W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th February 2009

From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:42:57 -0500
Message-Id: <FA99A33D-F179-4086-809C-4F930701C7E1@jkemp.net>
To: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
At http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html, and below:

Regards,

- johnk

- DRAFT -

Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

04 Feb 2010

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
  Dan Connolly, Jonathan Rees, Daniel Appelquist, John Kemp, Henry S Thompson, T.V. Raman, Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Tim Berners-Lee
Regrets
  Noah Mendelsohn
Chair
  Dan Connolly
Scribe
  John Kemp

Contents

	• Topics
		• Convene
		• ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232 conneg, generic resources
		• ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232
		• ACTION-326: Polyglot documents
		• ISSUE-51 & ACTION-308: Propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing
		• ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case
		• ACTION-354: Client side storage APIs
		• ISSUE-41 & ACTION-369: Shorter document on version indicators
		• misc action review
		• resource/representation
		• HTML Microdata publication news
	• Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 04 February 2010
<DanC> scribe: johnk_
Convene

DC: Can you scribe next week, Henry?
HT: OK
<DanC> minutes ok? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes
<DanC> "DKA: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur "
I can't understand DKA very much at all...
<DanC> PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes ammended to note that "DKA: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur" should read "DKA: As a former member..."
<DanC> DKA, is it enough to note the correction in today's minutes?
<DKA> fine
<DanC> PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes ammended to note that "DKA: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur" should read "DKA: As a former member..." and to note that the security stuff is unclear
JK: I found the 'security' section unclear
<masinter> if there are errors in the minutes, send the errors to me and i'll update
<DKA> It should be "when I sat in on the first working group meeting as an observer"
JK: Happy to just note that and move on
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to take approval of minutes 28 Jan offline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-385 - Take approval of minutes 28 Jan offline [on Dan Connolly - due 2010-02-11].
TVR: Take discussion offline
ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232 conneg, generic resources

<DanC> close ACTION-232
<trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg closed
LM: Sent a note to requestor - should close the item
ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232

LM: Propose to close the actions
HT: Why did we (re-) open this?
... Conneg text hasn't changed, has it?
LM: In editors draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0033.html
<DanC> I propose that HTTPbis changeset 745 section.4.p.5, along
<DanC> with the Nov 2006 finding, addresses our ISSUE-53, Generic Resources.
<DanC> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/745
<jar> ht, description of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53 seems pretty clear to me
<DanC> so RESOLVED.
HT: I'm happy with this
CLOSE ACTION-231
<trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec closed
ACTION-326: Polyglot documents

<DanC> action-326?
<trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Henry S. Thompson to track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on polyglot documents -- due 2010-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326
DC: Done to my satisfaction
<DanC> "2010-01-12 15:11:08: The offending para has been removed: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4458&to=4459 [Henry S. Thompson] "
DC: offending para has been removed, you (HT) wrote on Jan.12
<DanC> close action-326
<trackbot> ACTION-326 track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on polyglot documents closed
LM: Haven't understood about the doctype - whether there were actually valid polyglot docs
HT: this was a very narrow issue
LM: We still have an issue around polyglot documents
<masinter> agree to close action
DC: Interested in XML well-formed
HT: There might be other issues, but not under this action
ISSUE-51 & ACTION-308: Propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing

JK: Ball is with the group
LM: Additional status - I sent review comments regarding the sniffing draft
... draft is inadequate
<masinter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-04
<DanC> tx
<masinter> dated January 26, 2010
<DanC> ("the issue"? which?)
HT: there is another action on sniffing not linked from the sniffing issue
... I sent changes to HTTPBis regarding sniffing
<DanC> action-370?
<trackbot> ACTION-370 -- Henry S. Thompson to hST to send a revised-as-amended version of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.htmlto the HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG -- due 2009-12-24 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/370
<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009OctDec/0346.html
<johnk__> HT: At TAG request I sent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009OctDec/0346.html
<DanC> "Such 'sniffing' SHOULD NOT be done unless there is evidence that the
<DanC> specified media type is in error"
<johnk__> HT: Barth said OK
<johnk__> HT: However, change was rejected by editor
<johnk__> HT: We were asked whether we co-ordinated with HTML WG
<masinter> I am considering offering to rewrite barth-mime-sniff
<DanC> action-370?
<trackbot> ACTION-370 -- Henry S. Thompson to hST to send a revised-as-amended version of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.htmlto the HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG -- due 2009-12-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/370
<johnk__> DC: Can you pursue ACTION-370 HT?
<DanC> action-370 due +2 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-370 HST to send a revised-as-amended version of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG due date now +2 weeks
<DanC> (arbitrarily; feel free to choose another date)
<johnk__> LM: I don't like the sniffing document
<DanC> (henry, "the rest of us liked it" doesn't speak for me)
<ht> HST would need to look at the f2f minutes
<masinter> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 15:17 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
<masinter> > I reviewed draft-abarth-mime-sniff-03 and sent it to the authors and
<masinter> > the IETF “apps-discuss”:
<masinter> >
<masinter> >
<masinter> >
<masinter> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html
<masinter> >
<masinter> >
<masinter> >
<masinter> > (ReferenceISSUE-24 and ACTION-308)
<masinter> >
<masinter> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24
<masinter> >
<masinter> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308
<masinter> >
<DanC> ("improvement" can still lead to something I don't like. 1/2 ;-)
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to comment on use of 'correct type'
<johnk__> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/24-minutes#item03
<johnk__> minutes from f2f where we created ACTION-308
<DanC> tx
<johnk__> LM: Notion that the file has a "correct type" is wrong
<johnk__> LM: You're making guesses about what the author intended
<johnk__> LM: language of "correctness" is wrong
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask lmm about the status quo which relies on something other than what's in the content-type header
<johnk__> LM: if someone tells you it's text/plain and you guess something else, this is your peril
<johnk__> DC: community standard is that web content providers rely somewhat that the consumer will consult more than content-type
<johnk__> LM: Not sure that's true
<johnk__> DC: I know they didn't consider it, but if you took it away they'll be shocked
<jar> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155 was closed 6 months ago... adam's 1st draft was july 13 ... not clear whether the httpwg talked about it (trying to understand whether there's new information for httpwg)
<johnk__> DC: Is it more cost-effective to specify what's going on, or to move the community away fromthis reliance?
<johnk__> DC: The latter seems expensive, perhaps not possible
<johnk__> LM: value of reverse engineering decays over time
<johnk__> DC: Would be happy to see an alternative draft
<johnk__> LM: Happy to propose alternatives
<johnk__> LM: Recommend that the TAG does not update our findings to reference the current sniffing draft
<johnk__> LM: needs to be opt-in mech as well as uniform and secure
<johnk__> LM: set of criteria need to be met
<DanC> (can anybody write down the criteria lmm said?)
<johnk__> LM: reluctant to recommend sniffing until we have a good algorithm
<johnk__> LM: "fine-grained opt-in"
<johnk__> LM: happy to review barth sniffing draft 4 and suggest any necessary follow-up to TAG
<DanC> ACTION: larry to review draft-barth-sniff-4 and send comments, cc TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-386 - Review draft-barth-sniff-4 and send comments, cc TAG [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-02-11].
<DanC> ACTION-308?
<trackbot> ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing -- due 2010-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308
<DanC> close ACTION-308
<trackbot> ACTION-308 Propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing closed
<johnk__> JK: Would like the group to review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html
<johnk__> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0028.html
<johnk__> HT: Will take a look
<DanC> ACTION: Henry to review JK/NM's stuff on sniffing, authoritative metadata, self-describing web, incl. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-387 - Review JK/NM's stuff on sniffing, authoritative metadata, self-describing web, incl. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2010-02-11].
<DanC> issue-24?
<trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTPcontent type parameters? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24
<DanC> ACTION-376?
<trackbot> ACTION-376 -- Daniel Appelquist to send to www-tag a pointer to and brief summary of Mobile Web Best Practices working group's "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies" and its implications for content sniffing : http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ -- due 2010-02-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/376
<johnk__> DC: Related to content-type override issue
<johnk__> DC: DKA - content transformation proxies?
ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case

<johnk__> DKA: Later...
<DanC> action-278?
<trackbot> ACTION-278 -- Jonathan Rees to draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case -- due 2010-02-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278
<johnk__> JAR: Can continue my action 278
<johnk__> JAR: Change the due date
<jar> action-278 due 2010-02-09
<trackbot> ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case due date now 2010-02-09
<johnk__> LM: Thinking about this a lot
<johnk__> LM: What distinguishes capability-based system and what is proposed here is...
<johnk__> LM: If you have a resource, you should have one URI
<DanC> (indeed, there's a tension with aliasing)
<johnk__> LM: Capability URI is not usable for an "access control system"
<johnk__> LM: If you combine the key with the URI, you can't do lots of things (expire the key without expiring the URI for example)
<johnk__> LM: Confidential in the finding means something really quite strong
<johnk__> LM: Another use pattern where the information is not confidential, but not widely known
<johnk__> LM: I don't really care if people can read my calendar
<johnk__> LM: Not really confidential
<johnk__> DC: No sharp distinction between that and passwords
<johnk__> DC: Counting on you not to pass it around
<johnk__> LM: I can change the password without changing the calendar URI
<johnk__> LM: It's the address as well as the capability
<johnk__> DC: Large random numbers can be revoked
<johnk__> DC: Rethink "don't make aliases"
<johnk__> LM: That _is_ one of the conflicts
<johnk__> LM: The other is that infrastructure of the web assumes it's ok to make easily available URIs (in logs etc.)
<johnk__> TVR: Not a useful question to answer
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to gloss larry's point as revocation is willfully breaking a URI
<johnk__> HT: if you put a large random number in a uri, it says that URI identifies a resource
<johnk__> HT: you shouldn't ever revoke that capability
<johnk__> HT: so you can't easily say that a URI can be revoked
<johnk__> DC: 403/410 them, not 404
<johnk__> HT: It seems you're "cheating" - if you name a resource, and then remove access to the resource at that URI
<johnk__> DC: I'm persuaded that capability URIs are OK...
<DanC> ("actual access control method" is needlessly pejorative... closed-minded, even.)
<jar> lm: Three cases (a) public, (b) obscure, (c) confidential
<johnk__> LM: I see that use of capability URIs are for non-confidential cases
<johnk__> JAR: Not sure what Tyler thinks of Larry's distinction
<johnk__> JAR: Would like to write up the "unsubscribe" case
<raman> have a hard stop, ened to bale.
<johnk__> DC: we did write that up
<johnk__> DC: GET/POST finding
ACTION-354: Client side storage APIs

<DanC> action-354?
<trackbot> ACTION-354 -- Ashok Malhotra to review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about -- due 2010-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/354
<johnk__> AM: Two client-side storage API specs.
<DanC> TAG Action-354 Review client-side storage API’s
<johnk__> AM: should have a better story than "cookies"
<johnk__> AM: name/value pairs should be made more useful
<johnk__> AM: I only looked at the two possible cookie storage replacements
<johnk__> DC: Just talking about a different use-case
<johnk__> AM: there's also a caching API spec and a web storage spec.
<johnk__> AM: I've not yet looked at these
<johnk__> DC: Would like to know about these APIs and how they compare
<johnk__> AM: Many documents seem to explore this client-side storage case
<johnk__> AM: reviewed 'index' API, 'web SQL' API
<jar> indexed api and web sql api
<johnk__> WebSQLDatabase and Indexed Database API
<johnk__> AM: WebSQL API is not really a spec...
<johnk__> AM: Based on SQLLite database
<johnk__> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
<johnk__> AM: Can look at the other ones, but with what goal?
<johnk__> DC: Is there room in webarch for all of these?
<DanC> Action-354: ashok to look at caching api, etc. as well
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about notes added
<DanC> action-354: and web storage
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about notes added
<DanC> action-354 due +2 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about due date now +2 weeks
ISSUE-41 & ACTION-369: Shorter document on version indicators

<DanC> action-369?
<trackbot> ACTION-369 -- Larry Masinter to write a shorter document on version indicators -- due 2010-02-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/369
<johnk__> DC: Larry wrote a short document on version identifiers, and I reviewed it
<johnk__> LM: Have not incorporated your comments
<johnk__> LM: Suggest we postpone
<johnk__> LM: This is related to polyglot docs
<DanC> subject of my review msg was something like "can't get behind DOCTYPE-based proposal"
<johnk__> LM: would like conforming xhtml to be conforming html when a doctype is present
<johnk__> LM: (regarding quirks mode, I missed this mostly)
<masinter> trying to speak to the polyglot issue
<johnk__> HT: all kinds of things wrong with the section about doctypes
<johnk__> DC: W3C validator will take a document without a system identifier...
<masinter> I'm asking for help with http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/171
<DanC> ACTION-364?
<trackbot> ACTION-364 -- Dan Connolly to ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's discussion -- due 2010-02-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/364
<DanC> ACTION-334?
<trackbot> ACTION-334 -- Henry S. Thompson to start an email thread regarding the treatment of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5 -- due 2009-12-02 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/334
<johnk__> HT: difference between browser behaviour and "meaning" of HTML documents
<DanC> action-364 due +1 week
<trackbot> ACTION-364 Ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's discussion due date now +1 week
<johnk__> DC: can you review 0015 JAR?
<DanC> ACTION: JAR to take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-388 - Take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html [on Jonathan Rees - due 2010-02-11].
misc action review

<DanC> action-354?
<trackbot> ACTION-354 -- Ashok Malhotra to review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about -- due 2010-02-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/354
<johnk__> AM: There's a note from mnot asking "why are they doing this?"
<johnk__> DC: Do we want to talk about resource/representation?
<Ashok> ACTION-354: Discuss MNot note when we next discuss this action
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know about notes added
<johnk__> LM: Yes
<johnk__> JAR: can talk more in email...
<johnk__> DC: shall we adjourn?
<DanC> ACTION: Larry to take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and turn it into a change proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and turn it into a change proposal [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-02-11].
<DanC> close ACTION-378 (edit)
<DanC> close ACTION-378
<trackbot> ACTION-378 Draft suggested text re resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR closed
resource/representation

<johnk__> LM: One more thing....
HTML Microdata publication news

<johnk__> LM: HTML WG is considering publishing microdata and RDFa FPWDs
<johnk__> LM: Vocabularies have "popped back in"
<johnk__> ADJOURN
<jar> Looking for an action on LMM to draft an html5 change request with DanC's work as input...
<jar> oh i see it now.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: DanC to take approval of minutes 28 Jan offline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to review JK/NM's stuff on sniffing, authoritative metadata, self-describing web, incl. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JAR to take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: larry to review draft-barth-sniff-4 and send comments, cc TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and turn it into a change proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 20:43:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT