17:00:24 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:00:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-tagmem-irc 17:00:27 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:00:34 +jar 17:00:35 ScribeNick: ht 17:00:40 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 17:00:41 Larry has joined #tagmem 17:00:45 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn 17:00:51 Meeting: TAG telcon 17:00:56 +Yves 17:01:03 +Ashok_Malhotra 17:01:10 +[IPcaller] 17:01:18 +Masinter 17:01:20 Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me 17:01:20 sorry, JeniT, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 17:01:39 + +47.74.811.aaaa 17:02:43 +??P20 17:04:00 noah has joined #tagmem 17:04:05 +noah 17:04:20 zakim, 47 is DKA 17:04:20 sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named '47' 17:04:22 zakim, who is here? 17:04:22 On the phone I see jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Masinter, +47.74.811.aaaa, ht, noah 17:04:24 On IRC I see noah, Larry, RRSAgent, JeniT, Zakim, jar, Ashok, DKA, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:04:26 zakim, +47 is DKA 17:04:26 +DKA; got it 17:05:04 -ht 17:05:30 +??P20 17:06:39 Topic: Convene 17:06:51 NM: [review of agenda] 17:07:05 Topic: Approval of minutes 17:07:08 NoahM has joined #tagmem 17:07:21 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/06-minutes 17:07:23 RESOLVED: Minutes of 6 October 2011 approved 17:07:37 Topic: Admin 17:07:56 Yves and i will be at a workshop 17:07:56 NM: I'm not available on 20 October -- volunteers to chair? 17:08:01 i'm willing to chair if there are topics to cover 17:08:15 and a quorum 17:08:24 DKA: I think we should meet 17:08:36 NM: I think Jeni will be absent as well 17:08:43 I will be absent 17:09:05 NM: Tentative plan, LM can cancel, otherwise we will meet 17:09:25 NM: I usually read minutes, check email and pending actions on Tuesday 17:09:47 I note that we have at most JAR, LM, HST, DKA and PL on such a call 17:10:04 Topic: TPAC planning 17:10:14 re TPAC: I might have a conflict after all, not sure I will make it now 17:10:19 NM: Attendees as in minutes 17:10:38 NM: We will now plan to meet Monday p.m. and Friday a.m. 17:10:50 NM: A meeting with Rigo Wenning on Friday 17:11:03 my conflict, if it happens, is for Tuesday evening, Wednesday & Thursday, so I'm sitll OK for MOnday, Friday, and Tuesday day 17:11:18 NM: News on SPDY? 17:11:28 close ACTION-615 17:11:29 ACTION-615 Check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC closed 17:11:29 YL: No new, so lets drop that 17:11:54 NM: Still leaves the question of what we do about SPDY 17:12:10 ... There are signs of adoption increasing 17:12:32 ... A move to all-SSL would certainly have architectural implications 17:12:39 ... Should we continue to track this 17:13:01 JT: I think this is important, but have to much to do to be quick to volunteer 17:13:12 s/track this/track this?/ 17:13:28 LM: I could maybe do this 17:13:50 NM: YL to take lead, LM and NM to help 17:14:29 . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis of whether TAG should get involved with SPDY 17:14:44 . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis of whether TAG/W3C should get involved with SPDY 17:14:50 LM: Include W3C 17:15:30 YL: More general than just SPDY -- SSL growth partly independent 17:15:37 Is SPDY a HTTP replacement or a HTTP enhancement 17:15:46 ... See also Web Sockets 17:16:01 HTTP isn't going to go away in any evolution of the web that I can imagine in the forseeable future -- too well entrenched 17:16:01 NM: Focus, or is this about HTTP v. next 17:16:13 I would prefer not to overly narrow right away 17:16:32 I would like to start with a landscape overview of HTTP v.next and competitors 17:16:40 +1 to JJ list entry 17:16:42 . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... 17:17:11 +1 on slightly wider scope 17:17:13 LM: Is this better to think of it as an enhancement? 17:17:27 NM: Could take either way in. . . 17:17:39 NM: OK with wider action 17:17:52 if the result is a W3C community group around SPDY that would be fine :) 17:18:41 NM, YL: [due date discussion] 17:18:57 ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... Due 2011-11-29 17:18:57 Created ACTION-618 - With help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... Due 2011-11-29 [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-10-20]. 17:19:10 ACTION-615? 17:19:10 ACTION-615 -- Yves Lafon to check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC -- due 2011-10-13 -- CLOSED 17:19:10 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/615 17:19:56 NM: Meeting with Device Access WG -- discussing timing with WG chair 17:20:11 AM: I have RDB2RDF on Thursday but not Friday 17:20:19 Let's do it Friday afternoon? 17:21:40 NM: I'll try to get agreement on Friday afternoon 17:21:53 ... With flexibility 17:22:02 ACTION-616? 17:22:02 ACTION-616 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs -- due 2011-10-13 -- OPEN 17:22:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/616 17:22:18 ACTION-616 Due 2011-10-20 17:22:18 ACTION-616 Contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs due date now 2011-10-20 17:22:38 ACTION-613? 17:22:38 ACTION-613 -- Daniel Appelquist to organize deep linking breakout at TPAC -- due 2011-10-06 -- CLOSED 17:22:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/613 17:22:54 DKA: Just sent e-mail to Rigo suggesting Friday morning 17:22:59 DkA: Wrt Copyright/deep linking, I've invited Rigo for Friday morning 17:23:12 DKA: Breakout work ongoing 17:23:22 ... Need a more inviting title 17:23:42 NM: "Follow a link, get arrested" 17:24:38 Topic: Pending review items 17:24:39 ACTION-518? 17:24:39 ACTION-518 -- Henry Thompson to henry to report back on efforts to get undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs configured into their tools -- due 2011-08-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:24:39 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/518 17:25:48 HT: I would like to abandon this. The issue of heavily used (resources?) seemed to have dropped off everyone's radar. I no longer have time or inclination, and W3C seems not to have provisioned the catalog in the way I would have prefered 17:26:15 close ACTION-518 17:26:16 ACTION-518 Henry to report back on efforts to get undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs configured into their tools closed 17:26:29 ACTION-577? 17:26:29 ACTION-577 -- Henry Thompson to prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available -- due 2011-09-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:26:29 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577 17:27:14 HT: I would like to abandon this as well 17:27:55 HT: WRT/ XML processor profiles and browsers is simplified(?) I don't now see how to do processor profiles in 3023bis 17:28:07 HT: Happy to replace this with an action to report on 3023bis status after TPAC 17:28:28 close ACTION-577 17:28:28 ACTION-577 Prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available closed 17:28:54 ACTION: Henry to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 17:28:55 Created ACTION-619 - Report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 [on Henry Thompson - due 2011-10-20]. 17:29:22 ACTION-619 Due 2011-11-15 17:29:22 ACTION-619 Report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 due date now 2011-11-15 17:29:43 trackbot, action 477? 17:29:43 Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, action 477?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 17:29:57 ACTION-477? 17:29:57 ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:29:57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477 17:30:49 HT: I draft a call for participation, got agreement from my co-sponsor in Edinburgh. W3M and Ian have approved. I have put it to the organizers, expect approval, but not yet officially announced. 17:31:49 close ACTION-477 17:31:49 ACTION-477 Organize meeting on persistence of domains closed 17:32:03 -DKA 17:32:06 zakim, who is here? 17:32:06 On the phone I see jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Masinter, noah, ht 17:32:08 On IRC I see noah, Larry, RRSAgent, JeniT, Zakim, jar, Ashok, DKA, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:32:18 ACTION: Henry, with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 17:32:18 Sorry, couldn't find user - Henry, 17:32:32 ACTION: Henry with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 17:32:32 Created ACTION-620 - With help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 [on Henry Thompson - due 2011-10-20]. 17:32:49 +DKA 17:32:49 action-620 due 2012-01-15 17:32:49 ACTION-620 With help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 due date now 2012-01-15 17:33:35 Topic: Fragment IDs Semantics and Mime Types 17:33:38 ACTION-509? 17:33:38 ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:33:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509 17:34:02 report = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0014.html 17:34:30 JR: Everyone read this? 17:34:49 JR: Relation of RDFa Core and media types 17:35:04 ... Subsequent discussion has clarified there are two issues here 17:35:04 i've read it and i don't know what to make of it, i'm not happy with any of the options so far 17:35:22 JR: 1) Follow your nose (noting RDFa is not a media type) 17:36:08 JR: 2) Collision between RDFa Core (which might be used with application/(...+)xml) and 3023bis 17:36:11 +1 to ruling 3023bis collision out of scope 17:36:55 JR: The collision arises because 3023bis says XML media type fragids have to be XPointers 17:37:05 q+ to check XPointer _semantics_ is the pblm 17:37:24 JR: Want to rule the collision is out of scope for 509 17:37:25 q+ to talk about options & analysis 17:37:31 q? 17:37:40 ack next 17:37:42 ht, you wanted to check XPointer _semantics_ is the pblm 17:38:15 I'm in favor of separation IF we open a new action now 17:38:34 ack Larry 17:38:34 Larry, you wanted to talk about options & analysis 17:38:46 LM: I'm not sure what our action choices are, nor am I happy with what I _do_ understand 17:38:52 jar_ has joined #tagmem 17:38:55 JR: Neither am I 17:39:11 LM: Maybe getting clear on that is what we should focus on 17:39:22 action-509? 17:39:22 ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:39:22 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509 17:39:24 JR: I want to focus on the RDFa Core side of 509 17:39:38 ... as RDfa Core is heading for 3rd Last Call 17:39:51 q+ to ask whether RDFa core should be asked to hold up pending resolution with 3023bis 17:40:00 ack next 17:40:01 noah, you wanted to ask whether RDFa core should be asked to hold up pending resolution with 3023bis 17:40:04 LM: Isn't it possible that RDFa Core isn't the best one to move 17:40:41 NM: The relative status of the two specs involved shouldn't determine which one has to move 17:41:16 JR: I agree with RDFa Core that it's not their business to talk about media type registration 17:41:36 ... The WG resolved several weeks ago that they are not a media type 17:41:55 NM: But isn't one of their requirements to be usable with XML 17:42:10 ... which means they shouldn't break XML 17:43:01 JR: They could get away without mentioning a media type, because the current one (3023) says _nothing_ about frag_ids 17:43:10 NM: But we know that 3023 is coming 17:43:18 s/3023/3023bis/ 17:43:29 i'm noticing WGs avoiding responsibility by saying things are 'out of scope' for them 17:43:54 NM: So we should try to stop the impending train wreck if the two specs both go ahead as we anticipate 17:44:52 JR: We could do that, but I was trying to work from existing TAG decisions and do the minimum necessary to declare victory 17:45:15 RDFa WG decision on this matter is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-06 17:45:19 ... That is, address the question of the RDFa Core spec. first, and only thereafter turn to negotiating between the two groups 17:46:18 I think I specifically asked: might it be the right role for the TAG to ask RDFa core to not proceed until a serious attempt is made to work with 3023bis folks to come to agreement on right way forward. 17:46:19 s/says _/says practically _/ 17:46:46 I'm somewhat unconvinced that it's out of scope for them, since they clearly want RDFa to be mixable into XML on the Web, and thus usable with application/xml in particular. 17:47:23 NM: Anyone else share my concern, that maybe they should slow down 17:47:26 HST: +1 17:48:13 should we try to organize a workshop getting people together? 17:48:23 We've had plenty of time to comment on this... 17:48:23 JR: If we try to take on the larger goal of working out whether/how to talk about URIs in context, we might be in a position to declare victory, but that will take a while 17:48:39 NM: I'm not ready to agree to that larger goal at all 17:48:58 JT: We need to let them go ahead and publish, we've kept them waiting too long 17:49:04 q+ 17:49:24 LM: Should we try to get the parties together? 17:49:28 ack next 17:49:31 DKA has joined #tagmem 17:49:40 HST: I like LM's idea 17:50:40 HT: I like Larry's idea. Was going to say "I'm sympathetic to what Jonathan and Jeni have said", and our focus on two words may not have been our finest hour. That said, I don't want them to go to rec without acknowledgign that the current state of specs don't really give them a place to stand. 17:50:45 q+ 17:50:49 ack next 17:51:03 Remember two issues: (1) FYN, (2) the potential collision… they're different. HT just touched on (1), Larry's more on (2) 17:51:23 Ashok has joined #tagmem 17:51:28 s/place to stand/place to stand wrt the architecture of media types and mix-ins/ 17:51:46 I wanted to focus on (1) FYN, and defer (2) until later.. 17:52:17 NM: Waiting forever is bad, but moving ahead in the face of architectural uncertainty is a recipe for problems downstream 17:52:40 q+ to get JAR to clarify 17:53:00 ack next 17:53:01 ht, you wanted to get JAR to clarify 17:53:18 NM: I am worried that we're on the edge here and elsewhere of just asking people to hold their collective noses and move on 17:53:20 the fragment identifier thing in HTML5 is only half-fixed since Hixie didn't do anything about fragids and scripting in application/xml+xhtml 17:53:53 This is an important part of the architecture, and repeatedly saying "yeah, the specs don't work" is very troubling 17:54:22 Neither am I convinced that we want to architect this by saying "he who ships the first spec wins" 17:54:36 HT: JR, do you mean that if we focus on FYN we can get useful advice to the RDFa Core folks quickly? 17:55:06 JR: Yes, I think I could get a menu of four or five modest changes to their specs which the TAG could choose from 17:55:25 NM: Separating the two sounds uncontentious 17:55:54 NM: But if we only tackle the FYN issue, we better not lose sight of the collision issue 17:56:01 NM: How soon? 17:56:13 JR: 3rd last call real soon now 17:56:29 NM: So no time for a sit-down with 3023bis folks 17:56:33 could we ask them to leave a placeholder in their spec leaving this part open, or at least warning a reader that the issue is open? 17:57:47 q+ to advocate that we ask them to just put in a warning, since we don't have an answer 17:58:21 Suggesting: Ask them to put some language, now, in their doc addressing (1). Easier to fix. Separately, ask them to work on (2) with HTTPbis folks. (Maybe better if that fix goes in 3023bis.) 17:58:53 NM: We mostly do what JR suggested, but include in any early communication about [step 1], that we are also concerned about [step 2], which we will want to see action on in due 17:58:59 noah wants the two both raised in the same communication to the WG 17:59:00 ... course 17:59:10 ack next 17:59:11 Larry, you wanted to advocate that we ask them to just put in a warning, since we don't have an answer 17:59:43 LM: We have an issue where we don't have the answer, where they want to get a spec. out - - can't we get a warning in 17:59:52 q+ to ack. violent agreement 17:59:59 Still, even a warning will result in content out there on the Web that may or may not be impossible to make legal without special-casing in 3023bis 18:00:01 lm wants a more explicit warning; compare to what's in their current draft which is quite evasive 18:00:13 That special casing is likely to break generalized XML processing, I think. 18:00:27 Whether the breakage will bother anyone in practice or often, I don't know 18:00:59 HT: +1 to JAR quickly giving us a longer list of options 18:01:38 HT: and at the same time Jonathan needs to be sure Manu understands we remain concerned about 3023 collision, and feel a resolution is needed eventually 18:01:46 By the way 3023bis is already in conflict with application/xhtml+xml, due to xhtml namespace doc's ref to RDFa … so I think it's 3023 that will have to budge 18:02:21 s/options/options for improving the two words wrt FYN/ 18:02:42 NM: That sounds like we're near consensus 18:02:49 on next steps 18:02:59 JR: I believe that 3023bis will need to move, given how much RDFa content is out there 18:03:06 q+ to say what I said a while ago 18:03:19 ACTION-509? 18:03:19 ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:03:19 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509 18:03:24 plus 3023bis' problems aren't just about RDFa 18:03:35 NM: Is that one OK given today's discussion? 18:03:44 JR: Yes 18:03:58 ACTION-509 Due 2011-10-18 18:03:59 ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-10-18 18:06:00 zakim, who is here? 18:06:00 On the phone I see jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Masinter, noah, ht, DKA 18:06:03 On IRC I see Ashok, DKA, jar_, noah, Larry, RRSAgent, JeniT, Zakim, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:06:08 NM: Peter Linss is the next up to scribe 18:06:16 [move this up to admin] 18:06:50 q? 18:06:54 ack next 18:06:56 ht, you wanted to ack. violent agreement and to say what I said a while ago 18:07:19 JAR agrees to scribe on the 20th if Peter can't 18:07:26 Note regrets from Jeni for the 20th 18:08:56 ht asks JAR to Clarify that it's the *semantics* of xpointer that's the major problem. 18:09:02 HST: JAR to confirm that the putative pblm with 3023bis is the semantics (that XPOinters identify elements) not the syntax (because there's no conflict with that) 18:09:15 right 18:09:20 NM: But what if RDFa moved to get out of XPOinter syntax space with their own semantics 18:09:32 ... Then the conflict is with the syntax 18:10:43 -ht 18:10:59 scribenick: jar_ 18:11:17 topic: Pending Review Actions 18:11:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview 18:11:25 item: Pending review action items 18:11:31 s/item:/topic:/ 18:12:02 ACTION-566? 18:12:02 ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:12:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566 18:12:48 dka: Changing back to open. 18:12:51 Dan will reopen with reasonable date 18:13:00 ACTION-603? 18:13:00 ACTION-603 -- Noah Mendelsohn to mention to Ian to document level of TAG commitment in nomination info -- due 2011-11-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:13:00 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/603 18:13:50 noah: 603 overtaken by events 18:14:03 close ACTION-603 18:14:03 ACTION-603 Mention to Ian to document level of TAG commitment in nomination info closed 18:14:11 ACTION-608? 18:14:11 ACTION-608 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:14:11 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/608 18:15:27 q+ to talk about setting up a roadmap wiki ? 18:15:36 ack next 18:15:37 Larry, you wanted to talk about setting up a roadmap wiki ? 18:15:45 noah: We had pretty much decided that we don't have any reason to have an open (tracked) privacy action… let's be clear 18:16:24 larry: In discussion it was suggested that the TAG might be helpful by producing a roadmap 18:16:44 … that identifies things that are important but inactive 18:17:18 ashok: We could [also] communicate that we don't see how to take it forward 18:17:35 noah: Wiki? 18:18:36 larry: A one-off for privacy not helpful, but a bigger roadmap that has privacy as one piece would be 18:18:43 noah: Sounds too ambitious 18:20:19 I'm not saying too ambitious, I'm saying not making the opportunity cost cut relative to other things. 18:20:29 close ACTION-608 18:20:29 ACTION-608 Schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy closed 18:20:57 . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately does not have the resources or ideas to pursue it at the present time. 18:21:11 have at it 18:22:19 . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately doesn't find it practical to free resourcesto pursue it at the present time. 18:22:23 . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately doesn't find it practical to free resources to pursue it at the present time. 18:22:48 hmmmmm 18:23:12 it isn't that it's impractical 18:23:53 we're still open to taking it up again 18:23:54 DKA has joined #tagmem 18:24:13 we're not sure how to be adequately productive ? effective ? 18:24:56 i'd just as soon move on now 18:25:22 . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work. On consideration we have decided not to put resources on this issue at the present time, but we are open to taking it up again. 18:25:39 +1 18:25:45 RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work. On consideration we have decided not to put resources on this issue at the present time, but we are open to taking it up again. 18:26:08 action-566? 18:26:08 ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:26:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566 18:26:14 ACTION-612? 18:26:14 ACTION-612 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond to Ian suggesting a BOF but not a breakout on TAG focus, and ask again about dinner. -- due 2011-10-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:26:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/612 18:26:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Oct/0003.html 18:26:43 noah: I did send a note to Ian… continuing to discuss 18:27:17 noah: architecture BOF at lunch, or spread ourselves out to other BOFs? 18:27:35 s/architecture/TAG/ 18:28:22 i need to bck off on this because it looks like i have a conflict for TPAC wed/thu 18:28:53 +1 to TAG bof. 18:28:56 -1 18:29:00 0 18:29:04 0 18:29:13 Would kind of prefer to go to other tables, but open to input on the TAG 18:29:21 jar: 0 ;will not be at TPAC 18:29:34 close ACTION-612 18:29:34 ACTION-612 Respond to Ian suggesting a BOF but not a breakout on TAG focus, and ask again about dinner. closed 18:29:48 ACTION Noah with Dan to figure out whether we want a TAG bof at TPAC 18:29:49 Created ACTION-621 - With Dan to figure out whether we want a TAG bof at TPAC [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-10-20]. 18:31:17 ashok: Email thread starting with Manu's note is sort of related to earlier topic of RDFa, what are we thinking of doing about that? 18:32:07 jar_: Let's let it percolate through email for a bit 18:32:34 ashok: Then take it up at the F2F? 18:32:59 … (at TPAC) 18:33:27 noah: Start thinking about what you would like scheduled at the TPAC F2F 18:33:53 ADJOURNED 18:33:57 -noah 18:33:58 -Yves 18:33:58 -DKA 18:33:59 -JeniT 18:34:03 -jar 18:34:06 -Ashok_Malhotra 18:34:08 -Masinter 18:34:08 rrsagent, make logs public 18:34:09 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 18:34:10 Attendees were jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, Masinter, JeniT, +47.74.811.aaaa, ht, noah, DKA 18:34:14 rrsagent, pointer 18:34:14 See http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-tagmem-irc#T18-34-14 20:32:47 Zakim has left #tagmem