W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2008

Re: TAG minutes from 11th September 2008

From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:28:34 -0700
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A21F20F7-4DD0-4A5A-8DDA-1339048C4F0C@wingaa.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>

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 16:29:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:06 GMT