TAG Weekly -- 25 Apr 2006

<scribe> Scribe: DanC

Administrative

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-tagmem-minutes.html minutes 18 Apr

PROPOSED: to meet 2 May, NDW to scribe. at risk: DO

RESOLUTION: to meet 2 May, NDW to scribe. regrets DO

VQ observes "DRAFT" at top and diagnostics at the bottom

RESOLVED to approve minutes 18 Apr

<timbl> brb

VQ: agenda adjustments?

DC: June ftf... at the end?

VQ: after Vancouver ftf discussion

<noah> Oct 4 and 5 is OK for me in Vancouver

PROPOSED: to meet in Vancouver 4-5 Oct 2006

<timbl> hi

DO: price update: opus hotel looks like 229 CAD, around USD 200. looks like I can get a meeting room in that hotel

VQ: can you send me details? DO: yes, I've got all the hosting details on a page that I'll send presently

RESOLUTION: to meet in Vancouver Wed/Thu 4-5 Oct 2006

TBL: so that's 2 days...? VQ: yes, 2 days.

DanC: hmm... security workshop follow-up... perhaps invite some security experts from the BOS/MIT area?

NDW: I can accomodate a few

NM: an expert from MIT with practical experience sounds interesting

VQ: more on this later in the call, perhaps...
... the preparation for the AC meeting seems to have converged, after some punctuated discussion
... moderator and panelists seem to be pretty much all set
... one more admin item... quarterly update... I'll draft something, tomorrow, I hope...
... then I'll send it out after a couple days of collecting comments from tag

Issue xmlFunctions-34

VQ: hmm... this agendum was requested by TV...

<scribe> ACTION: TVR, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: summarize history of DTD/namespace/mimetype version practice, including XHTML, SOAP, and XSLT [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

. ACTION TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future

ACTION TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future [WITHDRAWN]

<scribe> ACTION: TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future [WITHDRAWN] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

<timbl> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-tagmem-minutes.html

<timbl> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

<scribe> ACTION: TBL, accepted on 27 Feb 2006: write a short email to make his point so we capture this for future [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

point being: that extensibility with a framework such as CDF makes sense, but extensibilXML extensbility: Possible only with a framework providing some form of semanticsy in general does not. [?]

issue namespaceState-48

<ht> http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri is in an odd state

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri URIs for W3C Namespaces 1.36 2006/01/20

<ht> it says "A new version of this document is available. "

TBL: one comment was that "Namespace Changes over Time" doesn't make sense

<ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html

<noah> From the finding: "Colloquially, we often speak of “adding a name” to a namespace. Here we prefer to speak of “defining a name” or otherwise licensing the interpretation of a name."

<Norm> Precisely.

NM: section 4 could cite the finding more locally
... section 4 i.e. http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri#Policy

<noah> Suggestion (rough not exact): a) leave title of section 4 b) In that section, say something like "The TAG finding 'The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace' explains how the use of a particular namespace may evolve over time. At the W3C, it is important for a group to state clearly its expectations for how namespaces it controls will..."

<noah> ...and the continue with the text already in the doc, edited if necessary.

<scribe> ACTION: TBL to accepted on 8 Mar 2005, provide a draft of new namespace policy doc (http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri). in progress. tbl would like to confirm with Ian that there's nothing pending on Ian's side [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]

<noah> In that section, say something like "The TAG finding 'The Disposition of Names in an XML Namespace' explains how the use of a particular namespace may evolve over time. At the W3C, it is important for a group to state clearly its expectations for how use of the namespaces it controls will..."

<noah> Dan if you commit this, you'll need to create a hyperlink for the TAG finding.

<Vincent> Hi Ian

<Ian> I was pinged on the topic of nsuri...

<Ian> I heard:

<Vincent> Dan is updating the nsuri document to add a reference to the TAG finding in section 4.

<Ian> 1) TAG ok with http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri

<Ian> 2) Add a ref

<Ian> +1 to adding ref.

<Ian> The document has already been announced as "en vigeur" to the chairs.

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri#Policy 1.52

<Ian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2006JanMar/0026.html

<Ian> Bjoern had expressed some concerns.

<Ian> Would you like to see them?

<timbl> Ian, would you like to join the call for a bit?

Ian, wanna dial in? or not bother?

<Ian> Sure.

http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri v 1.63 2006/04/25 17:54:40 is obsolete

<noah> Responding to Dan's request that I hatch yet a bit more text:

<noah> The draft currently says:

<noah> Groups SHOULD document those expectations in [or clearly linked from] the Namespace Document.

<Ian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Feb/0000.html

<noah> How about putting after that: "Draft TAG Finding Associating Resources with Namespaces provides additional guidance on the creation of such namespace documents."

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Feb/0000.html Comments on URIs for W3C Namespaces Bjoern Hoehrmann 01 Feb 2006

"Specifications that define namespaces SHOULD explicitly state their policy with respect to changes in the names defined in that namespace."

HT: not sure about "this specification" indexical in the examples..

<ht> "The definitions of names in this namespace will not change from those given in the June 13 2007 version of the Foonly spec [ref. dated URI]"

yes, that's an improvement to example 1, HT

<ht> ... "Subsequent versions of thte Foonly spec which make any substantive changes will do so in a new namespace"

<timbl> For example, the namespace document could contain text along the following lines.

1.53 $ of $Date: 2006/04/25 18:05:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri

1.54 $ of $Date: 2006/04/25 18:08:34

Ian, 1.54 is it. pls let Bjoern know.

<Ian> yay!

<Ian> Merci

<Ian> Would you think that your changes will satisfy him?

<Ian> (He'll let us know, certainly)

PROPOSED: that http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html and http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri 1.54 address namespaceState-48

I do hope these changes address his comment

so RESOLVED.

<Ian> Ok, thank you.

<scribe> ACTION: NDW to announce that the TAG has resolved namespaceState-48 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]

VQ: I'll update our report to the AC to show we've closed another one

State Finding

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/state-20060419.html draft state finding

DO: Ed did a thorough review; I think I addressed his comments...
... I reorganized some stuff, moving some stuff before examples so that I could refer to it in discussion of pros/cons

(is this changelog in email somehwere? or do I need to record it?)

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Apr/0026.html Updated State Finding 19 Apr 2006

DO: I compared/constrasted approaches to getStockQuote a bit...
... I have considerable comments from Baker and Nottingham; haven't started addressing those yet
... I'd like to talk about this 9 May; I'm not avaiable 16 nor 23 May

NM: I see an opportunity to reduce the text in the early sections quite a bit

DO: yes, I can imagine a shorter "letter" given longer time

<Ian> ciao...

<timbl> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Apr/att-0014/State.html

TBL: I like abstracts that make the relevant points in one paragraph

(I think that's a high bar; I raraly meet it myself.)

<noah> +1 to Tim's comment.

TBL: is this a summary? There are several types of app ... state... client... server... stateful... stateles...
... cookies is an example of the 1st; @@ is an example of the 2nd; $ZZZ is always bad

(I'm not asking for less text, btw. I haven't read it closely enough to judge whether there's a lot of redundancy. I'm asking for the thesis statement(s) to be highlighted)

<scribe> ACTION: NDW to review draft state finding for 9 May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-tagmem-minutes.html#action06]

<timbl> (Dave, a two-level essay: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/Japan/Lecture.html )

VQ: and I suppose Ed is another reviewer

Security Workshop follow-up

DanC: (a) community service work on passwords in the clear...
... (b) specific investigation of decentralized auth ala OpenID/SXIP
... anybody intrested? a few: yes.

ADJOURN.

<Ian> Hi Norm, DanC,

<Ian> Does this look ok for Chairs:

<Ian> Dear Chairs,

<Ian> Today the TAG reviewed and made some editorial clarifications to

<Ian> "URIs for W3C Namespaces" [1], which became effective 15 March

<Ian> 2006 [2]. A reference to the TAG finding "Associating Resources

<Ian> with Namespaces" [3] was also added. I do not believe the changes

<Ian> will have any impact on the publications process.

<Ian> I have attached a document that highlights differences from the

<Ian> version announced on 15 March.

<Ian> -----

- DRAFT -

TAG Weekly

25 Apr 2006

Attendees

Contents

Administrative

Issue xmlFunctions-34

issue namespaceState-48

State Finding

Security Workshop follow-up

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output