00:42:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem
00:49:48 <johnk> johnk has joined #tagmem
01:15:43 <DanC_> DanC_ has joined #tagmem
02:31:52 <johnk> johnk has joined #tagmem
02:53:00 <noah> noah has joined #tagmem
02:53:02 <noahm> noahm has joined #tagmem
02:56:52 <noah> noah has joined #tagmem
02:56:55 <noahm> noahm has joined #tagmem
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc
14:08:55 <masinter> ht: this idea is not mine -- been floating around, never been written down, so I thought it was time to do so. I don't take credit for idea, but take blame for details.
14:09:11 <masinter> ... published in W3C blog. 
14:09:21 <ht> http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html
14:10:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tagmem
14:10:48 <masinter> ht: criticism we've heard about namespaces are: syntactic complexity and API complexity issue. This proposal basically addresses the syntactic complexity, belief is that API can be handled later.
14:11:03 <masinter> ht: slide 5 out of 7 already, just want to show example
14:12:51 <masinter> ... A "dpd" file gives default prefixes. One way to to give a link with rel="dpd" or for XML using a processing instruction. Or applications could ship in with a default DPD, or there could be media-type defaults.
14:13:10 <masinter> ... establish a priority order.
14:14:34 <masinter> ht: In general, people are happy with using prefixing for avoiding collisions, but don't like namespace declarations, let's fix that.
14:15:20 <masinter> tbl: We should investigate this sort of thing, going down this path is a good idea. I'm keen on getting them linked on the MIME type, why not do things at the MIME-type level.
14:15:53 <masinter> ... One technical issue ...
14:21:10 <DanC_> DanC_ has joined #tagmem
14:57:36 <masinter> ((joined with xmlnames))
14:57:46 <masinter> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-xmlnames-minutes.html MikeSmith
15:05:27 <johnk> johnk has joined #tagmem
15:06:22 <masinter> scribenick: masinter
15:06:25 <masinter> scribe: masinter
15:07:11 <masinter> danc: neither of these proposals address interesting use cases
15:07:24 <masinter> topic: xmlnames discussion
15:08:06 <noahm> q?
15:08:41 <masinter> danc: I can see two use cases: Person wants to write SVG without gobbledygook in top of document. <svg> is simpler than <svg:svg>.
15:08:57 <masinter> ... This doesn't seem to be on the road to decentralized extensibility
15:09:19 <masinter> noah: you can change the link element or the linked DPD
15:09:33 <masinter> danc: then you're back to gobbledygook at the top of the document
15:09:54 <masinter> (tim drawing on whiteboard)
15:10:08 <masinter> danc: I'm looking for use cases & cost benefit
15:11:05 <masinter> timbl draws bar graph of document types. Most documents are HTML, but ther are SVG, MathML, FBML and lots of others.
15:11:12 <noahm> q+ to noodle a bit on wild innovations evolving to the left of Tim's graph
15:11:25 <masinter> (FBML is face book markup language)
15:12:17 <masinter> (discussion about cost and benefits for various use cases)
15:13:00 <johnk> I would like to see it be possible to have XHTML + XML namespaces then served as text/html be processed correctly
15:13:04 <masinter> timbl: the issue is "in here" (pointing to HTML + popular other markups, SVG, etc.) but not minor
15:13:40 <masinter> ... languages that aren't used widely
15:14:36 <masinter> danc: which are the interesting use cases? allowing svg namespace without declaration doesn't help deploy SVG, they still have to learn how to draw circles
15:15:22 <masinter> noah: two communities invent <video> tag with conflicting meaning. To me the use case is "do you care about pollution"
15:16:18 <masinter> (discussion about use cases and transition path)
15:16:34 <masinter> danc: I'm trying to find some place where it's cost effective for someone
15:17:07 <masinter> timbl: so you're saying there's nothing in the middle?
15:17:41 <masinter> danc: svg and mathml are in the language. html5 does nothing interesting with rdfa.
15:18:00 <masinter> danc: I'm still listening for the interesting use case.
15:18:18 <noahm> ack next
15:18:20 <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to noodle a bit on wild innovations evolving to the left of Tim's graph
15:19:29 <masinter> noah: example about mosaic:img, worrying about long-term evolution is interesting
15:19:50 <masinter> henry's proposal just gets rid of the xmlns:mosaic="http://ncsa.uiuc.edu/tags"
15:20:19 <DanC_> no, it replaces it by <link ... ncsa>
15:20:53 <masinter> ... points out that "mosaic:img" would have been stuck with the prefix
15:21:17 <masinter> timbl: we would have added img as an alternative to mosaic:img
15:21:44 <noahm> q?
15:21:47 <masinter> ht: yes, there are some bumps in the road, if we go this way. But if that's the only thing in the way, i think we can live with this.
15:21:48 <ht> q+ to reply to DanC
15:21:56 <DanC_> (I'm trying to find the details of the <link> syntax ; I don't see it in http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html , henry)
15:21:57 <masinter> danc: when i think of this, i think of <canvas> which is more recent.
15:22:28 <masinter> ... as much as I hate x-, the most successful example is mos-. 
15:22:39 <DanC_> moz- in css
15:22:42 <noahm> q?
15:22:55 <masinter> noah: that works for css, but the rules are different for css, won't work for paragraph names
15:23:00 <DanC_> but yes, the cascase is critical to the transition from moz-smellovision to smellovision
15:23:08 <DanC_> cascade
15:23:41 <noahm> cascase?
15:23:53 <masinter> ht: wants to record two observations, different from dan. I don't agree, I think the current situation with SVG and MathML sucks. It has to define every possible transition. It specifies in detail where you can or can't put MathML and SVG elements.
15:24:14 <masinter> ht: The fact that the SVG working group has been bullied into submission isn't good enough for me.
15:24:28 <masinter> ht: They were pushed back to the current state of play. It isn't good enough for me.
15:24:36 <DanC_> I think the SVG WG was convinced that this is simpler for authors
15:25:09 <noahm> I would like to wrapup, get to next steps, and break
15:25:14 <masinter> ht: It is interesting to say that the RDFa group is happy, because I don't think there is any place for namespace declarations, because the DOM isn't going to be what they want.
15:25:34 <masinter> ht: I've recorded my disagreement
15:25:52 <ht> s/place for/place in HTML5 wrt the HTML serialization for/
15:25:56 <masinter> danc: the rdfa use case involves scripting
15:26:15 <masinter> noah: what are next steps
15:27:02 <masinter> action: noahm to work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames next week
15:27:02 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - noahm
15:27:14 <masinter> action: noah to work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames next week
15:27:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames next week [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-17].
15:27:53 <masinter> ht: reminds himself to work to figure out how this interacts with XML documents
15:27:54 <DanC_> action-327?
15:27:54 <trackbot> ACTION-327 -- Henry S. Thompson to review Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5 proposal -- due 2009-11-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:27:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327
15:29:22 <DanC_> (do you remember the action #, larry? care to suggest a new due date?)
15:29:39 <ht> ACTION: Henry to elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation, due 2010-01-08
15:29:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - Elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation, due 2010-01-08 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-17].
15:29:46 <masinter> action-337?
15:29:46 <trackbot> ACTION-337 -- Larry Masinter to frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata formats/representations -- due 2009-12-08 -- OPEN
15:29:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/337
15:30:48 <ht> trackbot, action-337 due 2010-01-08
15:30:49 <trackbot> ACTION-337 frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata formats/representations due date now 2010-01-08
15:33:52 <masinter> agenda?
15:34:05 <masinter> (group on break)
15:39:07 <plh> plh has joined #tagmem
15:40:51 <jar> http://www.mnot.net/blog/2009/11/13/flip
15:41:35 <jar> sorry, false positive on my google search
15:52:38 <masinter> reconvene
15:53:25 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #tagmem
15:54:10 <masinter> topic: agenda discussion (Philippe joins group)
15:54:22 <masinter> action-327?
15:54:22 <trackbot> ACTION-327 -- Henry S. Thompson to review Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5 proposal -- due 2009-11-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:54:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327
15:54:22 <DanC_> action-327?
15:54:22 <trackbot> ACTION-327 -- Henry S. Thompson to review Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5 proposal -- due 2009-11-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:54:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327
15:54:31 <masinter> topic: action 327
15:54:31 <plh> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
15:55:19 <masinter> plh: not coverage between issues and change proposals
15:55:37 <masinter> noah: would help to add issue names to table
15:56:09 <masinter> noah: failure mode is that people don't notice
15:57:31 <masinter> plh: issue 7 was closed. chairs are willing to reopen if there is no new information
15:58:12 <DanC_> HTML WG issue 7 was video codecs
15:58:35 <DanC_> (referring to issues by number only is an anti-pattern)
15:59:00 <masinter> noah: go to namespace proposal/discussion
15:59:14 <masinter> topic: namespaces in HTML
15:59:28 <masinter> looking at Microsoft namespace proposal
15:59:57 <noahm> We note that HTML issue 41 appears to be open
16:00:10 <DanC_> HTML WG issue 41 is open, with no dead-man-switch yet issued
16:01:17 <masinter> HT: imports a subset of XML namespace syntax into the HTML serialization. Core proposal is a duel of what we talked about earlier: allow xmlns:foo, and within that scope foo:xxx uses the namespace
16:01:32 <masinter> timbl: identical to xmlns, with regard to prefixed names
16:01:44 <masinter> ht: then it goes on to suggest a number of possible extensions
16:01:55 <DanC_> (I wonder if everybody here is aware of the way HTML interacts with XPath in the case of unprefixed element names... maybe I'll q+)
16:01:58 <masinter> ht: the addition of default namespace declarations
16:02:22 <masinter> ht: I'm just telling you what it says
16:03:05 <masinter> ht: then there is an additional proposal, to treat unbound prefixes as if they were identity-declared
16:03:39 <masinter> ht: namespace spec says you "shouldn't" use relative URIs
16:04:08 <masinter> (discussion of whether xmlns:udp="udp" is an error, a relative URL)
16:04:24 <masinter> timbl: local namespace declarations are useful in (context missed)
16:04:36 <masinter> ht: interesting idea, don't think it is going to fly
16:04:45 <masinter> timbl: maybe want #udp, not udp
16:04:57 <masinter> (speculation about what is deployed inside microsoft)
16:05:26 <masinter> 3. to define short namespace names for commonly-used namespaces
16:05:36 <masinter> (timbl bangs head on wall)
16:06:17 <masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0039.html
16:07:01 <masinter> plh: discussion on HTML was that this would break (something), and Microsoft needs to revised
16:07:34 <masinter> ht: I think it is sound but doesn't address the two issues that other WG members had raised, (a) syntactic complexity and (b) API complexity
16:08:11 <masinter> noah: do we have  a sense of where this is going?
16:09:27 <masinter> (speculation about what might happen in the HTML working group)
16:09:46 <DanC_> q+
16:09:50 <masinter> (review of HT email review of Microsoft's proposal)
16:09:53 <DanC_> ack ht
16:09:53 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to reply to DanC
16:10:05 <noahm> ac2 next
16:10:07 <noahm> ack next
16:10:54 <masinter> danc: thanks for gathering all he facts. I think this is as good as it gets, though, disagree with conclusion. Henry's isn't simpler and Microsoft's is more like current namespaces.
16:11:07 <masinter> timbl: use this for svg?
16:11:39 <masinter> ht: orthogonal point -- stipulating that one of these proposals is adopted, opens the possibility but not necessity of revisiting the current embedding of SVG and MathML
16:12:09 <masinter> timbl: and the <a> tag, that's done by context?
16:12:11 <masinter> ht: yes
16:12:52 <masinter> timbl: should the TAG endorse the microsoft proposal?
16:12:54 <noahm> q+ to discuss tim's proposal
16:13:09 <DanC_> +1 TAG endorsedd
16:13:18 <masinter> jar: (put on the spot)
16:13:51 <masinter> noah: would like to see something happen, but insofar as doing this by saying TAG isn't happy with Henry or Liam's proposal, not ready to do that
16:13:59 <masinter> ack noahm
16:13:59 <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to discuss tim's proposal
16:14:24 <noahm> q+ timbl
16:14:40 <masinter> jar: here's how to convince me -- hard for me to keep this in my head
16:14:50 <masinter> ack timbl
16:15:00 <masinter> timbl: I need the Microsoft one anyway for the long tail
16:15:18 <masinter> ht: that's just not true. There's a place in HT for ideosyncratic use
16:15:42 <masinter> (danc at board making matrix)
16:17:23 <masinter> noah: (floating idea for TAG position about endorsing MS vs. others)
16:18:10 <masinter> columns: DPD, MS xmlns, Liam's
16:18:25 <masinter> rows: long tail, static scoping, ie, webkit, opera, mozilla
16:19:03 <masinter> static scoping means: changing some other document doesn't change what foo:bar would mean
16:19:43 <masinter> column Liam's renamed Unobtrusive Namespaces
16:21:00 <masinter> discussion of what the rows IE, Webkit, Opera, Mozilla mean
16:21:49 <masinter> jar: wondering if there's a null hypothesis? Maybe there's a 'status quo' column?
16:22:03 <masinter> adding 4th column, "Standing WG"
16:24:00 <masinter> adding rows for SVG, MathML, RDFa
16:24:26 <masinter> adding examples of "Long Tail", FBML, SL = Second Life vs. SilverLight
16:24:37 <masinter> ht: PLH, what do you think about this?
16:25:55 <masinter> timbl: Were a browser manufacturer to change their attitude and implement application/xhtml+xml, would that make a difference?
16:26:27 <masinter> noah: expected question to be 'does then the TAG care about this', and I think they do, because e.g., service provider doesn't allow people to set MIME type
16:26:34 <jar> q?
16:26:37 <jar> q+ danc
16:26:40 <jar> q+ jar
16:26:46 <masinter> ... even if 1st class support for application/xhtml+xml 
16:28:31 <masinter> ht: as long as the columns are full of "maybe this or maybe that", it isn't helpful to push people to make their minds up
16:28:33 <masinter> q?
16:28:50 <noahm> q?
16:29:16 <masinter> (chart only partly filled out... longtail  check, check, check, x
16:29:23 <masinter> ... x check x check
16:29:32 <masinter> i.e. has only ? under MS proposal
16:29:37 <noahm> ack danc
16:29:47 <masinter> danc: queue slot was to solicit people to write a blog entry
16:29:49 <timbl_> q+ to point out that reusing exstig xmlns syntax has great advantages
16:30:00 <noahm> ack jar
16:30:12 <DanC_> yeah, timbl, I meant to make a row for that; neglected to
16:30:38 <masinter> jar: there's enough in the chart to take us from Tim's original proposal that we endorse the MS proposal, but I think this takes us a step further. We could say "we like the MS proposal insofar as it does X, Y and Z"
16:31:01 <masinter> noah: (will drain queue, and see where we are)
16:31:07 <masinter> q?
16:31:12 <masinter> ack next
16:31:13 <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to point out that reusing exstig xmlns syntax has great advantages
16:32:32 <masinter> timbl: Reusing existing syntax, not inventing new stuff. Inventing new stuff is a hurdle. If it's a good thing to do. Just being able to say: for a given MIME type, have a default namespace.
16:32:41 <masinter> danc: that's the state of the art
16:32:58 <masinter> timbl: XML tools don't have an easy way of taking that into account
16:33:06 <noahm> zakim, close the queue
16:33:06 <Zakim> ok, noahm, the speaker queue is closed
16:33:09 <noahm> q?
16:33:15 <masinter> timbl: This would be a relief in other cases
16:33:31 <DanC_> (ah yes, tim; in particular, authors have to put the xmlns="...xhtml" for XML tool interop.)
16:33:52 <masinter> ht: i've just added 3 new rows to the table: reuses existing syntax. X for all but MS
16:34:11 <masinter> ht: ... simplifies the syntax and simplifies the DOM
16:34:27 <masinter> timbl: I asked "Is the DOM the same?" and you said "Yes"
16:34:41 <masinter> ht: the HTML community *wants* the DOM to be simplified
16:35:14 <masinter> ht: currently standing HTML tick on "Simplifies the DOM" is x for everything except for standing HTML5
16:36:02 <masinter> ... 'simplify the syntax' is all check except for MS
16:36:19 <DanC_> (still no takers on blogging this table? sigh. oh well.)
16:38:46 <DanC_> action-357: try to include the requirements table
16:38:46 <trackbot> ACTION-357 Elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation, due 2010-01-08 notes added
16:39:10 <plh> http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/
16:39:17 <plh> HTML 5: The Markup Language
16:39:54 <ht> There are 3 docs: Hixie's, Mike Smith's and Lachlan Hunt's
16:40:19 <plh> q+
16:40:21 <DanC_> q+ to note the call for proposals with deadline on this issue in the HTML WG, which looks good to me, provided H:TML really gets delivered
16:40:25 <masinter> topic: html5 review
16:40:36 <plh> zakim, reopen the queue
16:40:36 <Zakim> ok, plh, the speaker queue is open
16:41:45 <masinter> (looking for normative language reference spec)
16:42:16 <noahm> q+ to talk about hixie's spec
16:42:22 <ht> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/
16:42:58 <masinter> q+ to talk about DOM API call being documented by normative algorithms
16:43:03 <masinter> http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/  has a different date
16:43:21 <DanC_> (editor of html-author is lachlan, I think; he's carrying 0 actions. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/users/40364 )
16:43:35 <masinter> plh: the group doesn't want to have a document that is normative
16:43:49 <masinter> ht: I think we lost the argument to split the spec?
16:44:27 <ht> s/spec?/spec into a language spec. and a behaviour spec./
16:44:48 <masinter> noah: point of clarification? Is this document going to progress
16:44:59 <masinter> plh: for the moment, it doesn't officially exist
16:45:22 <masinter> plh: if the working group decided to do that, it would likely be normative
16:45:51 <masinter> (review of Maciej message of 08 Dec 2009 15:55:20)
16:45:59 <masinter> q?
16:46:36 <DanC_> q+ to note two targets: (a) more traditional language spec (b) guide for authors. We seem to have missed HT's interest in (b). html-author is dated March 2009 and its editor, lachlan, is carrying no actions
16:46:42 <masinter> noah: would like he TAG to assess this. I skimmed this: far better than my worst fears, considerably worse than what I would hope for
16:46:48 <masinter> q?
16:46:51 <masinter> ack noahm
16:46:51 <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to talk about hixie's spec
16:46:54 <plh> s/is normative/is normative, since this would create a high risk of conflicts between the documents/
16:47:04 <noahm> q?
16:47:06 <masinter> ht: this doesn't come close to what I want
16:47:13 <masinter> ht: there is no grammar. I want a grammar.
16:47:35 <jar> q+ jar to say the issue is how to evaluate the spec (speaks to openness of web).  having 2nd spec that tracks is one way, modularizing the spec is a 2nd way, having a grammar is a 3rd...
16:47:58 <masinter> noah: I don't elevate the lack of a grammar to... (absolutely necessary)
16:48:01 <DanC_> ack next
16:48:02 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about DOM API call being documented by normative algorithms
16:48:49 <noahm> FWIW, my criterion for success is not "does it use formal grammars", though I think they
16:49:19 <ht> what is URI for "authoring view" of Hixie's draft
16:49:21 <ht> ?
16:49:48 <noahm> they're >very< valuable.  My criterion is: does it crisply and reasonably unambiguously set out: which texts are legal html5, and as declaratively as possible, set out the "meaning" of every possible document (e.g. the occurrance of a <table> element signals that your document has in it a table), etc.
16:49:59 <DanC_> (lightbulb... ACL2 was hard for me to get used to as a formal system because it expects you to write things as programs... just like "normative algortithms". Perhaps transcribing these algorithms to ACL2 would be a way to think about them formally)
16:50:42 <noahm> LMM:  Reminds us of the point he's made before, that there are things stated algorithmically (e.g. interpretation of image width/height) that should be done more declaratively.
16:50:52 <noahm> ack next
16:50:53 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to note two targets: (a) more traditional language spec (b) guide for authors. We seem to have missed HT's interest in (b). html-author is dated March 2009 and
16:50:55 <Zakim> ... its editor, lachlan, is carrying no actions
16:51:02 <jar> (danc, ACL2 is for proofs. Larry says he's missing the theorems.)
16:51:26 <DanC_> (ACL2 does plenty of stuff with theorems; I don't understand your point)
16:51:39 <noahm> From email from Ian Hickson:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2009Jun/0016.html
16:51:45 <noahm> I have now made the three versions available:
16:51:45 <noahm>    http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=complete
16:51:45 <noahm>    http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=author
16:51:45 <noahm>    http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=highlight
16:52:09 <masinter> the point was: what are the invariants that a reasonable programmer or generator of programs can assume? Many of these are embedded deeply within algorithms presented for implementors, that cannot be inferred or extracted by any textual processing, because it's not written down anywhere.
16:52:53 <noahm> I am interested in the style=author one as a best approximation to a language spec, because it's the only one we're likely to get that's normative.
16:53:01 <masinter> ht: I was interested in the document, because I thought it was actively being worked on. But to be clear, i'm not interested in an authoring spec, I'm interested in a language spec.
16:53:11 <noahm> I do regret that it's advertised as an authoring spec, because I agree that a language spec is the higher priority.
16:53:30 <masinter> q?
16:53:30 <DanC_> ack next
16:53:30 <noahm> Still, it may do the job, and my question is: does it, and if not, would some tuning get it there.
16:53:32 <ht> q+ to explain why I find http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=author unhelpful
16:53:32 <Zakim> jar, you wanted to say the issue is how to evaluate the spec (speaks to openness of web).  having 2nd spec that tracks is one way, modularizing the spec is a 2nd way, having a
16:53:34 <Zakim> ... grammar is a 3rd...
16:53:58 <noahm> q+ to say why I find http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=author  helpful
16:54:15 <masinter> jar: this may be obvious: there's some objective to be able to approach the spec. This thing is just too big for that. There are multiple for making this tractable.
16:54:29 <masinter> q+ to talk about getting away from the need for always-on updates to HTML
16:54:57 <masinter> jar: you want to know what the spec does what it's supposed to do, and having it be so big is a problem. My message is to keep your eye on the ball.
16:55:00 <masinter> ack ht
16:55:00 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to explain why I find http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=author unhelpful
16:55:04 <DanC_> (I think mutliple normative specs is _good_ for QA, but when I gave that opinion in the HTML WG, it was clear hardly anybody else in the WG agrees.)
16:55:20 <noahm> ack next
16:55:21 <masinter> ht: i would like to use the last part to ask PLH his view.
16:55:22 <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to say why I find http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=author  helpful
16:55:44 <DanC_> (e.g. having the OWL language spec and the test suite both normative; if they conflict, there's a bug, and I'm not prepared to say, in advance, where the bug is.)
16:56:28 <masinter> noahm: I find it really helpful. To me the thing that makes it valuable is that it would be worthwhile for us to take what was offered and read it with some care.
16:56:36 <DanC_> q+
16:56:42 <DanC_> q+ to respond re reading the author view
16:56:44 <johnk> q+ to ask who are we trying to help here?
16:56:48 <masinter> ... if the answers are in some ways promising, that would be good.
16:57:05 <noahm> ack masinter
16:57:05 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about getting away from the need for always-on updates to HTML
16:57:37 <noahm> Some was lost in scribing what I said above, so let me clarify:
16:58:31 <noahm> I think the style=author draft, which I've skimmed but not read in full detail, is valuable in several ways, but especially because it is being offered as normative, and well synced with the other variants of the spec.
16:58:32 <jar> lm: reiterating applicability statement idea raised earlier. 2 docs, one with undated references, another (the a.s.) with dated references "the way things are in 2010"
16:59:13 <jar> lm: the goal is to avoid the need to publish new specs too frequently
16:59:35 <noahm> I therefore (as a WG member, and perhaps also as chair) would find it a good thing for other TAG members to take a careful look. I expect you'll find that it's a very significant compromise in terms of how declarative it is, how terse, but perhaps on balance a good enough base for meeting the need for a language specification.
17:00:06 <masinter> danc: authoring spec engaged me to some degree, but didn't find it compelling to spend more time on it
17:00:32 <masinter> noah: is there something you could say?
17:01:04 <jar> does it matter whether it engages anyone?  the OWL WG basically said no, the non-normative docs can be engaging
17:01:08 <noahm> DC: Well, hello world is in section 8.  Oops, nope, I guess I fixed that.
17:01:26 <jar> q?
17:01:27 <noahm> q?
17:01:28 <masinter> danc: the 'hello world' example *was* in section 8. Previously, it was hard to tell whether there was something that was a constraint on documents vs. a constraint on implementation
17:01:40 <masinter> ... that seems to have gotten better.
17:02:10 <masinter> ack next
17:02:17 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to respond re reading the author view
17:02:21 <noahm> q+ jar
17:02:32 <ht> Beware that if you follow TOC links from http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/?style=author you _lose_ the parameter, and have to re-enter it by hand
17:02:32 <masinter> jk: who are we helping with respect to getting a grammar? Who cares?
17:03:17 <masinter> ... Hixie has done something toward satisfying a goal, we don't know if it is close to satisfying our goal
17:03:23 <plh> q+
17:03:28 <masinter> ... maybe this is our chance of getting a spec that's normative
17:03:29 <noahm> I heard Dan say "I'm not convinced the style=author draft will meet the needs of the design community (though some of the shortcomings may be inherent in the complexity of HTML 5).  FWIW I (Noah) find that to be just the sort of feedback we should give.
17:03:39 <masinter> q+ to talk about goals
17:03:46 <noahm> ack next
17:03:47 <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask who are we trying to help here?
17:03:48 <noahm> ack next
17:04:59 <DanC_> I'm not prepared to give feedback on behalf of the design community, Noah; look at my web pages; they're design jokes, at best. I've encouraged the design community to comment for themselves, and had mixed success.
17:05:05 <masinter> jar: I think it is a threat, if you have standards that are hard to understand, that's a threat to openness
17:05:07 <masinter> q?
17:05:26 <noahm> ack plh
17:05:50 <ht> HST absolutely agrees with PLH -- W3C writes specs for implementors
17:06:01 <ht> .. but implementors need language specs, not algorithms
17:06:04 <masinter> plh: with the working group, who are we writing the spec for? For the implementors? The users can buy books. The implementors disagree. 
17:06:21 <masinter> danc: there are lots of examples for users in the spec, though, not just for implementors.
17:06:51 <masinter> plh: given the resources, though, most of them spend their time
17:06:52 <noahm> I strongly disagree.  Books are very helpful, but not normative.  There are architectural, and thus practical, benefits to having a rigorous, precise specification for a language, a spec that's not unnecessarily tangled with specs for other things.
17:07:00 <masinter> plh: there's a RELAXNG schema
17:07:06 <masinter> ht: it has no authority
17:07:25 <ht> plh: The WG might adopt it as a WD
17:07:30 <ht> hst: That would be great
17:07:36 <noahm> LM: I want to support implementors of things other than browsers.  Transformers, editors, etc.
17:07:56 <DanC_> (I think it's a _huge_ mistake to say "the book writers will satisfy the users". It's incredibly important to validate the design by trying to explain it to users. If you can't explain it, you should think again about the design. I think quite a few of the HTML WG members agree with this view.)
17:08:01 <ht> masinter +1
17:08:37 <johnk> LM: HTML for ATOM, HTML for email
17:09:26 <masinter> plh: the chairs would like to move HTML5 to last call soon. pick your battles. Look at the long list of issues the WG already has, are there any that don't have a change proposal, consider making a proposal for those.
17:10:16 <masinter> noahm: would like to get someone on TAG to review the table (and maybe things that have fallen off the table), would like to use that to help prioritize 
17:10:29 <masinter> danc: I already did this before and did it again last night
17:11:34 <masinter> danc: there is one 
17:13:05 <DanC_> ACTION Noah schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...' [note follow-up discussion in www-archive]
17:13:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...' [note follow-up discussion in www-archive] [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-17].
17:13:28 <masinter> (review of HTML open issues was only against 'things to be closed soon')
17:13:34 <ht> DanC, I agree that user needs must be addressed by the _designs_ which WGs produce, but that that is _not_ the leading priority for the specs which communicate those designs
17:14:11 <masinter> noah: we did have this discussion of authoring. Would be helpful to... (?)
17:15:40 <masinter> noah: proposal: (review of Maciej message of 08 Dec 2009 15:55:20) We do not have a uniform opinion of how much this meets needs, but we think this is ... positive.
17:15:41 <DanC_> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide
17:16:01 <masinter> ht: message proposes closes this issue. We should say: don't do this, we're not happy.
17:16:36 <DanC_> I gather ht doesn't find my proposal appealing
17:16:40 <masinter> ht: wants the TAG to ask for a language spec
17:19:08 <DanC_> q+
17:19:26 <masinter> lm: I want the HTML working group to agree that they will review the resulting document and come to consensus about its adequacy, not just to do so as a political move to meet someone else's pro-forma requirement
17:20:31 <masinter> ht: Maciej's message proposes to adopt it as a non-normative WG proposal 
17:20:40 <masinter> (discussion of whether the doc supports RelaxNG grammar)
17:21:19 <DanC_> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide
17:23:04 <ht> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be published as a Working Draft and taken forward
17:23:53 <masinter> noahm: and maintained as the HTML language evolves?
17:24:04 <masinter> (wordsmithing of response)
17:24:46 <ht> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be published as a Working Draft and maintained
17:25:47 <ht> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call
17:26:24 <plh> I suggest s/to Last Call/through Last Call/
17:26:41 <masinter> so RESOLVED
17:26:57 <ht> s/taken to last call/taken through Last Call/
17:27:02 <masinter> RESOLVED: endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html ,      i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided      the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be      published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call
17:27:38 <masinter> action: Noah to communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG
17:27:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-17].
17:32:24 <noahm> ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH UNTIL 13:30
17:40:03 <raman> raman has joined #tagmem
17:40:22 <raman> ping me when you guys are back from lunch
17:55:09 <noahm> Will do.  Plan is to return 1:30 PM our time, 10:30 yours.
17:55:31 <noahm> I will take a crack at munging the agenda to reflect reality shortly.
18:00:30 <raman> calling
18:02:00 <timbl_> Raman, we restart at half past
18:02:01 <raman> will call 10:30
18:02:04 <noahm> Thank you.
18:10:26 <jar> jar has joined #tagmem
18:21:19 <timbl_> timbl_ has joined #tagmem
18:36:22 <timbl_> timbl_ has joined #tagmem
18:37:42 <noah> noah has joined #tagmem
18:37:45 <DanC_> scribenick: DanC_
18:38:43 <DanC_> Topic: Admin
18:39:14 <DanC_> ACTION John: clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec
18:39:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec [on John Kemp - due 2009-12-17].
18:39:26 <DanC_> ACTION Henry: clean up TAG ftf minutes 9 Dec
18:39:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Clean up TAG ftf minutes 9 Dec [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-17].
18:39:27 <noah> Raman, we are starting, and we are dialed in
18:39:53 <DanC_> ACTION Dan: clean up TAG ftf minutes 10 Dec, and either wrap up the 3 days or get Noah to do it
18:39:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-362 - Clean up TAG ftf minutes 10 Dec, and either wrap up the 3 days or get Noah to do it [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-17].
18:40:00 <DanC_> NM reviews agenda...
18:40:22 <ht> John, <link id="xf" rel="prefix" is already allowed !
18:40:52 <raman> something is different in the room, audio is awful, lots of echo
18:41:14 <DanC_> echo? bummer.
18:42:03 <DanC_> HT: I  do have something re references... though I'm OK if that goes to a telcon
18:43:21 <DanC_> NM accepts the agenda request; commits Revision: 1.31 
18:43:54 <DanC_> raman? audio better?
18:44:22 <noah> Raman, I have moved the mic, and will dial again if necessary.  Was good this morning.  Can't hear you at all.
18:44:25 <noah> zakim, who is here?
18:44:25 <Zakim> sorry, noah, I don't know what conference this is
18:44:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see noah, timbl_, jar, raman, johnk, DanC_, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, ht, DanC, trackbot
18:44:31 <DanC_> Zakim, this is tag
18:44:31 <Zakim> ok, DanC_; that matches TAG_f2f()8:30AM
18:44:34 <noah> zakim, who is here?
18:44:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see [MIT-G449], Raman
18:44:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see noah, timbl_, jar, raman, johnk, DanC_, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, ht, DanC, trackbot
18:45:04 <DanC_> Topic: Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-62 (UniformAccessToMetadata-62): Uniform Access to Metadata 
18:45:23 <DanC_> ACTION-281?
18:45:23 <trackbot> ACTION-281 -- Ashok Malhotra to keep an eye on progress of link header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) -- due 2009-11-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:45:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/281
18:46:25 <DanC_> AM: we're tracking 4 drafts... linking, well-known, host-meta, XRDD... I think one got updated since I sent mail...
18:46:42 <noah> Raman, please ping us in IRC when we have your attention again.  Thank you.
18:47:04 <DanC_> AM: I saw comments from Tim and Dan... the authors have seen those
18:47:07 <noah> DC: I had a concern about the registration and Mark Nottingham fixed it.
18:47:26 <DanC_> AM: these are 3 mechanisms for attaching metadata
18:47:39 <DanC_> AM: are these enough? do we need more?
18:47:52 <DanC_> ... and JAR said something about an iTunes-like mechanism...
18:48:16 <DanC_> JAR: well... maybe the issue name should be changed... it suggests there will be a limited number of ways to access metadata...
18:48:51 <DanC_> ... these 3 mechanisms are about 1st-party metadata. in the [academic] metadata world, that's the least valuable, but in other cases, it's useful, especially if it's all you've got
18:49:12 <DanC_> JAR: so something like "uniform access to 1st party metadata"; this isn't metadata in general
18:49:34 <masinter> q?
18:49:58 <DanC_> NM: this is metadata that the 1st party helps you find
18:50:03 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #tagmem
18:50:06 <DanC_> JAR: that link itself is metadata
18:50:31 <DanC_> q+
18:51:10 <DanC_> LMM: if you include the pre-production and production workflow, [oops; I lost the train of thought]... photo metadata...
18:51:28 <DanC_> ... the camera is the 1st party...
18:51:40 <jar> jar: I agree... I may need to adjust my terminology
18:52:44 <DanC_> ... the person who takes the photo and edits it is the 2nd party... and the next person in the workflow is 3rd, copyright guy is 4th party... or there's a lot of 3rd parties
18:53:04 <DanC_> DanC: from the perspective of the link-header draft, all those are, in aggregate, the 1st party
18:53:16 <DanC_> LMM: no, if you look in the photo, you can see the audit trail
18:53:18 <DanC_> DanC: ah.
18:53:53 <DanC_> LMM: and it goes on from there... flickr taggers, commenters, etc.
18:54:11 <DanC_> JK: doesn't that means that the metadata inside the data?
18:54:19 <DanC_> LMM: it helps in the production workflow...
18:54:48 <DanC_> (I think the way I scribed JK makes the referent of "that" misleading.)
18:55:07 <DanC_> ... but flickr tags and comments, probably not
18:55:16 <timbl_> q?
18:55:27 <DanC_> ack masinter
18:55:27 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about goals
18:55:52 <DanC_> TBL: in the adobe tools, can you set the trail of custody? [something like that]
18:56:02 <DanC_> LMM: in varying degrees, yes
18:56:12 <DanC_> TBL: when adobe tools get content from the web, can they recover the trail?
18:56:14 <DanC_> LMM: I don't know
18:56:25 <DanC_> TBL: the metadat trust is [scribe falls behind]
18:56:42 <jar> q+ jar to suggest "server provided links" or "server provided metadata"
18:56:52 <DanC_> [discussion between TBL and LMM exceeds scribe bandwidth]
18:56:56 <noah> q?
18:58:37 <DanC_> ...
18:59:11 <DanC_> LMM: in Seybold community, I learned the industry uses a variety of mechanisms to send images around... often not compressed...
18:59:24 <jar> I want to know what problem we're working on now.
18:59:31 <DanC_> TBL: I'm interested in "this is/was http://...." .
18:59:45 <DanC_> LMM: the workflow uses guiids rather than locations; these things move around too much
18:59:47 <masinter> the locations weren't normative
19:00:03 <DanC_> ack me
19:00:13 <noah> q+ ashok
19:00:43 <masinter> I guess the point is that first-party metadata is often embedded, and that the Link header is better thought of as "third-party metadata" where the third-party is the publishing web site
19:01:56 <jar> danc: Host-meta, powder, EARL - I would only want to write that software once (see public email)
19:02:56 <DanC_> DanC: and I have a concern about not using .well-known unless it's merited in ways that Roy emphasized
19:03:31 <DanC_> JAR: [who]'s concerns increases my desire to change the name of the issue... "server provided metadata"?
19:03:46 <timbl_> Maybe we should be charging $10M for an entry in "well-known" to express the cost to the community of each one, clients having to check different places.
19:04:44 <DanC_> (I'm happy for the issue shepherd to change the issue name whenever they see fit; I trust them to consult the TAG as appropriate)
19:04:55 <masinter> was talking about entire workflow from camera which takes photo and adds GPS data through editing the photo by cropping and color correcting to putting it into a web page and publishing the page, to commenting on the image in Flickr. Whether metadata is associated with the photo by embedding, linking, or some kind of third-party metadata site may depend.
19:05:32 <masinter> issue-62?
19:05:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Uniform Access to Metadata -- OPEN
19:05:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
19:06:18 <DanC_> issue-62?
19:06:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Uniform Access to Metadata -- OPEN
19:06:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
19:06:24 <DanC_> issue-62?
19:06:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Uniform Access to Server-provided Metadata -- OPEN
19:06:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
19:06:41 <noah> Note that we just changed the name of the issue, as echoed above.
19:06:45 <masinter> issue-63?
19:06:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Metadata Architecture for the Web -- OPEN
19:06:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63
19:06:56 <DanC_> AM: do we need another issue for the rest?
19:07:09 <DanC_> JAR: we have the broader issue; issue-63
19:07:53 <jar> ack jar
19:07:53 <Zakim> jar, you wanted to suggest "server provided links" or "server provided metadata"
19:08:10 <noah> q?
19:08:14 <DanC_> ack ashok
19:09:01 <jar> These RFCs are going to be final soon.  Very narrow window to have influence.
19:09:07 <DanC_> q+
19:09:12 <noah> q+ to ask questions from chair
19:09:17 <DanC_> q- later
19:09:51 <DanC_> AM: again, do we need more mechanism? or fewer?
19:10:00 <DanC_> DanC: I'd like to see fewer
19:10:21 <DanC_> JAR: these specs are nearing deployment
19:10:30 <masinter> q+ to note that there are lots of other requirements and to diminish the importance of IETF proposed standards
19:10:33 <noah> ack next
19:10:34 <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask questions from chair
19:10:35 <timbl_> q+
19:10:46 <DanC_> DanC: do you have any critical concerns? are you happy with the specs, JAR?
19:10:50 <DanC_> JAR: yes, I'm happy
19:11:30 <DanC_> q+ to ask about use cases that are market drivers
19:11:49 <noah> q?
19:11:52 <DanC_> ack masinter 
19:11:52 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that there are lots of other requirements and to diminish the importance of IETF proposed standards
19:11:53 <noah> ack masinter
19:11:54 <timbl_> q+ to say, well it would be better if they were all RDF of course.  Are we goingto do nothing about that?
19:12:35 <DanC_> LMM: are the applicability of these draft narrow enough that other cases are ruled out? [?]
19:12:54 <timbl_> q?
19:12:55 <DanC_> ... I don't think publication of these as Proposed Standard will get in the way if something else is more appropriate
19:12:58 <DanC_> JAR: well, it'll compete
19:13:55 <DanC_> ... well, doesn't compete with mechanisms for other sources of metadata
19:14:13 <jar> it will compete in the very narrow in which it applies.  won't compete with ways of getting metadata *from other sources*
19:14:17 <noah> q?
19:14:29 <DanC_> LMM: my remaining concern is: when more than one of these mechanisms provides info, what about priority?
19:15:02 <DanC_> JAR: thie "Web Linking" explicitly says "this is not authoritative; apps have to come up with their own trust model"
19:15:41 <johnk> q+ to note that Link header was originally specifically about representations that could not contain <link> elements
19:15:48 <DanC_> LMM: it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of intent. e.g. if I write copyright in both the Link header and in the content and they're different, which do I mean? both?
19:15:50 <DanC_> TBL: that's a bug
19:16:11 <DanC_> TBL: i.e. the web site is buggy [not the link header spec]
19:16:17 <jar> there's no such thing as overriding a copyright statement (legally)...
19:17:00 <DanC_> LMM: I don't like the "then it's a bug and we don't say which"; I prefer priorities
19:17:08 <noah> q?
19:17:40 <DanC_> TBL: priorities allow people to write incorrect things that get obscured due to priorieites; then they get surfaced when the document moves
19:17:48 <DanC_> ack danc
19:17:48 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask about use cases that are market drivers
19:18:15 <timbl_> A language should ays "if you write this, then it means *this*".   
19:18:25 <jar> the resource and the server are distinct principals with different interests.  metadata is statements of fact. thus disagreements are inherent and unresolvable outside of a trust model
19:18:25 <timbl_> Not "it means this unless it is overridden...".
19:18:51 <noah> DC: The specs may well come out, but it would be interesting to remind ourselves what the market drivers are for the specs we're discussing here.
19:19:03 <noah> DC: Anyone know what the drivers are, e.g., for host meta?
19:19:10 <masinter> points to http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf for dealing with conflicting embedded metadata
19:19:23 <noah> AM: It says it's for where the host controls.
19:19:30 <noah> DC: But who's going to make money.
19:19:45 <noah> Falling behind scribing johnk....
19:20:11 <masinter> q+ to talk to the MWG document dealing with conflicting metadata
19:20:17 <DanC_> JK: I think the market-driving use case is URI templates ... advertising.
19:21:06 <DanC_> JK: e.g. "if you want to look up a person whose profile is on my site, here's the URI template to plug the username into". and having lots of users leads to advertising revenue.
19:21:21 <DanC_> ... e.g. google, yahoo, etc.
19:21:27 <Ashok> q+
19:21:30 <noah> ack next
19:21:31 <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to say, well it would be better if they were all RDF of course.  Are we goingto do nothing about that?
19:21:58 <masinter> from http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/specs/
19:22:10 <DanC_> TBL: this XRD format seems to overlap significantly with RDF... how much RDF is there out there?
19:22:13 <DanC_> ... a lot.
19:22:26 <DanC_> ... and we're pushing linked data...
19:22:40 <DanC_> ... linking host meta into the linked data world seems helpful
19:23:21 <noah> The XRD thing is already deployed, right?
19:23:21 <DanC_> JAR: use GRDDL?
19:23:54 <DanC_> TBL: but I can't use an RDF serializer to write XRD
19:24:01 <DanC_> JAR: XRD is very simple
19:24:11 <DanC_> TBL: I can't write arbitrary RDF into XRD
19:24:30 <DanC_> JAR: aside from bnodes and literals, you can; i.e. arbitrary uri triples
19:25:14 <DanC_> JK: ... web finger ...
19:26:15 <DanC_> (If I were going to push on something, I'd push RDFa rather than RDF/XML)
19:26:28 <masinter> q?
19:27:09 <noah> ack next
19:27:11 <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to note that Link header was originally specifically about representations that could not contain <link> elements
19:27:15 <jar> q?
19:28:04 <DanC_> JK: using <link> for formats that can't express links is like [something larry was talking about]
19:28:11 <jar> q+ to answer larry regarding priority between sources (i will just say what i already entered in irc)
19:28:59 <noah> ack next
19:29:00 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk to the MWG document dealing with conflicting metadata
19:29:05 <masinter>  points to http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf for dealing with conflicting embedded metadata
19:29:39 <noah> NM: This reinforces Tim's point.  If the use case in mind is where there's no possible duplication, then duplication with conflict should be an error, not resolved with priority.
19:29:43 <DanC_> LMM: even when the metadata is embedded, you can have multiple kinds of metadata... this points to the practical issue of...
19:30:00 <DanC_> ... what if you have EXIF, [something else], and conflicts, and how to manage...
19:30:24 <timbl_> q+
19:30:35 <DanC_> ... so I think the "conflicting metadata is a bug; we're not telling what to do" doesn't suffice...
19:30:55 <DanC_> ... I suggest to say that it's not an error... providing an override mechanism is important
19:31:09 <noah> ack jar
19:31:09 <Zakim> jar, you wanted to answer larry regarding priority between sources (i will just say what i already entered in irc)
19:32:10 <masinter> q+ to disagree: metadata is always an issue of opinion, not a theory of fact
19:32:17 <noah> ack timbl_
19:32:33 <DanC_> JAR: metadata is typically a statement of fact. [LMM: no]. sometimes the server is right; sometimes the resource is right; each consumer has to decide who to believe
19:32:50 <DanC_> q+
19:33:27 <noah> ack Ashok
19:33:33 <DanC_> q+ to speak to expressiveness of override mechanism
19:33:38 <johnk> In response to the question "is XRD deployed" I mentioned WebFinger (see http://hueniverse.com/2009/09/implementing-webfinger/) which I believe may already be deployed 
19:34:21 <masinter> I don't want to say "who is right and who is wrong". I just am asking that the Link header be expanded to alow the server to be clear about whether the intent of the server is to override, supplant, or replace embedded metadata.
19:34:27 <noah> DC: I said host meta is one too many because it duplicates what RDF already provides
19:34:31 <noah> ack masinter
19:34:31 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to disagree: metadata is always an issue of opinion, not a theory of fact
19:34:42 <noah> JAR: It's a putative fact
19:34:53 <DanC_> AM: when I asked whether this is the right number of mechanism I got sort of a yes from LMM and JAR and a No from Dan... elaborate?
19:35:17 <johnk> JK: regarding the Link header, I mentioned that the original use-case (IIRC!) was specifically for cases where an HTTP entity-body could not contain "links" (for example, text/plain)
19:35:22 <noah> LM: I'm not looking to settle who's right, I'm looking for priority mechanisms.
19:35:31 <noah> q?
19:35:34 <DanC_> DanC: I think Host-Meta overlaps with existing mechanisms: POWDER. so we've got more mechanisms than I'd like to see. [don't mean to be emphatic about which of POWDER or Host-Meta shold survive]
19:36:08 <noah> Interesting Dan, I thought some of what you wanted was an RDF answer (or maybe I'm channeling Tim through you)
19:36:20 <noah> ack DanC_
19:36:20 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to speak to expressiveness of override mechanism
19:36:47 <jar> "The server believes this information to be more trustworthy than what the resource says." or "The server that what the resource says is more likely to be right than what it says."
19:36:49 <noah> DC: The client can have all sorts of policies, but it's less expressive if you don't let the sender express a preference.
19:37:33 <DanC_> TBL: architecturally, the HTTP header overrides the content... but in practical cases, people want their content to override the server config too.
19:38:33 <DanC_> JAR: I'd say mnot and Eran would say: it's the responsibility of what's pointed to by Link: to have this override mechanism.
19:38:59 <timbl_> TBL: architecturall,y, the HTTP Srever is in a position to override anything, as it is on control -- it could munge the ougoing file and chenge the metaa -- .  The provdier of hte fil eonly has delegated control.  But hen tthere are so many case of broken server implementatuions. where th person writing the file. knows bett ertthan te person who confiugured the apache.
19:39:12 <DanC_> NM: we can always come back to this...
19:39:21 <DanC_> JAR: no; there's a market window...
19:39:29 <DanC_> DC: does anybody know timing of large deployments?
19:39:48 <DanC_> JK: I think webfinger is deployed at scale, using [Host-Meta?]
19:40:28 <DanC_> q+ to express obligation to connect with SemWeb CG
19:41:08 <DanC_> HT: uniform access has come back into this... harks back to XRI and [missed]...
19:43:25 <DanC_> HT: the energy currently is going into how to provide metadata that addresses the uniform access problem...
19:43:45 <DanC_> ... the good news is that although there are what might look like 3 competing proposals, actually they play nice together
19:43:53 <DanC_> ... and there's a story about how
19:44:05 <DanC_> HT: that's what I heard.
19:44:47 <noah> DC: As team contact, I feel that doing nothing isn't good.
19:45:08 <noah> DC: I think we need to connect with the Sem Web coordination group.
19:45:24 <noah> DC: But....reluctant to add to my own queue
19:45:42 <noah> JAR: I could approach them but have been discouraged [scribe notes that parses a couple of ways...not sure which intended]
19:46:15 <Ashok> Webfinger: http://code.google.com/p/webfinger/
19:46:45 <noah> DC: What I have in mind is along the lines of going to coord group and say: Hey, this is about to happen without RDF.  Problem?
19:48:05 <DanC_> . ACTION: Jonathan inform SemWeb CG about market developments around webfinger and metadata access ...
19:49:10 <DanC_> . ACTION: Jonathan inform SemWeb CG about market developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship to RDFa and linked data
19:49:22 <DanC_> ACTION: Jonathan inform SemWeb CG about market developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship to RDFa and linked data
19:49:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-363 - Inform SemWeb CG about market developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship to RDFa and linked data [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-12-17].
19:49:57 <timbl_> http://www.w3.org/host-meta
19:50:53 <jar> Last call ended for .well-known and Link:
19:50:55 <masinter> the TAG could ask the editor (Mark) to note open issues: use of RDF vs. other metadata representations, and whether Link: overrides, supplants, or defaults embedded metadata.
19:51:08 <raman> what time is you rbreak? my mike may be muted 
19:51:52 <Zakim> -Raman
19:54:41 <masinter> the discussion has been useful, even if we don't act further
19:55:12 <DanC_> close action-281
19:55:12 <trackbot> ACTION-281 Keep an eye on progress of link header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) closed
19:55:19 <noah> Supposedly now until 3:15, but we're struggling to 
19:55:24 <DanC_> close action-336
19:55:24 <trackbot> ACTION-336 Prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f closed
19:56:15 <noah> WE ARE ON BREAK UNTIL 15:20 US EST
20:21:43 <DanC_> Topic: (xmlFunctions-34): XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption)
20:23:00 <DanC_> DanC: HT notified us of a default processing model draft in the XProc WG
20:23:34 <masinter> (back from break)
20:24:48 <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
20:25:11 <DanC_> DanC: any processing model that does Xinclude shouldn't be "_the_ default_" ...
20:25:34 <DanC_> ... previously, HT seemed sympathetic
20:27:11 <noah> (some metadiscussion on whether editors of this are obligated to listen to input before formal drafts available.  Editor warns that lack of sleep will lead to forgetfulness anyway.)
20:27:42 <DanC_> ... I think the way to make it clear that this is not _the_ default processing model is to include another one...
20:27:54 <noah> DC: Earlier, I said "Default Processing Model" isn't the right title.  Henry, you seemed sympathetic.  Are you still.
20:28:03 <noah> HT: Um, loses some value.
20:28:13 <masinter> q+ to ask whether this belongs with the application/xml media type & reregistration of it
20:28:21 <DanC_> ... the trivial one: just use the bytes you got
20:28:22 <noah> HT: Lots of people should point to this.
20:28:27 <noah> DC: So you do want to be THE model.
20:28:29 <noah> HT: Yes.
20:28:35 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #tagmem
20:28:46 <noah> HT: With XInclude we can get rid of much of the need for DTDs.
20:30:12 <noah> DC: The getting rid of DTDs part appeals to me.  Tim, do you feel that justifies making XInclude the default.
20:30:48 <masinter> shouldn't http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml make normative reference to this?
20:31:05 <noah> q+ to ask whether this is clear on what to do if external resources don't resolve.  Can you use this in a non-network environment?
20:31:10 <DanC_> ack danc
20:31:10 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to express obligation to connect with SemWeb CG
20:31:49 <DanC_> TBL: what does the xml:id bit do?
20:31:57 <DanC_> HT: affects the DOM; e.g. GetElementById
20:32:32 <johnk> q+ to ask what happens if the document looks like this: <xml version='1.0'?><EncryptedData>...</EncryptedData>
20:33:13 <DanC_> TBL: does xinclude happen after xml:id?
20:33:33 <DanC_> HT: no; the details are in XProc
20:33:51 <DanC_> ***** HT wants to remember that this could be clarified
20:34:41 <DanC_> (tee hee... johnk is going to ask the question that's at the heart of the matter, opening up the risk that this agendum will take up the rest of the meeting :)
20:35:30 <DanC_> TBL: I'm surprised to not see something recursive
20:35:36 <timbl_> q?
20:35:49 <DanC_> HT: XInclude is recursive; unlike GRDDL, which doesn't say whether xinclude happens 1st, xinclude does say
20:35:56 <noah> q?
20:36:04 <masinter> q?
20:36:45 <DanC_> ack johnk
20:36:45 <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask what happens if the document looks like this: <xml version='1.0'?><EncryptedData>...</EncryptedData>
20:36:59 <DanC_> JK: what if the data is encripted?
20:37:24 <DanC_> HT: well... you lose... we tried to get encryption/signature into the design, but... they require a key...
20:37:54 <noah> ack next
20:37:55 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask whether this belongs with the application/xml media type & reregistration of it
20:37:56 <DanC_> ... and we don't want to come anywhere close to encourage packaging a document with a key
20:38:17 <DanC_> q+
20:38:48 <DanC_> LMM: how about binding it to the XML media type?
20:39:19 <DanC_> HT: not retrospectively
20:40:00 <DanC_> LMM: but how about when people make new XML media types, they should be referred to this processing model
20:40:04 <masinter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml
20:40:50 <noah> NM As I recall, schema looked at this a long time, asking "do you want to validate pre or post inclusion.  The answer was a clear "both", that's as a good reason to use the infoset.
20:40:56 <ht> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
20:40:57 <noah> s/NM/NM:/
20:41:01 <DanC_> TBL: what "the customer", me, asked for, is what "corresponds to" the input, in the HTTP sense
20:41:33 <noah> ack next
20:41:34 <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask whether this is clear on what to do if external resources don't resolve.  Can you use this in a non-network environment?
20:41:37 <timbl_> In the sense, if you send me an XML document, whot I can hold you to haveing said
20:42:33 <ht> q+ to answer Tim
20:42:35 <DanC_> NM: meanwhile, HT has an action to lay out the design space
20:42:36 <DanC_> action-113?
20:42:36 <trackbot> ACTION-113 -- Henry S. Thompson to hT to a) revise composition.pdf to take account of suggestions from Tim & Jonathan and feedback from email and b) produce a new version of the Elaborated Infoset finding, possibly incorporating some of the PDF -- due 2010-01-01 -- OPEN
20:42:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/113
20:43:01 <masinter> e.g., the XML Media Types RFC could require, at a minimum, that  registration of XML media types MUST clearly identify what processing model they use, and whether they use this one.
20:43:22 <masinter> q?
20:43:23 <noah> q?
20:43:27 <noah> ack next
20:43:27 <DanC_> (w.r.t. wrapping up, I'm content to consider action-239 done and come back when we see progress on action-113, provided it comes before LC on this spec)
20:43:29 <timbl_> q+ to explain as patiently as he can that the interesting thing i snot to tell people how they shoul dprocess it. in fact the idea of a processing model is (of course) (at all) broken.   But ut i s the current phrseology for the closest thing to what we need.  What we need is some sense of what the meaning of the document is.
20:43:57 <noah> ack next
20:43:58 <Zakim> ht, you wanted to answer Tim
20:44:02 <timbl_> The meaning of an xinclude include emeplemnt is t its included contents.
20:44:47 <DanC_> HT: yes, it's a reasonable exercise to answer "what is the author held to?"
20:45:04 <DanC_> ... and the value increases if there's only one answer
20:45:22 <DanC_> ... that's why there's no answer in the case you gave [oops; what case was that? I didn't scribe it]
20:45:45 <DanC_> ... this only takes one step down a complicated [... more]
20:45:52 <noah> q?
20:46:01 <noah> q+ to ask how widely deployed XInclude is
20:46:02 <masinter> q+ to suggest TAG ask authors of XML Media Types to reference this document, and require, at a minimum, that registration of XML media types MUST clearly identify what processing model, and whether it uses this one.
20:46:11 <jar> q+ jar to ask whether any infoset will contain an xinclude element.  and ask about OWL imports
20:46:12 <noah> ack next
20:46:13 <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to explain as patiently as he can that the interesting thing i snot to tell people how they shoul dprocess it. in fact the idea of a processing model is (of
20:46:18 <Zakim> ... course) (at all) broken.   But ut i s the current phrseology for the closest thing to what we need.  What we need is some sense of what the meaning of the document is.
20:46:58 <DanC_> (I encourage jar, lmm to q- and wait for telcon time, unless there's nothing else on today's agenda that you care about)
20:47:03 <DanC_> (and noah
20:47:05 <DanC_> )
20:47:23 <DanC_> TBL: [...missed] which is the decrypted material...
20:47:32 <DanC_> ... and in the case of XSLT is the output
20:47:47 <DanC_> ... so in fact you have to go to the spec for each element to get what the author is held to
20:48:14 <jar> TBL was talking about the recursive / compositional processing model.
20:48:57 <noah> q?
20:48:57 <jar> I think he's saying this spec isn't ambitious (inferential?) enough
20:49:13 <jar> q- jar
20:50:02 <DanC_> HT: LMM, yes, I take on board the concern about the connection between the XML media types spec and this spec
20:50:26 <masinter> q- masinter
20:50:28 <DanC_> ... though I'm concerned about the timelines
20:51:15 <DanC_> close ACTION-292
20:51:16 <trackbot> ACTION-292 Alert group to review HTML Authoring Drafts [trivial] [self-assigned] closed
20:51:32 <DanC_> Topic: HTML versioning change proposal
20:52:13 <DanC_> Zakim, remind us in 15 minutes that we said we'd move to the next agendum in 20 minutes
20:52:13 <Zakim> ok, DanC_
20:52:21 <masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0055.html
20:53:45 <DanC_> LMM: you can see the suggested syntax at the bottom
20:53:53 <DanC_> DC: hmm... DOCTYPE... despite my advice?
20:54:02 <DanC_> LMM: I looked and couldn't find any downside
20:54:06 <DanC_> DC: quirks mode?
20:54:56 <DanC_> LMM: no, quirks mode is triggered only in the case of known DTD strings
20:55:35 <DanC_> LMM: a goal is to make a change that needs no changes from browsers
20:55:50 <DanC_> NM: what's the motivation/goal for the change?
20:56:14 <DanC_> LMM: cf the change proposal, incl "The html version string is allowed primarily because it may be useful for content management systems and other development workflows  as a kind of metadata to indicate which specification was being consulted when the HTML content was being prepared.
20:56:14 <DanC_> "
20:57:50 <DanC_> HT notes another procedural request from maciej
20:58:59 <DanC_> HT: this looks good to me.
20:59:20 <DanC_> HT: yes, we should look into the XML requirement for a system identifier
20:59:29 <DanC_> s/we should/I hope to/
21:00:42 <DanC_> HT: ah... yes... there are no XML syntaxes with only public id
21:02:26 <DanC_> (train of thought started with something NM said, which I forgot)
21:02:39 <DanC_> DC: that's why I advise a version attribute
21:03:01 <DanC_> LMM: I wanted to follow the existing tradition of using <!DOCTYPE >
21:03:31 <DanC_> DC: but it suggests there's a DTD, while there isn't one
21:03:52 <DanC_> HT: well, a DTD with all "ANY" content models could be slotted in.
21:04:36 <DanC_> LMM: in some ways I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but ...
21:05:04 <DanC_> ... I don't like to see the HTML WG close issues just because noone was willing to take flack for making a proposal
21:05:41 <ht> Actually, forget ANY -- if it goes that way, I would expect/recommend that an effectively empty external subset should be provided at the given SYSID, i.e one consisting entirely of a comment
21:06:03 <DanC_> ... and I think it's important for those who want to express a version id to be able to
21:06:22 <DanC_> ... I encourage TAG members to review and contribute directly to public-html
21:06:40 <DanC_> some discussion of public-html mailing list logistics and expectations
21:07:14 <Zakim> DanC_, you asked to be reminded at this time that we said we'd move to the next agendum in 20 minutes
21:07:40 <DanC_> Topic: HTML media type and pre-HTML 5 content
21:08:09 <DanC_> action-334?
21:08:09 <trackbot> ACTION-334 -- Henry S. Thompson to start an email thread regarding the treatment of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5 -- due 2009-11-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:08:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/334
21:08:32 <DanC_> RESOLVED: to thank Amy for hosting arrangements. with applause
21:09:11 <DanC_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0013.html
21:09:21 <johnk> Jonathan how about: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-02
21:09:27 <DanC_> HT: so that collects all relevant materials I know of
21:11:32 <jar> johnk, that's amazing, thanks
21:15:47 <DanC_> what's "suspended animation"? wild... they use tracker:closed
21:17:16 <DanC_> -> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53 ISSUE-53 mediatypereg Need to update media type registrations
21:18:10 <DanC_> "State:
21:18:10 <DanC_>     CLOSED
21:18:10 <DanC_> Product:
21:18:10 <DanC_>     HTML5 Spec - PR Blockers"
21:19:22 <DanC_> q+
21:20:20 <DanC_> HT: so... should we try to get something to happen before Last Call? I thought there was an interaction with the language design, but on close examination, I didn't find one.
21:21:01 <masinter> q+ to ask for volunteer to write a change proposal
21:21:35 <masinter> this is a useful as a Rationale for the change proposal
21:21:43 <noah> ac2 n6ah
21:21:45 <noah> ack noah
21:21:45 <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask how widely deployed XInclude is
21:21:48 <noah> ack next
21:22:15 <noah> DC: I don't agree with the obvious fix.  I think the HTML 5 spec describes HTML 2 better than HTML 2 spec does.
21:22:41 <noah> q?
21:23:23 <DanC_> ack danc
21:23:23 <noah> ack next
21:23:26 <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask for volunteer to write a change proposal
21:23:52 <ht> q+ to point out that each step has ruled out tags, so those tags have _no_ semantics to an HTML5 processor
21:24:32 <DanC_> LMM: I think a change proposal would be good... e.g. there are documents that prompt quirks mode that's implemented, but the current HTML 5 spec rules it out. [roughly]
21:30:26 <masinter> suggest MIME registration point to history section inside HTML5 document and/or previous MIME registration
21:30:26 <masinter>  
21:30:44 <DanC_> . ACTION DanC: ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's discussion
21:31:09 <DanC_> ACTION DanC: ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's discussion
21:31:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-364 - Ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's discussion [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-17].
21:31:23 <ht> It occurs to me that a change which said "this registration augments [the existing registration] rather than replacing it
21:31:56 <DanC_> LMM: a change proposal might fix some other parts of the media type registration... e.g. change controller
21:32:20 <noah> topic: Widget URI Scheme
21:32:28 <masinter> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=widget+uri&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=masinter&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=Dec&period_year=2009&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-webapps&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
21:33:42 <DanC_> Zakim, remind us in 12 minutes to check the clock
21:33:42 <Zakim> ok, DanC_
21:34:45 <DanC_> LMM: there's a TAG issue about registering URI schemes [really?]; I think we should encourage registering permanent URI schemes rather than provisional ones... but leaving that aside...
21:35:08 <johnk> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20090618/
21:36:02 <DanC_> rather http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/#authority
21:36:22 <timbl_> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-uri/#authority
21:36:25 <DanC_> LMM: consider "A producer may include an authority component in URIs. If present, the authority component is said to be opaque, meaning that the authority component has a syntax as defined by [RFC3987] but that the authority component is devoid of semantics. "
21:36:37 <DanC_> LMM: this seems not well-defined
21:37:36 <DanC_> LMM: earlier in the design discussion, this was used for cross-widget references , but due to security concerns, I think, they made it opaque
21:38:08 <DanC_> JAR: how about using it to distinguish widgets?
21:39:20 <DanC_> JK: but these are only used for reference within a widget
21:41:21 <johnk> JK: widget URIs are used in a "manifest" contained within a widget package, and then used to point to other files within the widget package
21:41:26 <masinter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 
21:41:40 <masinter> guidelines and registration procedures for new uri schemes
21:42:31 <johnk> q+ to ask whether the crucial question is whether individual components of a widget will be "on the Web"
21:43:00 <DanC_> TBL: this does seem undefined
21:43:07 <DanC_> JAR: could be "reserved for future use"
21:43:10 <masinter>    For schemes that function as locators, it is important that the
21:43:10 <masinter>    mechanism of resource location be clearly defined.  This might mean
21:43:10 <masinter>    different things depending on the nature of the URI scheme.
21:43:10 <masinter>  
21:43:13 <masinter>  
21:43:55 <masinter>    The URI registration process is described in the terminology of [3].
21:43:55 <masinter>    The registration process is an optional mailing list review, followed
21:43:55 <masinter>    by "Expert Review".  The registration request should note the desired
21:43:55 <masinter>    status.  The Designated Expert will evaluate the request against the
21:43:58 <masinter>    criteria of the requested status.  In the case of a permanent
21:44:00 <masinter>    registration request, the Designated Expert may:
21:44:04 <masinter>  
21:44:11 <masinter> I am not the expert.
21:45:42 <Zakim> DanC_, you asked to be reminded at this time to check the clock
21:47:10 <masinter> I hope that W3C staff will establish a process where "The template may also be submitted in    some other form (as part of another document or as a stand-alone        document), but the contents will be treated as an "IETF        Contribution" under the guidelines of RFC 3978 [4]."
21:47:10 <masinter>  
21:48:34 <DanC_> Topic: Closing remarks
21:49:14 <DanC_> AM: This was a very successful ftf.
21:50:29 <DanC_> JK: yeah; good meeting; the action item stuff in the agenda worked; the Zakim tracking not so well.
21:50:33 <DanC_> NM: yeah.
21:51:15 <DanC_> TBL: yeah... good meeting... JAR's "speaks_for" stuff was a highlight
21:51:25 <DanC_> q+ to speak to the persistent domain tactics
21:51:32 <DanC_> q- ht
21:52:12 <DanC_> TBL: the persistent domain stuff... not clearly within the TAG's scope, but if not us, who?
21:52:40 <DanC_> JAR: yeah... Creative Commons will sure help... but who else is in a position to connect the IETF with the library community?
21:53:01 <johnk> ack johnk
21:53:01 <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask whether the crucial question is whether individual components of a widget will be "on the Web"
21:53:05 <jar> who else other than the TAG, that is
21:53:16 <jar> and CC
21:53:18 <DanC_> NM: yeah... good meeting... noteable technical highlights
21:53:30 <jar> (not a rhetorical question by the way)
21:53:42 <DanC_> ... and as to how we work as a group, this feels like we're starting to hit stride.
21:53:51 <masinter> feedback: i'm very happy that the ratio of technical / non-technical & administrative has been the highest in my experience on the TAG.  I think we're making much better progress toward producing things of lasting value, drive toward architecture documents, etc. Want to make sure we also focus on "last mile", i.e., once we've worked an issue, that we do the final work toward publishing it, rather than letting it languish in the "nearly
21:53:51 <masinter> done" state.
21:54:24 <DanC_> ack me
21:54:24 <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to speak to the persistent domain tactics
21:55:00 <timbl_> Strong argument there John the the Web for an agent must not xclude things which are local to it .. much of my most important web i s local to my laptop. So local files are things on my web and so  I suppose are chrome: and widget:things .. not a showstopper there.
21:55:58 <DanC_> DC: yeah... not clear that persistent domains is a TAG thing, but it's a W3C thing, and if we can catalyze a workshop, that makes sense
21:56:43 <DanC_> ... and several of the topics that came up in the meeting kept me thinking into the evening
21:57:54 <DanC_> next meeting looks like 17 Dec
21:58:55 <DanC_> JAR: [scribe too sleepy...] I'm starting to feel more in sync with the group
21:59:18 <DanC_> ADJOURN
21:59:54 <DanC_> action-213?
21:59:54 <trackbot> ACTION-213 -- Noah Mendelsohn to prepare 17 Dec weekly teleconference agenda -- due 2009-12-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:59:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
22:08:23 <DanC_> close action-330
22:08:23 <trackbot> ACTION-330 Prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with Noah etc. closed
22:09:54 <DanC_> action-239
22:09:58 <DanC_> close action-239
22:09:58 <trackbot> ACTION-239 alert chair when updates to description of xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none made) closed
22:10:20 <DanC_> close action-277
22:10:20 <trackbot> ACTION-277 Ensure patent policy issue is resolved with Art closed
22:12:27 <DanC_> close action-306
22:12:27 <trackbot> ACTION-306 Work with Raman, LM, JK to update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings closed
22:12:34 <DanC_> action-327
22:13:14 <DanC_> close action-328
22:13:14 <trackbot> ACTION-328 Convey to the EXIWG the resolution "We thank the EXI WG for registering the conetnt encoding and encourage them in their endeavours.". closed
22:13:58 <DanC_> close action-334
22:13:58 <trackbot> ACTION-334 Start an email thread regarding the treatment of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5 closed
22:15:48 <Zakim> -[MIT-G449]
22:15:50 <Zakim> TAG_f2f()8:30AM has ended
22:15:50 <Zakim> Attendees were [MIT-G449], Raman
22:17:08 <jar> jar has joined #tagmem
22:31:09 <raman> raman has left #tagmem
22:31:36 <jar> jar has joined #tagmem
23:19:26 <timbl> timbl has joined #tagmem
23:20:05 <timbl> timbl has joined #tagmem