IRC log of tagmem on 2007-11-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:42:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:42:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-tagmem-irc
17:42:12 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:42:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:42:15 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be TAG
17:42:15 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
17:42:17 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
17:42:19 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 29 November 2007
17:52:37 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
17:55:24 [Rhys]
Rhys has joined #tagmem
17:57:12 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
17:57:19 [Zakim]
+ +014837aaaa
17:57:40 [Rhys]
zakim, aaaa is Rhys
17:57:40 [Zakim]
+Rhys; got it
17:57:51 [Noah_WashDC]
Noah_WashDC has joined #tagmem
17:57:53 [Zakim]
+Norm
17:58:11 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
17:58:11 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
17:58:12 [Zakim]
+Ht
17:58:30 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin
17:58:50 [Zakim]
+??P7
17:59:09 [Noah_WashDC]
zakim, mute John_Slatin
17:59:10 [Zakim]
John_Slatin should now be muted
17:59:15 [Stuart]
zakim, ?? is me
17:59:15 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
17:59:29 [Noah_WashDC]
zakim, unmute John_Slatin
17:59:29 [Zakim]
John_Slatin should no longer be muted
17:59:29 [ht]
zakim, John is Noah
17:59:30 [Zakim]
+Noah; got it
17:59:42 [Noah_WashDC]
zakim, John_Slatin is me
17:59:42 [Zakim]
sorry, Noah_WashDC, I do not recognize a party named 'John_Slatin'
17:59:47 [Zakim]
+Raman
18:03:09 [ht]
Chair: Stuart Williams
18:03:18 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
18:03:23 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
18:04:08 [ht]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/29-agenda.html
18:04:21 [ht]
Topic: Review of agenda
18:04:32 [ht]
SW: Added item 6, review request
18:04:50 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
18:04:56 [ht]
Item 5 wrt PW in the clear is to confirm a missing action on DO
18:04:56 [Zakim]
+DanC.a
18:05:52 [ht]
TVR: My plan for my action-?? is to just lightly link up Norm's blog entry on implicit namespaces and a document I wrote some years ago
18:06:35 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/9167
18:07:13 [DanC]
so include "ACTION-25" in your message somewhere
18:07:29 [ht]
s/action-??/ACTION-25/
18:07:33 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
18:07:36 [ht]
Topic: Minutes of last meeting
18:07:53 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/15-minutes
18:07:55 [DanC]
I'm at risk for 6 Dec; birthday celebration
18:08:01 [ht]
SW: Approved as posted
18:08:08 [ht]
Topic: Next meeting
18:08:32 [DanC]
TVR regrets 6 Dec
18:08:34 [ht]
SW: 6 December meeting scribe RL
18:08:47 [ht]
NW: Regrets for 6 Dec
18:09:15 [ht]
Topic: End of year break
18:09:34 [ht]
SW: Propose last call for this year on 13 Dec, first call of new year on 10 Jan 2008
18:09:59 [ht]
SW: Next f2f is 26--28 February 2008
18:10:23 [ht]
RESOLVED: Last call for this year on 13 Dec, first call of new year on 10 Jan 2008
18:10:40 [ht]
Topic: abbreviatedURIs-56 (ISSUE-56)
18:11:04 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0033
18:11:07 [ht]
SW: I followed up on ACTION-77
18:11:16 [ht]
with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0025
18:11:32 [ht]
WG chair replied formally with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007OctDec/0033
18:11:36 [DanC]
agenda + Nov ftf meeting records: propose to withdraw ACTION-76
18:12:09 [ht]
SW: We asked them to put some quite strong language to prevent use of CURIEs where URIs are expected
18:12:24 [ht]
... The WG chair pushed back
18:12:33 [ht]
... In the context of HTML role
18:12:59 [ht]
... But now there's a new publication elsewhere and asked us to comment on it there
18:13:07 [Stuart]
s/WG chair/editor in an informal response/
18:13:27 [ht]
NW: I regret the multiple publications of this document
18:14:10 [Norm]
Fine. I guess I was just confused.
18:14:32 [ht]
NM: Quotes from the WG's official response "This version of the document includes a normative
18:14:32 [ht]
definition of CURIEs that is the source of your concerns. The section on
18:14:32 [ht]
CURIEs was included as a matter of convenience and will be removed from
18:14:32 [ht]
later versions of the document.
18:14:34 [ht]
"
18:14:41 [DanC]
+1 focus on particular attributes with a history of URI reference values
18:15:18 [Stuart]
q?
18:15:39 [ht]
NM: Since they're now planning a separate document, the point about health warning is once again relevant
18:15:48 [DanC]
(I think it's premature to factor curies out of the RDFa spec, but it's largely an editorial matter, and I'm not the editor.)
18:16:13 [ht]
... because that document is no longer in the context of a particular attribute or attributes. . .
18:16:55 [ht]
SW: So we're now invited to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
18:18:00 [ht]
DC: So what are the use cases?
18:18:30 [Noah]
Well, what I said was, it looks like they are doing what we suggested, which is to not duplicate the normative definition of CURIEs (to the extent we're OK with there being any definition of CURIEs, which I'll put aside for a second).
18:18:36 [ht]
NM: role, I think
18:19:20 [ht]
DC: I think role is only in use much today in ARIA (accessible Javascript)
18:19:32 [DanC]
(What I meant was: role is a technical approach, and I'm still interested to know about the use case. sounds like it's URI-based extensibility a la microformats class kludges.)
18:19:37 [Noah]
We've said that if there is a normative definition of CURIE, that definition should be accompanied by a general admonition not to use CURIEs where URIs are expected. Since the XHTML Role specification in question will no longer carry a definition for CURIEs, I don't think we can ask them for the health warning.
18:20:01 [Noah]
I do think we can check that none of the particular attributes (e.g. @role) that allow CURIEs also allow URI refs.
18:20:33 [ht]
DC, TVR: [discussion of use of 'role' and 'class' which scribe did not keep up with]
18:20:48 [Stuart]
I think they define role to expect URIorCURIE
18:21:09 [ht]
DC: Role is URI-based?
18:21:44 [ht]
TVR: Original spec. didn't say. WAI used it with QNames/URIs for taxonomies
18:22:06 [ht]
... there are certainly non-URI uses out there
18:22:11 [DanC]
q+
18:22:25 [ht]
SW: RDFa have an interest in CURIEs, so do the OWL 1.1 folks
18:22:29 [ht]
ack DanC
18:22:29 [Stuart]
ack DanC
18:22:54 [ht]
DC: I'm interested in use cases and/or customers, not technologies. . .
18:23:18 [ht]
... Creative Commons people are waiting, NewsML were, but maybe they rolled their own
18:23:55 [ht]
TVR: NewsML will proceed with or without W3C
18:24:27 [Stuart]
q?
18:24:42 [ht]
q+ to follow up on Noah's point about health warning
18:25:04 [Stuart]
q?
18:25:30 [ht]
DC: I was happy with their using their own abbreviation in their own language
18:25:35 [Stuart]
ack ht
18:25:35 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to follow up on Noah's point about health warning
18:25:50 [ht]
... It's when they propose factoring it out and making it general that I get worried
18:25:53 [DanC]
(happy, since their abbrevation mechanism is clearly grounded in real, good URIs)
18:26:23 [Noah]
HT: I think I disagree with the implications of Noah's clarification above
18:27:22 [ht]
HT: Since they've pulled it out, there needs to be a health warning in the place they've specced it on its own
18:27:39 [ht]
NM: Right, not at the point where they spec. the role attribute
18:27:56 [ht]
... But we should check that the 'role' spec. does _not_ allow vanilla URIs
18:28:52 [ht]
ACTION: Henry to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
18:28:52 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-80 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-12-06].
18:28:56 [Noah]
HT: OK, we agree. A warning is needed, but with the definition of CURIEs
18:29:03 [ht]
ACTION: Norm to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
18:29:03 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Norm
18:29:12 [ht]
ACTION: Stuart to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
18:29:12 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-81 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-12-06].
18:29:25 [Stuart]
trackbot-ng, status
18:29:36 [ht]
ACTION: Norman to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
18:29:36 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-82 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ [on Norman Walsh - due 2007-12-06].
18:30:12 [ht]
Topic: binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30)
18:31:08 [ht]
SW: HST wrote a draft response [member only] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Nov/0071.html
18:31:13 [Noah]
Regarding EXI before I forget. Henry's draft says: The proposed EXI format is the best technology for the job;
18:31:23 [ht]
... We will return to this item when DO joins the call
18:31:38 [Noah]
I wonder if it might best be "the best choice for the job".
18:31:50 [Noah]
or suitable choice
18:32:32 [ht]
Topic: Review Request "Access Control for Cross-site Requests"
18:32:42 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0050
18:33:09 [ht]
SW: We should be involved, right?
18:33:12 [ht]
... Volunteers?
18:33:31 [ht]
DC: Did our concerns get captured in a test case
18:33:49 [ht]
... Security threat models perhaps not appropriate for a test. . .
18:33:53 [Zakim]
+Dave_Orchard
18:33:59 [ht]
SW: I think a fresh review is called for
18:34:14 [DanC]
(I can't do a fresh review; I've already looked at it.)
18:34:27 [ht]
ACTION: Stuart to review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/
18:34:27 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-83 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/ [on Stuart Williams - due 2007-12-06].
18:34:44 [ht]
ACTION: David to review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/
18:34:44 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-84 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/ [on David Orchard - due 2007-12-06].
18:34:57 [ht]
DO: DC, did you publish comments?
18:35:03 [DanC]
long HTTP header field name in WD-access-control http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Jul/0000.html
18:35:12 [ht]
SW: I sent our comments on the previous draft
18:35:49 [ht]
DO: Anything else, DC?
18:36:06 [ht]
DC: I think they pretty much covered the threat model issue
18:36:29 [ht]
... I was also concerned that the doc. make clear what the problem was
18:36:44 [ht]
... They added a small bit on that, I guess I'm satisfied
18:36:55 [ht]
SW: We'll return to this when the reviews are done
18:37:12 [ht]
Topic: Issue passwordsInTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52)
18:37:32 [ht]
SW: I believe we discussed this last time and agreed that you would do another editorial pass, publish and invite comment
18:37:39 [ht]
... but there was no official action
18:38:55 [DanC]
q+ to ask who from WSC has been active so far
18:39:23 [DanC]
12 Nov draft was discussed...
18:39:28 [ht]
ACTION: David to produce another draft of Passwords in the Clear finding, based on comments from 15 November telcon, publish it and invite comment
18:39:28 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-85 - Produce another draft of Passwords in the Clear finding, based on comments from 15 November telcon, publish it and invite comment [on David Orchard - due 2007-12-06].
18:39:51 [Stuart]
ack danc
18:39:51 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask who from WSC has been active so far
18:39:51 [ht]
DO: Will try to do this by the end of the week
18:40:16 [ht]
DC: Which people in WSC are paying attention?
18:40:30 [ht]
SW: They are waiting on a draft from us/a request to comment from us
18:40:51 [ht]
... In addition to Thomas Roessler and Mez, Hal from BEA was most vocal
18:41:09 [ht]
DC: What about the TPAC meeting?
18:41:25 [ht]
SW: The above 3
18:42:08 [ht]
DO: There was input from a number of folk, at least 5 or 6, plus Tyler Close on the phone -- I got a lot of input from the meeting minutes
18:42:35 [ht]
DO: So do I get review from them first, or just publish
18:42:41 [ht]
DC: Just publish
18:42:43 [ht]
DO: Will do
18:42:47 [DanC]
(them? us, rather, yes?)
18:43:04 [ht]
Topic: #
18:43:04 [ht]
*
18:43:04 [ht]
# Issue binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30)
18:43:23 [ht]
DO: I'm happy with HST's packaging
18:43:40 [dorchard]
more specifically, I'm very happy with HST's packaging
18:43:57 [ht]
HST: I will edit to take account of NM's wording suggestion
18:44:19 [Noah]
I see some extra underbar (_) chars in the version of the note that came through my email.
18:44:57 [Noah]
Ah, I guess those are for emphasis, but somehow underbar doesn't do that for me. Prefer perhaps >XXXX< to emphasize XXXX
18:45:07 [Stuart]
q?
18:46:33 [ht]
ACTION: Henry to make editorial corrections to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Nov/0096.html and post that to the EXI WG on behalf of the TAG
18:46:33 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-86 - Make editorial corrections to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Nov/0096.html and post that to the EXI WG on behalf of the TAG [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-12-06].
18:46:39 [Stuart]
q?
18:46:57 [ht]
Topic: Issue namespaceDocument-8
18:47:00 [Noah]
Also: "_No_ aspect of the messaging should suggest" it's not clear that the use of the word messaging here is quite unambiguous
18:47:18 [DanC]
(I'm looking at the diffs .. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/diff_20071005.html bummed I didn't manage to look at them carefully before the meeting)
18:47:54 [ht]
SW: HST has published a new draft, completing Action 65
18:47:56 [DanC]
(ah... yes... 4.1 and 4.2 separate cases... I remember asking for that.)
18:48:10 [ht]
... Action 66 has been overtaken
18:49:54 [Stuart]
q?
18:50:06 [ht]
HST: New draft is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/
18:50:27 [DanC]
q+ to note { n:key range xsd:anyURI } and ask how xsd:anyURI relates to xsd:string (and wonder about RDF plain literals)
18:50:32 [ht]
... Mostly added a new section to embody agreement to discuss NS vs NS-DOC by cases
18:51:04 [Stuart]
q?
18:51:13 [Stuart]
ack DanC
18:51:13 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to note { n:key range xsd:anyURI } and ask how xsd:anyURI relates to xsd:string (and wonder about RDF plain literals)
18:51:23 [DanC]
nature:key "http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0";
18:52:32 [ht]
DC: You changed nature:key from Object Property to Datatype Property
18:53:14 [ht]
HST: Yes, decided not to include ^^ syntax. . .
18:53:20 [DanC]
ACTION: Dan try examples from ns8 draft in OWL tools
18:53:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-87 - Try examples from ns8 draft in OWL tools [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-12-06].
18:53:20 [ht]
DC: Yeah, understood
18:54:04 [ht]
SW: Are we ready to go with this one?
18:54:16 [DanC]
(what diff tool did you use? that's cool.)
18:54:19 [ht]
DC: Yes, but not in a rush. . .
18:55:01 [Norm]
Dom announced it somewhere, spec-prod? chairs?
18:55:20 [ht]
ACTION: Norman to review http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/
18:55:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-88 - Review http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/ [on Norman Walsh - due 2007-12-06].
18:55:44 [ht]
Topic: Overdue action review
18:56:01 [DanC]
q+
18:56:03 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
18:56:07 [ht]
SW: Need to cull these if any overtaken or need postponed
18:56:39 [Rhys]
q+ to say that I'd like to claim 50 as complete
18:56:48 [DanC]
ack danc
18:57:53 [Rhys]
ack me
18:57:53 [Zakim]
Rhys, you wanted to say that I'd like to claim 50 as complete
18:58:50 [DanC]
ACTION: DanC note the old submission about logout button under passwordsInTheClear
18:58:50 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-89 - Note the old submission about logout button under passwordsInTheClear [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-12-06].
18:59:32 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/74
19:00:19 [DanC]
this one, I think... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/
19:00:26 [DanC]
so put that pointer in a note and note yours closed.
19:00:36 [DanC]
please
19:02:03 [ht]
HST believes http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/15-minutes#item06 actually discharges action 78, marked as needs review
19:02:26 [ht]
s/action 78/action 69/
19:02:42 [DanC]
78 doesn't seem to be pending review yet here
19:05:04 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda
19:07:02 [DanC]
ping issue http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1
19:07:17 [ht]
Topic: General discussion
19:07:28 [DanC]
fielding 6 Nov http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0101.html ?
19:07:40 [ht]
TVR: Anyone looking at the 'ping' attribute in HTML5 draft?
19:07:52 [ht]
DO: Do we need an issue for this?
19:08:49 [ht]
DC: My first reaction was negative, but I am now not so sure
19:09:20 [ht]
TVR: My primary concern was that this is buried amongst so much other stuff, it's not getting the review it deserves
19:09:35 [ht]
DO: I agree -- I think Roy's analysis is compelling, this is bad
19:10:05 [ht]
TVR: HTML 5 discussion has gone off onto question of whether users understand GET vs POST
19:10:27 [ht]
DC: So this is related to Issue 7: When to use GET vs. POST
19:10:43 [ht]
... We could reopen that for discussion of this matter
19:10:58 [ht]
SW: Moved and seconded, I will reopen the issue
19:11:05 [ht]
... So, someone explain?
19:11:17 [ht]
DC: I run news.org, a newspaper website
19:12:01 [ht]
... When DO follows a link from my site to one of my advertisers, I would like Audit Bureau of Circulation to get a notification
19:12:15 [ht]
... Today this is handled by masses of complex Javascript
19:12:27 [ht]
... 'ping' is a declarative way of achieving the same thing
19:12:58 [ht]
... I need to check that this is indeed what the spec. says
19:13:13 [ht]
HST: I'd like to review the materials before further discussion
19:13:40 [ht]
TVR: I'd also like TAG input on my message to www-tag last week, harking back to a video example from before that
19:13:54 [DanC]
Subject: Toward URL-Equality For Web Servers And Web Clients
19:13:54 [DanC]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:31:32 -0800 (11:31 CST)
19:13:57 [Stuart]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0025.html
19:14:31 [ht]
SW: An agenda item for a future meeting. . .
19:15:18 [ht]
Topic: TAG blog
19:15:29 [ht]
NM: What is status? Concerns raised, where are we?
19:16:09 [ht]
TVR: Compromise -- blog wherever we like, post a pointer to it on the TAG blog
19:16:19 [ht]
NM: Persistence is a problem
19:16:21 [ht]
q+
19:16:26 [dorchard]
q+
19:16:42 [ht]
NM: There is real value to having stuff in W3C space
19:16:45 [Stuart]
ack ht
19:16:46 [dorchard]
q+ to support TVR. I don't intend to stop using my blog for TAG related items
19:16:59 [DanC]
(I acknowledge Noah's concerns, but I'm not inspired with any specific way to improve the situation.)
19:17:24 [Stuart]
ack do
19:17:24 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to support TVR. I don't intend to stop using my blog for TAG related items
19:17:58 [ht]
HST: I have been holding off on several possible postings because of the possibility that we will move/change
19:18:20 [ht]
DO: I am happy with working decentralized
19:18:21 [DanC]
(I'm open to all manner of mix-and-match... TVR's write-elsewhere-and-abstract-on-w3.org is OK by me, though I acknowledge Noah's persistence concerns.)
19:19:07 [ht]
NM: I don't have a problem with that, but I would also like to have something in W3C space for the commitment that that represents
19:19:26 [Stuart]
q+ to ask raman, as one of the people with strong motivation for a TAG blog
19:20:42 [Stuart]
ack stuart
19:20:42 [Zakim]
Stuart, you wanted to ask raman, as one of the people with strong motivation for a TAG blog
19:20:54 [dorchard]
I think this issue about the TAG members blogging. I've had my domain up and running for almost 12 years now, so 15-20 years more is likely.
19:23:07 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/blog/tag
19:24:31 [dorchard]
I missed the QA rebranding as well.
19:24:57 [dorchard]
and it never occurred to me that QA was not Quality Assurance.
19:26:19 [dorchard]
hmm.. I could add a TAG blog to pacificspirit.com if the TAG would like
19:28:42 [DanC]
some specific things I can do: get "Q&A Weblog" spelled out as "Question and Answer Weblog"
19:30:31 [DanC]
and look into a better link from specific items http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/11/a_story_about_namespaces_mime.html to http://www.w3.org/blog/tag/
19:30:59 [DanC]
(re openid support... that's an important feature, to me, and it seems to have been taken back out of /QA/ ... I wonder what's up with that.)
19:32:01 [DanC]
("for" or "against" isn't helpful, to me; for what we have or for something else is more helpful.)
19:32:47 [Zakim]
-Rhys
19:33:52 [Zakim]
-Dave_Orchard
19:33:53 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:34:09 [DanC]
Zakim, I hung up; why didn't you notice?
19:34:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, DanC.
19:34:10 [Zakim]
-Ht
19:34:11 [DanC]
Zakim, drop danc
19:34:11 [Zakim]
DanC.a is being disconnected
19:34:13 [Zakim]
-DanC.a
19:34:15 [Zakim]
-Stuart
19:34:32 [Zakim]
-Noah
19:34:34 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:34:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were +014837aaaa, Rhys, Norm, Ht, John_Slatin, Stuart, Noah, Raman, DanC.a, Dave_Orchard
19:35:25 [ht]
zakim, bye
19:35:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
19:35:38 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:35:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-tagmem-minutes.html ht
19:35:51 [DanC]
for reference, the explicit re-branding: http://www.w3.org/News/2007#item222 Quality Assurance Activity Completes Its Work, QA Becomes the Q&A Weblog
19:36:06 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:36:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-tagmem-minutes.html ht