 [ht]
TBL: Depends on whether what it gets from the redirect is RDF or HTML
19:15:35 [ht]
... That in turn depends in part on what the agent is that's asking
19:16:37 [ht]
DC: So we all think this is OK? I don't hear anyone saying it is. . .
19:16:57 [ht]
TBL: It's wrong because [missed it] We're exploring the options
19:17:11 [DanC]
s/[missed it]/it uses the same URI for 2 different things/
19:17:23 [DanC]
s/saying it is/saying it isn't/
19:17:52 [ht]
DO: Is this related to the abstractComponentRefs-nn as well
19:18:22 [ht]
... and the question the WSDL WG asked about whether they could refer to components or sub-trees
19:18:28 [Vincent]
s/-nn/-37
19:18:35 [ht]
... and we said if they were careful with media types, then yes
19:18:44 [timbl]
The "fallback" philosophy (which I don't necessarily support) would be that the object is *really* a class. inthis case, as the user agent can't grok RDF, and so can't get the full info on the class in the ideal from, there is a fall-back, a sort of type coiersion, and an HTML document ios delivered and the user directed to a paragraph about that class. There is soe information loss, but this happens when you change content type. For example, if we gave a re
19:19:39 [timbl]
A content negotiation with some degradation.
19:20:21 [ht]
TBL: THe danger is that the URI gets bookmarked and used purely as a pointer into the [HTML] document
19:21:09 [ht]
DC: Is it reasonable to think of changing the HTML spec. to use the profile attribute on the document element do make the determination
19:21:26 [ht]
HST: How would this help?
19:22:04 [ht]
DC: Problem was that if we put this in the RDF spec, the browser never sees it
19:22:13 [ht]
... So we put it in the HTML spec so it has to
19:22:25 [ht]
TBL: Reverse engineering like that is difficult
19:23:01 [ht]
DC: OK, thanks for airing this, content to wait until Norm gets back to writing
19:23:55 [ht]
VQ: So we pend this
19:24:37 [DanC]
(well, we did touch on abstractComponentRefs-37 )
19:24:50 [ht]
VQ: Once again no time for xxx-37 -- are we ready to talk about this in detail yet?
19:25:28 [ht]
DC: I had an action, which I satisfied last week, so I'm OK with not talking about it again right away
19:27:11 [ht]
HST: DO has said we're done, because we replied to WSDL WG
19:27:39 [ht]
ACTION: DO to re-send pointer to basis for this statement about WSDL WG having gotten their answer wrt xxx-37
19:27:52 [ht]
VQ: Then maybe we can close that issue
19:28:32 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
19:28:52 [ht]
DC: My question is whether we'll say anything more to the WSDL WG - is Roy going to say something mmore
19:29:15 [Roy]
me? not that I can think of at the moment
19:29:16 [DanC]
about #frags(like_this) in WSDL. are you likely to say anything more than your existing XPointer comments, Roy?
19:29:22 [ht]
HST: I thought the question of XPointer syntax was part of another issue, where we were waiting on Roy
19:29:22 [DanC]
ok.
19:29:36 [DanC]
issue goodURIPractice-NN or some such.
19:29:40 [Roy]
I have two findings to write, yes
19:29:49 [DanC]
ok, we'll stay tuned. sooner is better.
19:30:26 [ht]
Adjourned
19:30:33 [noah_sfo]
noah_sfo has joined #tagmem
19:30:34 [ht]
zakim, bye
19:30:34 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.650.685.aaaa, Ht, DanC, noah, Vincent_Quint, Ed, TimBL, Dave_Orchard, Roy, Norm
19:30:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
19:30:35 [Roy]
it is a long flight back
19:30:54 [ht]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:30:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-minutes.html ht
19:31:09 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
19:31:26 [ht]
RRSAgent, bye
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-actions.rdf :
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: HST to produce a draft of slides in time for telcon on 22 November [1]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T18-23-58
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: NM to follow-up to CDF that his email was not endorsed in detail by TAG [2]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T19-00-25-1
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Noah to send note to CDF clarifying that earlier note was just a draft, that TAG has not to provide formal input on CDF Reqs at this point, and maybe hinting at concerns about generalizing [3]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T19-00-34
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DO to re-send pointer to basis for this statement about WSDL WG having gotten their answer wrt xxx-37 [4]
19:31:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-tagmem-irc#T19-27-39
19:31:55 [ht]
Vincent, I'll clean up the logs tomorrow morning. . .