See also: proposed Agenda, IRC log
VQ: agenda comments?
later, errata maintenance and issues list maintenance were added to the agenda
<DanC_> 23 Aug minutes
VQ: I made a small change re attendance 23 Aug
RESOLUTION: to approve 23 Aug minutes
<DanC_> minutes 12 July
RESOLUTION: to approve 12 July minutes.
VQ: upcoming telcons... grid...
NDW: I'm willing to scribe next week.
VQ: if I can't find Roy, then yes, please.
<timbl_> Regrests for 6th Sept and 13th
<timbl_> Also, Regrets for 4th October
<timbl_> Also, regrets for 8 and (29 is AC meeting) November
<ht> HST regrets for 13 September
HT: still working on getting somebody from [missed] to our ftf
VQ: agenda page is in
progress
... meeting goals? our June meeting focussed on long-term
plans...
... perhaps try to close some issues this time?
DanC: re authentication, I'm
prepared to discuss, but not sure I'll get my writing
assignment done
... e.g. openid
HT: sounds plausible
... I have an XML 2005 paper in progress that's relevant to a
number of issues/actions on languages/namespaces/etc.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ... re URI scheme and certain vendors
VQ: see also next item for today
DanC: maybe namespaceDocument-8...
Ed: let's review priorities from
Jun ftf...
... e.g. grid
<DanC_> minutes June ftf in Cambridge
DanC: seems like we had several lists; do you remember which one?
VQ: I think so
Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists ... From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:33 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: 'Guidelines and Registration Procedures for new URI...
<timbl_> Draft of Formal TAG Last Call Comment on RFC2717bis/RFC2718bis
RESOLUTION: to send Comment on RFC2717bis/RFC2718bis as above in the name of the TAG to the IESG and the authors, with copy to uri@w3.org and www-tag@w3.org with follow-up directed to uri@w3.org
<scribe> ACTION: HT to send TAG comments on URI guidelines and registration procedures to the IETF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
DanC: I'd like to be more explicit, a la "The dav: scheme is a poor use of this valuable shared resource, and should not be used as a precedent."
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to send individual comment on dav: to ietf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
<DanC_> Revisiting namespaceDocument-8 Norman Walsh (Friday, 24 June)
NDW: yes, there was some
discussion...
... (a) JB objects to GRDDL alone on the basis that it doesn't
ensure human-readability
... (b) [missed]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask for a particular namespace to focus on... xquery? xml schema? hypothetical-ml?
<ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
<Norm> adaptation of XML Schema namespace document using GRDDL and RDDL 1.0
<Norm> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl2.xml adaptation of XML Schema namespace document using GRDDL and "RDDL 2"
DanC: yes, let's focus on http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
HT: so which...?
NDW: backing up... we've
considered alternatives to RDDL 1.0, but since then RDDL 1.0
deployment is becoming more and more substantial; e.g.
microsoft...
... and we have GRDDL that can work either way...
... yes, 2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml is written in the dialect
with large deployment
DanC: so is that "valid"?
HT: well, it's valid modular XHTML, but that's not supported by validat.w3.org
DanC: so text/xml by design?
NDW: well, I meant meant application/xhtml+xml
(try .htaccess, maybe)
$ HEAD 'http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/23-rddl/rddl1.xml'
Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9
DanC: so which media types are preferred? acceptable? for RDDL, application/xhtml+xml ? is application/xml ok?
HT: I think the answer is the
same as for XHTML. so no, not application/xml
... applicatin/xml is acceptable in some circumstances, e.g.
when the client asks for it
DanC: so what exactly are the URIs in the RDDL vocabulary?
<Norm> http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation
<Norm> http://www.rddl.org/purpose
<ns0:purpose xmlns:ns0="http://www.rddl.org/"
<Norm> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd
<DanC_> I get 404 @ http://www.rddl.org/purpose
DanC: 4xx conflicts with "should make respresentation available". 2xx conflicts with our decision on httpRange-14
NDW: namespace names interact with deployed RDDL...
DanC: well, not necessarily the RDF output
NDW: right
DanC: so W3C namespace policy... could we have a W3C REC for RDDL that endorses http://www.rddl.org/purpose?
<ht> After some effort, hst concludes that norm's rddl1 example is identical the the existing XMLSchema namespace document plus GRDDL link, so, I will edit in those changes so the namespace doc't can be used for testing . . .
TimBL: ah... hmm... we'd need
assurance that rddl.org has similar policies as w3.org; e.g.
that if they go poof W3C could take it over.
... not sure that's existing W3C policy yet
<DanC_> URIs for W3C Namespaces
<Norm> Note, ht, that my grddl XSL stylesheet has no normative weight so I think it may be premature to add it to the official Schema namespace
<ht> RDDL has no normative weight, but it's been at the namespace URI for years!
<Norm> Fair enough
<ht> All this stuff is there to encourage experimentation, IMHO
"For Recommendation Track documents, the persistence policy for the namespace MUST use the template shown below."
several: seems quite reasonable to keep rddl.org in the namespace name, though yes, W3C policy as written conflicts with that so far.
VQ: this reminds me of "Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc" action from http://www.w3.org/2005/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
TimBL: yes, that's in progress...
<timbl_> Ian's latest draft
v 1.25 2005/08/18 15:08:07
TimBL: see esp new material in 4. Namespace Changes over Time
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say I think I'm in sync with ndw's draft on ns8
DanC: I wonder about depending on other than text/html ...
<DanC_> GRDDL namespace doc, which is XHTML 1.x
HT: RDDL 1.0 supports DTD-based validation...
DanC: I could do class/rel stuff ala microformats... with relax-ng if you like
NDW: JB suggests RDDL 1.0 or the attribute-based thing...
HT: if we have the GRDDL wildcard, do we need another RDDL dialect besides 1.0?
DanC: no
<Ed> Ed agrees.. we dont need 2.0
NDW: so RDDL 1.0, or other human-readable with GRDDL [that's what I wanted to hear; not sure that's what he said]
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
<scribe> ACTION: NDW to follow-up on namespaceDocument-8, based on DanC's vanilla XHTML example [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
VQ: plan to close at the ftf? or take more time?
NDW: well, provided we get the writing and the feedback, let's try to close it. but there's considerable risk in that schedule
DanC: yeah.
<timbl_> Ian's latest draft
v 1.25 2005/08/18 15:08:07
<scribe> ACTION: Tim to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
no news on David Orchard to contextualize his scenarios ...
<scribe> ACTION: David Orchard to contextualize his scenarios, such as more on what is happening with SOAP and WSDL. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
VQ: done? HT: prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion
HT: that was for the previous
[June] ftf
... hmm... I need to check back with the XML Schema WG about
pointing to the p element, but as for this action, pls consider
it closed.
VQ: very well
<scribe> ACTION: HT to prepare abstractComponentRefs materials for ftf discussion [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
<DanC_> httpRange-14
DC: httpRange-14 isn't closed in the issues list...
VQ: yes, that's straightforward for me to fix
<Norm> proposed errata
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask that we please don't maintain errata numbers other than information in the message, e.g. message-ids, subjects, dates
DC: in particular, I don't want a state in between "message made it to the archive" and "request is in our queue".
<Norm> ACTION: Norm to find better numbers for the errata [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
PROPOSED: to acknowledge that Typo in Status , Typo in Status, Missing anchor messages report actual problems
so RESOLVED.
<Norm> ACTION: Norm ot produce an erratum document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc]
<ht> I note that the Schema WG has agreed that they will distinguish between errata and corrigenda, henceforth