<noah> As noted in my regrets, I have some conflicts with today's call, but I'll try to keep an occasional eye out for IRC, and dial in if something comes up for which I am needed. Thank you.

Review of Agenda

<scribe> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/13-agenda.html

SW: Other topics?

DC: Assume that package URIs stuff would come up some time

SW: Issue 61? We will add this

Previous minutes

SW: Minutes from 16 October: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-tagmem-minutes
... and 6 Nov. f2f: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/06-minutes

<DanC> +1 approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/06-minutes

RESOLUTION: Approved as circulated

Next meetings

<DanC> (noah, you're ok to scribe 20 Nov?)

Meet next on 20 November, scribe duty to Noah, whom failing DanC

Meeting of 27 November is cancelled

Responding to "Content Transformation Guidelines" LC Review request

NW: I've reviewed this, and as far as I understand it, I think they are using proxies in the way they are meant to be used

SW: What about relation to Generic Resources?

NW: Didn't see that explicitly, but any transformation gives a new representation

DC: Are there multiple URIs?

NW: I think not

DC: TV, any thoughts on that?

TVR: Not at the moment

SW: Anything we need to push on?
... Last Call has actually expired

NW: I see no need to do anything other than say "Fine"

DC: Can you tell me a typical use case story?

NW: There are proxies set up so that e.g. a rich web site goes through the proxy and is transformed to something viewable on your mobile -- I think sidekick exploits this

DC: Any good recommendations

NW: Well, yes, don't change request headers was one bit

DC: Ah, perhaps the HTTP working party should look at this

NW: Good idea

SW: I will send a courtesy message saying we have nothing to say. . .

Issue namespaceDocument-8 (ISSUE-8)

DC: HST has the ball

HST: I foresee progress in the new year
... So we could close the issue w/o completing the action (yet)

<DanC> ACTION-23 due 2008-02-01

<trackbot> ACTION-23 track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG due date now 2008-02-01

DC: The two are now linked, via the Issue being in state Pending Review

Dec F2F - Call for Agenda Items

SW: Some items already suggested: Self-describing Web, Uniform Access to Metadata, Versioning
... Wrt UAM, JR has an action to produce some words, but not due until next year

JR: I will try to get something before us -- at least some slides

<noah> I remain somewhat optimistic of having a new Self-Describing Web draft. Bad news: unlikely to be as far ahead of F2F as I would like; Good news: I would expect changes to be well-isolated and easy to review, given thorough discussion we had in Bristol.

SW: DO, what about Versioning?

DO: I hope to get to it next week or the week after

JR: I believe I'm waiting for some input from DO

DO: I believe I'm waiting for JR

SW: Sounds like you should talk

<DanC> action-181?

<trackbot> ACTION-181 -- Jonathan Rees to update versioning formalism to align with terminology in versioning compatibility strategies -- due 2008-10-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/181

<DanC> action-182?

<trackbot> ACTION-182 -- David Orchard to provide example for jar to work into the formalism -- due 2008-10-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/182

<DanC> action-183?

<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- David Orchard to incorporate formalism into versioning compatibility strategies -- due 2008-10-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/183

<DanC> (indeed, the tracker state looks like... or is consistent with... deadlock)

SW: JR, DO will talk offline

SW: I have suggested giving each member a slot to motivate a topic, one they care about, either new, ongoing or forgotten
... HST, URNsAndRegistries?

HST: Yes, I will have new prose in time for f2f

<DanC> on tagSoup: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/

DC: Mike Smith is working on a language spec. document for HTML 5
... ref. TagSoupIntegration
... New W3C travel policy would mean I might get this trip and no others until TPAC

SW: So you are asking if we should meet?

DC: Yes

HST: I had assumed we would meet, planning to buy tickets soon

SW: NW and TVR will not be there, DO uncertain. NW and DO will join by 'phone

HST: I believe we will have enough people to do useful work

SW: We will meet, HST can buy tickets
... I would request more responses when I ask for agenda input

<noah> I will be at the December meeting (which if course is convenient for me).

Review of open action items

SW: Let's look at the list of open actions, by issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda
... Is ACTION-24 a worthwhile thing for Tim to pursue?

DC: Well, TBL does say when asked that we should keep this open
... I proposed to close on the basis of the XQuery spec.
... and there's the HTML5 spec's new input on this

SW: So the topic title asks a question

DC: That's overtaken for sure: W3C specs do support IRIs
... What's at the heart of WebArch, IRIs or URIs -- answer 'yes'

<DanC> ACTION-188?

<trackbot> ACTION-188 -- Dan Connolly to investigate the URL/IRI/Larry Masinter possible resolution of the URL/HTML5 issue. -- due 2008-10-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/188

SW: Anyone want to work on this?

DC: Even if not, OK to have the issue there as a marker

SW: ISSUE-30 / ACTION-176 -- NM, DO, any progress?

<DanC> action-176?

<trackbot> ACTION-176 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Dave to draft comments on exi w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency -- due 2008-09-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176

DO: I think NM has made some progress, I request to be released from this, too much load elsewhere

<DanC> (noah, are you OK to keep ACTION-176 open without Dave?)

SW: ISSUE-34 / ACTION-113

HST: Yes, it will happen someday

SW: ISSUE-35 / ACTION-130 XHTML/GRDDL

DC: Namespace doc't has been updated

SW: If you think it can be closed, please do so, leave a pointer to where the action is addressed

DC: OK
... What about the issue?

<DanC> action-130: http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml rev 2008/10/14 22:08:29

<trackbot> ACTION-130 Consult with Dan and Ralph about the gap between the XHTML namespace and the GRDDL transformation for RDFa notes added

SW: XHTML + RDFa has done it, right?

<DanC> close action-130

<trackbot> ACTION-130 Consult with Dan and Ralph about the gap between the XHTML namespace and the GRDDL transformation for RDFa closed

HST: As long as the issue is XHTML, we're good

TVR: RFDa works fine with HTML

HST: I dispute the 'fine'

SW: and I wonder about the 'works'

[TagSoup digression]

SW: Propose to close ISSUE-35

TVR: By pointing to RDFa

DC: And GRDDL

<DanC> (indeed, -1 on the empty proposal to close; we need a technical decision.)

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-35 on the basis the RDFa and GRDDL provide the desired solution

HST: We need an action to explain the resolution to the public

DC: I will take it

trackbot, status?

<DanC> ACTION: Dan announce decision on rdf-in-html-35 and invite feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Announce decision on rdf-in-html-35 and invite feedback [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-11-20].

<scribe> ACTION: Dan to close ISSUE-35 with a public explanation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Close ISSUE-35 with a public explanation [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-11-20].

<noah> Am I right that we instructed me to include in next draft of Self-describing Web a story on how you could follow your nose from HTML media types to RDFa?

SW: ISSUE-41 / outstanding actions
... Assuming there will be progress by the F2F

JR: Yes

<DanC> close action-192

<trackbot> ACTION-192 Close ISSUE-35 with a public explanation closed

SW: ISSUE-50 / ACTION-33

<DanC> action-192: dup of 191

<trackbot> ACTION-192 Close ISSUE-35 with a public explanation notes added

trackbot, close ACTION-189

<trackbot> ACTION-189 S. Send public comment to www-tag about the XRI proposal and the establishment of base URI. closed

HST: Others are indeed open

SW: ISSUE-52 / ACTION-150
... Finding published
... and announced

<DanC> action-150: done. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0091.html

<trackbot> ACTION-150 Finish refs etc on passwords in the clear finding [inc post Sept 2008 F2F updates] notes added

<DanC> issue-52: finding: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20081008.html

<trackbot> ISSUE-52 Sending passwords in the clear notes added

trackbot, close ACTION-150

<trackbot> ACTION-150 Finish refs etc on passwords in the clear finding [inc post Sept 2008 F2F updates] closed

DC: Did we hear back from anyone? Is there anyone we should be waiting on?

SW: We could ask Ed Rice?

DO: I will do so

DC: Do we have any recent input from Security Context?

SW: Not from the group, no

DO: We did our best to address several individual comments

SW: Any response to the publication announcement?

DO: Not that I'm aware of

<DanC> issue-52?

<trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- Sending passwords in the clear -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/52

<DanC> close issue-52

SW: Close the issue now? Wait for Ed?

<DanC> issue-52?

<trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- Sending passwords in the clear -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/52

TVR: Not necessary, close it and notify him as a courtesy

SW: ISSUE-54 / three actions wrt TagSoup

DC: Recent progress on validator, some of it public. . .

<DanC> action-7: http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/11/dreamimg_a_new_css_validator.html

<trackbot> ACTION-7 draft a position regarding extensibility of HTML and the role of the validator for consideration by the TAG notes added

DC: Blog posting by Olivier Théreaux, which has attracted favourable comment

SW: Waiting for Tim on the other two

<DanC> ACTION-188 due 20 Nov 2008

<trackbot> ACTION-188 Investigate the URL/IRI/Larry Masinter possible resolution of the URL/HTML5 issue. due date now 20 Nov 2008

HST: Wrt ACTION-145, I still hope TBL will produce a publication from the positive parts of his paper and his TPAC slides

DC: I'm about to get going on ACTION-188

<DanC> (I'd like us to keep due dates in the future; if the chair expects tbl to continue work on 116, let's give it a due date in the future... e.g. the ftf agenda timeframe...)

SW: ISSUE-57 / three actions

<DanC> action-116 due 1 Dec 2008

<trackbot> ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. due date now 1 Dec 2008

JR: ACTION-184 is about to be done

SW: We're expecting something on ACTION-178 for the F2F
... ISSUE-58 / ACTION-163

NW: I still hope to work with Ted Guild on this, it is important

SW: ISSUE-60 / three actions

NW: I have sent TVR a review

SW: I will do ACTION-143 at some point

<DanC> (possible ftf fodder: the iphone urls thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0002.html )

SW: ACTION-106

NW: No progress, but I will try to get that ready for the f2f

SW: I have done ACTION-190

trackbot, close ACTION-190

<trackbot> ACTION-190 Make the above resolution visible on www-tag closed

<Stuart> close action-190

<trackbot> ACTION-190 Make the above resolution visible on www-tag closed

ACTION-106: NW sent comments to TVR privately

<trackbot> ACTION-106 Make a pass over the WebArch 2.0 doc't which adds a paragraph, and connects up to issues list notes added

trackbot, close ACTION-106

<trackbot> ACTION-106 Make a pass over the WebArch 2.0 doc't which adds a paragraph, and connects up to issues list closed

TVR: I'm not sure about how to take this forward
... I don't plan to pick it up, except to possibly add new uses
... I don't see how to get it to the right audience. . .

SW, DC: Is there a blog article in there?

<DanC> found it... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url

TVR: Perhaps. . .

DC: Maybe I'll try to adapt it

TVR: I will help

<scribe> ACTION: Dan to try to draft a blog posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, with help from TVR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Try to draft a blog posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, with help from TVR [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-11-20].

<Stuart> issue-61?

<trackbot> ISSUE-61 -- URI Based Access to Packaged Items -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/61

SW: We will discuss that next week

December f2f topics

<DanC> http://www.adsafe.org/

DC: HTML5 and URLs, reread Doug Crockford's safe JavaScript
... He's added a mode to JSLINT which verifies this
... He's very critical of the work on cross-site access controls
... He has an alternative, namely JSON-request
... What could be the improvement, by using JSON instead of XML?
... We could study that space, perhaps

TVR: I tried to find the answer to that question, but didn't see it

SW: DC, could you assemble a reading list?
... If we scheduled this at the right time, could you join us by phone, TV?

TVR: No, sorry, I will be travelling on the 11, and preparing on the day before -- Tuesday might be possible.

SW: Sounds like a good idea in any case, DC, reading list please

<DanC> iphone urls thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0002.html

DC: There there's the iphone: URL thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Oct/0002.html
... I can't get this started yet
... MNot says [tongue in cheek?] "We need an Arch Group for this sort of thing"
... I like tel: . . . blog entry: ???

SW: We can talk about this on a call -- let's find a slot on one of the next two calls

<DanC> (blog entry that celebrates tel: support http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/08/iphone_developer_guidelines_pr.html )

TVR: We should maybe write down URI schemes we know about

<DanC> (I try to garden http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes somewhat actively)

TVR: [lists some]
... It does help to look at these

<HST> HST does review the registered and unregistered schemes lists with some regularity

<DanC> http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes/ed2k

DC: p2p ones are not lookup + hierarchy
... I am bored by proposals which suggest replacing DNS
... but these don't do that

TVR: There are 4 parts to a URI: protocol, host, path and port
... But consider ??? -- doesn't change the host/DNS part, but changes the handler
... Or ado:, as a protocol identifier for local work [missed some]

<DanC> (ado isn't among the list in http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes . hmm.)

<Norm> Yes, the fact that protocol handlers are easy to register is the interesting angle to me

<Stuart> kind of browser architecture stuff... maybe html5 should say something about plugin handlers...

DC: SchemeProtocols is a good area to wander around periodically, not necessarly to try to draw hard conclusions

SW: ADJOURNED