See also: agenda, LC2 status, IRC log
<paulc> Travelling today. Am in London, UK. Joining soon.
<paulc> Is anyone else due to join the call?
<Norm> We're not sure, paulc. TimBL maybe.
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
Scribe next week: NormW
<paulc> Still figuring out what 30 digits I am going to dial to join in.
<Stuart> Monthly Summary draft [member confidential]
re 19July, norm has a copy of a draft from CL; NW will send to www-tag as is
RESOLVED to accept 12July record
RESOLVED to accept 26 July record
PaulC: I expect to get minutes 9-11 August f2f done this week.
RESOLVED to accept 16 Aug telcon minutes as a true record.
RESOLVED to accept 30 Aug minutes as a true record.
RESOLVED: draft monthly summary OK; PaulC to send tomorrow unless he finds reason not to
DanC: let's do last call comments before 2.1
SKW: OK
NW: I'm at risk. oops; I guess that applies to scribe duties. RoyF: I can be back-up scribe.
SKW reviews... "Meeting Objectives: 1. Consider and respond to all LC#2 comments." others?
PaulC: I recall that ftf as a target for extensibility stuff.
NDW: oh yeah...
DanC: is Stuarts interaction with QA relevant to these plans?
SKW: I haven't
heard back since my 3Sep message.
... but yes, a telcon with QA before our ftf would be good.
DanC: I hope LC2 doesn't take anywhere near most of the scheduled 3 days.
SKW: see admin mail re dietary needs
<paulc> BTW I have purchased my ticket for the Boston F2F. Current seat sale was too good to let go.
(skipping 1.2 TAG Vacancies due to timbl not being present)
<paulc> No news on charter.
ACTION PaulC: close "# DIWG Review of Last Call WD Architecture of the World Wide Web"
NDW: I just closed "minor error in webarch section 2.2.2"
DanC offers to close 2nd "# Comments on Working Draft 5 July 2004 - URI Overloading" as a dup.
SKW: patrickS seems willing to accept renaming "information resource" as sufficient
ACTION SKW: draft proposal to address ""information resource" (currently #9)
SKW: "Request for Review of TAG AWWW 2nd LC Draft." is a request to PatH. DanC: I gather he intends to do it.
--- # Comments on Working Draft 5 July 2004 - URI Overloading
* 2004-08-28T20:37:38Z from lucyweber
ACTION DanC: respond ala "we didn't say assing and didn't mean it. does that clarify?"
--- # Definition of agent in the Web Architecture
* 2004-08-30T07:47:16Z from a.p.meyer
RoyF: commentor assumes we're using traditional-AI:agent
SKW: we don't have "agent" in our glossary. PC: but we use it unqualified, for example [missed]
PC: I think the explanation in [which section?] is sufficiently clear
"1. Introduction"
ACTION PaulC: explain to a.p.meyer that we didn't mean any more than we said.
(or something like that; should the action read differently?)
DanC: any suggested text beside the one from sandro? SKW: perhaps HT's "web proper names", but that might be different
RoyF: PatrickS made a suggestion
--- # Comments on Web Arch WD - 2004-07-05
* 2004-09-02T23:20:50Z from karl
DanC: many comments in one msg. :(
<Roy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html
<Roy> KD-001: editorial
NDW: yes, I'll deal
with KD-001 as editorial.
... and let Karl know
ACTION NDW: deal with KD-001 as editorial and let Karl know
<Roy> KD 002: why wouldn't the web work with 2 XHTMLs
<Roy> ?
ACTION NDW: seek clarification on KD 002
This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-chips-20030128/
Latest version:
KD 003
NDW I'm OK to cite "Common HTTP Implementation Problems" http://www.w3.org/TR/chips
RoyF: doesn't seem that the HTTP WG mailing list was notified of CHIPS
DanC: is the HTTP WG still chartered? RoyF: no, but the list is still there for maintenance and issues like those discussed in CHIPS
PaulC: is http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#gl2 the most relevant?
ACTION NDW: to cite "Common HTTP Implementation Problems" http://www.w3.org/TR/chips per KD 003
<Roy> KD 004
-- KD 004 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html
DanC: looks editorial to me; doesn't seem critical to fix.
ACTION NDW: seek clarification on KD 004
-- KD 005 URI Ownership
DanC: the gandi.net contract has me owning dm93.org, not renting
SKW: I made a comment that might be relevant to KD 005
DanC: we've got several actions in reply to Dubost; I'm OK to leave KD006 etc. for another time
<Roy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0049.html
-- # non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers
* 2004-09-03T03:31:30Z from myriam.amielh
RoyF: seems like a question on the URI spec; I'm OK to take it
ACTION RoyF: respond to "non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers" comment
<Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0052.html
<Norm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0052.html
-- # Should TR/webarch be TR/webarch10?
* 2004-09-03T15:56:32Z from ndw
[... missed some...]
<Roy> I would say no because I don't expect anyone to be dependent on v1 versus v++
RoyF: I don't expect this to be versioned in a way that v1 vs others matters to people, so I prefer to stay with "webarch" as our shortname
ACTION NDW: respond to "Should TR/webarch be TR/webarch10?" comment
<Roy> [Dan's version of what I said is better]
<scribe> -- # new text for Information Resource (section 3.1)
* 2004-09-08T19:56:48Z from sandro
note SKW's action above
<Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0057.html
DanC: quick straw poll? any appeal to text from sandro? RoyF: I don't like it.
NDW: nor I
--- # AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2
* 2004-09-09T11:45:10Z from gk
<Norm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0059.html
DanC: quite some
meat there... hmm...
... he suggests we've diluted our message; is asking us to
SPEAK UP
ACTION DanC: propose some response to " AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2" comment
<Roy> for DanC: tie this comment into 9 (information resource) < http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0063.html>
(by the way, I'm going to try to arrange for these actions to show up in the http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html page)
(what's the best practice on pluralizing URI?")
DanC: the sentence
"One way ..." is sorta important to me.
... and no, the "data URI scheme" stuff doesn't appeal to
me.
NDW: I'm inclined to include it
ACTION NDW: integrate text on uri ownership from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0061.html , salting to taste
back to...
<Roy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0048.html
-- KD 005
SKW: the text proposed in 0061 obsoletes the sentence he's commenting on
ACTION NDW: after integrating above comments on URI ownership section, ask KD if it satisfies KD 005
DanC reported on RDFinXHTML-35, giving an update on the task force with participants from the HTML WG and the SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG; in a 2004-09-07 RDF-in-XHTML Task Force meeting, HTML WG participants noted plans to go to Last Call in a month or so on an XHTML 2 spec including a sort of RDF syntax: metainformation module. DanC also noted XML2004 in November as a possible venue for presentation of this work
<Roy> deja vu
<Norm> RDF Syntaxes: Everybody Wants One
<Norm> QNames in content. Sigh.
possible tag finding on 35: grddl rationale, slides
<Norm> 20.4 looks really odd. meta inside link.
<Norm> PC: There's a RELAX NG schema but no XML Schema.
<Norm> PC: We suppose they'll generate an XML Schema from the RELAX NG
<Roy> It looks like this is just codifying the existing meta and link elements, except that they extended link and meta to be containers? Aside from the error of using qnames in attribute content, I don't see a problem. [That is, aside from the general problem the rationale for XHTML2 makes no sense to me.]
extended... yes.
ADJOURN.