John, Thanks, yes that could have been clearer, things got played out of order. My "That's not the proposal" was recorded by the scribe with the incantation from <jar> "/me'd" into the log which means it does not propagate into the meeting record. To help the scribe <jar> reincanted his utterance out of order (as noted) to which the 'That's *not* the proposal" was my response. > > SKW: That's not the proposal > > > > <jar> (Out of order) saying "[14]http://xri.*/*" are XRIS > is same as > > saying "[15]http://*/ark:*" are ARKs ... > > > > [14] http://xri.*/* > > [15] http://*/ark:* > > > > <ht> And I think there is _some_ room to argue that both of these > > are OK, if not ideal Apologies for any confusion caused - we should have reordered that in the published (draft) record. BR Stuart -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England > -----Original Message----- > From: John Bradley [mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com] > Sent: 16 September 2008 17:29 > To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: TAG minutes from 11th September 2008 > > > I just want to clarify that when David boot and I refer to > URI prefix > we are defiantly not talking about the DNS sub-domain as > indicated in > the minutes. > > A URI prefix must follow the chain of authority. > http://xri.*/* is not following the DNS chain of authority and > though used as an example in the current XRI spec, it is not > part of > the proposal. > > The booth+bradley proposal requires URI prefixes in the form: > http://*.xri/* (if registering a new TLD) > http://*.xri.net/* (if using the existing proxy domain) > http://thing-described-by.org (if using David's thing described by > sub-scheme) > > I agree that the examples > > [14] http://xri.*/* > > [15] http://*/ark:* > > > Are not ideal and at least on the the XRI side we have moved beyond > that. > > Some discussion we have had regarding a way of doing "Dynamic booth > +bradley" may work well with the existing ARK syntax. > That however is a separate topic. > > Regards > John Bradley > > On 16-Sep-08, at 8:34 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > > > > > Draft minutes from our meeting of 11th September 2008 are > available > > in plain text below and at: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/11-minutes > > > > My thanks to our scribe. > > > > Best regards > > > > Stuart Williams > > -- > > Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, > > Berks RG12 1HN > > Registered No: 690597 England > > = > > = > > = > > = > > = > > = > > = > > = > > = > > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > [1]W3C > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > > > - DRAFT - > > > > TAG Weekly Telcon > > > > 11 Sep 2008 > > > > [2]Agenda > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/11-agenda > > > > See also: [3]IRC log > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-tagmem-irc > > > > Attendees > > > > Present > > Stuart_Williams, Jonathan_Rees, T.V._Raman, Henry_Thompson, > > Ashok_Malhotra, Dan_Connolly, Dave_Orchard, Noah_Mendelsohn > > > > Regrets > > Noah, Norm, DaveO(partial) > > > > Chair > > Stuart Williams > > > > Scribe > > Ashok Malhotra > > > > Contents > > > > * [4]Topics > > 1. [5]Convene > > 2. [6]binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30) > > 3. [7]UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50) > > 4. [8]Self-Describing Web > > 5. [9]F2F Agenda > > 6. [10]abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56) > > * [11]Summary of Action Items > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > <skw> Scribe: Ashok Malhotra > > > > Convene > > > > <scribe> scribenick: Ashok > > > > No comments on agenda > > > > Resolution: Minutes from Sep 4 approved > > [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-tagmem-minutes > > > > [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-tagmem-minutes > > > > Next week call a risk. Regets from Tim. Stuart may not be able to > > make it > > > > HT: Use the time to read our documents > > > > Cancel next week's meeting > > > > <jar> +1 use the time to read > > > > Next meeting f2f > > > > Raman: If we are serious abt this, all TAG members should read the > > HTML spec > > > > DanC: Please let's finish reading list and Agenda for f2f > > > > binaryXML-30 (ISSUE-30) > > > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to acknowledge my EXI actions > > > > HT: I will read these on the 'plane and make a recommendation on > > what we should do > > > > DanC: Last, we said tell us how you are better than gzip > > > > HT: That's where we are, the ball is bak in our court. > > > > SKW: We will discuss this again at our FTF. > > > > UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50) > > > > <DanC> (though Dec sounds wierd... I thought our request was since > > Dec) > > > > HT: I'm working on a new document. Shd have it ready > middle on next > > week > > > > <DanC> close action-167 > > > > <trackbot> ACTION-167 S to start a thread on non-DNS authority > > resolution on www-tag closed > > > > DanC: What's happening with XRIs? > > > > SKW: Summarizes situation > > > > We have not had a formal proposal saying would you be > happy with ... > > > > SKW: We had a discussion on how the discussion was going > > > > <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to check whether skw meant it > when he said > > "prefix", since DNS names go least-significant-first > > > > <DanC> does either booth or bradly advocate an actual prefix? > > > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say there's one thing we will need to > > chase no matter what > > > > <ht> Abstract Identifier document: > > [13]http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture > > > > [13] > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture > > > > SKW: That's not the proposal > > > > <jar> (Out of order) saying "[14]http://xri.*/*" are XRIS > is same as > > saying "[15]http://*/ark:*" are ARKs ... > > > > [14] http://xri.*/* > > [15] http://*/ark:* > > > > <ht> And I think there is _some_ room to argue that both of these > > are OK, if not ideal > > > > Self-Describing Web > > > > Noah has incorporated feedback from Norm and SKW: > > > > SKW: Norm and I would be supportive of publication > > > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask a question > > > > ht: In a discussion with a student I realized ... > > > > <ht> I believe the following: "FYN works iff every party to the > > story is a) publically accountable > > > > <ht> and b) aware of the dependency of the FYN story on their part > > of it. > > > > <ht> " > > > > <DanC> I think you can follow-your-nose into policies and > such that > > aren't world-readable > > > > DanC: I would not say 'publically accounatable" > > > > HT: The parties have to be publically accountable > > > > SKW: The draft does not say this > > > > HT: I would like to discuss this > > > > SKW: Pl. send comment > > > > DanC: I disagree for 3 reasons > > > > <DanC> (I ran out after 2) > > > > <DanC> (1) need not be world-readable > > > > <DanC> (2) the URI for text/plain isn't actually critical path > > > > <DanC> ... currently > > > > <DanC> (though it's nice that the text/plain full URI is > in an RFC) > > > > HT: I will send mail on this > > > > <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to think about whether RDFa is critical > > path: if we leave it aside, what's the audience/purpose? and to > > > > DanC: How can we finish without RDFa story? > > ... I'm not sure story holds up > > > > SKW: can we document missing link and encourage them to put it in > > place. > > > > <skw> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda > > > > [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda > > > > F2F Agenda > > > > SKW: Talks about the f2f agenda. Thanks Raman for his help > > > > DanC: I would like to negotiate the reading list now > > > > <DanC> I hear from skw: urnsregs, binaryxml, html*, > > > > <DanC> digest of ? > > > > SKW: Should read binary XML specs, HTML spec, collected digest of > > refernces from Raman's thread > > > > <DanC> self-describing web draft > > > > <DanC> passwords in the clear > > > > Self-describing Web, Password in Clear, Versioning > > > > <DanC> versioning revision from david > > > > Need two readers for Binary XML, HT is one. > > > > URNsAndRegistries-50 ... HT writing paper. Due Tuesday. > Shd be read > > by f2f > > > > <DanC> * tim's bit > > > > HT: We should all have read Tim's paper > > > > <skw> also had an explicit request from David for Jar's formal > > treatment... > > > > <ht> s/alll/all/ > > > > <DanC> "the document"... one document on versioning? > > > > <DanC> DO nominates JAR's formalism > > > > DaveO: What is new is Jonathan's formalism. Recommend people read > > this by f2f > > > > <DanC> DO: key chapter is ch5 > > > > DaveO: Please review Chapter 5. That is new and is key > > > > <DanC> HT nominates SVG and HTML thread from > public-html... a dozen > > messages > > > > HT: Read SVG and HTML thread. Read 10 msgs and get a > feeling of the > > context > > > > <DanC> TVR 2nds... long thread... read for motivations > > > > <DanC> (looks like TVR's agenda input subsumes HT's suggestion to > > read a thread) > > > > TVR: Read HTML spec with a view thru the structuring lens > I proposed > > > > JR: Is there a document that tells why W3C got involved in html5 > > > > <noah> Are you discussing reading list? > > > > <jar> > > [17]http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture > > > > [17] > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture > > > > <jar> ? > > > > DanC: I can point to formal mataerial but that's not what you want > > > > <DanC> on mime types... a section of the html spec > > > > <DanC> pwinc fri > > > > <noah> Friday's OK if short, I think. > > > > <DanC> (thanks; I was just gonna ask for irc convirmation) > > > > Noah: Are we all supposed to read whole HTML spec? > > > > <DanC> nm nominates thread on meeting goals > > > > Noah: Please read thread on Tag Soup > > > > HT: Norm is not coming to Kansas City > > > > <skw> I think that the thread Noah referred to is based at: > > [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Aug/0019.html > > > > [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Aug/0019.html > > > > DanC: I will send mail before EOD after editing agenda page > > > > Possible topic GenricResources-53 > > > > Content negotiation and Abstract Documents > > > > Not on agenda currently. You can lobby me. > > > > TVR: Steve said he was pulling in my TPAC proposal > > > > abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56) > > > > SKW: Asks abt status of CURIE comments > > > > <DanC> (anybody have a summary of the comment? the > subject line was > > a generic "comments on X") > > > > Noah: That's for responder to say > > > > SKW: Summarizez comments > > > > Editorial: Qnames never inted as attribute values. Some discussion > > on this > > > > <DanC> (pls promote that "main substantive comment" to the subject > > line) > > > > SKW: Definition of XML Schema datatype > > > > <ht> Please remember that we have already fed back on this point, > > see > > > [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0 > > 014.html > > > > [19] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar > /0014.html > > > > <skw> ? > > > > AM: Noah you had a comment on lack of clarity between > CURIE and URI > > where there is ambiguity > > > > Noah: I sent this as a personal comment. If no objection, > I can add > > to my note > > > > <jar> the whole point of safecurie was so that they can be put in > > uri contexts > > > > <DanC> yes, now that I understand the comment, it seems > to miss the > > point of safecuries > > > > <noah> Well, it hijacks the use of [ in everyone's languages. > > > > Raman: I'm uncomfotable with this. We need to allow new syntax in > > old contexts > > > > jar: If there was no intention of extensing URI content > there would > > be no SafeCURIEs > > > > <jar> RDFa already would violate a prohibition on safecuries. It's > > too late to prohibit safecuries > > > > HT: We should be careful abt distinguishing between CURIE's and > > SafeCURIES > > > > <DanC> <ht> Please remember that we have already fed back on this > > point, see > > > [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0 > > 014.html > > > > [20] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar > /0014.html > > > > HT: We should not go back on that advice > > > > TVR: The way Noah phrased it it sets a very high bar for > new syntax > > > > <jar> Two questions here! (1) CURIEs in URI contexts? (No.) (2) > > SafeCURIEs in URI contexts? (RDFa requires.) > > > > <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say implying safecuries can be used in > > existing languages where URIs are expected hijacks the use of [ in > > those languages. > > > > Noah: Explains his POV ... I should open my spec to other syntax > > > > <jar> relative URIs can start with [, yes? > > > > They should make clear that these things are not URis > > > > DaveO: Supports Noah. CURIEs cannot be wedged into existing > > specifiactions > > > > <jar> I repeat: There are two questions here! (1) CURIEs in URI > > contexts? (No.) (2) SafeCURIEs in URI contexts? (RDFa requires.) > > > > <DanC> jar, does RDFa use <a href="[safecuri]">? I see deployment > > problems there. > > > > <skw> [21]http://www.w3.org/mid/48B810F4.60807@aptest.com > > > > [21] http://www.w3.org/mid/48B810F4.60807@aptest.com > > > > DaveO: Must specify how CURIEs and URI are disambiguated > > > > <jar> no, but it allows safecuries in other uri contexts, > I believe. > > will check. > > > > <DanC> ok. deployment considerations for a/@href are somewhat > > special > > > > TVR: XSLT uses { } is attribute value templates. Use of a special > > character > > > > <jar> ok, URIorSafeCURIE only occurs in attributes that are newly > > added by RDFa > > > > <noah> I did propose text to Shane on 8/29: > > > > <noah> <proposed> > > > > <noah> CURIEs and safe-CURIEs map to IRIs, but neither a > CURIE nor a > > safe-CURIE > > > > <noah> <italic>is</italic> an IRI or URI. Accordingly, CURIEs and > > safe-CURIEs > > > > <noah> MUST NOT be used as values for attributes that are > specified > > to contain > > > > <noah> only URIs, IRIs, URI-references, IRI-references, etc. > > Specifications for > > > > <noah> particular attribute values or other content MAY be written > > to allow > > > > <noah> either CURIEs or IRIs (or URIs, etc.). The > specifications for > > such > > > > <noah> languages MUST provide rules for disambiguition in > situations > > where the > > > > <noah> same string could be interpreted as either a CURIE > or an IRI. > > One way to > > > > <noah> do this is to require that all CURIEs be expressed as > > safe-CURIEs, > > > > <noah> implying that all unbracketed strings are to be interpreted > > as IRIs. > > > > <noah> </proposed> > > > > TVR: I'm mostly OK with this. > > > > <DanC> x:y > > > > JAR: I'm bothered by saying "CURIES are not IRIs". There are > > bstrings that are both. > > > > <DanC> noodling... "neither every CURIE nor every safe-CURIE > > <italic>is</italic> an IRI or URI" > > > > Noah: I will put this in a note to the TAG list and people can > > comment > > > > <noah> So, Stuart, what's the next step on the response. > > > > SKW: Let's conclude on email. > > > > <noah> SKW: Noah to redraft considering Stuart's proposal > on intent > > of qnames and add 8/29 draft text on using CURIEs where URIs > > expected > > > > SKW: DanC, any progress on 171 > > > > Dan: No. > > > > <DanC> p.s. any hosting issues? > > > > <DanC> hmm... decisions decisions... > > > > <DanC> collect all preparation materials in one place in the > > agenda... > > > > <DanC> or tuck them under the relevant items? > > > > <DanC> I lean toward tucking, so far > > > > <DanC> hmm... how to do a crawl-and-zip...? > > > > Summary of Action Items > > > > [End of minutes] > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.128 > > ([23]CVS log) > > $Date: 2008/09/15 15:05:41 $ > > > > [22] > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > > [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > > > > > >Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 16:43:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:24 UTC