17:02:49 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:02:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-tagmem-irc 17:02:52 zakim, this is tag 17:02:52 ok, Norm; that matches TAG_Weekly()12:30PM 17:03:09 +Norm 17:03:21 zakim, who's on the phone? 17:03:21 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], Raman, Ed_Rice, [INRIA], DOrchard, Norm 17:03:25 zakim, who is here? 17:03:25 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], Raman, Ed_Rice, [INRIA], DOrchard, Norm 17:03:27 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, EdR, dorchard, Vincent, raman, noah, Norm, ht_gone_holiday 17:03:38 zakim, [ibmcambridge is noah 17:03:38 +noah; got it 17:04:19 Zakim, [INRIA is Vincent 17:04:19 +Vincent; got it 17:04:37 scribe: dorchard 17:05:30 Meeting: TAG 17:05:30 Scribe: Dave Orchard 17:05:30 ScribeNick: dorchard 17:05:30 Date: 18 July 2006 17:05:30 Chair: Vincent 17:05:38 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html 17:05:43 (tips for taking minutes) 17:06:13 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/07/18-agenda.html 17:06:31 the previous link has 17:06:33 Decisions and Resolutions 17:06:45 RESOLUTION: [precisely worded text] 17:06:55 More hints on taking minutes: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 17:09:22 topic: future telcons and scribe 17:09:36 Henry to scribe once VQ convinces him 17:10:28 Topic: future telcons and scribe 17:10:37 Henry to scribe once VQ talks to him 17:10:43 Topic: minutes 17:10:52 RESOLUTION: Minutes of 27-Jun approved 17:11:24 The minutes we just approved for 27-June-2006 are at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/27-minutes.html 17:11:58 Topic: Agenda 17:12:10 EdR: can't do passwords in the clear 17:12:31 Topic: generic resource 17:12:41 I'll publish Passwords a week prior to the 8th meeting for public/tag comments. 17:12:48 please put it on the agenda for the 8th. 17:12:52 TV: still need more to do 17:13:09 tvr: also addressing public comments 17:13:34 tvr: seems to be benignly interesting 17:14:48 vq: need new/more reviewers 17:15:01 vq: volunteers? 17:15:35 norm: I can review but won't be present on the 8th 17:15:54 do: no time 17:17:29 nm: date is important so reviewers know when doc is stable 17:18:10 tvr: pls review after Aug 8th 17:18:46 ACTION: TVR to publish new version of Generic Resources by Aug 8th 17:19:48 vq: after checking into cvs please send to public list 17:20:02 vq: any more comments 17:20:33 dbo: I think tvr is still working on my comments 17:20:40 tvr: I thought I got them, can you look again? 17:21:40 Topic: New and retrofitting new media types 17:21:56 vq: AB asked about using media types that aren't yet registered but used 17:23:33 dbo: think we shouldn't say anything against using unregistered media types 17:23:53 q+ 17:24:18 tvr: I was on voice browser wg, and the group was worried about getting LC comments 17:24:25 tvr: can also relate to TAG position 17:25:09 nm: is there a written policy they should know about? 17:25:18 nobody knows of anything 17:25:45 nm: some worry about using unregistered media types 17:26:37 tvr: the widely deployed ones that aren't registered got widely deployed partly because they just went ahead and "did it" 17:27:08 nm: balance between saying there is a reason for registration 17:27:38 nm: reasons to reuse types 17:28:43 vq: ken laskey suggested something like this. 17:29:22 vq: then AB could use this and examine wrt w3c process 17:30:09 nm: not sure about how formal to be and even list in w3c process 17:30:25 q- 17:30:36 vq: AB seems to ask for something informal, short email even 17:31:07 Mostly I agree with Noah. I was going to point out that there's a distinction (in my mind) between a type being defined by a specification (where we could reasonably insist on registration) and a type used by a specification, where I think it would be sufficient for the spec to note that in a non-normative note. 17:31:32 Right, what I was trying to say was that it seems heavyweight to me to actually update the W3C process to tell everyone submitting a REC that they have to formally justify use of unregistered media types. 17:32:51 ACTION: Noah to draft of something rough on this 17:33:58 ACTION 2=Noah to draft a very short email suggesting that in general its good practice to reference registered media types, but that we recognize that there may be good reasons for occasional exceptions. Note is due 25 July 2006 17:35:35 vq: there was also some discussion from AB on changes to ecmascript and replace other media type 17:37:56 nw: on updated rfcs, specs need to do addendum to get new references 17:38:42 Topic: passwords in the clear 17:38:59 ACTION: EdR to publish updated passwords in the clear by Aug 8th 17:39:05 Topic: Versioning 17:39:52 Vincent: Dave has updated the versioning document yesterday. 17:40:16 Dave: I prefer to walk through and give an overview and then take detailed comments. 17:42:23 DO: In general what I've done has expunged much of the xml 17:42:51 DO: the sections on compatability, section 2 evolution is the same. 17:43:09 DO: then I did some more work on principles. 17:44:43 DO: I updated the bullet diagram based on our 'on the board' discussion at the f2f. 17:45:12 DO: I've tried to move towards the model of defining compatability based on the definitions of these sets. 17:48:26 DO: In section 1.6 I talk about components instead of elements because we need to talk about 'things', however I still need to talk about what a component is. 17:49:48 DO: I've added in the notion to avoid the 'big bang' by offering multiple versions of the system, where either there are multiple versions or one version maps to another. 17:50:10 do: this cant work in all cases (where new data fieldws are required) however. 17:51:58 Noah: I think is largely improved, however I'm only 5 pages into it. 17:52:10 Noah: In the sections I've read I think the foundations are much stronger. 17:52:51 Noah: I feel something needs tuning up.. it seems your looking for a very crisp notion of forward and backward compatiblity but this tends to be a matter of degree. 17:53:43 Noah: I think there are times where 99% of the instances have compatability but 1% would be in error. I think people do this all the time... 17:56:27 Noah: I'm trying to seperate the notion that nobody should be able to every come by an unidentified compatability. 17:56:43 Noah: one important point is whether software will make mistake in interpretation 18:00:58 Noah: We want to talk about the case where we plan for evolution, and in some cases we want to lock it out. 18:02:34 DO: I point out that if you want to enforce it, you need to point out a way to the users that you have a defined incompatability. 18:04:29 Vincent: any other comments? 18:04:49 Norm: I have not had a chance to read it, but would like to for next week. 18:04:58 Ed: I havent yet either, but would like to. 18:05:25 Vincent: We can review in more detail next week. 18:06:38 Vincent: I've put it on the top of the agenda for next week. 18:06:44 Vincent: any other topics? 18:06:55 Vincent: meeting is adjourned. 18:07:05 -Raman 18:07:32 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 18:07:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:07:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-tagmem-minutes.html Norm 18:07:59 Zakim, list participants 18:07:59 As of this point the attendees have been [IBMCambridge], Raman, Ed_Rice, [INRIA], DOrchard, Norm, noah, Vincent 18:08:21 RRSagent, generate minutes 18:08:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-tagmem-minutes.html EdR 18:09:14 More hints on taking minutes: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 18:09:41 -Ed_Rice 18:15:12 -Norm 18:15:18 -Vincent 18:15:32 dorchard, you and I were going to chat today, but today and tomorrow are chock-a-block full for me. How's Thursday? 18:33:03 Norm has joined #tagmem 18:41:02 -noah 18:41:03 -DOrchard 18:41:04 TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended 18:41:05 Attendees were [IBMCambridge], Raman, Ed_Rice, [INRIA], DOrchard, Norm, noah, Vincent 20:09:10 Zakim has left #tagmem