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

Re: Amended draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th February 2010

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:36:31 -0800
Message-ID: <4B70AE0F.20500@oracle.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
The minutes look good to me.
All the best, Ashok


noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Thank you, John.  As one who was not present at the meeting, the minutes 
> now seem to be very good, but of course I don't know what I'm missing.  I 
> would prefer that someone who was there would take a look before we 
> approve on Thurs.  Thank you in any case for the formatting corrections, 
> which are a significant improvment.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> 02/05/2010 08:39 PM
>  
>         To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
>         cc:     "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
>         Subject:        Amended draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th 
> February 2010
>
>
> I have edited the minutes to reflect the correct scribing pattern, and the 
> updated document is 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
> 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"
> HT: Barth said OK
> HT: However, change was rejected by editor
> 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
> 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)
> 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
> LM: Notion that the file has a "correct type" is wrong
> LM: You're making guesses about what the author intended
> 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
> LM: if someone tells you it's text/plain and you guess something else, 
> this is your peril
> DC: community standard is that web content providers rely somewhat that 
> the consumer will consult more than content-type
> LM: Not sure that's true
> 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)
> DC: Is it more cost-effective to specify what's going on, or to move the 
> community away fromthis reliance?
> DC: The latter seems expensive, perhaps not possible
> LM: value of reverse engineering decays over time
> DC: Would be happy to see an alternative draft
> LM: Happy to propose alternatives
> LM: Recommend that the TAG does not update our findings to reference the 
> current sniffing draft
> LM: needs to be opt-in mech as well as uniform and secure
> LM: set of criteria need to be met
> <DanC> (can anybody write down the criteria lmm said?)
> LM: reluctant to recommend sniffing until we have a good algorithm
> LM: "fine-grained opt-in"
> 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
> 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
> 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
> DC: Related to content-type override issue
> DC: DKA - content transformation proxies?
> ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google 
> Calendar" case
>
> 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
> JAR: Can continue my action 278
> 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
> LM: Thinking about this a lot
> LM: What distinguishes capability-based system and what is proposed here 
> is...
> LM: If you have a resource, you should have just one URI
> <DanC> (indeed, there's a tension with aliasing)
> LM: Capability URI is not usable for an "access control system"
> 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)
> LM: Confidential in the finding means something really quite strong
> LM: Another use pattern where the information is not confidential, but not 
> widely known
> LM: I don't really care if people can read my calendar
> LM: Not really confidential
> DC: No sharp distinction between that and passwords
> DC: Counting on you not to pass it (password) around
> LM: I can change the password without changing the calendar URI
> LM It's the address as well as the capability
> DC: Large random numbers can be revoked
> DC: Rethink "don't make aliases"
> LM: That _is_ one of the conflicts
> LM: The other is that infrastructure of the web assumes it's ok to make 
> easily available URIs (in logs etc.)
> TVR Not a useful question to answer
> <Zakim> ht, you wanted to gloss larry's point as revocation is willfully 
> breaking a URI
> HT: if you put a large random number in a uri, it says that URI identifies 
> a resource
> HT: you shouldn't ever revoke that capability
> HT:& so you can't easily say that a URI can be revoked
> DC: 403/410 them, not 404
> HT: It seems you're "cheating" - if you name a resource, and then remove 
> access to the resource at that URI
> 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
> LM: I see that use of capability URIs are for non-confidential cases
> JAR: Not sure what Tyler thinks of Larry's distinction
> JAR: Would like to write up the "unsubscribe" case
> <raman> have a hard stop, need to bale.
> DC: we did write that up
> 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
> AM:AM: Two client-side storage API specs.
> <DanC> TAG Action-354 Review client-side storage API’s
> AM: should have a better story than "cookies"
> AM: name/value pairs should be made more useful
> AM: I only looked at two possible cookie storage replacements
> DC: Just talking about different use-cases?
> AM: there's also a caching API spec and a web storage spec.
> AM: I've not yet looked at these
> DC: Would like to know about all these APIs and how they compare
> AM: Many documents seem to explore this client-side storage case
> AM: reviewed 'index' API, 'web SQL' API
> <jar> indexed api and web sql api
> <johnk__> WebSQLDatabase and Indexed Database API
> AM: WebSQL API is not really a spec...
> AM: Based on SQLLite database
> <johnk__> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
> AM: Can look at the other ones, but with what goal?
> 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
> DC: Larry wrote a short document on version identifiers, and I reviewed it
> LM: Have not incorporated your comments
> LM: Suggest we postpone
> LM: This is related to polyglot docs
> <DanC> subject of my review msg was something like "can't get behind 
> DOCTYPE-based proposal"
> LM: would like conforming xhtml to be conforming html when a doctype is 
> present
> LM: (scribe: regarding quirks mode, I missed this mostly)
> <masinter> trying to speak to the polyglot issue
> HT: all kinds of things wrong with the section about doctypes
> 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
> 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
> <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
> AM: There's a note from mnot asking "why are they doing this?"
> 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
> LM: Yes
> JAR: can talk more in email...
> 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
>
> LM: One more thing....
> HTML Microdata publication news
>
> LM: HTML WG is considering publishing microdata and RDFa FPWDs
> 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 Tuesday, 9 February 2010 00:37:17 GMT

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