See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Chris
Stuart: WebArch PR is out!
Woohoo!
... Focus this week is media types
DanC moves to adjourn on lack of quorum
<DanC> I didn't actually so move
sorry, I thought you did
<DanC> I'm at risk for the 15th due to family foo
Stuart: Who can make next week
Paul: Checking
Chris: Can't make it, f2f
Paul: Can make it
Stuart: should we have the meeting
Paul: offer to chair
Stuart: can you do the agenda
Paul: Yes, may need a little help
Stuart: Chair for f2f meeting
DanC: Offers to do floor control but not to do an Agenda
Paul: Suggests Norm and Paul, will discuss in next 24 hours
Stuart: Can attend remotely, phone or video
Paul: Do we have detailed arrangements for f2f?
DanC: not completely
PaulC: Should we switch to MIT video conf if available?
Stuart: Can attend overlap in working day plus a little early evening
<DanC> " 29 November, Stata Center, D507; 30 November, Stata Center, 346" -- an internal page
TimBL: We have voip and isdn set up, in Stata center, one particular room set up
<scribe> ACTION: Paul look into Stata center video facilities
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart to determine video facilities at his end
Stuart: Scribe for next week?
DanC: at risk for next week
Roy: At Apachecon, may be able to attend, not scribe
Stuart: leave scribe for now
<scribe> ACTION: Norm and Paul, do meeting page and consider split chairing
Stuart: accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/0163.html as true record?
DanC: did Norm have an action there?
No, it turns out
No objections, so resolved
Paul: While doing monthly report,
issues were not up to date, Chris reminded me of a finding we had
issued. public uses that list, had to track through minutes
... Important to make a conscious decision how to track ongoing
work
... Ian used to do this, what do we do now.
DanC: Ian suggested taking the HTML and edit it, to include decisions
Paul? Pointer to the most recent finding?
DanC: not sure
Stuart: There is a separate findings page
<DanC> (the findings page was created against my advice. hmm.)
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
DanC: (scribe missed)
Paul: Dan and Chris are splitting some of the things Ian did?
Chris: Offers to update findings page if needed
Stuart: No one is familiar with the exit system Ian was using
DanC: We could just create HTML
Stuart: Someone needs to look after it
DanC: willing to split task with Chris
Chris: OK
Stuart: Thanks for most recent monthly report, Paul
Paul: Slides for AC meeting, what did we decide to do slides or to give up the slot and do a brief report
DanC: I recall we did, yes
Paul: So if no slot, don't need slides
Stuart: Yes, I recall now
<DanC> "There was little support for doing a TAG panel at the AC." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#tagac
Paul: We want time on TP but AC is all up to date on WebArch review
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart: respond to Ians request for slides clarifying we don't expect a panel slot
Stuart: no progress this week
DanC: Double booked, Data Access and TAG
Stuart; for TP we were flexible about when on Mon/Tue but not on moving to Thu/Fri; only want half a day
Paul: Does it still make sense?
Chris: Yes, starting work on AWWW 2.0
Stuart: And introducing new TAG members
Stuart: Now out for AC review
... Need to track review comments
Paul: Thanks the Team for the review comments before AC review
<paulc> Thanks to team for their feedback on TAG charter comments.
<Noah> Noah thanks Ian and others for, prior to the AC review, attending to some of the concerns that I and IBM had raised.
Paul: what about editorial comments ?
DanC: Transition meeting was
90minutes plus, lots of discussion
... Deadline is closing a couple days earlier, apart from that same
as the plan of record
... Comm Team decided not to extend after AC meeting
... comments , will deal with in due course
Dan: sent mail, please look at it
Stuart: leave for next week
DanC: Agenda request, specific comments on PR
<scribe> ACTION: Paul put discussion of PR comments on the agenda next week
Chris: where does call for testimonials go?
DanC: Its in the WBS form, already done
Chris: OK, my concern that we ask in time
Paul: Testimonials from non W3C Members, eg Roy?
DanC: Roy would be an easily arguable exception to this
Roy: Okay
DanC: Although from Day, that might relate to whether/when they join W3C
Dan: Translations of AWWW
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
Chris: (explains Ivan Hermans translation RDF swoopers thingy)
Stuart: How do they happen?
Chris: mailing list for this
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byTechnology?technology=27-pubrules-html
<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag.html#plan234
Chris: Does WBS ask for multilingual
testimonials? We do not ever translate testimonials
... Useful to clarify this
ACTION; Chris to edit WBS form to clarify we invite multilingual testimonials
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to edit WBS form to clarify we invite multilingual testimonials
Stuart: Anything else to do?
DanC: Scare up testimonials and
reviews is always a good idea
... hope that comments can be justified in terms of decisions
already made
<DanC> (ftf BRS where timbl attended remotely is where we figured out "namespace document" text, says PC. thx)
(discussion of canada/us curency wrt Paul and Dan's bet)
<DanC> (webarch call for review WBS form is http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webarch200411/ , member-only, fyi)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/0027.html
Chris: I sent a mail shortly before the telcon
<DanC> wow! what a collection of code-words! "3023 update (was Re: Agenda TAG Telcon: 8th Nov 2004)"
Chris: (reads mail)
DanC: "xml encoding declaration and
the charset (if supplied) should match" needs to be a MUST
Chris: (talks to fast to minute, but most is in the email)
<scribe> ACTION: Roy, point to a constraint on registering media types not to duplicate information easily discoverable from content
Roy: Security checkers have to understand both and enforce both
TimBL: At root, is XML a sequence of
characters or a sequence of self describing bytes
... Very nice that XML is self describing in that way, defines as a
sequence of bytes, self describing character encoding
Chris: Much easier on authoring tools to deal with a single in band mechanism rather than an undocumented, per server, out of band mechanism
Paul: WebArch 1 and Finding both say the charset param is authoritative so rewriting is needed when saving to disk
Start AWWW says its an error if they disagree
<DanC> (I heard Stuart refer to "our finding", not AWWW)
Chris: concerned with DSig and UTF-8 as required by canonical XML ; proxies should not break signed content
<Roy> http://www.docbook.org/specs/cd-docbook-docbook-4.3.html#media-type-registration
<Roy> oops
Instructions to subscribe
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/index.html
So this is the issue that impacts WebDAV
<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#putMediaType-38
TimBL: WebDAV works on bits, including a filename, no metadata is transferred
Roy: distinguishes between save and sending properties
DanC; Can we get QA to look at this and see what implementations do
<DanC> CL: there seem to be 2 ways to update the web:
<DanC> ... W3C seems to advocate updating with PUT, while the rest of the world seems to use ftp/scp to update the bits, and the metadata gets done some other way
<DanC> ... WEBDAV seems to be a protocol for automating the latter model
<DanC> ... [missed some]... [something] lets you transfer a MIME type and then throws it away.
WebDAV throws it away
<DanC> ... Jigsaw handles this better: makes an exception [missed some]
<DanC> RF: the WebDAV protocol doesn't say to throw away the media type. it's unfortunate that some servers to that.
Jigsaw lets you send metadata, and makes a per-resource override if needed so that the requested media type is in fact used
Chris: gets the impression some email discussion on this would help
DanC: who cares? Is this architecture or software engineering
Stuart: so is it implemented consistently?
DanC: we need more implementation experience to discuss this
Stuart: Straw poll on asking qawg
<DanC> a few in favor
<DanC> no-one spoke actively against (the poll faded out a bit)
Roy: might be moot or overtaken by metadata and URIs. Generalized to ref to metadata in messages, not just requests or one type of request. Already covered?
Stuart: Or content-type override
<scribe> ACTION: Chris explain in more detail in email about ftf model vs put model wrt metadata and what is being modelled; one resource or the start and end of a workflow
Meeting adjourned at t+79