W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2007

RE: TAG Minutes 20 Aug 2007

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:10:33 +0100
Message-ID: <C4B3FB61F7970A4391A5C10BAA1C3F0DCA80B9@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Please update the agenda link in the minutes to:

	http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-agenda

instead of

	http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly

which will no longer be relevant when our next agenda is posted.

Thanks,

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks
RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: 20 August 2007 18:55
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: TAG Minutes 20 Aug 2007
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-minutes
> 
>    W3C[1]
> 
>                                    - DRAFT -
> 
>                                       TAG
>                                   20 Aug 2007
> 
>    Agenda[2]
> 
>    See also: IRC log[3]
> 
> Attendees
> 
>    Present
>            Norm, Raman, Rhys, Stuart, Henry, Dave, Dan
> 
>    Regrets
>            TimBL, Noah
> 
>    Chair
>            Stuart
> 
>    Scribe
>            Norm
> 
> Contents
> 
>      * Topics
>          1. Agenda review
>          2. Approve minutes of 13 Aug?
>          3. Next telcon
>          4. Re-scheduling Telcon
>          5. TAG Blog
>          6. September f2f preparation
>          7. Issue XML Versioning 41
>          8. Issue xml11Names-46
>          9. tagSoupIntegration-54
>         10. Fragment identifiers
>      * Summary of Action Items
> 
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   Agenda review
> 
>    <ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-agenda.html[4]
> 
>    Stuart: Some actions will be closed without discussion if 
> no one asks to
>    discuss them.
> 
>    Dan: I'd like to discuss some of them (scribe missed 
> exactly which ones)
> 
>    Agenda accepted
> 
>   Approve minutes of 13 Aug?
> 
>    <ht> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html[5]
> 
>    Proposed: Accept 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html[6] as a
>    true record?
> 
>    Accepted.
> 
>    <DanC> sounds like we're approving the version of 
> 2007/08/13 18:10:12
>    without "DRAFT" at the top
> 
>   Next telcon
> 
>    Stuart: I propose 10 Sep 2007.
>    ... 3 Sep is US Labor Day. 27 Aug is UK public holiday.
> 
>    Dave gives regrets for 10 Sep
> 
>    <Rhys> Rhys does give regrets for 27 August
> 
>    Stuart: Raman can you scribe 10 Sep?
> 
>    Raman: Yes.
> 
>    Accepted, next meeting is 10 Sep 2007.
> 
>   Re-scheduling Telcon
> 
>    Stuart: I put a wbs form up, several replied.
>    ... Two slots work: this one and 12-1:30p ET Thursday
> 
>    Henry: That slot isn't available for TimBL.
>    ... I think this slot has significantly impacted our productivity.
>    ... I'd like to look a little harder.
> 
>    Raman: I'm willing to accept an 8:30PT slot, I'll just 
> have to be a little
>    late
> 
>    Henry: Tim would miss the team lunch, but Amy thought he 
> would consider
>    it.
> 
>    Norm: What are you proposing?
> 
>    Henry: I'm proposing 11:30a-1:00p ET on Tuesdays
> 
>    Norm: I'm afraid I have a conflict on Tuesday's now.
> 
>    <DanC> ok by me
> 
>    Norm: I can see about getting it moved.
> 
>    Henry: The only other slot that has any obvious hope is 
> 1:00-2:30p ET on
>    Thursdays.
> 
>    Stuart: Rhys has a "no" on that slot.
> 
>    Rhys: I could be persuaded to live with it.
> 
>    Henry: I propose we try for 11:30-1:00 ET on Tuesdays 
> pending Norm moving
>    his meeting his meeting and TimBL agreeing. Failing that 
> we come back to
>    consider 1:00-2:30 ET on Thursdays.
> 
>    Stuart: If we can shift to another day this week, I'd like 
> to reclaim the
>    next two weeks. Meeting, on Tuesday next, for example.
> 
>    DanC: Call both and then cancel one.
> 
>    Stuart: I propose that we next meet on Tuesday, 28 Aug 
> 2007 at 11:30 ET.
> 
>    Stuart: And Thursday, 30 Aug 2007 at 1:00p ET.
>    ... I'll cancel one or both depending on the survey outcome.
> 
>    Accepted.
> 
>   TAG Blog
> 
>    Stuart: DanC, did you get approval for the URI?
> 
>    DanC: I didn't really make any progress on either action.
> 
>    Stuart: Any idea when you might make progress?
> 
>    DanC: Its straightforward for me to get a response after 27 Aug.
> 
>    Stuart: Ok, we'll wait until its straightforward.
> 
>   September f2f preparation
> 
>    Stuart: I've put up a logistics page
> 
>    -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/17-logistics
> 
>    Stuart: I've put out a call for agenda items, we could 
> talk about that
>    now.
> 
>    Dave: I'd like to see XML Versioning on the agenda.
> 
>    Stuart: You gave regrets.
> 
>    Dave: Yes, but I'm willing to call in; so maybe we could 
> do it late in the
>    day UK time.
> 
>    Stuart: I believe Rhys would like to talk about httpRange-14.
>    ... Distributed extensibility, microformats, HTML 5 looks like a
>    possibility
> 
>    <Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Aug/0038[8]
> 
>    Stuart: The other thing I think we said was that we'd discuss the
>    confluence of Web 2.0/Web Architecture, but we don't 
> really have material
>    to discuss.
> 
>    DanC: We have the thread on fragment identifiers.
> 
>    Raman: I'm not going to try to call in, but I don't mind 
> if you talk about
>    it in my absence.
> 
>    Stuart: I'd like to see some email discussion to help 
> shape the agenda.
> 
>    Some discussion of HTTP Redirection, etc.; Rhys is working 
> on related
>    materials.
> 
>    DanC: I'll try to prepare for the distributed versioning 
> discussion.
>    ... Where's Semantic Web Architecture?
> 
>    Norm: Stalled with TimBL and I. Probably not productive 
> unless Tim and I
>    can get together and write more words.
> 
>    Stuart: Does that look pretty good? Are there other things 
> people would
>    like to see?
> 
>    DanC: How far are we from our f2f?
> 
>    We're three calendar weeks away
> 
>    DanC: The agenda should be announced at T-minus two weeks.
> 
>    (Per W3C process)
> 
>    Dave: So can we talk more about the meeting?
>    ... I brought up a topic, versioning, and we picked a time 
> slot, but the
>    obvious next thing is, what will we do about versioning?
>    ... Seems to me that we should take another pass at the 
> documents. That
>    means reviewers.
> 
>    Stuart: I'm on the hook to review the terminology document.
>    ... Do we have reviewers for any of the other documents.
> 
>    Norm: I'll review the XML part again if you point me to 
> the most recent
>    version.
> 
>    Stuart: So we still need a reviewer for the strategies document.
> 
>    Dave: Yes, 2.2.2 is where we kind of finished at the last 
> f2f. I did a
>    bunch of work on that, that would be one logical place to 
> pick up from
>    again.
> 
>   Issue XML Versioning 41
> 
>    <Stuart> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0041[9]
> 
>    Stuart: This is on the agenda to discuss Norm's action.
> 
>    <dorchard> The latest versions of versioning finding are 
> listed in the
>    email at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0004.html[10]
> 
>    Norm reviews his action, suggests that Dave plonk it in somewhere.
> 
>    Stuart: Is it likely that you can do that before the f2f, Dave?
> 
>    Dave: No.
> 
>    Norm: Doesn't worry me if we don't add that before September.
> 
>    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note @role module last call 
> coming, and pick
>    back up on modularity in CDF, XHTML modularization
> 
>    Dave: I plan no changes to the documents between now and the f2f.
> 
>    DanC: There's a @role spec coming
> 
>    <DanC> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/[11]
> 
>    DanC: Why DTDs?
> 
>    Raman: What's missing is an XML Schema that conforms to XHTML
>    modularization.
> 
>    Henry: If we think that we should say somthing that would 
> encourage them
>    to not use DTDs; my candidate would be to use the 
> modularization framework
>    and an XHTML 1.1 XML Schema.
> 
>    Some discussion of the status of modularization; 
> apparently it's back at
>    WD.
> 
>    <DanC> last call
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/[12]
> 
>    Stuart: Is this one we should be reviewing?
> 
>    DanC: Yes, in particular there's a form of extensibility 
> that's sort of
>    decentralized in a way that appeals to me.
>    ... There are claims that the subsitution group model they 
> use doesn't
>    work, but I've never been able to get to the bottom of it.
> 
>    Dave: I wrote something on this too, we should really try 
> to get to the
>    bottom of it.
> 
>    <DanC> XHTML modularization and substitution groups (tag issue
>    XMLVersioning-41, TagSoupIntegration-54, RDFinXHTML-35)[13]
> 
>    <ht> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/[14]
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: ht to review XHTML Modularization
>    (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/)[15]
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02[16]]
> 
>    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-15 - Review XHTML Modularization
>    
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/)[17] [on
>    Henry S Thompson - due 2007-08-27].
> 
>    Stuart: DanC, did you want to say more about the role document?
> 
>    DanC: Sort of. One of the ways that role winds up on my 
> plate is due to
>    accessible web applications.
>    ... JavaScript is turing complete, so there are 
> accessibility problems. So
>    W3C did some work in this area.
>    ... One outcome is this role attribute with things like 
> checkbox that help
>    screen readers do better.
>    ... It's been proposed that this role module be stuck in 
> HTML 5. And HTML
>    5 has completely sworn off DTDs.
>    ... If you're not going to do a DTD for it, what are you 
> going to do?
> 
>    Raman: One issue is, does this go in a new attribute? Why 
> not stick it in
>    class.
>    ... The other issue is whether or not it should be 
> namespaced as it is in
>    XHTML 1.1. But firefox doesn't care because it's been hardwired.
>    ... Saying that role has to be in a namespace is bogus.
>    ... I started some of the role work; it's been carefully 
> done as a module
>    so that the WAI folks could decide what the 
> right-hand-sides should be.
>    ... They actually created two attributes in two 
> namespaces, the state
>    values go in one and the role values go in the other.
>    ... That's a three line summary of all the HTML 5 mail.
> 
>    DanC: One of the design patterns for HTML 5 is "no no no, 
> not namespaces,
>    let's figure out what the authors need and give them a list"
> 
>    Raman: The problem with role is that it's cross-cutting so 
> that doesn't
>    really work.
>    ... HTML 5 also talks about following existing practice, 
> so they're trying
>    to go in two different directions.
> 
>    Stuart: We're talking about this under versioning-41. Is 
> this really
>    versioning, or is ti an HTML 5 topic?
> 
>    DanC: The versioning topic is about substitution groups in 
> modular design.
> 
>    Dave: If substitution groups don't work in 1.0, do they 
> also not work in
>    1.1?
> 
>    DanC: XML Schemas is about to go to last call.
> 
>    Henry: There is one change in 1.1, allowing multiple 
> substitution heads.
>    That's been alleged to be problem. I'll be taking a look.
> 
>    Stuart: Do we agree that Norm's action is closed?
> 
>    Yes.
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: dorchard to incorporate the NVDL text 
> into the findings.
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04[18]]
> 
>    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-16 - Incorporate the NVDL 
> text into the
>    findings. [on David Orchard - due 2007-08-27].
> 
>    <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/[19]
> 
>    <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users[20]
> 
>    <raman> For the record the collection of properties 
> refered to as state is
>    a collection of attributes -- not a single one.
> 
>    <DanC> ah, right, raman
> 
>   Issue xml11Names-46
> 
>    <Stuart> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0040[21]
> 
>    Norm: I completed the action I was given ages ago.
> 
>    DanC: I think it needs to be in a test suite somewhere.
> 
>    Norm: An XML 1.1 parser should accept the document, an XML 
> 1.0 one would
>    fail.
> 
>    Henry: There are already tests in the XML test suite for 
> 1.1 features.
> 
>    <DanC> (yup, norm's action is done to my satisfaction)
> 
>    <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/[22]
> 
>    DanC: We could just turn this whole ball of wax over to the XML CG.
> 
>    <DanC> (I'd like ht to take an action)
> 
>    Stuart: We'll mark that action as done and leave the issue pending.
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: ht to check that the XML test suite contains an
>    equivalent test [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05[23]]
> 
>    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-17 - Check that the XML test 
> suite contains
>    an equivalent test [on Henry S Thompson - due 2007-08-27].
> 
>   tagSoupIntegration-54
> 
>    Stuart: Any discussion?
> 
>    <dorchard> which article?
> 
>    DanC: What's novel about Sam's message is that he proposes using
>    namespaces in content that isn't well-formed XML.
> 
>    Raman: I think he's articulated something important: it's 
> more than the
>    browser vendors who have a right to decide what goes into 
> HTML 5. User
>    communities should be able to add new elements too.
>    ... The browser vendors are going to document what they 
> do, but I think it
>    would be a serious loss to the web if that's all we 
> expected to happen.
>    ... I think the important thing is that extensibility is 
> the purview of
>    more than the browser vendors. Henry saw something else 
> when he looked at
>    it.
> 
>    dorchard: If this is something that would help the HTML 5 
> WG get closer to
>    what the TAG thinks is the right way to deal with distributed
>    extensibility, then we should support it.
> 
>    Stuart: Is there a proposal here?
> 
>    dorchard: We could ask someone to write up a message of 
> support that we
>    could publish as the TAG
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: dorchard to review the article and make a 
> proposal.
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06[24]]
> 
>    Stuart: Any other discussion?
> 
>    DanC: The agenda suggests continuing Ramans action without 
> comment. I'm
>    content that he finished that action.
> 
>    Stuart: I can't point to that document off the top of my 
> head. It goes
>    back to our Google meeting.
> 
>    <raman> 
> http://www.w3.org/t2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html[25]
> 
>    <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html[26]
> 
>    Stuart: OK, with that pointer we'll call the action closed.
> 
>    DanC: Are we going to maintain this?
> 
>    Raman: If you send that document to the HTML 5 WG mailing 
> list, I don't
>    think we'll get anything productive back.
> 
>    dorchard: We need to do our job anyway
> 
>    Stuart: Do you think it's ready to be sent?
> 
>    Raman: Yes, if we agree that those are the things we want 
> to say. I just
>    don't think there's value in doing a lot more work in a vacuum.
> 
>    Some discussion of what actions we could take
> 
>    Raman: What we've prepared is an outline of items we 
> believe should be
>    covered
> 
>    Stuart: We should formulate our opinion regardless of what 
> the outcome
>    might be
> 
>    Raman: I think we should flesh this out at the f2f and 
> then send it.
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: Raman to update the document with the 
> latest discussion
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07[27]]
> 
>    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-19 - Update the document with 
> the latest
>    discussion [on T.V. Raman - due 2007-08-27].
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to discuss with DanC what might be 
> most useful and
>    productive wrt providing input to the HTML WG [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08[28]]
> 
>    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-20 - Discuss with DanC what 
> might be most
>    useful and productive wrt providing input to the HTML WG [on Stuart
>    Williams - due 2007-08-27].
> 
>    Henry: We should separate our technical discussions from 
> strategically how
>    to communicate this with the WG
> 
>   Fragment identifiers
> 
>    -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0148
> 
>    Raman: The more general TAG discussion I think is that there's an
>    asymmetry between URLs on the server and URLs on the client.
>    ... On the server, everything after the question mark is 
> sent to the
>    resource as a bunch of arguments.
>    ... Similarly, in the URL you have the # which passes 
> everything after the
>    hash to the client to handle it.
>    ... The community knows how HTML browsers use fragment 
> identifiers; and we
>    know how RDF does it; but there's very little else been said.
>    ... The problem with saying "the client" is the question 
> of which client.
>    ... At this point, I think there are more details that 
> need to be written
>    down if we expect to get interoperability.
> 
>    Stuart: One of the things that interested me is that no 
> where in that
>    discussion did we talk about the media type.
> 
>    Raman: I danced around that carefully. That only really 
> comes up with
>    respect to HTML. It came up years ago when I was at Adobe 
> with respect to
>    opening up PDF.
>    ... I don't remember the status of that for the media type 
> application for
>    PDF
>    ... If you write .../?a=1, you'll never expect that to 
> work if you send it
>    to a different server. On the other hand, if it's # then 
> you would expect
>    different clients to act in the same way.
> 
>    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask for clarification
> 
>    Henry: When you said "which client" you didn't mean that 
> in any given
>    interaction there is more than one client, right?
> 
>    Raman: Right. Clearly the CNN URL works in a JavaScript 
> enabled browser,
>    but not in one that isn't.
>    ... You could say that text/html includes all of the processing
>    expectations of JavaScript. That's one reasonable answer.
> 
>    Henry: It's certainly the case that there are other media 
> types that
>    specify the interpretation of fragment identifiers.
>    ... They are careful and they get real value out of them.
> 
>    Raman: I think Adobe did that, but I don't clearly recall 
> at this time.
> 
>    Henry: It would be perfectly coherent for someone to 
> define a media type
>    that said what you do with fragids that begin with slash 
> is that you issue
>    an XMLHTTPRequest of the following form...
>    ... But that's not what either text/html or any of the 
> other HTML mime
>    types say. So CNN is flat out in violation of the spec.
>    ... JavaScript that does that is breaking the rules.
>    ... I don't think that anyone has to do anything to make 
> that clear. It's
>    perfectly clear. Someone has written JavaScript code 
> that's doing an end
>    run around the browser.
> 
>    Raman: I'm comfortable with that view too, but then you 
> run into the
>    counter-argument that "it works dummy".
> 
>    Henry: Breaking the rules is bad? I don't want to write a 
> TAG finding that
>    says that.
> 
>    Raman: It seems to be all about breaking the rules and 
> making a hack that
>    works these days and I"m a little worried about that.
>    ... There are two reasonable positions: the MIME type says 
> what the answer
>    is.
>    ... The other position is that the MIME type is for static 
> documents and
>    in this dynamic world, the JavaScript gets to say what the 
> answer is.
>    ... We can either say you broke the rules or we can change 
> the rules. It
>    actually took me a while to figure how it works.
>    ... This is a lot like the "CSS sprite" hack.
> 
>    Stuart: We're about out of time. I think we'll come back to this.
> 
>    Henry: If there's a TAG issue here, it's something about 
> what proper
>    script author responsibilities are in the context of the 
> standards that
>    they're operating with.
>    ... It isn't obvious where you would go to find a basis 
> for saying "gee,
>    this doesn't constitute good citizenship"
> 
>    Stuart: Adjourned.
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>    [NEW] ACTION: dorchard to incorporate the NVDL text into 
> the findings.
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04[30]]
>    [NEW] ACTION: dorchard to review the article and make a proposal.
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06[31]]
>    [NEW] ACTION: ht to check that the XML test suite contains 
> an equivalent
>    test [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05[32]]
>    [NEW] ACTION: ht to review XHTML Modularization
>    (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/[33])
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02[34]]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Raman to update the document with the latest 
> discussion
>    [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07[35]]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to discuss with DanC what might be 
> most useful and
>    productive wrt providing input to the HTML WG [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08[36]]
>     
>    [End of minutes]
> 
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    [1] http://www.w3.org/
>    [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly
>    [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-irc
>    [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-agenda.html
>    [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html
>    [6] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html
>    [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Aug/0038
>    [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0041
>    [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0004.html
>    [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/
>    [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/
>    [13] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/2007
Feb/0000.html
>    [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/
>    [15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/)
>    [16] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
>    [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/)
>    [18] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
>    [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/
>    [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users
>    [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0040
>    [22] http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
>    [23] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05
>    [24] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06
>    [25] http://www.w3.org/t2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html
>    [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html
>    [27] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07
>    [28] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08
>    [30] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
>    [31] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06
>    [32] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05
>    [33] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/
>    [34] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
>    [35] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07
>    [36] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08
>    [37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>    [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
> 
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[37] 
> version 1.128 (CVS
>     log[38])
>     $Date: 2007/08/20 17:51:19 $
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:12:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:47 GMT