IRC log of tagmem on 2009-01-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:57:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:57:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-tagmem-irc
17:58:20 [Zakim]
+Raman
17:58:23 [Zakim]
-Masinter
17:58:24 [Zakim]
+Masinter
17:59:01 [Stuart]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/att-0108/tag-weekly.html
17:59:31 [Zakim]
+jrees
17:59:56 [Zakim]
+??P8
18:00:04 [Stuart]
zakim, ?? is me
18:00:04 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
18:00:13 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:00:14 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:00:16 [Zakim]
+Ht
18:00:19 [Stuart]
zakim, who is on the phone
18:00:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Stuart
18:00:24 [Stuart]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:00:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht
18:00:47 [Zakim]
+DanC.a
18:01:32 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
18:01:34 [raman]
CACM Article: The Rest Of The Story -- See http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/raman/publications/beyond-web20-cacm-2009/
18:01:37 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
18:01:43 [ht]
Chair: Stuart Williams
18:01:45 [Stuart]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:01:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht, DanC.a
18:01:50 [ht]
Meeting: TAG telcon
18:02:22 [ht]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/att-0108/tag-weekly.html
18:02:22 [Stuart]
Regrets: Ashok, Norm(partial), John Kemp
18:02:43 [ht]
Topic: Admin
18:02:44 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
18:03:04 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
18:03:25 [ht]
SW: Agenda?
18:03:43 [ht]
DC: Flyby of OAuth
18:03:54 [ht]
SW: At the end, if poss.
18:03:57 [Zakim]
+dorchard
18:04:18 [ht]
NM: Requests came in to fix some broken links
18:04:27 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #tagmem
18:04:27 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
18:04:27 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:04:28 [ht]
... in the ??? finding
18:04:47 [ht]
SW: Minutes from 22 Jan?
18:04:50 [ht]
DO: Pending. . .
18:05:14 [ht]
SW: Hold approval to next week
18:05:55 [ht]
SW: This is my last call or meeting of any kind in the chair, NM will chair our meeting next week, 5 Feb, and going forward
18:05:58 [ht]
DC: Regrets
18:06:05 [ht]
SW: JR to scribe
18:06:31 [ht]
DO: Also last official meeting for DO and NW. . .
18:06:59 [ht]
SW: Traditional allows outgoing TAG members as guests until the first F2F
18:07:12 [ht]
NM: I'm happy to go with that
18:07:47 [ht]
... Anyone with a concern can say so now, or in private email
18:08:27 [ht]
SW: No obligation to attend outside official terms, but informal overlap helps the transition
18:08:46 [ht]
s/first F2F/end of the first F2F/
18:09:06 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
18:09:12 [ht]
Topic: ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection
18:09:40 [DanC]
ACTION-200 due next week
18:09:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-200 Revise "Uniform Access to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case due date now next week
18:09:46 [ht]
JR: ACTION-200, to add a use case, is nearly ready, but not done yet
18:09:51 [timbl]
Zakim, call timbl-work
18:09:51 [Zakim]
ok, timbl; the call is being made
18:09:53 [Zakim]
+Timbl
18:10:12 [ht]
SW: Topic for f2f?
18:10:26 [ht]
JR: Yes, I think ISSUE-57 should be on the f2f agenda
18:11:20 [DanC]
feel free to give a different due date
18:11:29 [DanC]
(darn; date of next ftf is not on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ )
18:11:37 [ht]
SW: ACTION-184 appears to have generated some activity
18:12:21 [masinter`]
URI for explanation of issue?
18:12:22 [ht]
JR: I've worked through the 303 story with Lisa D of IETF in a series of emails
18:12:54 [masinter`]
sorry, don't know how to find this
18:12:57 [ht]
... DBooth has pointed out the value-add of having a URI for the redirected-to URI as well
18:13:06 [noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html
18:13:53 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/issues/57
18:14:28 [ht]
q+ to ask JR about the implication he heard that he had not persuaded Lisa
18:14:36 [Stuart]
opps.. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/51
18:15:00 [Stuart]
opps.. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
18:15:49 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:15:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht, DanC.a, noah, dorchard, Timbl
18:15:50 [ht]
JR: I was accused of undermining httpRange-14, I'm in favor in general, but I thought pushing hard on IANA was going too far
18:15:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see timbl, dorchard, noah, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart, masinter`, jar, raman, ht, Norm, trackbot, DanC
18:16:01 [DanC]
e.g. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
18:16:12 [ht]
LM: What's the issue?
18:16:25 [ht]
SW: Entries in IANA registry for link relations
18:16:32 [noah]
FWIW: that URI provided by DanC is 404
18:16:43 [ht]
... Given that they are intended to denote relaations
18:16:52 [ht]
... So we would like 303s, per httpRange-14
18:16:54 [timbl]
"permathread" = recurrent discussion
18:17:04 [jar]
Larry asks: What problem does the httpRange-14 rule solve?
18:17:21 [ht]
s/relaations/relations/
18:17:34 [jar]
q?
18:17:34 [timbl]
q+
18:17:34 [ht]
SW: [glosses the httpRange-14 resolution]
18:17:49 [DanC]
q- later
18:17:56 [Stuart]
ack ht
18:17:56 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask JR about the implication he heard that he had not persuaded Lisa
18:18:30 [Stuart]
ack tim
18:18:51 [noah]
HT: So did I understand right JR? You succeeded in communicating your concerns to Lisa, but did not succeed in convincing to actually put up the redirects?
18:18:59 [ht]
HT: Is it the case that you explained the situation to Lisa, she understood, but you got no agreement to implement 303 redirects at these URIs
18:19:33 [ht]
JR: yes, oversimplifying a bit
18:19:44 [Stuart]
<protein> dc:creator <someDocumentAuthor>
18:20:13 [ht]
TBL: [example of a URI for a protein returning with 200 leading to confusion]
18:20:31 [ht]
LM: IETF/IESG have a complex relationship with IANA
18:20:56 [ht]
... It's not always easy for IESG people to make things happen on that website
18:21:01 [timbl]
In way, W3C would be more logical advisor to IANA's web site.
18:21:19 [DanC]
(I'd be grumpy at raman for taking my place in the queue if he didn't say what I was gonna say ;-)
18:21:35 [Stuart]
q?
18:22:15 [ht]
TBL: The issue resolution may not be perfect, but it has the advantage that we can stop spending _huge_ amounts of person-time continuing to discuss it
18:23:02 [noah]
I fear we are about to back into the whole httpRange business. If it's worth reopening, I think we should do it with great care, and perhaps after a few weeks' of sitting on the preliminary decision to do so. History suggests that it will be difficult and time consuming to do better than we already have.
18:23:02 [ht]
s/it/alternative, equally imperfect, solutions/
18:23:02 [Stuart]
ack DanC
18:23:06 [jar]
sure... but I just did (with Mark & Lisa) - the resolution didn't help me avoid the talking-time...
18:23:30 [DanC]
. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
18:23:44 [DanC]
<- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html
18:23:48 [jar]
Is relation:describedby a relation or a document?
18:23:51 [ht]
DC: If the argument didn't persuade, then maybe we should reopen the issue
18:24:46 [masinter`]
since I'm still a guest, I'm not sure it's in order to say that I don't like httpRange-14 very much, but I'm not sure it's worth TAG time talking about it more
18:25:21 [timbl]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
18:25:27 [timbl]
is 404
18:25:36 [Stuart]
Larry... your opinion is certainly noted... and it's quite in order for you to offer it.
18:25:41 [jar]
q+ jar
18:25:43 [ht]
DC: If the IANA website were abusing web security guidelines, we would push hard until we got a resolution
18:26:50 [ht]
LM: I think it's at least worth getting a writeup of the outcome of this effort
18:27:00 [DanC]
(Is the URI standard quite clear on " Why can't a single string identify a relation for some purposes and a document for others?")
18:27:08 [Stuart]
Larry... FYI some of the working concensus beyond httpRange-14 is detailed in http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
18:27:13 [noah]
q+
18:27:15 [Stuart]
q?
18:27:21 [ht]
DC: The crucial point is Why can't a single string identify a relation for some purposes and
18:27:21 [ht]
a document for others?
18:27:29 [ht]
s/"Why/Why
18:27:35 [ht]
s/?/?"/
18:27:40 [DanC]
(is "concensus" an en-uk spelling or just a common typo?)
18:27:48 [Stuart]
ack jar
18:28:18 [ht]
LM: I think it's worth distinguishing between identify and denote---when I say "I'm parked out back" it's not me, it's my car, and that's not a problem
18:28:29 [ht]
JR: True, but not I think exactly relevant
18:29:04 [ht]
JR: Having summarized the standard arguments, I went to the RFCs
18:29:08 [Stuart]
q+ to move to POWDER LC
18:29:16 [timbl]
q+ to ask for the source of http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
18:29:23 [ht]
... I think 2616 says you can't return a 200 for a URI which identifies a relation
18:29:39 [DanC]
-1 404
18:29:55 [ht]
... But Mark Nottingham basically said the spec. wasn't meant to be read that way
18:30:18 [ht]
JR: So that line didn't fly either
18:30:39 [ht]
JR: Lisa didn't think going directly to IANA wouldn't help
18:30:59 [ht]
JR: Note that the registry hasn't been published yet, which is why the URIs aren't there yet
18:31:07 [ht]
TBL: They could use a hash?
18:31:17 [Stuart]
ack noah
18:31:18 [timbl]
" If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
18:31:18 [timbl]
considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/","
18:31:18 [ht]
JR: No, because they want to use relative URIs
18:31:27 [timbl]
(in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03)
18:32:08 [ht]
NM: As JR said, the points we're hearing are the ones we discussed at length in the httpRange-14 discussion
18:32:53 [ht]
... Uniformity is a real value, and "using the same string..." compromises that
18:32:58 [timbl]
q+
18:33:21 [ht]
NM: Either we should re-open this, and prepare to spend a substantial amount of time on it
18:33:43 [ht]
... or we should just accept that our advice will never be completely adopted
18:33:48 [timbl]
q+ timblee to strongly disfavor opening a new http range 14 discussion with IANA for all valeus of IANA.
18:33:49 [Stuart]
ack tim
18:33:58 [jar]
s/directly to IANA wouldn't help/directly to IANA would help/
18:34:06 [ht]
q- timbl
18:35:08 [ht]
TBL: Given that IANA haven't spent a lot of time using URIs like this in ways that raise the problems, we could spend a _lot_ of time trying to educate them, and then we would have to do that for many other people
18:35:29 [ht]
... It's not that different from the move from plain text to HTML
18:35:33 [jar]
q+ jar -- problem with putting registry at w3.org
18:35:37 [ht]
... We could just wait
18:35:46 [Stuart]
q?
18:35:57 [jar]
q+ jar to note problem with putting registry at w3.org
18:36:06 [ht]
TBL: Or we could ask to have the registry run at www.w3.org instead, and then we can do the redirect
18:36:26 [Stuart]
q- timblee
18:36:31 [Stuart]
ack jar
18:36:31 [Zakim]
jar, you wanted to note problem with putting registry at w3.org
18:36:39 [ht]
... There is real growth in systems which depend on the 303 convention, and I would not like to make trouble for them
18:37:09 [masinter`]
q+
18:37:15 [ht]
JR: I believe putting a w3.org URI in an RFC is not allowed
18:37:22 [masinter`]
there's no problem doing that
18:37:41 [ht]
s/systems/systems, particularly in the Linked Data area,/
18:37:41 [noah]
As chair for next week, I would like to come out of discussions like this knowing whether we expect to schedule further discussion next week, and if so with what goals?
18:38:16 [DanC]
(yes, ACTION-184 is done to my satisfaction)
18:38:17 [ht]
SW: So, JR, is ACTION-184 done?
18:38:19 [ht]
JR: Yes.
18:38:35 [ht]
TBL: We could send them a HOW-TO for Apache servers. . .
18:38:43 [ht]
JR: No-one objected on the grounds of difficulty
18:39:17 [ht]
SW: Should the "move registry to w3.org" be put on the W3C-IETF Liaison call agenda
18:39:23 [ht]
DC: Too slow
18:39:35 [masinter`]
don't need liaison, just ask MNot.
18:39:45 [jar]
agreed.
18:39:57 [Stuart]
close action-184
18:39:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-184 contact Lisa D of IESG, cc www-tag, to explain about 303, with cool URIs and webarch as references. closed
18:39:57 [masinter`]
if mnot doesn't agree, you can always write your own alternative link header document
18:40:00 [ht]
Trackbot, ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham
18:40:00 [trackbot]
Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'Trackbot, ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
18:40:10 [ht]
Trackbot, ACTION to Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham
18:40:10 [trackbot]
Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'Trackbot, ACTION to Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
18:40:13 [DanC]
ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham
18:40:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-217 - Raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-05].
18:41:01 [DanC]
q+ to note http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#semlink
18:41:19 [ht]
SW: We've had a reminder from the POWDER WG that they are nearing the end of their Last Call period, about to request CR: http://www.w3.org/mid/497DD071.2070707@philarcher.org
18:41:30 [ht]
... Anyone interested in reviewing
18:41:37 [masinter`]
sorry, i already spoke
18:41:41 [ht]
q- mas
18:41:42 [Stuart]
q-
18:41:46 [ht]
ack DanC
18:41:46 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to note http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#semlink
18:41:58 [DanC]
"http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby"
18:42:15 [ht]
DC: In section 1.4.1 of their document, the very URI we were just discussing appears
18:42:16 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#semlink
18:42:50 [DanC]
"http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby" in powder...
18:43:00 [ht]
DC: Are we happy that they think it's a relation and IANA are serving it as a document
18:43:22 [timbl]
No!
18:43:32 [ht]
s/document/document?/
18:43:39 [DanC]
(wierd... which is the document in last call? I'm confused...)
18:44:01 [jar]
I think it's http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/
18:44:32 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/
18:44:35 [jar]
well, i thought so, because that's the 'latest version' link
18:44:39 [DanC]
"This is the Second Last Call draft"
18:44:58 [DanC]
no iana link in http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#semlink
18:45:13 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html
18:45:26 [DanC]
what's wdrs:describedby ?
18:45:44 [DanC]
ah... http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
18:46:52 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html#atom
18:47:21 [timbl]
Bug: You click on "latest version " and you get an earlier version from http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html
18:47:28 [ht]
"he full URI of describedby is http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby -"
18:49:34 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/
18:50:01 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#semlink
18:50:26 [ht]
DC: I propose to focus on the published Last Call draft, dated 2008-11-14
18:50:40 [ht]
... describedBy is central to their design, right?
18:51:55 [DanC]
the full URI is http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
18:52:12 [timbl]
xmlns:wdrs="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#"
18:52:40 [timbl]
collapsedescribed by
18:52:41 [timbl]
TypeexpandloadedProperty
18:52:41 [timbl]
CommentAn RDF property to link to a POWDER document. Provided for use in RDFa, ATOM etc.
18:52:41 [timbl]
IsDefinedByexpandfetchsemlink
18:52:41 [timbl]
Labeldescribed by
18:52:41 [timbl]
Rangeopt offexpandloadedPOWDER document
18:52:47 [timbl]
--------
18:53:53 [DanC]
(wierd... I can't find an HTML spec citations)
18:54:22 [ht]
"using the link element to relate an XHTML document"
18:55:05 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081114.html#assoc-markup
18:55:21 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby works
18:57:15 [Stuart]
Full HTML source is at http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/example_4_2.html and we ought to be able to follow noses to specs :-)
18:58:13 [DanC]
I propose we say: at a glance, we can see some struggles around HTML spec, but that's understandable; otherwise, noting we didn't do a thorough review, we don't find any architectural issues
18:58:24 [ht]
HST does not think the RDFa reference is helpful :-(
18:58:47 [ht]
DC: Straw poll on the above suggestion
18:59:13 [ht]
LM: Only just looking at this for the first time, it's interesting, I have a lot of questions
18:59:51 [timbl]
I would prefer from taste and UI "described by" to be called "description document"
18:59:52 [ht]
TVR: They should get their story right wrt what part of (X)HTML they are depending on
19:00:01 [DanC]
(I'm already up to 2 saying "let's study this more"; doubt my proposal is going to fly)
19:00:18 [jar]
I assume they've come to peace with the wdrs:describedby vs. iana.org.../describedby issue - aliases are not so nice. but MNot's thing isn't an RFC yet, so they can't use it, as their pub date precedes his.
19:00:22 [ht]
TVR: They need to be _very_ explicit about this, which they haven't done
19:00:39 [ht]
... it's a bit of a mess as of now
19:02:11 [ht]
[scribe got distracted]
19:02:45 [timbl]
http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/
19:03:03 [ht]
SW: I need a volunteer to coordinate, or this gets left to individuals
19:03:04 [timbl]
The set of documents
19:03:48 [ht]
SW: OK, hearing none, I will tell Phil Archer that he may or may not hear from individuals, but no official TAG input to be waited for
19:03:52 [DanC]
+1 "several members are studying and may have comments" as stuart said
19:04:38 [ht]
Topic: ISSUE-51 (selfDescribingWeb-51): (short) well known formats and URI based extensibility
19:05:06 [ht]
NM: No progress, waiting on last week's minutes
19:05:20 [dorchard]
irc is at http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-tagmem-irc
19:05:37 [DanC]
ACTION-216 due next week
19:05:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-216 Publish SDW finding, with 4 changes as noted in minutes of 22 Jan 2009 tag telcon due 29 jan 2009 due date now next week
19:05:43 [ht]
NM: I will publish internally to tag@w3.org to enable last-minute review
19:05:46 [DanC]
q+
19:06:00 [Stuart]
ack Dan
19:06:26 [ht]
DC: Critical path to publish was HST, NM and NW
19:06:37 [ht]
NM: NW dependency was for the diagram
19:06:44 [ht]
TBL: I am happy with the diagram
19:06:57 [ht]
DC: Critical path is down to NM and HST
19:08:07 [ht]
Topic: ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41): (short) What are good practices for designing extensible XMLlanguages and for handling versioning?
19:08:13 [ht]
SW: DO, where are we?
19:08:54 [ht]
DO: I believe I am going to do some final cleanup, and then publish it as a white paper over my name, which did not command TAG consensus
19:09:13 [ht]
SW: We agreed that we need to carefully minute what we decided
19:09:28 [noah]
NM: Is it the TAG publishing without consensus, or is it Dave's document?
19:09:47 [timbl]
Jar, is your discussion with IANA folks in email or unrecorded?
19:09:56 [ht]
NM: No-consensus, but a TAG document, editor DO, or personal document, author DO, with substantial impact from TAG discussion
19:10:03 [ht]
TVR: I prefer the latter
19:10:15 [ht]
SW: That's what I thought we decided
19:10:20 [jar]
I didn't talk to IANA. The conversation is in private email, with Mark N (Yahoo!) and Lisa D (IETF).
19:10:20 [noah]
Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard (not the TAG) as a note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input.
19:10:41 [DanC]
works for me
19:10:45 [jar]
s/I didn't/Tim, I didn't/
19:11:05 [DanC]
yes, W3C Note
19:11:19 [noah]
Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard (not the TAG) as a W3C Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input.
19:12:18 [noah]
NM: I thought it would be a note from Dave as an individual?
19:12:23 [DanC]
ack danc
19:12:30 [noah]
HT: Does W3C process allow notes from individuals.
19:12:32 [ht]
HST: I don't think individual W3C Notes are possible
19:12:34 [ht]
DC: Correct
19:12:56 [jar]
I don't think WG notes require group consensus on content; just consensus on desirability of publication
19:13:05 [jar]
this is from memory.
19:13:09 [noah]
Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard (not the TAG) as a W3C Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents.
19:13:30 [DanC]
indeed, strike "not the TAG"
19:13:38 [noah]
Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents.
19:13:44 [dorchard]
Jonathan, I had hoped that the TAG would publish as a NOTE. I'm still very disappointed in this result.
19:13:48 [DanC]
aye
19:14:00 [jar]
sorry? isn't that what we just said?
19:14:03 [ht]
s/by as/by David Orchard as author as/
19:14:18 [noah]
Can notes have authors, or just editors, per the process?
19:14:48 [jar]
dorchard, I don't understand your disappointment
19:14:56 [noah]
scribenick: noah
19:15:03 [noah]
scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
19:15:19 [noah]
SW: I want to be sure this is what we decided in Dec., so discouraging input from those not there.
19:15:23 [noah]
Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents.
19:15:33 [noah]
SW: Anyone opposed? Any abstentions?
19:15:35 [noah]
Silence.
19:15:41 [noah]
RESOLUTION: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents.
19:15:42 [Zakim]
-Ht
19:16:04 [ht]
HST will contribute to the resurrected XML / Errors / Postel's Law thread by the time his action is due, 30/1/09
19:16:17 [noah]
topic: Issue-20 Error handling
19:16:25 [ht]
HST would like to be recorded as joining in the motion of thanks to SW which he expects will be forthcoming
19:16:30 [noah]
SW: There's an action to Henry http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/199
19:17:20 [noah]
SW: There was some back and forth on the list about tag soup and error handling. Henry had action to follow up. Larry made a useful posting. Should we schedule further discussion?
19:17:27 [noah]
LM: I'd like some chance to prepare for discussion.
19:19:08 [DanC]
+1 2 weeks
19:19:54 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 Feb 2009 telcon
19:19:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-218 - Schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 Feb 2009 telcon [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-05].
19:20:59 [noah]
topic: ISSUE-58 Scalability of URI access
19:21:02 [Zakim]
+Norm
19:21:06 [noah]
SW: Let's skip since Norm isn't here.
19:21:14 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
19:21:19 [noah]
SW: Norm, welcome.
19:21:33 [masinter]
my IRC connection was lost, sorry
19:22:09 [noah]
NW: Re ACTION-163, I am working with Ted, and will continue to do so after my tenure ends. Target 19 Feb 2009.
19:22:13 [masinter]
missed last 10 minutes of IRC
19:23:00 [noah]
I've updated date on action 163
19:23:27 [noah]
topic: Issue-1 w3cMediaType
19:23:43 [Stuart]
I'm updating the status to pending review; I suppose we should
19:23:43 [Stuart]
announce the decision(s) that we have made and solicit feedback,
19:23:43 [Stuart]
esp from Mark Baker and the (heirs of?) the XMLP WG.
19:23:43 [Stuart]
[Dan Connolly]
19:24:03 [noah]
DC: Someone made a joke about this pending for almost a decade. We made a few pertinent decisions, especially to approve the finding.
19:24:23 [noah]
DC: Tried to figure out status in July 2006, didn't write anything down.
19:24:44 [noah]
SW: What decision did we make?
19:24:49 [noah]
DC: To publish the finding.
19:25:10 [noah]
SW: Does the finding answer the question?
19:25:37 [noah]
SW: So proposal is to address the xmlp group now?
19:25:46 [noah]
LM: Is this an architectural issue or process?
19:25:57 [noah]
DC: We accepted as architectural. We goofed.
19:26:26 [noah]
LM: There are both technical and process issues.
19:26:57 [DanC]
Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use
19:26:57 [DanC]
TAG Finding 30 April 2004
19:26:57 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime
19:26:58 [Stuart]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime
19:27:08 [noah]
The finding is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime
19:27:57 [DanC]
mark baker's original question http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0063
19:28:16 [noah]
We recommend that section 7.1 of [RFC3023] be amended to something like the following:
19:28:16 [noah]
The use of the charset parameter, when the charset is reliably known and agrees with the encoding declaration, is RECOMMENDED, since this information can be used by non-XML processors to determine authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity.
19:28:17 [Stuart]
We recommend that section 7.1 of [RFC3023] be amended to something like the following:
19:28:17 [Stuart]
The use of the charset parameter, when the charset is reliably known and agrees with the encoding declaration, is RECOMMENDED, since this information can be used by non-XML processors to determine authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity.
19:28:40 [noah]
LM: W3C is change controller of 3023, so you have authority to do that.
19:28:48 [Norm]
I think we need to find way to get 3023 *finished*
19:29:13 [noah]
NM: Write token for 3023bis is somewhere between Chris and Henry, right?
19:29:24 [noah]
SW: So, we can't close this right now.
19:29:57 [DanC]
+1 thanks Dave, Norm, Stuart
19:30:10 [masinter]
thanks, all, need to drop off phone
19:30:16 [Zakim]
-Masinter
19:30:35 [noah]
topic: Thank yous to outgoing members
19:31:10 [Norm]
Thanks to you all!
19:31:13 [noah]
TBL: Thank you to Dave, Norm and Stuart for your wonderful service. Working with you has been a great pleasure.
19:31:13 [Norm]
Au revoir.
19:31:27 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:31:56 [noah]
NM: As incoming chair, I have growing insight for just how much great work you've done for us Stuart, thank you!
19:32:09 [Zakim]
-dorchard
19:32:40 [jar]
Thanks Stuart - it's been a pleasure to have you preside
19:32:40 [Zakim]
-Raman
19:32:44 [Zakim]
-noah
19:32:52 [Zakim]
-jrees
19:32:58 [Zakim]
-Stuart
19:33:01 [Zakim]
-Timbl
19:36:28 [timbl]
Never mind .. my machine has learned them
19:38:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, DanC.a, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM
19:38:04 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:38:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were Masinter, Raman, jrees, Stuart, Ht, DanC.a, dorchard, noah, Timbl, Norm
19:45:46 [jar]
looking forward to it.
20:43:54 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
21:17:35 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
21:30:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
22:20:43 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
22:45:07 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem