15:54:35 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 15:54:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/02-tagmem-irc 15:54:45 raman, will you log to IRC? 15:55:00 DanC has joined #tagmem 15:55:23 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:55:23 On the phone I see TimBL 15:55:50 Stuart has joined #tagmem 15:56:28 will log to IRC 15:57:03 +Raman 15:57:57 +??P10 16:00:10 Noah has joined #tagmem 16:00:25 RRSAgent, pointer? 16:00:25 See http://www.w3.org/2007/04/02-tagmem-irc#T16-00-25 16:00:32 +Noah_Mendelsohn 16:00:42 +DanC 16:00:49 zakim, please call ht-781 16:00:49 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:00:50 +Ht 16:01:55 zakim, zakim, who is here? 16:01:55 I don't understand your question, Stuart. 16:02:01 zakim, who is here? 16:02:01 On the phone I see TimBL, Raman, ??P10, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht 16:02:02 On IRC I see Noah, Stuart, DanC, RRSAgent, Zakim, raman, timbl_, Norm, ht 16:02:09 +Rhys 16:02:30 being a bit previous? 16:02:46 zakim, who is here? 16:02:46 On the phone I see TimBL, Raman, ??P10, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht, Rhys 16:02:48 On IRC I see Noah, Stuart, DanC, RRSAgent, Zakim, raman, timbl_, Norm, ht 16:03:06 zakim, ??p10 is me 16:03:06 +Stuart; got it 16:05:40 Rhys has joined #tagmem 16:05:55 +Norm 16:05:55 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/26-minutes minutes 26 March 16:06:11 RESOLUTION: Minutes approved for last week 16:06:21 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0041.html 16:08:11 No call April 9 -- Easter Monday 16:08:19 Norm scribes on April 15 16:08:32 (Actually April 16) Noah possible regrets for Apr 16 16:08:57 Apr 16: Possibly make progress on passwords in the clear 16:09:07 q? 16:09:15 Regrest from Tim for the 16th 16:09:29 s/st/ts 16:09:56 TOPIC: CURIs 16:10:05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0037.html 16:13:53 clarify difference between URIs and URI references. 16:14:03 Possible name: Abbreviated URIs 54 16:14:33 q? 16:14:40 (I prefer to leave the {abs}ln j clark syntax out of scope of this new issue) 16:15:55 {http://example.org/}foo as an expansion of x:foo where xmlns:x="http://example.org/" is in-scope 16:16:03 My reference to the Clark syntax is indeed a mistake. 16:16:10 {abs}ln is an _expansion) of a QName 16:16:36 Referred to in XML Namespaces 1.1 as an "expanded name" 16:16:44 I'm merely saying that I don't think it's the fact that CURIEs or anything else are smaller that's the issue. It's if they are a nonstandard syntax for URIs. 16:17:14 If for some bizarre reason I swapped each pair of characters in a URI, it would be nonstandard but no shorter. Would the issues raised be particularly different? 16:17:31 No, and we'd let you discuss them under this issue! 16:17:35 AbbreviatedURIs56 16:17:47 Stuart: summarizes new issue: Abbreviated URIs 16:17:55 dorchard has joined #tagmem 16:18:03 OK, I just find that the name "abbreviated" suggests that it's the compactness that's the source of trouble, and Dan just said he thinks it is. 16:18:07 RESOLUTION: Open new TAG issue with short name Abbreviated URIs 16:18:23 ACTION DanC: respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0037 with SPARQL QNames and other details 16:18:52 Skipping versioning while we await Dave 16:19:03 TOPIC: TAG Participation In AC Meeting 16:19:12 6 TAG members expected to be present 16:22:32 TimBL: Focus on properties of the Internet layer that are needed to make the Web layer work e.g. anyone can talk to anyone 16:23:11 matchboxes are the root of all evil in the Internet world 16:23:29 +DOrchard 16:24:34 TimBL possible audience includes people who are on the line between wall-gardens for mobile and the big Web 16:25:49 q? 16:26:01 q+ 16:27:00 ack tim 16:27:05 s/matchboxes/NAT boxes/ 16:28:20 DanC thanks for catching that typo:-) 16:28:29 I must have been smoking in typing matchboxes 16:29:34 Stuart: Conludes that no one on the TAG appears interested in leading this paenl. 16:29:47 Stuart: Ask Danny W? 16:33:23 Why does the TAG being involved in something necessary imply an issue or a finding. I think it's very appropriate that we facilitate discussion and fact finding, in part to decide whether there are lurking issues that we should open formally. 16:35:32 DaveO has joined #tagmem 16:38:30 TOPIC: XML Versioning 41 16:38:55 (skimming them now, a lot looks familiar; has anybody made a diff?) 16:39:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning.html 16:39:43 12 Dec 2006 16:39:59 agenda points to a draft of 26 March 2007 16:40:18 Dave to give a 10 minute overview 16:40:22 Version numbers for HTML and CSS 16:41:10 DanC: versioning coming up in html 16:41:27 HT: where is the material about abstract languages that came up in Vancouver 16:42:16 Hmmph ... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning.html is 2006. Remove the ".html" for the 2007 version. 16:42:32 An unusual fiorm of versioning ;-) 16:42:50 this web publishing thing is kinda tricky 16:44:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0034 16:44:45 Raman, DanC, TimBL all point out that html and css versioning are topics o discussion 16:47:37 1.1.3 16:51:02 (is Dave giving a diff, or summarizing the whole thing?) 16:51:28 sounds like a detailed exposition to me... 16:51:38 The whole thing I think .. he gave an overview of changes when he started 16:52:36 Document needs to identify different types of extensions: extension points (explicit vs impolicit ) created by language designer; extensions introduced by consuming apps that attach meaning to underspecified portions of a language; and how language designers work in the future in the face of such extensions 16:52:48 I believe the above approximately captures the situation with html 16:53:08 we shouldn't work on versioning in the belief that the only person versioning a language is the language designer 16:53:38 I'll need to leave in two minutes. 16:53:41 Examples I think are needed for each good practcie note, positive and negative. 16:54:07 microfomats here sticks out as a later addition? 16:54:43 Note that microformats isn't a new language or language version -- it uses an existing "implicit extension point" of HTML -- the class attribute -- as a payload to hold additional information 16:54:45 +1 to: raman: we shouldn't work on versioning in the belief that the only person versioning a language is the language designer 16:54:56 q? 16:55:21 scribenick: ht 16:55:27 -Raman 16:55:33 DO: Switch back to the email 16:55:39 [ref?] 16:55:54 DO: Major differences -- insertions of material pulled from part 1 16:55:58 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0034 Orchard 23 March 16:56:23 ... added some new versioning strategies . . . version numbers, substitution groups 16:56:33 ... other discussion of XML Schema 1.0 16:56:37 ... 8 case studies 16:56:50 ... XML Schema 16:57:06 ... [summary of ToC] 17:02:47 +1 survey/use-cases. I'd rather the document started with one of those rather than "Terminology" 17:03:03 DO: I'm particularly hoping that the case studies will address a number of outstanding requests for examples 17:03:23 I would find the tables easier if they were 2d matrices with a row for each example. 17:03:33 I wonder whether we need a collection of smaller chunks? 17:03:38 DO: New sections, new organisation - - feedback requested on whether this works, is what people were looking for 17:04:07 SW: Floor open for questions 17:04:22 SW: How does this work relate to the work in W3C XML Schema - land 17:04:26 q+ 17:05:07 DO: Schema WG folks have been looking at this document, I've been working in the WG to try to improve the ability of XML Schema 1.1 to be a good language for versioning 17:05:42 ... The "Guide to Versioning in XML Schema 1.1" is not quite the same thing, rather, it's focussing on what the _new_ mechanisms are in Schema 1.1 17:06:11 ... There's interest in a full-scale "how to version with Schema" document, but I haven't tried to do that 17:06:43 ack rhys 17:06:45 ... There's not much overlap with the TAG finding drafts, although some of the use cases are common 17:07:18 RW: Read previous versions of both docs, and the new version of part one, skimmed new part two 17:07:47 ... part two seems to be the thing I as a consumer really need, as I set out to try to design an XML language myself 17:07:59 q? 17:08:04 ... Do we have all the best practices in there now -- can we actually provide guidance?a 17:08:13 s/RW/RL 17:08:43 DO: I started out only caring about part two -- how to version XML 17:09:20 ... The TAG wanted to expand to covering a larger scope, to understand what is meant by language, version, extension 17:09:34 q+ to talk a bit about scope and goals 17:09:40 ... and this has consumed a lot of effort -- but I hope we're going to get back to the XML part of things 17:10:17 ... Wrt 'best practices', that's how we got started, I made concrete suggestions about how XML languages should have extensibility built in 17:11:14 ... That surfaced as my two xml.com articles, using the extension element technique, with explicit schemas illustrating this 17:11:46 q? 17:12:10 ... But the TAG thought that was too narrow, we need more of a survey of the range of mechanisms and requirements 17:12:39 ... Compare UBL, with new namespaces for every change, to DocBook, with no change of namespace ever 17:12:53 q+ 17:13:48 ack rhys 17:14:38 RL: Didn't mean to imply there was _one_ right answer, but a clear connection wrt design choices for a language and mechanisms and approaches to extensibility which would be appropriate 17:15:20 DO: Yes, I want to get there -- tempted to give a flow-chart/decision procedure, but my only effort to do so didn't converge 17:15:42 ... Yes, I do intend to combine all the tables together 17:15:57 ... But some of the entries are sort of too long for a table-cell. . . 17:16:26 ack noah 17:16:26 Noah, you wanted to talk a bit about scope and goals 17:17:19 NM: There's convergence in the sections we've talked about at length -- some more work is needed, but clear progress 17:17:37 ... I'm worried about the logistics of getting this to a consensus-attracting TAG finding 17:18:07 ... The whole of WebArch is 49 pages -- part 2 of this doc. is 34 pages, the whole things is close to 80 17:18:32 ... Maybe we need to prioritise and select 17:18:47 q+ on how to get to closure 17:18:58 q+ to talk about how to get to closure 17:19:14 ... Even if we don't, I'm concerned that most of what's there still needs serious attention, and that will take a _lot_ of time 17:20:01 ... The scale is, as you pointed out, a consequence of the range of interests within the TAG in this area 17:20:25 q? 17:20:32 ... What we _really_ shouldn't do is work hard on improving sections and then deciding to throw a lot out 17:20:44 ack daveo 17:20:44 DaveO, you wanted to talk about how to get to closure 17:20:53 ... So that's things for other TAG members to think about as they read this 17:21:23 DO: I agree with all of that -- I've been concerned as I've been asked to expand this with precisely that problem 17:21:50 ... Language versioning in general, there's a lot of material here -- several PhD theses 17:21:57 ... at any rate 17:22:04 I think what's happened is: Dave wanted this to be a mainly XML finding. Some of us suggested it should be a mainly non-XML finding. For the moment, that's turned into "let's put everything in there". 17:22:50 ... I'm happy to keep working on this, but we do all need to know that the work we do will end up being used 17:22:55 I don't think that's the whole issue though. Even within the separate parts, I think we may do better to deliver the really key points carefully and clearly, and to leave to others some of the other details. 17:24:13 DO: The thing I don't want to lose is what's needed to answer RL's requirement: What should a language designer do? 17:25:26 q+ 17:25:38 SW: So as we read this we need to be assessing its status -- is there a backbone here, from which we can separate a number of smaller, more accessible supplementary documents 17:26:02 ack timbl 17:26:06 DO: [One person's 80 is another person's 20] 17:26:28 TBL: I don't mind the length, as long as there's a logical and consistent story throughout 17:27:24 ... Maybe people only interested in XML will mostly read the 2nd part, and only go back to the 1st part when they hit a problem with terminology 17:28:04 ... I'm not sure cutting large chunks out is a good idea -- lots of the bulk is examples -- as long as it's logically laid out, people will focus on the parts that are relevant to them 17:28:34 FWIW: my concern is not that it's illogical. It's whether we can find the energy to tune something so long to the quality we need. 17:29:12 SW: So TAG members should all read the drafts, and send comments by email, with an eye to working on this at the f2f in May 17:30:01 ... As many reviews as possible would be good 17:30:23 TBL, DC: I may have to focus my effort, not cover the whole thing 17:31:18 NM: I just want to be sure that even in part two, we're all happy with recommendations and best practices 17:31:56 -DOrchard 17:31:59 -Norm 17:32:01 SW: Adjourned 17:32:02 -Noah_Mendelsohn 17:32:03 -Rhys 17:32:10 -Ht 17:32:16 -DanC 17:32:18 -Stuart 17:32:20 -TimBL 17:32:21 TAG_Weekly()12:00PM has ended 17:32:22 rrsagent, make logs world-visible 17:32:23 Attendees were TimBL, Raman, Noah_Mendelsohn, DanC, Ht, Rhys, Stuart, Norm, DOrchard 18:03:51 raman has left #tagmem 19:26:38 Zakim has left #tagmem 19:55:30 timbl has joined #tagmem 20:34:32 timbl_ has joined #tagmem