18:00:24 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 18:00:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-irc 18:00:26 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:00:28 Zakim, this will be TAG 18:00:28 ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 18:00:29 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 18:00:29 +Raman 18:00:29 Date: 07 January 2010 18:00:38 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:00:45 +Liam 18:01:17 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0017.html 18:01:25 zakim, who is here? 18:01:25 On the phone I see Masinter, noah, jar, DanC (muted), Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Liam (muted) 18:01:27 On IRC I see RRSAgent, caribou, MikeSmith, Ashok, Liam, jar, timbl, masinter, noah, Zakim, ht, DanC, trackbot 18:01:38 plh has joined #tagmem 18:01:47 agenda + Convene 18:01:56 +Plh 18:01:57 agenda + Approve minutes of prior meeting(s) 18:02:02 agenda + Administrative items 18:02:12 agenda + ACTION-356: Name qualification mechanisms for HTML 5 (xmlnames) 18:02:16 +Carine 18:02:20 agenda + ACTION-358: Usage of "Resource vs. Representation" in HTML 5 18:02:28 agenda + HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification 18:02:30 zakim, who is here? 18:02:35 agenda + ACTION-351: Workshop on persistence 18:02:38 On the phone I see Masinter, noah, jar, DanC (muted), Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Liam (muted), Plh (muted), Carine 18:02:43 agenda + ACTION-354: Client side storage APIs 18:02:48 On IRC I see plh, RRSAgent, caribou, MikeSmith, Ashok, Liam, jar, timbl, masinter, noah, Zakim, ht, DanC, trackbot 18:02:50 agenda + ISSUE-30: Binary XML 18:02:54 raman has joined #tagmem 18:02:59 agenda + Pending Review Items 18:03:07 agenda + Overdue Action Items 18:03:12 Zakim, take up item 1 18:03:17 agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from DanC] 18:03:24 +John_Kemp 18:03:36 Next Meeting: 14 January 2010 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn Future scribes: Jonathan -> John -> Ashok 18:03:43 Zakim, next item 18:03:43 agendum 1 was just opened, DanC 18:03:52 Zakim, move to next item 18:03:52 agendum 1 was just opened, DanC 18:03:57 Liam, can you post pointer to slides? 18:04:12 RESOLVED: to approve 3 Dec minutes http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/03-minutes 18:04:18 (I'll re-assign 215 to me) 18:04:24 (since I'm scribing this week) 18:04:42 RESOLVED: to approve minutes 17 Dec http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes 18:04:50 close ACTION-362 18:04:51 ACTION-362 Announce TAG ftf minutes 8-10 Dec closed 18:05:05 close ACTION-366 18:05:05 ACTION-366 Bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input and ask Raman and Tim about availability closed 18:05:19 "New date for upcoming TAG F2F: 24-26 March 2010 at MIT" 18:05:26 close item 2 18:05:42 close item 1 18:05:47 close item 3 18:05:49 Zakim, call Mike 18:05:56 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 18:05:56 +Mike 18:06:22 htt has joined #tagmem 18:06:23 proposal :http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/01-07-liam-namespaces/ 18:06:35 Zakim, unmute me 18:06:35 DanC should no longer be muted 18:06:40 Zakim, next item 18:06:40 agendum 4. "ACTION-356: Name qualification mechanisms for HTML 5 (xmlnames)" taken up [from DanC] 18:06:43 +Ht 18:07:11 -> http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/01-07-liam-namespaces/ Unobtrusive Namespaces (slides) 18:07:45 Henry, as you can hear, we've gone to Liam, but I did just ask whether you had any early news on action-357? 18:07:56 LQ: "HTML 5 draft violates layering" e.g. the switch from HTML to SVG namespace is hardwired 18:08:22 slide Constraints on solutions 18:09:03 q+ to ask if this is "constraints on solutions in general" or "constraints adopted by this author"? 18:09:41 q- 18:11:17 slide: Other technologies 18:11:57 slide: Proposal: Unobtrusive Namespaces 18:12:03 are there two proposals, one "unobtrusive" and another "invisible"? 18:12:31 Zakim, dial tim-office 18:12:31 I am sorry, timbl; I do not know a number for tim-office 18:12:36 Zakim, dial timbl-office 18:12:36 ok, timbl; the call is being made 18:12:38 LQ: yes, there two proposals, one "unobtrusive" and another "invisible" 18:12:38 +Timbl 18:12:56 -Timbl 18:13:08 Zakim, who is on the call? 18:13:08 On the phone I see Masinter, noah, jar, DanC, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Liam, Plh (muted), Carine, John_Kemp, Mike, Ht 18:13:59 amy has joined #tagmem 18:14:39 that software isn't working on my computer. let me get marisol 18:15:23 +TimBL 18:16:40 Welcome, Tim. We're on http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/01-07-liam-namespaces/#%288%29 18:16:49 -Mike 18:16:59 amy has left #tagmem 18:18:29 2010-01-08? 18:18:37 ACTION-357? 18:18:37 ACTION-357 -- Henry S. Thompson 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 2010-01-12 -- OPEN 18:18:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/357 18:19:29 Right, Dan. I knew the action wasn't due until next week, but was curious whether HT had any early progress to report. Not sure how I got the date wrong in the agenda. 18:20:06 zakim, who is talking? 18:20:11 perhaps the date got updated 18:20:23 ok. so it's on the slide: 18:20:27 noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TimBL (18%) 18:21:01 Zakim, mute HT 18:21:01 Ht should now be muted 18:21:19 MikeSmithX has joined #tagmem 18:21:28 Zakim, call Mike 18:21:28 ok, MikeSmithX; the call is being made 18:21:30 +Mike 18:22:17 q? 18:22:50 q+ to ask about two proposals 18:23:19 ack next 18:23:20 noah, you wanted to ask about two proposals 18:23:39 q+ to note an unmet static scoping requirement and our requirements/proposals table whiteboard in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item03 18:24:00 NM: are you just observing 2 ideas? or do you advocate one over the other? 18:24:17 LQ: invisible namespaces takes unobtrusive namespaces further, by eliminating the need for a link... 18:24:21 ack next 18:24:22 DanC, you wanted to note an unmet static scoping requirement and our requirements/proposals table whiteboard in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item03 18:24:24 are there pointers to explicit proposals? the slides don't actually cover the proposals but just the claimed attributes of the proposals 18:24:28 ... and it's invisible namespaces that I've proposed to the HTML WG 18:24:45 (URLs are on slide 5) 18:24:50 DC: The proposals are cited on slide 4 or 5, I think. 18:25:09 see http://www.barefootliam.org/xml/20091111-unobtrusive-namespaces 18:25:10 DC: Neither of these seem to meet my need for static scoping. Hmm, though perhaps without the link you could trace back. 18:25:31 DC: Without the link, when you're looking at one document, some other document can change the meaning. 18:25:43 LQ: Already status quo in XML with DTDs 18:25:48 DC: Yup, I don't use those. 18:25:55 DC: We had a matrix of requirements vs. proposals. 18:26:00 don't see pointer to "Invisible Namespaces" proposals 18:26:07 TBL: Where do you draw the line? 18:26:21 DC: You can change the binding between the element shortnames and expanded? names 18:26:21 timbl: Where do you draw the line between static and non-static scoping? 18:26:36 TBL: It's a well defined set of docs that can do that. Isn't that how the Web works. 18:26:52 HT: Maybe another way to say it, is that's confusing for software not humans. 18:26:59 Temp scribe is falling behind... 18:27:25 s/do you/do you (Dan)/ 18:27:26 DC: The widely deployed MIME type doesn't support DTDs for redefining such things. 18:27:32 s/Hmm, though perhaps without the link you could trace back./ 18:27:34 s/Hmm, though perhaps without the link you could trace back.// 18:27:45 (a common similar XML example today is the "chameleon schema pattern" too, to define an element pool used in multiple namespaces) 18:27:46 TBL: We already have a situation where things like CSS are required for rendering. 18:28:16 TBL: ... clipboard type ... 18:28:18 TBL: We had some sort of cut/paste requirement. So, there must be a clipboard type that carries the fully qualified version to be copied. 18:28:33 TBL: Within one document, I'm not convinced the requirement exists. 18:28:38 q? 18:28:45 danc: Static = you have to be able to look at the dcument (and no other documents) and be able to map abbreviated form to full URI. 18:28:55 DC: Liam, can you say more about who we're helping? 18:29:07 DC: say more about motivating use cases? 18:29:11 s/TBL: Within one document, I'm not convinced the requirement exists.// 18:30:42 LQ: people hand-authoring HTML/XML documents with lots of namespaces at the top... 18:30:59 the examples LQ gave weren't "hand-authored" 18:31:05 htt has joined #tagmem 18:31:09 ... e.g. when authoring tools add all the namespaces they might ever use 18:31:12 q+ to say there's a larger question about encouraging use of namespaces 18:31:13 @include "myincludes.h" 18:31:17 DC: I don't find that very motivating 18:31:32 q+ ht 18:31:33 ack next 18:31:35 noah, you wanted to say there's a larger question about encouraging use of namespaces 18:31:46 i think we should distinguish between "hand authored" and "computer software generated" 18:31:55 unack noah :-) 18:32:26 the include solution will disable content sniffing at least 18:32:30 LQ: there's been a long-standing demand in the XML community for mixing and mashing namespaces 18:33:01 James Clark blog posting: http://blog.jclark.com/2010/01/xml-namespaces.html 18:33:09 (yes, namespace "macros" were left out of the RDF requirements on the grounds that the functionality could be layered on top, but experience shows: not so.) 18:33:13 From James: For XML language designers, think whether it is really necessary to use XML Namespaces. Don’t just mindlessly stick everything in a namespace because everybody else does. Using namespaces is not without cost. There is no inherent virtue in forcing users to stick xmlns=”…” on the document element. 18:34:10 NM: I think using unqualified names gives less follow-your-nose/self-describing web. 18:34:14 q+ to ask about namespaces for attributes vs. namespaces for elements 18:34:28 ack next 18:34:57 NM: so I prefer some way to make namespace syntax less tedious to getting rid of the URI bindings altogether 18:35:33 [ht: removing the prefix from the document element is a good idea] 18:36:03 HT: in the case of a document of one sort with bits of other stuff mixed in, I like that to be visible. 18:36:15 I also said that, somewhat independent of the merits of Liam's or HT's proposals, the TAG would have an interest in the follow your nose (or lack thereof) characteristics of James' advice. 18:36:21 q? 18:36:47 q+ to mention "sticky namespaces" 18:36:54 ack next 18:36:56 masinter, you wanted to ask about namespaces for attributes vs. namespaces for elements 18:37:32 HST does think it's orthogonal 18:37:36 q? 18:37:54 LMM: personally, what I think is most problematic about XML namespaces is the difference between unqualified attribute names, which don't bind to the default namespace, and unqualified element names, which do 18:38:20 ack next 18:38:21 Liam, you wanted to clarify that I'm not proposing banning prefixes, only reducing the need for them 18:38:31 LQ: yes, that's problematic, and yes, the [which?] proposal allows you to say "this attribute [of this element?] is in namespace X" 18:38:50 I think that was the unobtrusive, which in turn covers the invisible case. 18:38:52 I think that was the unobtrusive, which in turn covers the invisible case. 18:38:54 ack next 18:38:55 caribou, you wanted to mention "sticky namespaces" 18:38:59 q+ to comment of alignment of James Clark blog with positions stated in HTML WG discussions 18:39:00 s/which/Unobtrusive Namespaces/ 18:40:08 carine: sticky namespace, using a prefix introduces a new default namespace beneath it; this is not Henry's or Liam's proposal 18:40:37 To make the default prefix change whenever a prefix is used. 18:40:42 [sticky namespaces changes the meaning of existing documents] 18:40:44 CB: there is a proposal that children of an element of an element that has a namespace prefix would not need a namespace prefix. in a response to HT's blog item 18:41:06 CB: it's a big change; not clear that it's cost-effective 18:41:15 q? 18:41:34 It would be useful for HTML nested inside SVG inside HTML but it does hange the meaning of existing documents. 18:41:40 ack next 18:41:41 MikeSmithX, you wanted to comment of alignment of James Clark blog with positions stated in HTML WG discussions 18:42:02 http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html#c184989 18:42:05 (did jjc make a proposal?) 18:42:16 (he blogged) 18:42:39 From James' Blog: 18:42:40 My current thinking is that a blend of registry- and DNS-based approaches would be nice. For example, you might have something like this: 18:42:40 * names consist of one or more components separated by dots; 18:42:40 * usually names consist of a single component, and their meaning is determined contextually; 18:42:40 * names consisting of multiple components are used for extensions; the initial component must be registered (the registration process can be as lightweight as adding an entry to a wiki, like WHATWG does HTML5 for rel values); 18:42:42 * there is a well-known URI for each registered initial component; 18:42:44 * one registered initial component is “dns”: the remaining components are a reversed DNS name (Mark Nottingham’s had a ID like this for MIME types); there’s some way of resolving such a name into a URI. 18:42:48 http://blog.jclark.com/2010/01/xml-namespaces.html 18:43:28 MS: in jjc's blog post, he notes there's use of URIs for things, and for types of things. He suggests using URIs for types of things is problematic. 18:43:40 Quoting James again: 18:43:41 From a more theoretical point of view, I think the insistence on URIs for namespaces is paying insufficient attention to the distinction between instances of things and types of things. The Web works as well as it does because there is an extraordinarily large number of instances of things (ie Web pages) and a relatively very small number of types of things (ie MIME types). Completely different considerations apply to naming instances and naming types: bo 18:43:48 s/problematic/more trouble than it's worth/ 18:43:49 I also have a (not very well substantiated) feeling that using URIs for namespaces tends to increase coupling between XML documents and their processing. An example is that people tend to assume that you can determine the XML schema for a document just by looking at the namespace URI of the document element. 18:44:14 ISO OIDs used the same kind of name for things and for types of things. There's a long history of having a way of assigning names without having to distinguish between whether it's a 'type' 18:44:48 MS: what jjc suggests, i.e. not using prefixes, and using reverse DNS and/or a registry, is a position supported by various HTML WG members and Micah's proposal. 18:44:54 Mike, you said "not using prefix" but I think you also meant "not using URI", which is probably the deeper architectural change on the Web. 18:45:09 HST agrees with Liam that no proposal which rebuilds XML names will not fly 18:45:15 if people don't like having the URI for a namespace be resolvable, use URIs of the form "urn:" for the namespace 18:45:26 Heads up, I'm getting ready to wrap up this agenda item. 18:45:33 James's blog is addressing the question of what a _new_ language should do about names 18:46:02 It seems pertinent to me that for HTML 5 we are committed to XML and HTML serializations of the same DOM. 18:46:09 That's a significant constraint. 18:46:14 yes 18:46:27 MS: as to the idea of using URIs associated with DOM Element items, I don't see any browser vendor support other than Microsoft, and [missed some] 18:46:50 NM: any fixed dates re this topic? 18:46:51 ack plh 18:47:33 signing off. till next week, kudos to Liam for a useful meeting 18:47:42 DC: I don't see "distributed extensibility" in the list of deadlines http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html 18:47:47 raman has left #tagmem 18:47:52 PLH: [missed] 18:48:04 -Raman 18:48:06 does that impact webapps as well? 18:48:08 action-357? 18:48:08 ACTION-357 -- Henry S. Thompson 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 2010-01-12 -- OPEN 18:48:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/357 18:48:38 NM: the extra-TAG participants here are welcome to join our continuing discussion 18:48:55 Topic: HTML 5 and Microdata 18:49:04 --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0218.html Working Group Decision on ISSUE-76 Microdata/RDFa 18:49:10 PLH: note decision to separate Microdata out of HTML 5 spec 18:49:36 q+ to think out loud about actions pending on microdata 18:49:38 -Plh 18:49:43 -Carine 18:49:47 -Mike 18:49:49 -Liam 18:49:58 Zakim, next item 18:49:58 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC 18:50:00 q- 18:50:01 Zakim, next item 18:50:01 agendum 5. "ACTION-358: Usage of "Resource vs. Representation" in HTML 5" taken up [from DanC] 18:50:04 MikeSmithX has left #tagmem 18:50:50 NM: note proposals are due January 16, 2010 18:51:39 LMM: the action [in the HTML WG?] was from Roy... asked for more time because it would involve lots of changes all over the document 18:51:56 Do we have a link to email from Roy? Wasn't to www-tag. 18:52:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0208.html 18:52:38 From Roy's note: 18:52:39 It is nearly impossible to write a change proposal based on a 18:52:39 moving target to fix a pervasive misuse of terms in the 18:52:39 current draft. I could write the changes, but that would 18:52:39 effectively be forking HTML5 or replacing the current editor. 18:52:52 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0208.html request from Roy to extend deadline for change proposals 18:53:05 zakim, who is talking? 18:53:10 caribou has left #tagmem 18:53:16 noah, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: noah (22%), jar (23%) 18:53:26 -jar 18:53:27 JAR: I see lots of traffic indexed under http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81 ; anybody have a summary? 18:53:29 my opinion on the topic was: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0184.html 18:53:42 +jar 18:53:45 ha. 18:53:47 corrected by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0185.html 18:53:57 q+ to fill tim in 18:54:10 -TimBL 18:54:17 DC: Tim, have you read any of this. Oops. 18:54:20 aaagh 18:54:43 no i haven't read the email sorry 18:54:56 HT: in sum, I think we're agreed that this is deeply broken and ... 18:54:56 Zakim, call timbl-office 18:54:56 ok, timbl; the call is being made 18:54:58 +Timbl 18:55:00 Liam has left #tagmem 18:55:05 DanC: I'm not sure it's deeply broken 18:55:06 LM: I view this as editorial, not particularly serious 18:55:20 Zakim, call timbl-office 18:55:20 ok, timbl; the call is being made 18:55:22 +Timbl.a 18:55:25 -Timbl 18:55:49 zakim, drop timbl 18:55:49 Timbl.a is being disconnected 18:55:50 LMM: there are two concepts... it's a lot of editorial work to fix... 18:55:51 -Timbl.a 18:55:53 +TimBL 18:55:59 there are two concepts that are different, and the same term is being used to refer to both of them 18:56:07 q? 18:56:38 ack next 18:56:39 DanC, you wanted to fill tim in 18:57:38 DC: In the spec, URIs are used to refer to the bag of bits that come back. 18:57:48 LM: And also the resource at the end of the wire 18:57:56 Ashok has joined #tagmem 18:58:06 TBL: The spec is somewhat (informal? scribe didn't get the exact word) 18:58:29 DC: CSS and XXX and YYY do this too. 18:58:30 TBL: People talk loosely about the resource being returned. 18:58:58 TBL: I think it's important to get the resource word used consistently; I'm less concerned about consistent use of representation. Alternatives to that might be OK. 18:59:16 s/consistently/consistent with AWW/ 18:59:19 q+ to agree with timbl and make a proposal 18:59:37 i vote to offer roy help if he wants it, but let him whack at it 18:59:53 q? 18:59:58 ack ht 18:59:59 htt, you wanted to agree with timbl and make a proposal 19:00:04 NM: I see Roy F. interested to do some work; I suppose we can stand by for that to happen... or... 19:01:01 HT: I agree that it's critical to distinguish aww:resource, i.e. that which a URI refers to, from that which comes back from a GET response. 19:01:10 Ooh, I don't like message. 19:01:12 ... maybe message? 19:01:28 Too ambiguous with aspects of the response that are not the representation. 19:01:41 q+ to note 'HTTP in RDF' spec possibly in last call 19:01:53 ack next 19:01:54 DanC, you wanted to note 'HTTP in RDF' spec possibly in last call 19:02:25 note http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/ 19:03:02 DC: There is a spec for HTTP vocabulary in RDF that may or may not be in last call, hard to tell. This came up in discussion of redirections and semweb arch. They have an RDF model for HTTP. One of the comments that I think Jonathan sent was "you're missing this thing called an entity" 19:03:08 DC: I'm not fond of that one, but... 19:03:34 HST thinks entity == message, in that you have to get to "entity body" before you get to == AWWW-representation 19:03:40 q+ to prefer that Message be used for a thing-in-time 19:03:56 I suspect that the "pun" in HTML 5 spec is intentional, much as we may not like it. URI is a uniform RESOURC identifier --- poke one and you get back, guess what, a RESOURCE. 19:04:16 I know it's broken, but I'm not convinced they'll welcome a near synonym for representation. 19:04:27 q? 19:04:30 ack next 19:04:32 DanC, you wanted to prefer that Message be used for a thing-in-time 19:04:38 q+ 19:04:46 ack next 19:04:51 keep "message" as something that a sender sends to a receiver 19:04:59 q+ 19:05:12 keep "representation" as something that results from interpreting a "message" 19:05:25 q+ to note HTML WG sentiments on readership 19:05:57 NM: the informality in the HTML 5 spec seems unfortunate, to me... 19:06:00 q? 19:06:10 to quote http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0184.html : For a specification that goes out of its way, in other ways, to be careful to "match reality", this is a case where being following sloppy industry terminology leads to a failure to be consistent with the reality of what is actually implemented. 19:06:10 19:06:17 ... seems more appropraite for tutorials, but I think they understand it but trying to hide it from their user community 19:06:22 NM's point reminds me that I have used "web page" for this purpose with comfort. . ,. 19:06:22 q+ jar to say Ian denies the *existence* of awww:Resources 19:06:41 ack next 19:06:42 DanC, you wanted to note HTML WG sentiments on readership 19:07:00 q+ to suggest "web page" 19:07:12 +jar.a 19:07:33 ack next 19:07:34 jar, you wanted to say Ian denies the *existence* of awww:Resources 19:08:12 DC: one exercise is to do the editorial work of finding terminology that appeals to a large audience and how it impacts the spec... 19:08:37 ... another is to find a critical bug that can't be fixed without teasing apart representation [or message] vs document/entity 19:09:03 ... without time, perhaps you don't need to distinguish, but I think there's stuff about caching in there, which certainly involve time 19:09:39 The main thing I thought was awkward was that the spec was unclear about situations where a URL (sic) had no representations, or when there were many (content negotiation) 19:09:49 TBL: yes, the rhetorical simplification of ignoring time is sometimes useful... perhaps more than we acknowledge [did I get that right?] 19:10:28 q? 19:10:40 JAR: IIRC, this isn't just a choice of terms or confusions, Ian is saying that awww:resources don't exist; they're not worth talking about. 19:10:41 Tim, WebArch does talk about messages, e.g. "the message payload is the representation of this document." 19:10:45 zakim, close the queue 19:10:45 ok, noah, the speaker queue is closed 19:10:59 except for things that you POST to which don't have bags of bits? 19:11:00 q? 19:11:03 ack next 19:11:04 htt, you wanted to suggest "web page" 19:11:06 JAR: what Ian says is observable is the servers and the messages. That's a principled stance. 19:11:06 ack ht 19:11:37 "message payload" seems fine: a message (some messages) carries a representation 19:11:44 Do you find that Web pages works for embedded images, CSS sheets, etc? 19:11:55 How about results of XMLHTTPReq requests? 19:12:03 HT: "web page" works, IME; e.g. "in the old days, web pages were files; but now they're computed..." 19:12:16 ["web page" is compound more often than not these days] 19:12:32 zakim, open the queue 19:12:32 ok, noah, the speaker queue is open 19:12:41 HT is excused. 19:13:15 NM: next steps? 19:13:22 q+ 19:13:33 ack next 19:13:38 -Ht 19:14:45 DanC: I'm content to see what happens 19:15:25 LMM: I think the TAG should say we're happy with the direction Roy's headed 19:15:28 DanC: yes, please 19:16:06 close action-358. 19:16:34 . ACTION Larry: tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed ... 19:16:35 close action-358 19:16:36 ACTION-358 Schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...' [note follow-up discussion in www-archive] closed 19:16:46 . ACTION Larry: tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed and endorse his request for more time. 19:16:56 . ACTION Larry: tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and endorse his request for more time. 19:16:57 ok with me 19:17:04 ACTION Larry: tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and endorse his request for more time. 19:17:04 Created ACTION-372 - Tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and endorse his request for more time. [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-01-14]. 19:17:15 sure it won't be more than 1 line 19:17:37 Zakim, next item 19:17:37 agendum 6. "HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification" taken up [from DanC] 19:18:31 (which has a due date today?) 19:19:39 RESOLUTION: endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in 19:19:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , i.e. 19:19:39 the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the 19:19:39 relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be 19:19:39 published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call 19:19:46 (ah... 7 Jan date is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0087.html ) 19:20:07 q? 19:20:07 q+ 19:20:28 DC: we should wait for next draft 19:20:39 NM: so... are we ~happy? 19:21:05 I guess I took "take to Last Call" as shorthand for "put on the Rec track" (though not necessarily normative) 19:21:08 q+ 19:21:11 ack next 19:21:48 LMM: they could commit to publication; the chairs aren't inclined to put the question to the WG. I wonder if the issue should be closed. 19:24:10 "Those aren't exclusive; i.e. you can do a Last Call before a Note." -- DanC http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0006.html 19:27:35 Well, I think maintaining a document like this to the quality I'd hope is a serious commitment for a WG, and making a process-based commitment is one way to get it down unambiguously. 19:27:46 q? 19:27:50 q- 19:29:18 DC: I like Noah's idea of "we can't yet tell whether this is going to work for us, but some reason for optimism. Go head, and we'll reserve the right to raise issues again later." 19:30:44 .ACTION: Noah to convey, re language reference, to encourage the path they've indicated; we can't tell if we're satisifed; we'll stay tuned and comment when drafts become available 19:30:56 ACTION: Noah to convey, re language reference, to encourage the path they've indicated; we can't tell if we're satisifed; we'll stay tuned and comment when drafts become available 19:30:56 Created ACTION-373 - Convey, re language reference, to encourage the path they've indicated; we can't tell if we're satisifed; we'll stay tuned and comment when drafts become available [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-01-14]. 19:31:04 agenda? 19:31:24 -Masinter 19:31:26 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:31:26 -noah 19:31:30 -jar.a 19:31:32 -jar 19:31:35 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:31:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-minutes.html DanC 19:31:36 -John_Kemp 19:31:53 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 19:32:09 -TimBL 19:32:12 Zakim, list participants 19:32:12 As of this point the attendees have been Masinter, jar, DanC, noah, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Liam, Plh, Carine, John_Kemp, Mike, Ht, Timbl, Timbl.a 19:32:37 Present: Masinter, jar, DanC, noah, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Liam, Plh, Carine, John_Kemp, Mike, Ht, Timbl 19:32:42 Chair: noah 19:33:25 s/that software isn't working on my computer. let me get marisol// 19:33:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:33:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-minutes.html DanC 19:33:43 s/2010-01-08?// 19:35:48 i/DC: The proposals are cited on slide 4 or 5, I think./scribenick: noah/ 19:35:50 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:35:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-minutes.html DanC 19:36:25 i/DC: say more about motivating use cases?/scribenick: DanC/ 19:36:37 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:36:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-minutes.html DanC 19:37:10 disconnecting the lone participant, DanC, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM 19:39:11 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 19:39:14 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:39:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-minutes.html DanC 19:46:55 RRSAgent, bye 19:46:55 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-actions.rdf : 19:46:55 ACTION: Larry to tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and endorse his request for more time. [1] 19:46:55 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-irc#T19-17-04 19:46:55 ACTION: Noah to convey, re language reference, to encourage the path they've indicated; we can't tell if we're satisifed; we'll stay tuned and comment when drafts become available [2] 19:46:55 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-tagmem-irc#T19-30-56