W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2008

Draft TAG Telcon Minutes for 16th October 2008

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:55:32 +0000
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C81B6F117C85@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Draft minutes from the TAG meeting of 16th October 2008 are available at:

        http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/16-minutes

and as plain text below. Thank you to David for scribing.

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

================================================================================


                               - DRAFT -

                              TAG Weekly

16 Oct 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/16-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Jonathan_Rees, Noah_Mendelsohn, T.V._Raman, Henry_Thompson,
          Dan_Connolly, David_Orchard, Stuart_Williams, Chris_Lilley

   Regrets
          Norm_Walsh, Tim_Berners-Lee, Ashok_Malhotra

   Chair
          Stuart Williams

   Scribe
          David Orchard

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]abbreviated URIs
         2. [6]abbreviatedURI-56
         3. [7]TAG @ TPAC
         4. [8]tech plenary day
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________



   <Stuart> Scribe: David Orchard

   <jar> FYI, I am muted

   <dorchard> scribenick: dorchard

   <DanC> +1 cxl 30 Oct (I'll be jet-lagged)

   stuart: propose next meeting after tpac is Nov 6th

   Approved: Next meeting after TPAC is Nov 6th

   Jonathan will scribe Nov 6th

abbreviated URIs

   <ht>
   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Oct/0012

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Oct/0012

   <ht> [11]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts#curie

     [11] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts#curie

abbreviatedURI-56

   <ht> scribenick: ht

   HT: There appears to be a new draft, URI above
   ... Dated 8 October
   ... I've had a look at it

   <scribe> scribenick: dorchard

   <DanC> (above? hmm.. this one?
   [12]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20081008/ )

     [12] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20081008/

   <noah> Yes, I think that's it.

   ht: I looked at the draft, they tried to address all the points
   (#curie ref).
   ... they have changed whether :foo is a curie or not over time.
   ... this is now legal and is a valid curie

   <Stuart> as I believe is ""

   <DanC> (it _is_? I can't derive :foo from the grammar in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20081008/ )

     [13] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20081008/

   ht: the problem is that implies that this is a curie with an empty
   string prefix as opposed to no prefix
   ... the main part of the prefix is optional

   <ht> [[prefix]:]

   <DanC> (ok. I see now.)

   <Stuart> curie := [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference

   <jar> I thought that in ':foo', the ':' gets replaced by some
   distinguished prefix (e.g. the base URI?) -- as in Turtle/N3

   ht: they must tell us what this means

   <Stuart> The draft says "A host language MAY interpret a reference
   value that is not preceded by a prefix and a colon as being a member
   of a host-language defined set of reserved values. Such reserved
   values MUST translate into an IRI, just as with any other CURIE

   <jar> yes, me. let me dial back in. sorry

   <DanC> (I'd like our minutes to quote text that's responsive to our
   comment. I don't remember the gist of our comment.)

   <DanC> "Accordingly, CURIEs and Safe_CURIEs MUST NOT be used as
   values for attributes or other content that are specified to contain
   only URIs, IRIs, URI-references, IRI-references, etc."

   <DanC> is it worth recording a TAG decision contingent on jar's
   review?

   <Stuart> action jonathan to review the current CURIE editors draft
   against the changes requested by the TAG and inform the group of his
   disposition.

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-186 - Review the current CURIE editors
   draft against the changes requested by the TAG and inform the group
   of his disposition. [on Jonathan Rees - due 2008-10-23].

TAG @ TPAC

   <Stuart> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/tpac

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/tpac

   stuart: EXI would like to meet mon/tues

   noah: not intereste in evening meetings

   discussion about tag and exi continues..

   henry: I gave them feedback about xml and exi distinction

   stuart: they are meeting mon/tues

   henry: and I think they wanted to at least meet about my feedback.

   noah: can you write up a summary for me?

   <noah> Or just send some links

   stuart: perhaps we should not meet if that's too hard.

   noah: the big issues are around not speed, and perhaps test case
   selection.
   ... they don't even claim speed yet.

   stuart will continue to set up a meeting

   stuart: any other comments on meeting schedule?

tech plenary day

   <noah> Actually, I think speed is a big issue, and I think we've
   said that in the past. What I was pointing out is that they don't
   >claim< to have a quantitative justification speed-wise until CR, or
   at least that's my recollection. My notion would be to remind them
   that they either need to come up with a justification based on speed
   as well as compactness, or else make the case that EXI is...

   <noah> ...justified without a speed claim.

   chrisl: origins of tag on plenary day
   ... ian said that web arch was useless, etc. But then retracted to 3
   specific positions

   raman: and I responded saying that 3 positions were not Google
   official positions

   <ht> WRT TAG-EXI interaction, here's one relevant pointer (not on
   the encoding issue):
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-exi/2007Nov/0004.html

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-exi/2007Nov/0004.html

   chrisl: invited ian to tech plenary day but he declined, and more
   said privately.
   ... Issues should be done case by case, but not opt out of the whole
   thing.
   ... Wanted a bit of discussion, perhaps some updates to web arch,
   but most of it is good and should be followed.
   ... title of talk at plenary changed over time, the first was a
   little too rushed.
   ... hoping you find the new title better

   raman: I like the title

   I won't be there..

   <noah> I think the missing bit in recipe vs. blueprint is that the
   consequences of bad cooking are pretty localized to those eating the
   meal. With Web arch, your app my run just fine, while the collection
   of such badly coded apps gradually sink the Web as a whole.

   I could have easily played devil's advocate on EPRs, but no joy.

   raman: how many people actually know what web arch says? cynical
   answer is no...
   ... and you need to conform or be hit on the head..
   ... people do understand HTML

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about format

   noah: definitely want skeptics.
   ... format in mind?
   ... add Larry Masinter?

   <ChrisL> 3-5 minute intros would be good

   <ChrisL> +1 to Larry.

   raman: some of what is going on should be tag's responsibility for
   solving, he has a *lot* of experience.
   ... But one more "old guy" that the 20 year olds won't listen to

   <ht> Noah, more background on the TAG-EXI discussion: minutes from
   last year at [16]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-exi-minutes.html; my
   message referenced there (with a different conclusion than I would
   now reach, but useful background):
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0
   014.html

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-exi-minutes.html;
     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0014.html

   noah: would like to talk about more than just web arch, and talk
   about findings

   raman: +1 on findings

   <Stuart> I think that some positive war stories would be good, and
   indeed some that may motivate us to re-think.

   <ChrisL> Findings update the webarch dod; webarch is not just the
   one document

   chrisl: henri sivonen was suggested, but he's alread on the xml vs
   html
   ... I'd like to invite larry

   <ChrisL> how many have benefitted from tag work

   stuart: meeting adjourned

   <Stuart> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda (IIRC)

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda

   <Stuart>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda#HTMLandTheWeb

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda#HTMLandTheWeb

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 14:59:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:08 GMT