W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2009

Minutes of TAG telcon 2009-05-28

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:50:00 +0100
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bmy8wyvpz.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Draft minutes are now available at

  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html

and as text below.

ht
- ----------------

                                   - DRAFT -

                                  TAG telcon

                                  28 May 2009

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, John Kemp, Ashok Malhotra, Larry
          Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jonathan Rees, Henry S. Thompson

   Regrets
          T. V. Raman

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Henry S. Thompson

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]Call for Exclusion wrt Client-Side URI params
         3. [7]F2F local arrangements
         4. [8]Agenda planning for F2F
         5. [9]Request  for TAG Consideration of XML Schema 1.1 (XSD 1.1)
            Candidate Recommendation
         6. [10]Security
         7. [11]Tag Soup Integration
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________

Admin

   Future Regrets: 4 June, jar; 4, 11, 18 June, LMM; 11 June, HST; 4 June,
   maybe, JK

   NM: Last week's minutes? [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-minutes

   HST: I have read and approved

   RESOLUTION: [14]Minutes approved as published

Call for Exclusion wrt Client-Side URI params

   NM: If and only if you personally have a patent to exclude/disclose, you
   must do something

   NM: Your company's patents are not relevant

   JK: Can we discuss my action to contact Sam Ruby wrt RDFa in HTML?
   ... should be quick

F2F local arrangements

   NM: Any admin questions:
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/06-f2f-local-arrangements.html

Agenda planning for F2F

   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271

   <noah> [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009May/0081.html

   NM: JAR and I took an action to draft a starting point

   <DanC> 0081 has Language versioning and evolution (focus on HTML), Web
   application state.

   NM: I reviewed our discussion at the last F2F, and went over the state of
   issues and actions

   NM: as well as TV's request to focus on one or two key goals
   ... So in the above email, I've set out a small number of top-priority
   items, which will potentially get multiple sessions, if needed
   ... as well as lower-priority items destined for shorter/fewer sessions

   NM: Two things in the big category at the moment:

   <noah> * Language versioning and evolution (focus on HTML)

   <noah> * Web application state

   <noah> Henry, we should remind people that you are going to move forward the
   Dirk/Nadia URI story

   DC: I'm always ready to talk about "Language versioning and evolution", but
   lack confidence we will make much progress
   ... Maybe LM will have something for us to work on

   LM: I've produced an outline, and expect to have a fuller document in time
   for the F2F

   <DanC> [18]Versioning and HTML -- recap

   NM: What concerns me most is whether we have any chance to get the HTML WG
   to take any help from us

   LM: I am baffled by the conflicts around HTML5 as well, but hopeful that if
   we can resolve the differences between the TAG's work on version indicators
   and the HTML WG's intentions
   ... That will be of value

   <DanC> (for ref: ftf mtg is 23-25 June; T-2 weeks is 9 June; T-1 week is 16
   June)

   JR: Not sure that insisting ahead of time that we see our way clear to an
   impact isn't setting too high a bar
   ... There are some questions we may be able to answer, and even if we don't
   move the HTML WG right away, it will be helpful in other ways

   NM: We could invite Sam Ruby to join a telcon or even at the f2f -- what do
   people think

   TBL: Sounds like a good idea

   NM: Before, or during?

   <johnk> before

   +1 to before

   TBL: Early sounds like a good idea

   NM: I will reach out to Sam and see what we can schedule

   JR:  I'm  quite  optimistic that if we prepare, we can have productive
   discussions
   ... I am prepared to put some time into this ahead of time

   LM: Maybe JR can make some progress on my doc't while I'm away

   <masinter> JR and I will talk on monday, i'll have something to give to him
   by then

   <scribe> ACTION: JR to report back to the TAG on outcome of collaboration
   with LM [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot>  Created  ACTION-272 - Report back to the TAG on outcome of
   collaboration with LM [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-06-04].

   NM: Anyone else to help?

   DC: I will

   LM: I would like to see the Architecture for APIs question on our agenda --
   we discussed the Device APIs for Mobile chartering issue, and agreed not to
   engage specifically there
   ... But rather than such specific engagement, more general engagement does
   make sense. For instance there are APIs throughout the HTML5 spec, where we
   maybe should get to grips with this.

   <jar> +1 architecture for apis

   <noah> I also think there's an interesting question of balance between APIs
   and declarative

   <noah> Relates to rule of least power

   NM: AM, are you interested in this? Could you pick this ball up from LM?

   <johnk> I would be happy to help on this item

   AM: I can try, but not sure what you want. . .

   NM: Speak to as many people as you need

   AM: I will talk to LM and come back to the group

   JK: I'm happy to help

   <scribe> ACTION: Ashok to carry forward framing issues around Archicture of
   APIs, with help from JK and LM [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot>  Created  ACTION-273  - Carry forward framing issues around
   Archicture  of APIs, with help from JK and LM [on Ashok Malhotra - due
   2009-06-04].

   LM: Consider the charter for GeoLoc, which is about an API, there are APIs
   in  HTML,  then the Device API --- there's a lot of it around, but our
   guidelines are mostly about languages, and don't really give much guidance
   wrt APIs
   ... the issues about versioning are potentially different
   ... If the W3C Membership want us to start standardising APIs, it would be a
   good idea if we came up with some guidelines

   <DanC> (I agree that we don't know much about how to do API standardization
   well,  but  I  suspect  the  next  step  is  to  wonder  around in the
   somewhat-darkness for a while; I wouldn't recommend doing architecture work
   based on a lack of info)

   JK: We should have a look at how Mobile and the Web interact now and going
   forward
   ... I have a presentation I've used before, that I'd like to share, which
   has a list of items which might help the discussion

   NM: We'll do that

   JR: What are next steps wrt agenda planning

   NM: With this input, I will republish the list

   JR: I don't feel this quite gets to exactly what needs to be produced in the
   way of prep material
   ... do you have a schedule in mind wrt agenda planning?

   NM: We'll talk

Request for TAG Consideration of XML Schema 1.1 (XSD 1.1) Candidate
Recommendation

   NM: We've discussed this by email and briefly last week
   ... time to wrap this up and decide what to do

   HT: I agree with the main thrust of the argument from Mike Kay, Noah and
   others that XML Schema 1.1 is clearly directed at the requirements given in
   the WG charter and addresses them well, and that the time to object to those
   requirements is passed. I do want to say something about uptake, because I
   think a lot of unsupported assertions have been made about this topic.

   HT: Wrt XML Schema uptake, I did the following small experiment:

   HT: Take the cover page of the Cover Pages, the longest-running and most
   carefully curated XML news site on the web:

   HT: [21]http://xml.coverpages.org/

   HT: Look at the news items

   HT: Tabulate their schema language usage

   HT: 9 of the top 10 items include or depend on one or more XML languages:

   HT: Items 1, 3, 4 (from OASIS), 2, 10 (from the W3C), 6 (from Oracle), 7
   (from Microsoft), 8 (Web Services Test Forum), and 9 (from ISO) all define
   or depend on one or more XML languages specified via normative XSD schemas

   HT: Item 2 also includes a (non-normative) DTD

   HT: Item 9 also includes a (non-normative) Relax-NG schema

   HT: I rest my case.

   HT:  Wrt  to  two  of Rick's specific criticisms (lack of interop, and
   inappropriateness for text-oriented, as opposed to data-oriented, XML), I
   note that

   HT: 1) wrt interop he falls back to only actually indicting data-binding
   tools, an area which the W3C tried to address with a WG but which lost
   critical mass w/o getting to REC---the spec. was not designed for this, and
   there  are  certainly  aspects  of  1.0 which don't lend themselves to
   data-binding easily, but those aspects are there in DTDs and Relax-NG as
   well!

   HT: 2) wrt text-oriented XML, items 7 and 9 above are text-oriented, NDW has
   said the Schema 1.1 removes the main bar to using XSD for DocBook, and XHTML
   modularization switched to XSD (from DTDs) once XSD was available. My own
   experience with using XSD for a rewrite of XHTML Modularization was very
   positive.

   HT: It's probably the case that a better, layered, XML language definition
   language could now be defined, based on 12 years' experience of XML itself
   and varying amounts of experience with at least four well-developed schema
   languages (DTD, XSD, RNG and Schematron). I think the time to start such an
   effort is in a year or two, when the financial climate is better and we've
   had some experience with XML Schema 1.1 and NVDL as well. Whether such an
   effort can succeed in practice, given the conflicting 80/20 requirements of
   different XML usage patterns, is an empirical question.

   AM: I don't think it's worth arguing about whether XSD is used or not -- it
   clearly is, and heavily
   ...  What  we  should  do is look forward -- is there something we can
   recommend?

   AM:  Rick has a very specific request, that a profile of XML Schema be
   produced:

   <Ashok>  I  therefore  ask the TAG to instruct, influence or otherwise
   encourage the XML Schema Working Group to put XSD 1.1 on hold and instead to
   work on a radical relayering into a two-layer model. Some of the XSD 1.1
   changes would make their way into the basic layer, some would make their way
   into the advanced layer which would be equivalent to the proposed XSD 1.1.

   <masinter>  I  don't want to take this up. I think it's reasonable, in
   general,  when  members are unhappy with W3C work, for them to solicit
   interest from other members to do additional work to replace it

   AM: HST thought it's too soon for this work -- I don't
   ... HST thought that it was perhaps not best done by the Schema WG -- I
   guess I agree

   NM: What should the TAG do?

   <DanC> (I wishes there were 3 to 5 XGs that sprung into existence to explore
   hypotheses such as Rick's)

   AM: You would like us today to decide whether to recommend what Rick wants?

   NM: In the first instance, what I want today is a decision on whether we
   open an issue for this
   ... I agree with what HST said about the charter, while acknowledging DC's
   point

   NM: Against the background of a workshop which responded to the databinding
   question by chartering the DataBinding WG, and pushed the 1.1 work forward

   <DanC> (I find W3C Workshop on XML Schema 1.0 User Experiences

   <DanC> ( [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp )

   <DanC> * 21-22 June 2005

   <DanC> * Redwood Shores, CA, USA )

   <noah> [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0097.html

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to point to Norm Walsh's note

   NM: Wrt the question of whether we should slow the progress of XSD 1.1
   towards REC -- I strongly think we should not
   ... I found NDW's comments very much to the point in this regard:

     Just to be clear (because some private correspondence suggests that I
     wasn't), although I might personally wish that XSD was other than it is, I
     also think that XSD 1.1 is an improvement over 1.0 and should be made a
     Recommendation as quickly as practical. XSD 1.1 fixes several problems
     that I think make it greatly more practical for the kinds of documents I
     care about. I'll likely construct a useful DocBook XSD in 1.1 (where I
     could  never  bring  myself to bother in 1.0, mostly because of the
     constraints on substitution groups).

   <DanC> (by the way... I have a huge XSD that I'm using for a lifescience
   project; what tool should I use to browse around it?)

   <johnk_>    DanC,    if   I   use   an   XML   "IDE"   ever,   it   is
   [24]http://www.oxygenxml.com/

   TBL: I react to the claim that everybody I know use schema by wondering how
   big the community that does actually is

   <noah> I think Henry's evidence of Cover Pages spoke directly to the size
   and importance of the community

   TBL: without doing a survey I don't see how we can tell

   NM: Weren't those major vertical standards

   HST: Yes

   TBL: But what about private use behind firewalls?
   ... We could go and ask the Members. . .
   ... There are certainly communities who just use Relax-NG

   NM: All the evidence that I've seen is that The only question is the size of
   the difference -- that is, is XSD 1, 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more used
   than Relax-NG?

   <masinter> There are places where different overlapping standards are more
   harmful   than  others,  I  don't  think  competing  technologies  are
   architecturally difficult

   <DanC> (i note that the question of whether the TAG should consider this is
   now moot; we have considered it at length.)

   TBL:  That  is true of the people you know, the people in the Relax-NG
   community will pbly say the same things
   ... but the other way around

   <masinter> +1 to DanC's

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to see that while Henry is not impressed by the
   suggestions that 'people' don't use schema, I am not that 'people' do.
   Clearly two largely disjoint communities

   LM: There may be areas where competing technologies are harmful
   ... I don't think this is such an area
   ... If there's new work to be done, the Members may or may not take it
   forward
   ... I don't think there's an architectural issue here
   ... If Rick wants to take this forward, he should do so in the way work
   normally gets taken forward, via the Process

   <masinter> well, an issue that is worth TAG time on it

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask how the quote reflects a request for a profile

   HT: Pass

   NM: Wrt to whether the TAG should open an issue on whether XSD 1.1 should be
   prevented from moving forward and/or to explore ways to move schema work at
   W3C forward in a different way,
   a straw poll revealed only AM in favour, so I rule that we will not open
   such an issue.

Security

   [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/204

   JR: I was hoping to write something up here, I will forward some emails
   ... Trying to figure out what the TAG should be paying attention to here
   ... Both the TAG and the W3C are dancing around the API issue, which is a
   bit away from the WebArch home ground
   ... Wrt application architecture, we could either wait and watch, which is
   not a bad strategy, but it's not what we did about WebArch

   <timbl> +1 to getting involved, no being passive, as this is an area which
   is important and inextricably linked to the web in general.

   JR: I particularly like the Capability work, because it seems to me parallel
   in interesting ways to aspects of WebArch -- particularly as regards how
   things are named and how names are communicated

   <johnk_> I think we would be "writing this down" too

   <noah> Can someone help me put bounds on what "this" is? We've said we'd
   worry  about APIs vs markup/declarative. There's a general question of
   security  and  isolation;  there's  a  specific question of capability
   architecture. What's the proposed scope of TAG noodling?

   JR:  The ECMAScript security work is looking at a number of issues, in
   particular communication between mutually untrusting encapsulated apps

   <DanC> (I suspect jar's "this" is capability based approaches to security
   vs. other)

   <noah> Jar's email referenced Caja

   <DanC> ka-ha

   JR: The Caja example illustrates their approach to this

   <DanC> there's one in microsoft labs too

   <noah>    From   JAR:   Web   app   security   -   Caja   demo   email
   [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0116.html

   JR: Secure cooperation in javascript containers: four or five approaches,
   all coming together to standardize at ECMA

   <jar> Cajita, ADsafe, Javaranda, and Dojo Secure are coming together via
   Ecma.

   JR:I think that email closes my action

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to see if I can reconstruct a discussion with tlr
   where  present  course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming
   regarded as unsafe

   <masinter> is this an area where W3C should have a workshop? rather than a
   TAG agenda item or issue?

   <masinter> this is the "origin" header issue?

   <johnk_> yes, related to Origin header

   <noah> That's the best XSRFF explanation I've heard (though it's not scribed
   yet)

   DC: Consider you're logged in to a gaming site, you have lots of treasure,
   you  go to another (black-hat) website which does a POST to the gaming
   website in an onload method
   ... I was surprised this (a POST) was allowed effectively inside a GET
   ... The games website has a work-around, but it is a real pain, because the
   workaround requires a nonce, so it can't be static
   ... This is promoting a view that links are not safe

   <jar> zooko's triangle.

   JR:  zooko's  triangle  is  an  argument that the security of links is
   constrained

   DC: I'll try to reconstruct the connection

   <DanC> ACTION: DanC to see if I can reconstruct a discussion with tlr where
   present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming regarded as
   unsafe [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - See if I can reconstruct a discussion with
   tlr where present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming
   regarded as unsafe [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-06-04].

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask if he should close 204

   <DanC> close action-204

   <trackbot> ACTION-204 Talk with Mark Miller about web app security and
   report back closed

   JR: There have been efforts to get some coordination with W3C on this --
   keep your eyes open for ECMA-W3C coordination opportunities

   <DanC> nov meeting sounds familar... looking...

   NM: I'd like to see this as a f2f focus

   <DanC> hmm... rather
   [28]http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009   "The  AJAX
   Experience, Boston, September 14-16"

   NM: DC said "Seems weird that you can do a POST from a page you do a GET
   for" -- but doesn't that happen all the time?
   ... When I go to e.g. Yahoo it's a form, I GET it, then I POST to log in

   NM: How is that different

   <jar> [29]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery

   HT: But in DC's example, you didn't do anything, the POST happened inside an
   onload of the page you did the GET for

   NM: Not so different?

   DC: Seems different to me.

   DC: I see an AJAX meeting in Boston 14--16 September, which was a possible
   IETF-W3C cooperation opportunity. . .
   ... Maybe not ECMA -- maybe that's November

Tag Soup Integration

   [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54

   [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/255

   <johnk> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/240

   JK: There is about a Creative Commons spec. about how to use RDFa in XHTML
   -- they define a way to use a CURIE in a 'rel' attribute
   ... I emailed Sam Ruby, Mark Nottingham and Ben Adida
   ... Ben replied with some details, Shane McCarron gave more information
   about RDFa in XHTML [sic -- but should be HTML?]

   <DanC> the ccREL spec seems to be [33]http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL

   JK:  The  XHTML  Mod. spec. seems unclear about how/whether CURIEs are
   supported in 'rel' attrs
   ... The larger issue is of course how RDFa might be integrated into HTML4
   and/or HTML5
   ... Shane McCarron has sent a proposal about HTML4 integration to the HTML
   list[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2009May/0015.html,
   thread continues also from
   [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0125.html
   ... The use of CURIEs at all is also not settled -- MNot's Link Framework
   draft doesn't provide for CURIEs at all
   ... I don't think there's any specific followup required

   <johnk>   here's   Shane's   proposed   RDFa  in  HTML  4  proposal  -
   [36]http://www3.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html/

   DC: CURIEs are the small end of the issue

   <jar> I'm not too worried about lack of CURIEs in Link: header. Seems silly
   as that's protocol level. Purpose of CURIEs is to make RDFa easier on the
   eyes, easier for manual editing.

   DC: CcREL is about allowing access to e.g. my pictures for reproduction
   ... There are a number of actors here, ranging from 0 (WGs chartered to
   change HTML4) to 2 (WGs chartered with some responsibilitiy for text/html)

   NM: Next steps?

   JK: We haven't been asked to do anything by anyone

   NM: I have an action to reach out to him wrt [xyzzy]

   JK: I don't see any actions at this point

   DC: There's a microdata proposal from Ian Hickson, which is intended to meet
   the CcREL requirements, w/o using RDFa (or namespaces?)

   <DanC> [37]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata

   <DanC> <img itemprop="image" src="google-logo.png" alt="Google">

   DC: HST, you interested?

   HT: Yes, I will look at this if I can
   ... I accept to shepherd ISSUE-54

   NM: Please clean this up as best you can
   ... Adjourned

   <DanC> darn; lost henry to dinner; wanted to get his permission to update
   tracker due dates for his action

   sure

   <DanC>   ok...  I'll  move  them  back  a  couple  months  except  the
   urns-and-registries one

   <DanC> ACTION-113 due 1 July

   <trackbot> ACTION-113 HT to a) revise composition.pdf to take account of
   suggestions from Tim & Jonathan and feedback from email and b) produce a new
   version of the Elaborated Infoset finding, possibly incorporating some of
   the PDF due date now 1 July

   <DanC> ACTION-239 due 1 July

   <trackbot>  ACTION-239  alert  chair  when  updates  to description of
   xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none made) due date now 1 July

   <DanC> ACTION-232 due 1 July

   <trackbot>  ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of
   HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now 1 July

   <DanC> ACTION-231 due 1 July

   <trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in
   HTTP spec due date now 1 July

   <DanC> ACTION-33 due 1 June

   <trackbot> ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008
   F2F discussion due date now 1 June

   <DanC> I think we closed this one today:

   <DanC> ACTION-271?

   <trackbot> ACTION-271 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with jar to draft strawman
   agenda for F2F -- due 2009-05-28 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271

   <DanC> ACTION-265 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-265 Work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues
   relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on
   the wire due date now next week

   <DanC> ACTION-23 due 1 July

   <trackbot> ACTION-23 track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML Schema
   namespace document in the XML Schema WG due date now 1 July

   <DanC> ACTION-270 due 1 June

   <trackbot> ACTION-270 Provide additional material for review at F2F for
   Issue 41 due date now 1 June

   <DanC> ACTION-254 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-254 Send email to www-tag announcing issue-63 due date now
   next week

   <DanC> ACTION-261 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-261 Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding
   Adam Barth's sniffing draft due date now next week

   <DanC> ACTION-244?

   <trackbot>  ACTION-244  -- Noah Mendelsohn to plan June TAG F2F -- due
   2009-05-19 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/244

   <DanC> noah, do you want to do anything more with action-244?

   <noah> Leave it open, it's just a memory jogger to me, though at this point
   I tend not to forget about it anyway. The date should be pushed one week at
   a time :-)

   <DanC> ACTION-261: spoke with Lisa about an upcoming BOF

   <trackbot> ACTION-261 Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding
   Adam Barth's sniffing draft notes added

   <noah> I'll do it

   <DanC> action-244 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-244 Plan June TAG F2F due date now next week

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ashok to carry forward framing issues around Archicture of
   APIs, with help from JK and LM [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: DanC to see if I can reconstruct a discussion with tlr where
   present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming regarded as
   unsafe [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: JR to report back to the TAG on outcome of collaboration with
   LM [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01]
     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.134 ([44]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2009/05/29 11:45:57 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-agenda.html
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-tagmem-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-minutes
  14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-minutes
  15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/06-f2f-local-arrangements.html
  16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271
  17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009May/0081.html
  18. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0004.html
  19. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01
  20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02
  21. http://xml.coverpages.org/
  22. http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp
  23. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0097.html
  24. http://www.oxygenxml.com/
  25. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/204
  26. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0116.html
  27. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03
  28. http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009
  29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery
  30. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54
  31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/255
  32. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/240
  33. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL
  34. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2009May/0015.html
  35. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0125.html
  36. http://www3.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html/
  37. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata
  38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271
  39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/244
  40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02
  41. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03
  42. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01
  43. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  44. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKH8vokjnJixAXWBoRAt7TAJ9pljnvOTmQ9X2keCb4dsC2wh69IgCeO+8s
5loYvfxE+aBqlEC3+aro8/A=
=+FKm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 11:50:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT