See also: IRC log
<tim-phone> if you can from the unforgiving minute get 60 seconds worth of distance run ....
<scribe> Scribe: Chris
<DanC> (side note on review of agenda: this agenda is not exhaustive w.r.t. action items in the group; sigh.)
DC: IETF call
... transition telcons before new TAG participants terms
TBL: No objection
SKW: VQ agreed to work o agenda for first f2f
NW: Volunteer to chair the telcon next week
RF: Volunteer to scribe next week
SKW: Did not note that we accepted minutes of previous meeting
<DanC> yes they do, stuart: "Minutes of 20 Dec 2004 accepted." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/01/10-tag-summary.html
NW: No objection
RESOLVED; accept minutes of last meeting
SKW: which list - schema-dev, www-tag, etc
CL: Asking ppl to subscribe to www-tag gets them a high volume list; better to go on schema-dev
DC: As long as its public, fine with me. if its more general than just schema, should be on www-tag
SKW: So, schema-specific stuff on schema-dev
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart respond to Noah citing xml-schema-dev as forum for schema specific versioning discussion
<DanC> (if anybody is seeking a shared forum where both the schema WG and the TAG are obliged to pay attention, we don't yet have one)
SKW: Joint meeting with schema 14 Feb at regular TAG telcon slot
SKW: Net outcome: A single proposed Panel session on theme of Extensibility and Versioning. Paul Downey (BT) is owning the session for TPPC.
Anticipating participation from TAG (volunteers?)and other WG's inc. XML Schema and QA-WG.
SKW: Steve Bratt said just one
... Perhaps DO, HT, NM on panel?
CL: I'm interested in Cross-Specifications Test Suites
NW: Interested in XML futures
<DanC> (I feel similarly to CL re test foo)
SKW: VQ is assembling an agenda
... TAG liaisons tracking table started
... little other interest in extensibility outside of XML and schema
DC: Is this up to date and maintained?
SKW: Yes, feel free to update
<DanC> (actually, what I asked was: does the page currently know everything stuart knows, and he said yes.)
RF: when are we meeting:
SKW: Mon 9-12
NW: plan to be there, may be slightly delayed'
<DanC> (yes, it has a pleasant style to it. plenty of whitespace, not horribly long)
<DanC> (ah... now I see why I didn't read Chris's msg; went to tag, not to www-tag; and yet it's in the technical part of our agenda. disconnect, for me.)
its not clear whether the review is public yet, since we have not agreed to it
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to request an agendum on uri scheme registry reivew, W3C/IETF telcon 27 Jan and to
DC: seems like a fine review, wish
oit was sent to them directly
... Not read carefully. Critical to fix the optional conformance bit
(discussion - who owns and umbrella spec, what if its another WG). Cross-spec conformance
SKW: Needs to clearly indicate which
section is being discussed
... Overal l positive tone not conveyed by tesxt, add a prefix on that
<tim-phone> timbl notes character set problems with that table.
SKW: Discussion at TP on these comments? CL available
SKW: Who owns this after Chris turns into a pumpkin?
TBL: Can an external person contribute, or is this a tunnelling out of alumni until their actions are all done or transferred
CL: Does not seem like too much work
TBL: precedent, we invited DO to do similar
CL: OK agreed
... Is this suitable to send as TAG feedback?
RF: No objection
TBL: Abstain, did not get chance to read the comments. Support the TAG sending it
NM: Abstain too, have not reviewed
<DanC> (I think "abstain" puts a motion at risk of failing due to lack of support, while "concur" does not)
SKW: Support CL
Please send Last Call review comments on this document before that date to firstname.lastname@example.org, the publicly archived list
<DanC> I gather we are so RESOLVED.
<scribe> ACTION: Chris Clean up and submit
RESOLVED: These , cleaned up are TAG comments
<DanC> Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Jan/0020.html
DC: new process drafted, a provisionl
and a final registry
... good to cite WebArch
... IRI everywhere is related to this
... if you care about this, time is running out to fix/change tings
RF: they are ready to produce another
... probably best to wait for the new draft
SKW; could have multiple provisional registrations for the same URI scheme?
DC: yes, but not the permanent one
TBL: (scribe missed)
SKW: Larry asked us to review new schemes.
DC: expert review of new schemes as they move to permanent registry
TBL: Who assigns it?
DC: IESG last call, then its allocated
<Stuart> SKW: Larry asked us to review and comment on revision of the URI scheme registration process.
RF: If anyone raises a non-uniqueness
then it would halt the IESG review
... Next draft wil make it more clear tat the permanent registry is unique. provisional registrsations that clas with permanent als not allowed
TBL: No warning on provisional clashes?
DC: Any sane (machine readable) registry can produce uniqueness
NM: Early/late registration - late can have an inadvertent clash
DC: 27 Jan IETF/W3C telcon
... Next IETF is when??
<DanC> "6-11 Mar 2005 Minneapolis, MN?
<DanC> 62nd IETF"
DC: 6-11 March
RF: Its not a WG so no meeting then
SKW: Suggested posting as a note, or
... TBL asked for reasons for different types of equality, when to use each one
<DanC> "ACTION: NDW to make editorial improvements, point to other different schemes, why use them, things to avoid in XML Chunk Equality."
NW: Took some actions to improove the doc in this way. no due date. Not completed yet
SKW: So, discuss more once this revision is done
NW: Due date depends on XSL/XQ specification schedule... tell you next week
<DanC> "pc: good to see when F&O deep= works and when it does not"
TBL: Equality characterized by a number of parameters?
NW: Yes, deep= has options that can be set. Namespace-related options
<Stuart> Use cases from the Issur raising:
<Stuart> Cases I am aware of:
<Stuart> - XML itself uses it for an external entity
<Stuart> - XML schema has the "Deep equality" issue as to when any two chunks
<Stuart> are "equal".
<Stuart> - RDF has a "XML Literal" data type which it handles transparently. It
<Stuart> needs a notion of when two chunks are the same.
<Stuart> - XML-DSig signs, and therefore ensures the integrity of, a chunk of XML
<DanC> (timbl, why are you surprised that RSS feeds don't have namespaces? consumers don't require them. people naturally do the minimum work that achieves their goal.)
TBL: Amazed at how much RSS has no namespace
NW: question is of unused but declared namespaces?
DC: case of two non namespaced docs, equal or not???
F(equal) -> Yes | No | dunno
<DanC> i.e. did <p> in doc1 mean what <p> in doc2 meant?
NM: (starts to say something interesting, but phone fades)
<DanC> (the best way to provoke a response is to threaten harm, somehow; i.e. start talking about the next topic, threatining somebody's ability to comment on the previous topic)
DC: Read him to say he was happy
WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols
DC: (reads from email)
DC: its not a new issue
NM: SOAP will wind up putting the URI
where HTTP wants it, but will also be in the SAP header too
... is it a flaw to carry the info in an additional place?
<DanC> (doesn't seem like a new issue, to me; seems like issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#whenToUseGet-7 )
TBL: Arch of the WS-* specs is not
... identify an endpoint in ws, but actually send it to a different URI of the service, which has some connection, but the sever has a URI
... so its a service end point, and the service can talk about multiple objects
objects and services are distinct
scribe: another achitecture, get on
the URI of a book, but behind the scenes its broken down into
multiple services, checking financials and stock etc so it looks
atomic but i ssplit up behind the scenes
... not clear wheter to support marks issue because its not clear what architecture it is fitting into
... good to involve DO here, finsd how WS folks tend to do this
... may be some defacto or emergent architecture
... can't say its broken unless we can point to the part that breaks
DC: Prefer to discuss whether to add this as an issue, not the summary of the eventual finding
TBL: Happy to add it to the list
NM: or work it outafter some fact finding first
RF: seems the direction of all ws specs is to be binding neutral, but no statement that a given binding is required
RF: so entirely separate
architectures all described as web services
... support adding it as an issue
SKW: TP liaison with WS Addressing
<DanC> ACTION: DanC edit http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/01/TechnicalPlenaryLiaisons.html to reflect avaialability and interest
NM: Suggest asking Mark Nottingham
SKW: Calls question to add as an issue
RESOLVED: New issue endpointRefs-NN
salt NN to taste
<DanC> (tradition is to announce new issues. I'm not in a position do that)
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart Tell Mark Nottingham we added the isse and would like to discuss it
tag-announce and www-tag?
SKW: End of agenda
DC: Seconded :)