- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:06:32 +0000
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- CC: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
I'm archiving a copy of this on www-archive@w3.org so that I can poke into it further at some point. Maybe ActivePerl 5.10.0.1002 is more strict than other perl versions, but maye scribe.perl can be tweaked to avoid triggering the problem. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise. > -----Original Message----- > From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:34 AM > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com > Cc: Norman Walsh; Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) > Subject: RE: Creating TAG minutes > > Ashok, > > I think that I may have solved your perl problem... > > My cygwin installation reports: > > $ perl -v > > This is perl, v5.8.8 built for cygwin-thread-multi-64int > (with 8 registered patches, see perl -V for more detail) > > Copyright 1987-2006, Larry Wall > > however, initially I installed ActivePerl 5.10.0.1002 which > generated the same failure as you observed. > > I have backed off to ActivePerl 5.8.8.822 (which is available > from the same download page) and that runs scribe.perl > without a problem. > > Regards > > Stuart > -- > [1] > http://www.activestate.com/store/download.aspx?prdGUID=81fbce8 2-6bd5-49bc-a915-08d58c2648ca > -- > Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, > Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN > Registered No: 690597 England > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > Sent: 31 March 2008 16:01 > To: Norman Walsh > Cc: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) > Subject: Re: Creating TAG minutes > > > Great! Thanks! > Forwarding to Stuart .... > Ashok > > Norman Walsh wrote: > > / ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> > <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> was heard to say: > | The perl error is : > | > | "Can't use string <"1"> as an ARRAY ref while > "strict refs" line 256 > | > | Which seems to be an error in scribe.perl. > I'm attaching the log file. > | > | I'm using ActivePerl 1002 > > Very odd. No clue, but here's what should have > been produced :-) > > > > ________________________________ > > > > W3C <http://www.w3.org/> > > > - DRAFT - > > > TAG Weekly > > > 27 Mar 2008 > > > Agenda <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-agenda> > > See also: IRC log > <http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc> > > > Attendees > > > Present > Stuart, +1.617.538.aaaa, TimBL, > Ashok_Malhotra, Ht, Noah_Mendelsohn, Norm, Jonathan, > Dave_Orchard, +1.617.253.aabb, Raman > Regrets > > > Chair > Stuart Williams > Scribe > Ashok_Malhotra > > > Contents > > > * Topics > > 1. Convene > 2. Item 3 on Agenda Issue 56 -- > Abbreviated URI's > 3. Item 4 Issue 35 RDFinXHTML > 4. Bristol travel arrangements > > * Summary of Action Items > > ________________________________ > > <Stuart> > Scribe: Ashok_Malhotra > > <Stuart> scribenick: Ashok > > > Convene > > > Dan sent regrets > > Noah: AOB item -- could you send travel > directions for f2f? > > Stuart: Any objections to approving minutes > from last week > > No objections. > > RESOLUTION: Minutes from last week are approved > > Next meeting April 3 -- regrets from HT > > Regrets from Tim and Stuart for 4/24 > > Norm will scribe next week > > SW: We now have all the minutes from the f2f > > Problem about minutes being in two places > > SW: I am willing to accept the places where the > minutes have landed > ... Propose we accept minutes subject to > Jonathan's changes being included > > <Stuart> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0139.html > > <jar> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0139.html > > HT: No objection > > RESOLUTION: f2f minutes approved subject to > Jonathan's changes being incorporated > > <scribe> ACTION: Henry S, Norm, Dave -- revise > minutes from f2f with Jonathan's changes [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-127 - Henry, Norm, > Dave -- revise minutes from f2f with Jonathan's changes [on > Henry S. Thompson - due 2008-04-03]. > > > Item 3 on Agenda Issue 56 -- Abbreviated URI's > > > HT: They have been waiting for this > > Draft from HT ... subsequently revised > > <ht> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0093.html > > Original wording > > <noah> Second para: > > <noah> In this connection we find the prose > about CURIEs the current RDFA > > <noah> spec. [2] troubling. > > <noah> Is there a typo in that? > > <noah> Should that be >in the current RDFa spec<? > > <ht> yes > > <noah> tnx > > <timbl> " If you really think you must allow > for not only the use of CURIEs, > > <timbl> but of the union of [-form CURIEs with > URIs, in new specs etc., > > <timbl> then you should at least note that this > involves a hostage to > > <timbl> fortune with respect to future versions > of the URI spec, which > > <timbl> might conceivably introduce URIs with > initial square brackets. > > <timbl> " > > Tim: URI's will not start with [ ... no need to > say this > > Noah: I agree to removing it > > HT: Happy to remove > > <timbl> "We would _much_ prefer a proposal > which made clear that it was only > > <timbl> addressing the need for an abbreviated > URI format in non-XML > > <timbl> languages, or new XML languages, or new > contexts within old XML > > <timbl> languages, where _only_ such > abbreviated forms are allowed." > > Tim: I'm worried about pushing them down the > path of only non-XML or new XML languages > > <Norm> Practically, this means *requiring* the > square brackets, right? > > <timbl> no IRI consensus ... ah > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to query the IRI parallel > > TVR: Agrees > > HT: Then we need to go to IETF and say "revise > URI spec" > ... But I don't want to do it ... URI's are > just fine. Case has not been made to change the way HTML is written > ... There is a case for folks who are authoring > N3 by hand ... > > <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to observe that CURIEs > don't rely on XML Namespaces either > > NW: It's a new kind of abbreviation for URIs > > <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say IRIs and > CURIE's are different because of prefix bindings > > <ht> HTML _has_ a 'prefix' mechanism, which is > the base URI mechanism -- works in HTML and XHTML > > <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to point out there is > a serious requirement for RDFa .. and this turns out to have > implications on HTML atributes > > <ht> I look forward to hearing from Timbl what > the RDFa requirement is > > Tim: The reinvention of namespaces is a separate bug > > <timbl> TimBL: this is one of the many cases in > which we have a tradeoff between the eventual cleanliness of > the system abnd the compatibility with history. For the sake > of posterity, we should have one type of attribute, one > routine to parse it which will in future accept [Curie] . For > history, we will ban the use of these in any attributesd > defined today. neither situation is ideal. > > HT: The other impt thing you said, people are > going to write RDFa in the same way as they write N3 now ... > > <timbl> TimBL: if people are going to write > RDFa like they write RDF/XML or N3 today, then they will use > many namespaces (10-20) and use each many times, so they ... > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to agree with the way > TimBL started > > HT: by hand using URIs from multiple domains > which require multiple prefixes > > <timbl> really need namespaces, or the document > becomes large and unreadable. > > TimBl: Not only hand authoring -- also affects > readability and length of file > > <dorchard> Maybe use EXI would solve the length > problem for machines :-) > > HT: Remembering when to type [ ] and when not > will be a huge pain > > <timbl> Having to remember when you can use [] > and when you can't , in other words when a given attribute > was historically introduced, is a real pain. > > <dorchard> I'm a bit worried about which > optimizations this is really for. > > <timbl> It is very tempting to design other > solutions in this call. > > <timbl> When was the last time that people > looked at mount point type use of virtual schemes as > abbreviations for URIs, in other words declare that the > prefix and the scheme name are in the same space? > > <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say, this makes me > wonder how hard to push back > > HT: We agree RDF languages need this ... it shd > be allowed to proceed > > <timbl> @prefix doi: > <http://h.doi.org/lookup/>. <http://h.doi.org/lookup/%3E.> > > Noah: I don't see a way to do this for the > scope they are going for > ... If it was only for XML language I would > have some trepidation ... N3 is not an XML languages > ... Can we say "use it only where there is a > need ... not a universal solution" > > <Stuart> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069 > > SW: Can we agree on everything except the 3rd item? > > Tim: Instead of removing, can we point out the > problem in both directions > > SW: We need some text we can say yea or nay to > > Noah: When you try to generalize it you get > into real trouble > ... If you apply generally you will get more breakage > > <timbl> "One can imagine an alternative > proposal which made clear that it was only > > <timbl> addressing the need for an abbreviated > URI format in non-XML > > <timbl> languages, or new XML languages, or new > contexts within old XML > > <timbl> languages, where _only_ such > abbreviated forms are allowed. That > > <timbl> is, a position taken _against_ any > > <timbl> possibility the CURIEs might be used > where URIs are called for in > > <timbl> XML languages today. It would though > have to acknowledge the possible negative > > <timbl> consequences of success in going down > this path, namely that > > <timbl> ordinary users will not understand that > the [-CURIE is not a > > <timbl> universal alternative to URIs, and will > start using them in" > > <ht> How about this: "The TAG has not converged > in its discussion about the pros and cons of the [-CURIE and > its proposed use. We will working on input for you on that > issue -- in the meantime please do not assume that silence > gives consent with respect to that aspect of the draft." > > SW: Raman, could you support the msg except item 3 > > <Stuart> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069 > > <timbl> How about " acknowledge the possible > negative consequences of success in going down this path, > namely that ordinary users will not understand that the > [-CURIE is not a universal alternative to URIs, and will > start using them in existing languages where URIs are > expected, causing tools to break and users to be frustrated." > > <Norm> Say nothing? > > SW: The question is -- can we agree on the rest > of the draft except item 3? > > TVR: I wd object to item 1 because it seems to > say we have not had a conversation with them. > > Discussion > > TVR: I can live with item 1 > ... I can live with item 2 > ... I think item 4 is a good thing to say > > <Norm> I'm sensitive to Raman's comment on > point 1, I'd be in favor of making it clear that we aren't > asking for *our* clarification but for clarification *in the spec*. > > HT: I believe the remaining items are > editorial. But I will check. > > <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to propose a > replacement for 3 in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html > > <jar> +1 re placeholder for section 3, > everything else can be sent > > Tim reads out above > > <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to say I think the TAG > should make points 1, 2, and 4 > > SW: Any more discussion of Tim's revision? > > <jar> +1 re Tim's version > > SW: Proposes "TAG have reached consensus to > adopt HT and JAR's original proposal with item 3 changed as > per Tim's revision" > > No objection > > <timbl> Tim's revision -- > http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html? > > <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to send final text HTML > WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-128 - Send final > text HTML WG [on Stuart Williams - due 2008-04-03]. > > <jar> "safe curie" > > > Item 4 Issue 35 RDFinXHTML > > > Norm: I had some high-level questions and I > wanted to ask if TAG wanted to discuss them > > <timbl> I feel that there should be a policy of > trying to guide the (x)HTML family of languages so that they > can be managed as one in the future, with an adapter layter > > Norm: What will the world do if RDfa spec by > XHTML2 does not beocome part of HTML5 > > How do we feel abt redefinition of attributes > like rel and rev? > > <timbl> rel= and rev= > > Norm: Attributes declared to accept a URI or > CURIE but we have discussed this so I'm happy to drop it > > <Stuart> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0072 > > SW: Is the comment to make is to ask the 2 HTML > WGs to coordinate? > ... Norm, could you draft a partial comment? > > JAR: I sent my comments out personally ... I > have nothing to add > > <Stuart> ACTION: Norman to draft comment for > feedback of RDFa review [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-129 - Draft > comment for feedback of RDFa review [on Norman Walsh - due > 2008-04-03]. > > <jar> "virtual URI schemes" !? > > Tim: Shd we reinvestigate the idea that we shd > not distinguish between prefix's and scheme names? > > TimBL: Move QNames and URIs into same space > with one fell swoop > ... Getting compatibility will take work ... > you want it as an extension to URI spec ... don't want > languages inventing indepently > > SW: Do we have all the comments we want to make > on the RDFa call? > ... We shd review media-type, frag-id > interaction wrt HTML and RDFa > > TimBL: Is there an ambiguity there? > > SW: I shd go look at this more closely > > <timbl> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/200 8Mar/0297 > > > Bristol travel arrangements > > > SW: I will put up a logistics page > > Noah: If you could just send mail with hotels > > <timbl> SW: HP labs is on the N edge of > Bristol, but you might not want to stay there ... downtown > Briston is more interesting, especially for walks in the evening. > > <timbl> ... We would need a taxi to pick you up > in the morning. > > <timbl> 100 miles from LHR > > <timbl> 1.5-2hs drive > > <timbl> Or train to Paddington (15mins every > 15ins) then train to Bristol. > > <timbl> £140 for a pickup by car > > <timbl> "Rail air link is bus to Reading then > mainline to Brisol parkwy/Temple Meads" > > <timbl> 1.5 hrs train, every hour > > <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc.txt > > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: Henry S, Norm, Dave -- revise > minutes from f2f with Jonathan's changes [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc] > [NEW] ACTION: Norman to draft comment for > feedback of RDFa review [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc] > [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to send final text HTML WG > [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc] > > [End of minutes] > > ________________________________ > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl > <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc .htm> version 1.133 (CVS log > <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/> ) > $Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 $ > ________________________________ > > > > Be seeing you, > norm > > > > > > -- > All the best, Ashok > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 16:08:31 UTC