19:51:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:55:04 <Chris> Chris has joined #tagmem
20:00:07 <Noah> Noah has joined #tagmem
20:00:10 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
20:00:17 <Zakim> +Roy_Fielding
20:00:30 <Zakim> +[IBMCambridge]
20:00:40 <Noah> zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
20:00:40 <Zakim> +Noah; got it
20:00:57 <Chris> zakim, passcode
20:00:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'passcode', Chris
20:01:09 <Chris> zakim, this will be tag
20:01:09 <Zakim> ok, Chris, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started
20:01:12 <Chris> zakim, passcode?
20:01:12 <Zakim> the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Chris
20:01:19 <Zakim> +Stuart
20:01:44 <Zakim> +Chris
20:01:59 <Chris> Stuart, hit reload on your agenda
20:02:05 <roy_scribe> roy_scribe has joined #tagmem
20:02:31 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:02:43 <pbc> pbc has joined #tagmem
20:02:45 <Chris> Zakim, Microsoft holds Paul
20:02:45 <Zakim> sorry, Chris, I do not recognize a party named 'Microsoft'
20:03:31 <Chris> rrsagent, pointer?
20:03:31 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2004/12/06-tagmem-irc#T20-03-31
20:03:58 <Chris> Scribe: Chris
20:04:04 <Chris> Chair: Stuart
20:04:16 <Stuart> zakim, who is here?
20:04:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Roy_Fielding, Noah, Stuart, Chris, [Microsoft]
20:04:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see pbc, Roy, Noah, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
20:04:18 <Chris> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/12/06-tag.html
20:04:40 <timbl> timbl has joined #tagmem
20:04:44 <DanC> DanC has joined #tagmem
20:04:52 <Zakim> +DanC
20:05:05 <Zakim> +TimBL
20:05:31 <timbl> Zakim, who is here?
20:05:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Roy_Fielding, Noah, Stuart, Chris, [Microsoft], DanC, TimBL
20:05:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see DanC, timbl, pbc, Roy, Noah, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
20:05:43 <Chris> Stuart: Regrets for upcoming telcons, please say if these are not accurate
20:06:08 <Chris> Noah will scribe on 13th Dec
20:06:24 <Chris> Stuart: Minutes OK?
20:06:30 <Chris> Paul: Fine by me
20:06:33 <Chris> no objections
20:06:45 <Chris> Resolved: approve minutes of 22 Nov
20:07:03 <Chris> Stuart: Minutes of f2f not ready yet, in progress
20:07:35 <Chris> Topic: AC Meeting feedback
20:08:08 <Chris> TimBL announced that Stuart would not be running 
20:08:39 <Chris> Asked for feedback, not very much
20:09:00 <Chris> Some private feedback on report and slides. No new action items arising 
20:09:18 <Chris> Noah: Some people reported using the arch doc, that was gratifying
20:09:55 <Chris> Paul: Extensibility and Versioning came up several times at AC in various forms. Likely to be a TP agenda item
20:10:25 <Chris> ACTION: Stuart tak with David Ezell and Steve Bratt about extensibility and versioning
20:10:50 <Chris> Topic: Last Call on xml:id
20:11:14 <Chris> Chris: Seems good, thanks that they incorporated earlier feedback
20:12:00 <Chris> DanC: Suggested xml:id like  XInclude needs good testing
20:13:21 <Chris> (discussion of type reported by ID assignment)
20:14:23 <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#with-schema-validation
20:16:44 <Chris> Roy: some style issues, putting definitions of things in square brackets, don't like it personally
20:16:55 <Chris> Paul: I disagree there
20:18:00 <Chris> Stuart: OK but that is a style issue not technical
20:18:37 <Chris> (discussion of whether to close the issue - not yet_
20:19:30 <Chris> Stuart: OK to respond with 'no further comments'
20:19:46 <Chris> Dan: As longas it asks again about CR plans and testing
20:20:00 <Chris> Resoolved: No further comments except testing
20:20:14 <Chris> ACTION: Chris send response to Core about xml:id
20:20:17 <Roy> Under normal English, anything inside sqquare brackets can be removed -- they are non-normative statements.  Obviously, that is not the case here.  I suggest that the W3C ask a literature department (like Harvard or Chicago) what they think the document says, and perhaps suggest a more useful signage for definitions
20:20:30 <pbc> q+
20:20:31 <Chris> Topic: Review of QA WG Last call
20:20:47 <Stuart> ack pbc
20:20:54 <DanC> roy, that stylesheet is maintained in spec-prod@w3.org ; care to send your comment there? (not all W3C specs use that stylesheet)
20:20:56 <Chris> Stuart: Do we want to review the whole thing, or just the E&V part?
20:21:10 <Roy> sure, thanks for the pointer
20:21:11 <Chris> Paul: Didn't we askk them to review our E&V already?
20:21:27 <Chris> Paul: Suget we correlate the messages in both directions
20:21:41 <Chris> s/Suget/Suggest/
20:21:58 <Chris> Stuart: Whole document, or more scoped?
20:22:07 <Chris> Stuart: Who will review this?
20:22:16 <Chris> Paul: Constrain to E&V
20:23:00 <Chris> Paul: Their spec is fairly positive, good material
20:23:16 <DanC> q+
20:23:29 <Chris> ACTION: Paul to point QA at E&V and pass on TAG comments as we get them
20:23:56 <Stuart> ack DanC
20:23:58 <Chris> Dan: E&V finding - original issue is only XML vocabularies
20:24:12 <pbc> q+
20:24:13 <pbc> q+
20:24:20 <Chris> Dan: So shoul we look at just XML, or protocols and non XML formats?
20:25:16 <Chris> q+ to talk about non E&V stuff in qaframe
20:25:22 <Stuart> ack pbc
20:25:41 <Chris> Paul: Issue was not updated after Ottawa f2f were we agreed on a work plan issue is stale now
20:26:32 <Chris> Noah: OK so the records do not relect the minutes trail
20:27:03 <Chris> Nah: Good to revisit the whole issue, what its scope is, and do what Paul said cheking its consistent
20:27:05 <DanC> (I'm pretty sure the TAG hasn't made any decisions on extensibility/versioning)
20:27:19 <Chris> s/cheking/checking/
20:27:57 <Noah> s/Nah/Noah/
20:28:22 <Chris> ack Chris
20:28:22 <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to talk about non E&V stuff in qaframe
20:28:30 <Noah> q?
20:29:17 <pbc> Plan for Issue 41: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jul/0027.html
20:30:09 <Chris> Chris: also needs review of things likeconformance criteria (WebArch has none as agreed, might need to say why more clearly)
20:31:20 <Chris> ACTION: Chris together with Paul, create draft review of qaframe
20:32:26 <Chris> Paul: Jan 10 is target meeting for more E&V discussion
20:32:38 <Chris> ... and invite DO to that
20:32:44 <DanC> that's from memory, and PC isn't sure it's Jan 10
20:33:05 <Chris> Topic: WebArch publication
20:33:18 <Chris> Stuart: Proposal for 'Volume One'
20:33:32 <Chris> TimBL: Can't think of anything better
20:33:38 <Chris> Stuart: Part One?
20:33:57 <Chris> TimBL: Implies that the volumes are disjoint
20:34:21 <Chris> TimbL: Can bring out a second edition of volume One if needed
20:34:59 <timbl> s/edition/version/
20:35:23 <Chris> Noah: Provided the second version is clarifications rather than changes
20:35:37 <Chris> Stuart: any objections
20:35:40 <Chris> (none)
20:35:57 <Chris> Resolved: Change to Volume One
20:36:02 <DanC> (stuart took the 'action' there?)
20:36:24 <Chris> ACTION: Stuart tell Ian tha Volume One is fine
20:36:27 <Chris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Nov/0061.html
20:37:28 <Chris> Chris: This is ediorial, links to empty erratta and translations
20:37:54 <Chris> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/webarch-pressrelease.html.en
20:39:29 <DanC> s/announced/announces/. press releases are written in the ever-present tense (please).
20:39:33 <Noah> Is Janet still the right contact, as listed on the press release?
20:39:42 <DanC> I expect so, Noah
20:40:30 <DanC> her new title is something like "U.S. press officer"
20:41:57 <timbl> cliché:  "solve all the world's problems".    "describe anything like the full range of technology involved in the web today".
20:44:07 <Chris> (Chris describes the overall structure of the press release and the points being made)
20:44:40 <Chris> Noah: Worries over committingto "Volume Two' rather than, say 'SemWeb Arch Supplement" or whatever.
20:45:01 <Chris> Chris: "One or more subsequent volumes"
20:45:05 <pbc> q+
20:45:50 <Chris> Noah: "Future publications from the TAG will build on"
20:46:43 <Chris> Paul: Third title is bad, scrub 'world problems' be more positive
20:47:08 <DanC> (eek! "does not solve all of the world's problems" not in jest! indeed. let's rework)
20:47:32 <Chris> work continues on architectute, TAG will take experience from ""
20:47:38 <Chris> ... and agree with Noah
20:48:45 <Chris> Dan: impact on web users? none, snoring, or exciting news?
20:48:59 <Chris> TimBL: its not a final report, it should have an effect
20:49:29 <DanC> ("paint dries" is my comment more on the actual event than this text)
20:49:33 <Chris> ... need to get people reading it, use as course materials, already adopted by some courses, reference for building new technologies
20:50:30 <Chris> q+ to talk about other quotes and testimonials
20:50:41 <Chris> (Dan interviews TimBL)
20:50:44 <Stuart> q- pbc
20:52:12 <Chris> Stuart: This is the W3Cs first Architectural Recommendation. Loosely connect with 10 years?
20:52:23 <Chris> ..distills 10 years of experience
20:53:26 <Chris> (Dan interviews Paul)
20:53:46 <Chris> .. principles for people to build new internet standards and new web technologies
20:53:55 <Chris> ... web will continue to evolve
20:54:05 <Chris> (further discussions)
20:54:50 <Chris> TimBL: as web grows, new peopl eneed to get up to speed more quickly
20:55:16 <Chris> ws sw speech and multimodal, powerfulnew parts, need to understand existing architecture
20:55:22 <DanC> (somehow I think mixing in voice, mobile, etc. early in the press release will punch it up)
20:57:51 <timbl> Noah, where Chris had had 'had", had had "had had". "had had" had had the consensus of the tag.
20:58:00 <Chris> (Stuart interviews Dan)
20:58:35 <Chris> an: most of what you need to know in one place
20:58:41 <Chris> s/an/Dan
20:58:55 <Chris> Roy: Orthogonality is key principle
20:59:09 <DanC> "Volume one of the Web Architecture provides a basis as W3C begins integrating Voice browsing and mobile access with traditional technologies"
20:59:24 <DanC> (begins... voicexml 2.0 is already a REC. hmm.)
20:59:27 <Chris> Noah: URI as key naming principle, universal network
21:00:27 <DanC> q+ to answer stuart's #1 principle? question with: One Web
21:00:41 <Chris> ack Chris
21:00:41 <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to talk about other quotes and testimonials
21:00:56 <DanC> "so that you can change one without having to change another" <- good words
21:01:26 <DanC> "unprecedented scale" <- good words
21:01:29 <Chris> Noah: Web as network on unprecedented scale
21:01:48 <Stuart> +1 on good words
21:02:28 <Chris> TimBL: web is so big that adding to it needs to be done with understanding
21:02:37 <Stuart> extending without breaking
21:03:03 <DanC> (how to say the opposite of "if you change one part, the whole thing falls over")
21:03:06 <Chris> leveraging 
21:03:13 <Chris> standing on shoulders of giants
21:03:19 <DanC> too trite
21:03:52 <timbl> How one can add a new piece of technology on such a way as to constructively leverage the work which has been done by others.
21:04:02 <Chris> agree its too trite to use those words
21:04:06 <Stuart> ack Dan
21:04:06 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to answer stuart's #1 principle? question with: One Web
21:04:25 <pbc> Paul has to leave now.
21:04:27 <Stuart> Synergy
21:04:52 <Chris> Dan: If you add to the One web then its much better than trying to make a separate non interoperable part
21:05:05 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:05:06 <Chris> Paul: Startd bal rolling on testimonial
21:16:14 <Chris> (further discussion of plans for WebArch)
21:23:31 <Noah> Chris raises the editorial suggestions made by Noah
21:23:34 <Noah> Noah says he's seen Chris
21:23:44 <Noah> Noah says he's seen Chris's email response and is fine with everything suggested
21:24:11 <Noah> S/Chris's/Chris'/
21:24:15 <Chris> Dan: comment on clash with 3023
21:24:33 <Chris> Stuart: yes, we know, this is why 3023 is being revised. existingissue
21:25:49 <Chris> Roy: IESG made its decision on IRI based on publication of draft 11
21:26:17 <Stuart> q?
21:26:41 <Chris> ... now waiting on RFC editor
21:26:47 <Chris> rrsagent, pointer?
21:26:47 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2004/12/06-tagmem-irc#T21-26-47
21:28:16 <Zakim> -Roy_Fielding
21:28:18 <Zakim> -Chris
21:28:44 <DanC> hunting... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#IRIEverywhere-27
21:29:27 <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri.html
21:33:43 <Noah> zakim, who is here?
21:33:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see Noah, Stuart, DanC, TimBL
21:33:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see DanC, timbl, pbc, Noah, Chris, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stuart
21:33:53 <DanC> my comment on xquery and URIs: "why the special case for % in fn:escape-uri?" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0027.html
21:35:09 <Zakim> -Stuart
21:35:30 <Zakim> -TimBL
21:35:38 <Zakim> -Noah
21:35:45 <Zakim> -DanC
21:35:46 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
21:35:47 <Zakim> Attendees were Roy_Fielding, Noah, Stuart, Chris, [Microsoft], DanC, TimBL