IRC log of tagmem on 2007-03-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:46:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
15:46:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:46:27 [ht]
meeting: TAG telcon
15:46:53 [ht]
15:47:02 [ht]
Chair: Stuart Williams
15:47:07 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
15:47:12 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
15:48:35 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
15:49:02 [Stuart]
zakim, this will be tag.
15:49:02 [Zakim]
ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:53:15 [Norm]
Hey, it's finally public
15:53:25 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
15:53:29 [ht]
Yes -- I resent my (revised) comment today
15:53:54 [Stuart]
15:56:21 [Norm]
I will try not to be rude when I tell them to please stop
15:57:57 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has now started
15:58:01 [Zakim]
15:58:12 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p6 is me
15:58:12 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
15:59:31 [Zakim]
16:00:36 [Zakim]
16:00:47 [Zakim]
16:00:49 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:00:50 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:00:50 [Zakim]
16:01:05 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:01:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Raman, DOrchard, DanC, Ht
16:01:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanC, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht
16:02:42 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
16:02:45 [Zakim]
16:03:01 [ht]
zakim, disconnect ht
16:03:01 [Zakim]
Ht is being disconnected
16:03:02 [Zakim]
16:03:06 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Raman, DOrchard, DanC, [IBMCambridge]
16:03:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rhys, DanC, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht
16:03:19 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:03:19 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:03:21 [Zakim]
16:03:36 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
16:03:41 [Zakim]
16:03:46 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
16:03:46 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
16:04:27 [Zakim]
16:04:37 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
16:04:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stuart, Raman, DOrchard, DanC, Ht, noah, Rhys, Norm
16:04:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Rhys, DanC, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Norm, ht
16:05:38 [ht]
F2F minutes at
16:05:46 [ht]
16:05:53 [ht]
16:05:55 [noah]
+1 to holding over until they're read
16:06:33 [ht]
SW: We'll give another week for review of those minutes
16:06:37 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
16:06:39 [ht]
topic: telcon planning
16:07:03 [ht]
16:08:41 [ht]
Agenda stands as published, except maybe "internet as foundation" at the end if time
16:08:45 [Zakim]
16:08:51 [ht]
Topic: telcon planning
16:08:54 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
16:09:41 [ht]
SW: Three items with drafts outstanding, is it time to schedule discussion on some of these?
16:10:24 [ht]
NM: Mostly everything is given to the editors, but when we're thrashing gathering consensus from the group needs more work
16:10:37 [ht]
q+ to say _mea culpa_
16:10:49 [Zakim]
16:10:55 [Stuart]
ack ht
16:10:55 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say _mea culpa_
16:11:06 [ht]
SW: There are some substantial documents there, are some of them at the point where they need feedback from the group?
16:12:23 [noah]
HT: On URNs and Registries in particular, I feel I've done what I can for now. On that one, for my part, I need the WG to engage with the issue and the document in more detail. Would like 30mins of telcon time to look in detail at what feel to me like contradictory inputs.
16:12:33 [noah]
HT: I need help to take it further.
16:13:13 [ht]
DO: There are two parts to this document, I'm still get work I know how to on the part I'm responsible for
16:13:40 [ht]
... I have that queued up behind the versioning finding
16:13:45 [Stuart]
16:14:02 [ht]
SW: Can we take the two parts forward separately?
16:14:22 [ht]
s/still get work/still getting work done/
16:14:30 [ht]
DO: Yes
16:14:41 [ht]
SW: How about next week for HST's part?
16:14:43 [ht]
HST: Fine
16:15:08 [ht]
SW: NM, you suggested you thought schemeProtocols was off the agenda for some time
16:15:54 [ht]
NM: Yes, I was not planning to come back to that for some time, rather I'm expecting to follow up on the input I got at the f2f on self-describingWeb
16:16:24 [ht]
... and to try to write a new draft on that topic soon -- I don't think I can do that _and_ schemeProtocols
16:16:40 [ht]
SW: Focussing on just one at a time is OK
16:17:00 [ht]
NM: I would like to try to drive self-describing forward
16:17:03 [ht]
16:17:35 [ht]
SW: DO, can we look at versioning?
16:18:08 [ht]
DO: 2 April telcon would be good -- I can try to deliver something by 27 March. . .
16:18:44 [ht]
... What about 9 April - no, Easter Monday - 16 April then
16:19:04 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
16:19:23 [raman]
HT, could you paste the URL for the tag soup F2F minutes here once again?
16:20:06 [raman]
It was Wed.
16:20:06 [ht]
SW: OK, we will aim for the 2nd, document for review by 27 March
16:20:13 [raman]
Mar 7
16:20:51 [ht]
topic: CURIEs
16:21:22 [ht]
New draft has been published, a long time after the discussion at the AC meeting in Edinburgh last May
16:21:39 [ht]
SW: An interesting question about value space has come up
16:21:43 [ht]
16:21:56 [Stuart]
ack ht
16:21:58 [ht]
HST: I have been tracking this
16:22:16 [noah]
FWIW, I believe I read it a few weeks ago, but was not entirely conscious that it was a new draft, and didn't read it with that eye.
16:22:59 [noah]
HT: Their first draft said "after the : you have an IRI". Seemed wrong. Now it says "after the : you get what would go after the # as a fragid", which also seems not right.
16:23:22 [noah]
HT: I think pushing at the value space would be productive in helping them to crystalize: what are you trying to do with these?
16:23:57 [ht]
16:24:11 [ht]
SW: Do we need to take a position as the TAG?
16:24:15 [ht]
HST: I think we do
16:24:33 [noah]
q+ to say both issues are important
16:24:35 [Stuart]
16:25:00 [Stuart]
and response at
16:25:06 [ht]
TVR: I think taking a position is perhaps too confrontational -- pushing for clarification of the syntax and the semantics seems the right way to go
16:25:14 [Stuart]
ack noah
16:25:14 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say both issues are important
16:25:43 [ht]
NM: URIs are at the heart of the Web, and so we have to be _very_ careful about something like this
16:26:16 [DanC]
-> my comment on curies and compatibility, from 27 Oct 2005
16:26:22 [ht]
... Also, as DC pointed out, href is not a corner case, but it's at the heart of the Web, and changing anything in this place is very risky
16:26:48 [ht]
TVR: I'm not clear that they are proposing to change the interpretation of href. . .
16:27:08 [ht]
SW: How do we go about raising these issues?
16:27:30 [ht]
... Do we want to track this separately from ultimateQuestion-42 ?
16:27:34 [noah]
NM: Dan corrected me -- I had meant that CURIEs are a seemingly incompatible syntax for URI >references<.
16:27:53 [ht]
DC: There is RDFinHTML-?? which we could use
16:28:48 [noah]
HT: Mischa's constituency for this appeared to be NewsML
16:29:06 [DanC]
16:29:13 [ht]
SW: OK, let's use RDFinXHTML-35
16:29:13 [DanC]
16:29:47 [ht]
NM: We did discuss a lot of NewsML use cases at the f2f in Amherst, and they should remain in scope
16:30:11 [ht]
... which might not be obvious if it is filed under RDFinXHTML-35
16:30:57 [ht]
TVR: I would not like it to get lost in the RDFinXHTML-35 bucket
16:31:35 [ht]
SW: I am minded to create it as a separate issue: CompactURIReferences-5?
16:31:37 [Rhys]
+1 to having a specific issue for the CURIE issue
16:32:29 [ht]
... But I'm worried about appearing to endorse the idea, so drafting the description text is not going to easy
16:32:40 [Rhys]
Suggests something like Impact of Compact URI References on the Web
16:33:12 [ht]
HST: I'll try to draft something in the way of a description
16:34:28 [ht]
DC: What about CompactURIReferences-5 as the right issue?
16:34:59 [DanC]
16:35:18 [ht]
s/about CompactURIReferences-5/about rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6/
16:35:52 [ht]
DC: I'd prefer to look at a draft description, then decide about a new issue or not
16:36:25 [ht]
SW: HST, you happy with waiting for a decision on a short name until the description is agreed?
16:36:27 [ht]
HST: yes
16:36:46 [ht]
ACTION: HST to circulate a candidate description to
16:38:04 [ht]
topic: <ht>
16:38:22 [ht]
topic: tagSoup
16:38:35 [ht]
DC: There is a new HTML working group
16:38:42 [DanC]
16:39:13 [ht]
... there is discussion about what media type should be used for the new WG home page (see above)
16:39:21 [raman]
see it -- thanks Henry!
16:39:24 [DanC]
from 2002
16:39:43 [ht]
... and Karl Dubost identified this document as relevant
16:40:30 [ht]
TVR: I don't agree with that document
16:40:57 [noah]
Raman: please clarify what you would prefer (I can guess, but would appreciate confirmation)
16:41:16 [Stuart]
16:41:39 [ht]
HST: Was there a proposed change to the recommendations about XHTML content
16:41:55 [ht]
NW: Chris Lilley brought this to the XML CG
16:42:22 [ht]
[no public reference forthcoming . . .]
16:42:53 [noah]
I think this is highlighting the inflexible nature of media types. If it had more of a mixin than a hierarchy model, I think one could do this in a way that would be less disruptive. Then again, I suspect that train has long since left the station.
16:42:57 [ht]
TVR: This is a backwards step -- it's an attempt to accommodate bad browser behaviour
16:44:20 [ht]
NW: The proposal is to allow serving XHTML as text/html
16:44:47 [ht]
DO: IE6 doesn't know what to do with application/xml+xhtml -- does IE7 also?
16:44:58 [ht]
TVR: Yes, IE7 also breaks on this
16:45:03 [DanC]
(HTML_WG_test_suite += what do browsers do with application/xml+xhtml? )
16:45:08 [ht]
TVR: Firefox does not have this problem
16:45:26 [ht]
HST: Many of us disappointed IE7 didn't fix this
16:45:49 [DanC]
(my investigations suggest IE currently has 3 codepaths, none of which uses a conformin XML processor)
16:46:11 [ht]
TVR: This mean that XForms plugins also don't work with IE7, because they depend on grabbing application/xml+xhtml
16:46:53 [ht]
TVR: I will have a preliminary draft of something about tagSoup by CoB today
16:47:27 [Rhys]
The media type discussion that Raman mentioned may be at
16:47:49 [ht]
topic: openid
16:48:12 [ht]
I haven't had much time to track this, but it's moving ahead with a lot of energy
16:49:57 [ht]
16:50:06 [ht]
TVR: What is SAML and openid?
16:50:43 [ht]
[various]: Security xxx Markup Language
16:51:44 [Stuart]
16:51:45 [noah]
I'll try attend if welcome
16:52:25 [Rhys]
I'd like to attend if possible
16:53:01 [Stuart]
I'd like to come.
16:53:51 [ht]
DC: Upcoming events may give more background on this for TAG members
16:53:59 [ht]
topic: Internet as a foundation
16:54:30 [DanC]
(there's concern around the position of XRIs vs, say, email addresses, in OpenID 2)
16:54:53 [DanC]
(which the TAG should hear more about when I make progress on my urnsAndRegistries action)
16:55:31 [ht]
[scratch that topic, in TBL's absence]
16:55:40 [ht]
SW: Adjourned
16:55:46 [Zakim]
16:55:48 [Zakim]
16:55:52 [Zakim]
16:55:55 [Zakim]
16:55:59 [Zakim]
16:55:59 [ht]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:56:00 [Zakim]
16:56:05 [ht]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:56:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
16:56:45 [ht]
Stuart, the way I deal with this is that I will make a first pass over the minutes, then announce them to www-tag
17:08:40 [Zakim]
17:08:42 [Zakim]
17:08:46 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has ended
17:08:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were Stuart, Raman, DOrchard, DanC, Ht, Rhys, noah, Norm, TimBL
19:09:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
20:38:03 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem