15:44:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:44:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc
15:44:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:44:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:44:28 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:44:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:44:29 <trackbot> Date: 04 March 2016
15:44:51 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUEFmryvoUFvg-4O2WfiOwr_0LSi1yJ5fxB20HBdhEeXng@mail.gmail.com
15:45:02 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUEFmryvoUFvg-4O2WfiOwr_0LSi1yJ5fxB20HBdhEeXng@mail.gmail.com
15:45:14 <ivan> Chair: Rob
15:46:32 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0005.html
15:46:47 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:58:04 <TimCole_> TimCole_ has joined #annotation
15:58:31 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:59:21 <dwhly> +Present Dan_Whaley
16:00:07 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:00:58 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:01:20 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
16:01:21 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:02:05 <azaroth> Regrets+ Nick_Stenning
16:02:07 <TimCole_> Present+ Tim_Cole
16:02:36 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
16:04:03 <azaroth> scribenick: bigbluehat
16:04:07 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:04:09 <azaroth> scribe: Benjamin_Young
16:04:16 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
16:04:18 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
16:04:31 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:04:51 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:05:04 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #Annotation
16:05:27 <bigbluehat> Agenda: announcement, chairs discussion, and a handful of issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0005.html
16:06:00 <bigbluehat> azaroth: are there any other issues important to discuss not represented on the agenda?
16:06:12 <bigbluehat> ...k. we'll run with what we have
16:06:17 <bigbluehat> ...announcements
16:06:23 <dwhly> +q
16:06:26 <bigbluehat> ...other than the chairing conversation are there others?
16:06:48 <bigbluehat> ivan: at this moment there are 10 people registered with a 'wish to come' to the face to face
16:07:03 <bigbluehat> ...if there are others who want to come, please register
16:07:14 <bigbluehat> ...last week I sent a list of hotels
16:07:21 <bigbluehat> ...they're also linked from the iannotate.org site
16:07:23 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:08:01 <bigbluehat> ...make reservations soon to avoid extra expenses
16:08:09 <azaroth> ack dwhly
16:08:36 <bigbluehat> dwhly: we have put a program committee together for I Annotate 2016
16:08:40 <bigbluehat> ...you can see it on the site
16:08:50 <bigbluehat> ...please send in submissions for talks if you'd like to give one
16:08:57 <bigbluehat> ...sometime in the next week would be great
16:09:01 <azaroth> q?
16:09:21 <bigbluehat> ...Rob, it'd be great if you might make a presentation on the face-to-face output
16:09:32 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
16:09:37 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any other announcements?
16:09:58 <bigbluehat> azaroth: approving minutes from last time
16:10:04 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-annotation-minutes.html
16:10:10 <tbdinesh> Present+ tb_dinesh
16:10:20 <bigbluehat> ...any problems with the minutes?
16:10:31 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:10:35 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-annotation-minutes.html
16:10:37 <azaroth> TOPIC: WG Chairing
16:10:46 <davis_salisbury> Present+ davis_salisbury
16:10:51 <bigbluehat> azaroth: announcement and discussion about working group chairing
16:11:31 <bigbluehat> ivan: things are busy for fjh and consequently it's hard to do both chairing and keep up with other responsibilities
16:11:36 <bigbluehat> ...he will still be active in the group
16:11:39 <bigbluehat> ...but not as a co-chair
16:11:49 <shepazu> +1 to fjh
16:11:50 <bigbluehat> ...first of all, we should all thank fjh for his help from the beginning
16:11:59 <azaroth> Thank you Frederick!
16:12:07 <davis_salisbury> Thank you!
16:12:16 <bigbluehat> ...as a replacement for fjh, TimCole_ has accepted the co-chair position
16:12:22 <tbdinesh> Thank you!
16:12:27 <bigbluehat> fjh++ :)
16:12:44 <bigbluehat> ...it has not been more widely announced, as we wanted to tell the WG call first
16:12:52 <bigbluehat> ...announcement will go out later this week or Monday
16:12:56 <fjh> Thanks all, congratulations to Tim. I think the group has good chairing going forward!
16:13:13 <bigbluehat> fjh: just wanted to say congrats Tim and thanks everyone!
16:14:00 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: the transition should be smooth. I've been here since the beginning, and I'm happy to serve in this capacity
16:14:20 <bigbluehat> fjh: tnx to ivan shepazu and azaroth and TimCole_ for working through the transition
16:14:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: my heart felt thanks to you fjh for your dedication and hard work!
16:14:33 <fjh> Thanks!
16:14:33 <bigbluehat> ...it's super appreciated
16:15:02 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
16:15:19 <bigbluehat> azaroth: as a note, these issues are the last ones that we have!
16:15:33 <bigbluehat> ...if we can get through these plus the new one from takeshi, our queue will be clear
16:15:44 <bigbluehat> ...we'll have to discuss testing, the html serialization, etc.
16:15:57 <bigbluehat> ...but focusing on the 3 core specifications, this is pretty much it
16:16:20 <bigbluehat> ...while it's been particularly product to force march through issues, we can reconsider that approach
16:16:47 <bigbluehat> ...and with TimCole_ as co-chair, it probably makes sense for Tim to take a more active role in the chairing
16:16:56 <bigbluehat> ...and I would focus more on editorial
16:17:02 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110
16:17:08 <bigbluehat> ...The first issue, is issue 110
16:17:38 <azaroth> Proposal is: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
16:17:43 <bigbluehat> ivan: I started this issue....I don't even remember when...based on the recognition
16:17:50 <bigbluehat> ...that whatever we do here
16:18:14 <bigbluehat> ...to identify part of a document could be combined with other specifications
16:18:23 <bigbluehat> ...and would have huge value beyond just annotation
16:18:38 <bigbluehat> ...if you want to see the use cases, feel free to read through the long discussion
16:18:50 <tilgovi_> tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
16:18:57 <bigbluehat> ...this did come in a little bit late, so there's lots of discussion about how to make it happen
16:18:59 <shepazu> q+
16:19:03 <bigbluehat> ...what we're proposing now is...
16:19:12 <bigbluehat> ...in terms of the standard, there are very very few changes
16:19:18 <bigbluehat> ...on the vocab level, very few changes
16:19:34 <bigbluehat> ...on the vocab level it's mostly resorting how the classes and sub-classes are done
16:19:39 <bigbluehat> ...so they can be more widely used
16:19:59 <bigbluehat> ...it's one of the last comments on the issues list
16:20:12 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
16:20:24 <bigbluehat> ...there's essentially just some editorial work to be done
16:20:54 <bigbluehat> ...essentially a cut and paste from the model document
16:21:05 <bigbluehat> ...but put it in a less-annotation-bound space
16:21:20 <bigbluehat> ...so others could use them without digging through a recommendation that may not be in their core interest
16:21:47 <bigbluehat> ...There was a side issue that came up during the discuss
16:21:51 <bigbluehat> s/discuss/discussion
16:22:06 <bigbluehat> ...whether it was good to map the selectors into a fragment identifier
16:22:10 <bigbluehat> ...technically, this is not hard
16:22:25 <bigbluehat> ...socially, it's very unclear
16:22:42 <bigbluehat> ...for instance registering a fragment identifier for HTML is not technically possible
16:22:49 <bigbluehat> ...we would leave that work to future WGs
16:22:52 <azaroth> +1 to putting it in the note
16:23:05 <bigbluehat> ...that sums it up. sound right?
16:23:09 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yes.
16:23:17 <ivan> q?
16:23:24 <bigbluehat> ...it's basically a best practices document about how to use our work outside of annotation
16:23:33 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:23:34 <bigbluehat> ...the changes come in at the vocab level rather than the model
16:23:49 <bigbluehat> shepazu: while I agree that this could theoretically be useful outside of annotation
16:23:58 <bigbluehat> ...unless there's really compelling need outside of the group
16:24:02 <bigbluehat> ...we should do the minimum
16:24:13 <bigbluehat> ...I don't hear people clamoring to reuse this stuff
16:24:26 <bigbluehat> ...most people are not going to use more than CSS selectors for their stuff
16:24:51 <bigbluehat> ...without wider review, then I don't think it makes sense to spend much time on this
16:25:09 <TimCole_> q+
16:25:18 <bigbluehat> ...until we have more outside attention on it, I think we should do any substantial work on this...
16:25:31 <bigbluehat> ivan: since the work is minimal, then I don't think we disagree
16:25:53 <bigbluehat> ...as for the use cases, on the one hand, there was one big one
16:26:01 <bigbluehat> ...that certainly was a big use case (by Jacob, I think)
16:26:14 <bigbluehat> ...when I talked to epub and publishing groups, they would very much like something like this
16:26:20 <bigbluehat> ...the combination of all these is very powerful
16:26:24 <azaroth> I suggest not going through the use cases, if Doug is willing to accept that they exist, across communities
16:26:32 <bigbluehat> ...the current way of selecting things within an eboook is pretty ugly
16:26:54 <bigbluehat> shepazu: I just don't think this is a high priority issue
16:27:04 <bigbluehat> ivan: than I propose we go along with what's been proposed--which is minimal
16:27:10 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
16:27:26 <bigbluehat> ...this is the comment for the specific proposal https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
16:27:38 <azaroth> ack TimCole_
16:27:44 <bigbluehat> ...let's go along with that, and coming up with a NOTE is typically not disturbing to the working group
16:28:04 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: I support the proposal, with the understanding that we should highlight that there's potential for future development here
16:28:20 <bigbluehat> ...the one class of use cases that are compelling involve multiple selectors
16:28:28 <bigbluehat> ...that's hard to do in any of the current mish-mash environments
16:28:45 <bigbluehat> ...applying a sequence or a variation of selectors is currently tricky
16:28:49 <bigbluehat> ...that's not for us to solve now
16:29:01 <bigbluehat> ...but noting that it would be good ground for the future seems prudent
16:29:01 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:29:05 <shepazu> (at this point, use cases are less important than specific requests and commitment from implementers to actually implement these outside of Web Annotations)
16:29:09 <azaroth> q?
16:29:22 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any further thoughts?
16:30:18 <bigbluehat> ...since GitHub allows issues to be edited, I'll restate the resolution here
16:31:10 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: In vocab, split SpecificResource into Annotation / non Annotation specific classes, Selectors and States as associated with the non Annotation specific class; describe the usage in a Note
16:31:15 <ivan> +1
16:31:17 <azaroth> +1
16:31:18 <bigbluehat> +1
16:31:19 <TimCole_> +1
16:31:24 <takeshi> +1
16:31:43 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:31:46 <tbdinesh> +1
16:31:47 <bjdmeest> +1
16:31:59 <shepazu> -0
16:32:20 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: In vocab, split SpecificResource into Annotation / non Annotation specific classes, Selectors and States as associated with the non Annotation specific class; describe the usage in a Note
16:32:21 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:32:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-32-21
16:32:25 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/154
16:32:41 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the next issue is around extension
16:32:52 <bigbluehat> ...the bulk of the content has already been done
16:32:58 <bigbluehat> ...we allow for multiple @context's in the text
16:32:59 <shepazu> *I don't think this should have been prioritized, since it doesn't change our implementations behavior)
16:34:02 <bigbluehat> ...we will liberally crib from the extension section from the ActivityStreams document
16:34:18 <bigbluehat> ...to help folks looking to extend the model a place to find this content
16:34:26 <bigbluehat> ...in general, how does that seem?
16:34:52 <TimCole_> +1 to having extension section in vocab
16:34:53 <bigbluehat> ...The vocabulary section seems to be the right place to do it
16:35:00 <azaroth> q?
16:35:02 <bigbluehat> ...how do we feel about those things?
16:35:14 <shepazu> s/TOPIC:/TOPIC: Extension Capacity /
16:35:52 <bigbluehat> ...k. we can turn that into an editorial issue and review that once it's done
16:35:59 <bigbluehat> ...and...I seem to have confused two issues
16:36:13 <bigbluehat> ...there's also an issue of I18N of values in an annotation
16:36:19 <bigbluehat> ivan: let's close this one firt
16:36:23 <bigbluehat> s/firt/firt
16:36:30 <bigbluehat> s/firt/first
16:36:40 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Add extension section to vocab not model, proposing the use of multiple json-ld contexts
16:36:43 <ivan> +1
16:36:44 <shepazu> (extensions are fine, but let's not pretend we haven't committed the spec to JSON-LD / RDF already)
16:36:46 <bigbluehat> +1
16:36:47 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:36:47 <azaroth> +1
16:36:52 <TimCole_> +1
16:36:54 <shepazu> + 0
16:36:55 <takeshi> +1
16:36:57 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:37:03 <tbdinesh> +1
16:37:13 <tilgovi> +1
16:37:22 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:37:22 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-37-22
16:37:46 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Add extension section to vocab not model, proposing the use of multiple json-ld contexts
16:38:04 <azaroth> I18n issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/154#issuecomment-191421726
16:38:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: currently, the model only has the text of the Body for humans to read--and we have I18N support here already
16:38:55 <bigbluehat> ...so my thinking is that this is an extension problem--not a model problem
16:39:33 <bigbluehat> ...it would be sufficient to say, this is an extension issue and we use JSON-LD for extension, so do it that way
16:39:37 <ivan> q+
16:39:42 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:39:43 <bigbluehat> ...or we can recommend a patter, and give the rationale for that
16:40:12 <bigbluehat> ivan: if we push it on the JSON-LD side, then implementations may miss it because they'll be focused on the model document
16:40:20 <bigbluehat> ...or we are completely silent on it
16:40:27 <bigbluehat> ...we don't have any 3rd choice, I think
16:40:30 <TimCole_> q+
16:40:33 <azaroth> ack TimCole_
16:40:41 <bigbluehat> ...if we point people to JSON-LD the ground seems a bit shaky
16:40:53 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: ivan how is this being address by other groups?
16:41:03 <bigbluehat> ivan: we had that in the CSV metadata
16:41:13 <bigbluehat> ...which defines a JSON format which is JSON-LD compatible
16:41:20 <azaroth> Activity Streams does the map version: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#naturalLanguageValues
16:41:35 <bigbluehat> ...we essentially adopted one specific approach in the equivalent "model" type document
16:41:54 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: the patterns that azaroth indicated, would we put that in vocab? and then model would talk about it?
16:42:10 <bigbluehat> azaroth: no, the 'label' bit was from the example use case given
16:42:30 <bigbluehat> ivan: oh. well that's....since we don't have a label, then we don't need this
16:42:34 <shepazu> +1 to ivan
16:42:34 <bigbluehat> azaroth: right. it's only for extension
16:42:47 <bigbluehat> ivan: then it's irrelevant
16:43:06 <bigbluehat> ...we talk about extension, then specific implementations would do it that way
16:43:26 <bigbluehat> ...they can use that by whatever means, and they would document how to use those extensions, and this thing here would be part of that extension documentation
16:43:31 <bigbluehat> ...but not part of our document in any way
16:43:54 <shepazu> q+
16:43:55 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: the only concern I have is that there may be multiple I18N extensions
16:44:06 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:44:07 <bigbluehat> ivan: that's a common problem with extensions--it's just how it is...
16:44:24 <bigbluehat> shepazu: sorry, I was taking myself off the queue, I was agreeing with ivan
16:44:41 <bigbluehat> ...we at least avoid name space collisions by using JSON-LD
16:44:53 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I'm putting in a proposal that we'll remain silent on it
16:45:00 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Remain silent about i18n of extension properties, as it is covered by JSON-LD already
16:45:02 <ivan> +1
16:45:03 <azaroth> +1
16:45:06 <bigbluehat> +1
16:45:06 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:45:08 <takeshi> +1
16:45:09 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:45:14 <bjdmeest> +1
16:45:17 <tbdinesh> +1
16:45:36 <shepazu> (it's not "covered by JSON-LD already", it's simply not addressed)
16:46:00 <shepazu> (it's lumped in with any other extensions)
16:46:10 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:46:10 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-46-10
16:46:16 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Remain silent about i18n of extension properties, as it is covered by JSON-LD already
16:46:22 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/174
16:46:44 <bigbluehat> ivan: you still have editorial work to do for extensions, yeah?
16:46:47 <bigbluehat> azaroth: definitely
16:46:56 <bigbluehat> ivan: I'll leave the issue opent hen
16:47:01 <bigbluehat> s/opent hen/open then
16:47:09 <bigbluehat> azaroth: 174 is a protocol need
16:47:27 <bigbluehat> ...a relationship to go into the link headers for HTTP response to point to a service where you can send annotations to
16:47:46 <bigbluehat> ...in order to have a readable relation--called a "rel type"--we need to register it with IANA
16:47:46 <shepazu> s/TOPIC:/ TOPIC: Document annotation service endpoint rel /
16:47:52 <bigbluehat> ...in order to do that, we have to have a URI
16:48:16 <bigbluehat> ...currently, it's in the name space of the vocabulary
16:48:53 <bigbluehat> ...are there any objections to putting the concept of the service into the vocabulary which otherwise serves the model
16:49:02 <bigbluehat> ...to avoid creating a namespace just for this piece
16:49:04 <shepazu> q+
16:49:09 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:49:31 <bigbluehat> shepazu: I don't have objections to it
16:49:40 <bigbluehat> ...I was reading a document that was using the `oa` namespace
16:49:55 <bigbluehat> ...our spec is different than Open Annotation
16:50:06 <bigbluehat> ...there are people using it for the last year or two
16:50:15 <bigbluehat> ...since we changed that, shouldn't we change the namespace?
16:50:24 <bigbluehat> azaroth: this was handled in issue #53
16:50:28 <azaroth> github: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/53
16:50:31 <bigbluehat> shepazu: when was that resolved
16:50:54 <bigbluehat> ivan: can we close the current 174
16:51:08 <bigbluehat> shepazu: I've no objection to the current issue
16:51:29 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Use the ontology namespace for the prefix of the annotation service "rel" for link header references
16:51:37 <ivan> +1
16:51:39 <azaroth> +1
16:51:40 <bigbluehat> +1
16:51:45 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:51:58 <Tbdinesh_> Tbdinesh_ has joined #Annotation
16:52:03 <takeshi> +1
16:52:36 <TimCole_> +1
16:52:41 <fjh>  +1
16:52:41 <bjdmeest> +1
16:52:44 <Tbdinesh_> +1
16:52:48 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Use the ontology namespace for the prefix of the annotation service "rel" for link header references
16:52:49 <azaroth> TOPIC: IRI vs URI - https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/183
16:52:49 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:52:49 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-52-49-1
16:53:52 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there's a motion with the WhatWG to use URL even "over" URI or IRI
16:54:08 <bigbluehat> ...takeshi is correct that the identifiers in JSON-LD and Turtle are expressed as IRI
16:54:17 <bigbluehat> ...should we then follow those specs?
16:54:31 <bigbluehat> ...or should we use URI or URL (following WhatWG)
16:54:52 <bigbluehat> ...the reasoning is that developers may not know when to use % encoded content
16:54:56 <bigbluehat> ...using IRI makes that clear
16:55:26 <bigbluehat> takeshi: my understanding is that in the serialization process, we definitely need to transform the model into the serialization format
16:55:37 <bigbluehat> ...since both the JSON-LD and Turtle use IRI
16:55:39 <ivan> q+
16:55:51 <bigbluehat> ...that resource identifiers in the model would become an IRI regardless
16:55:52 <shepazu> (note that it's not just naming, it's parsing and processing, which is a non-trivial distinction for interop)
16:56:15 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:56:20 <shepazu> (changing away from HTML5 URL would be going against the future trend)
16:56:22 <bigbluehat> ...it would be very helpful to make it clear
16:57:03 <bigbluehat> ivan: since a URI is a subset of an IRI, then it's perhaps OK to leave it at URI
16:57:10 <bigbluehat> ...my point is more practical
16:57:36 <bigbluehat> ...what do you do if you have serialized selectors?
16:57:42 <bigbluehat> ...will your implementation handle that correctly?
16:58:00 <bigbluehat> ...will it fail because it is turning a IRI into a URI?
16:58:08 <bigbluehat> ...with all the dashes, etc.
16:58:14 <azaroth> q?
16:58:15 <takeshi> q+
16:58:18 <azaroth> ack takeshi
16:58:19 <bigbluehat> ...that should be one of the directing issues
16:58:22 <shepazu> (I think I agree with Ivan)
16:58:55 <bigbluehat> takeshi: so. when I put JSON-LD into a data store, some are transformed
16:59:02 <azaroth> +1 to takeshi
16:59:03 <bigbluehat> ...it becomes very difficult to mix and match
16:59:16 <bigbluehat> ivan: your implementation accepts IRIs
16:59:31 <bigbluehat> ...what is the practice out there--say at hypothes.is?
16:59:34 <bigbluehat> ...that's what I don't know
16:59:45 <bigbluehat> shepazu: does the HTML5 spec address this? or punt?
17:00:25 <bigbluehat> ...it would be a shame to switch to something that's on it's way out
17:00:37 <azaroth> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/
17:00:39 <bigbluehat> ...if it's not addressed in that spec, then I think we should avoid it
17:00:48 <tilgovi> q+
17:01:13 <bigbluehat> shepazu: they reference 3987 which is IRIs
17:01:14 <tilgovi> From that spec
17:01:20 <bigbluehat> ...but they don't say anything about it
17:01:24 <tilgovi> "Standardize on the term URL. URI and IRI are just confusing."
17:01:59 <bigbluehat> azaroth: this is the important bit https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#idna
17:02:08 <bigbluehat> ...which defines the encoding for this "new" URL term
17:02:09 <tilgovi> q-
17:02:31 <shepazu> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#ToASCII
17:02:51 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so we are past time
17:02:57 <bigbluehat> shepazu: can we come back to this next week?
17:03:22 <bigbluehat> azaroth: please way in on the issue in the meantime
17:04:30 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:04:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:04:39 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
17:04:39 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:04:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sandersion, Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young, Jacob_Jett, shepazu, davis_salisbury, Paolo_Ciccarese,
17:04:42 <Zakim> ... Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Dan_Whaley, Susan, Uskudarli, !, Nick_Stenning, Suzan_Uskudarli,  0
17:04:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:04:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:04:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items