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

Re: Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 21 January 2010

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:24:11 -0800
Message-ID: <5691356f1001230224n15d30778h456311b81fc83bbc@mail.gmail.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I understand that sometimes meaning is lost in email and especially in
meeting transcripts, so I just want to check that I understand the
current status of the discussion on ACTION-278.

1. The TAG does not dispute any of the arguments made in my web-key
paper <http://waterken.sf.net/web-key>.

2. The TAG understands that unguessable URLs are used for
access-control by many of the most popular sites on the Web. For
example, this email contains a Google Docs URL [1] for a document I
have chosen to make readable by all readers of this mailing list, even
those who have never used Google Docs. Had I not so chosen, these
readers would not have access and I could have shared access with a
smaller group of people, or no one at all.

3. Some members of the TAG believe that an unguessable https URL is a
"password in the clear", but that sending someone a URL and a separate
password to type into the web page is not a "password in the clear".

4. The TAG is currently sticking to its finding that prohibits use of
the web-key technique because Noah Mendelsohn says: "I don't like
that". There are no other substantive arguments that I could attempt
to refute.

5. The TAG does not dispute my argument that the current finding is
self-contradictory.

I'm hoping there is some significant nuance I have missed. If so,
please point out which of the above statements is false and exactly
why, so that I can engage with that part of the discussion.

--Tyler

[1] https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYOd4-51pI6HZGc0d2Q3N2RfMGYyZmZ0cGdt&hl=en

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:36 AM,  <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Draft minutes of the TAG teleconference of 21 January are available at [1]
> and in text-only form below.  Thanks to scribe Ashok Malhotra for wrapping
> these up at a busy time.
>
> Noah
>
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes.html
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>   [1]W3C
>
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                               - DRAFT -
>
>                           TAG Weekly Telcon
>
> 21 Jan 2010
>
>   See also: [2]IRC log
>
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/21-tagmem-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>   Present
>          T_V_Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Dan_Applequist,
>          Larry_Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, Dan_Connolly
>
>   Regrets
>          TimBL, John_Kemp, Henry_Thompson
>
>   Chair
>          Noah_Mendelsohn
>
>   Scribe
>          Ashok
>
> Contents
>
>     * [3]Topics
>         1. [4]Opening
>         2. [5]Approval of Minutes 14 January 2009
>         3. [6]ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to
>            cover the "Google Calendar" case
>         4. [7]ACTION-372: Redrafting of HTML for resource vs.
>            representation
>         5. [8]Review Pending Actions
>     * [9]Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>   <raman> on and muted.
>
>   <scribe> scribe: Ashok
>
>   <scribe> scribenick: Ashok
>
>   <DKA> FYI I will have to leave the call at 19:20 GMT today.
>
>   <raman> will need to bail in 25 mins
>
> Opening
>
>   Noah: 5 of us present
>   ... Regrets from TimBL for 5 weeks or so
>   ... There will be a call next week
>
> Approval of Minutes 14 January 2009
>
>   RESOLUTION: Minutes of Jan 14 meeting are approved
>
> ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the
> "Google Calendar" case
>
>   Noah explains action
>
>   <jar> The finding:
>   [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31#hideforsecurity
>
>     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31#hideforsecurity
>
>   <jar> ACTION-278?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-278 -- Jonathan Rees to draft changes to 2.7 of
>   Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case -- due
>   2010-01-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278
>
>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278
>
>   <noah> Jonathan's email:
>   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0121.html
>
>     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0121.html
>
>   Jar: This is a draft not a proposal
>   ... came out of our discussion of capabilities
>
>   <noah> Could you say a bit more about the Google Calender use case
>   in particular? What are they doing?
>
>   Jar: URIs to carry secrets are used all over the web. Finding should
>   talk about this
>   ... Scope of finding is not limited to public URIs
>   ... There is a web interface and you can say "share this
>   calendar"... it mints a URI and says send this URI to your friend
>   ... If you send URI to friend and he clicks on it, the calendars are
>   shared
>
>   Noah: Does it carry authority as well as allow sharing?
>
>   <noah> Crucial case is that the URI carries not just the
>   identification, but also the authorization.
>
>   JAR: Yes, carries authority
>
>   <noah> Speaking for myself, I don't like that, and don't want to
>   encourage it.
>
>   <masinter> "click here to unsubscribe" also
>
>   <noah> I think AWWW is right to make identity and authorization
>   orthogonal
>
>   JAR: Tyler Close says this is used and it is good
>
>   <DKA> Is it a one-time use URI?
>
>   JAR: the person getting URI could publish it and then everyone has
>   access
>
>   <noah> DKA, I don't think so. Sounds like you can explicitly kill
>   it.
>
>   JAR: but capability can be retracted
>
>   <jar> Google docs is another example
>
>   DKA: Is this a one time use? It is a pattern they use.
>
>   <noah> One time use seems break GET/safe
>
>   JAR: For calendar it is one time use
>   ... in Google docs you can send to many people
>
>   Raman: URL works only if you are in the ACL for document
>   ... you can manage access control
>
>   <masinter> Adobe Buzzword (acrobat.com) has similar options: "open
>   to anyone who has the URL" is an access control option
>
>   Noah: Is this also true of Calendar?
>
>   Raman: Calendar has different model. Events have URLs
>   ... if private no one can see it
>   ... there is a single sign-in mechanism
>   ... access to URL does not give access
>
>   <jar> code.google.com/apis
>
>   Noah: Crucial question: Should a URI ever give access control?
>
>   <masinter> "Allow anyone with a link to view this document" is a
>   access control option that the user can set
>
>   <Zakim> Noah, you wanted to question the appropriateness of the use
>   case
>
>   Noah: or is just an identifier
>
>   <raman> Calendar API:[13]http://code.google.com/apis/calendar/
>
>     [13] http://code.google.com/apis/calendar/
>
>   <raman> All Google APIs: [14]http://code.google.com/apis/
>
>     [14] http://code.google.com/apis/
>
>   Larry: I can create a doc from acrobat.com and I can create a doc
>   and share it
>   ... describes sharing options
>
>   <noah> I think the question is: how much do you bend what you would
>   otherwise do with Web architecture to enable Larry's case, which he
>   acknowledges as "weak"
>
>   <Zakim> Masinter, you wanted to propose drafting a document and
>   getting review of it in the security community
>
>   <Zakim> Noah, you wanted to say, I take Larry's point
>
>   Noah: Seems like passwords in clear discussion
>   ... its a weak security mechanism. URIs are widely shared. Not like
>   private key.
>
>   <masinter> +1 that this is like password in the clear
>
>   Noah: but people use it because it's convenient
>   ... people use it and understand the risks
>
>   JAR: Why do they give 64-bit URIs if it is not a protection scheme?
>
>   <masinter> obfuscation is a useful technique. I don't think anything
>   about "protected channels" doesn't really help much
>
>   JAR: Key word is "trade-offs". Finding should describe trade-offs
>
>   Noah: Finding says access control should be done orthogonally. I
>   think this is right.
>
>   <masinter> obfuscation isn't "access control"
>
>   Noah: We should not be vague about that.
>
>   <DKA> After just trying to share a Google calendar I can confirm
>   that that seems to be how it works. The URI does not allow automatic
>   access to the calendar. It seems to encode expected access
>   credentials but still requires a credentials check (authentication).
>
>   JAR: If finding says do not do the Google Calendar case we lose
>   ccredibility.
>
>   <masinter> [15]https://acrobat.com/#d=Y5W06lRXkILNhbfV1yUjsw
>
>     [15] https://acrobat.com/#d=Y5W06lRXkILNhbfV1yUjsw
>
>   Larry: I made a doc, and service creates a URL and anyone who has
>   URL can read document
>   ... not so unreasonable
>
>   Noah: I'm not conviced there is anything in the finding that's
>   wrong.
>
>   <noah> Pertinent section of finding:
>   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html#hideforsecu
>   rity
>
>     [16]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html#hideforsecurity
>
>   <masinter> maybe expand the finding to cover the obfuscated URI
>   being used as weak access control.
>
>   <noah> A bank establishes a URI assignment policy in which account
>   numbers
>
>   <noah> are encoded directly in the URI. For example, the URI
>
>   <noah> [17]http://example.org/customeraccounts/456123 accesses
>   information for
>
>     [17] http://example.org/customeraccounts/456123
>
>   <noah> account number 456123. A malicious worker at an Internet
>   Service
>
>   <noah> Provider notices these URIs in his traffic logs, and
>   determines the
>
>   <noah> bank account numbers for his Internet customers. Furthermore,
>   if
>
>   <noah> access controls are not properly in place, he might be able
>   to guess
>
>   <noah> the URIs for other accounts, and to attempt to access them.
>
>   <noah> Good Practice: URI assignment authorities SHOULD NOT put into
>   URIs
>
>   <noah> metadata that is to be kept confidential.
>
>   <noah> """
>
>   <masinter> Yes, so the use case I gave above would be a violation of
>   the finding.
>
>   Noah: Says only a little about access control.
>
>   Larry: The finding is too strong.
>
>   <noah> Unconvinced
>
>   JAR: Finding rules out common usecase.
>
>   Ashok: Noah and JAR disagree on what finding says and should say
>
>   <jar> https
>
>   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to say I would rather findings be
>   couched in terms of making people aware of the consequences, rather
>   than telling them what to do
>
>   Larry: Try and write findings based on consequences of doing things
>   one way instead of another
>   ... so finding should say use this mechanism if risks a acceptareble
>   ... Some of these exposures are over the long run instead of short
>   run
>
>   Noah: A similar example is abt GET being safe
>   ... I'm happy we said GET is unsafe
>
>   <Zakim> Masinter, you wanted to suggest review on
>   public-web-security
>
>   Noah: Just because it is widespread we should not condone the
>   practice
>
>   Larry: Need more discussion of public-web-security
>
>   Noah: I would feel better if we had better framing of the issue
>
>   <noah> q
>
>   <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to note that there seem to be a number of
>   use cases here that look similar but are actually different - maybe
>   the WSC group has already enumerated these?
>
>   DKA: We need a list of usecases and need to categorize them
>
>   Noah: How is Web Securiry Context connected with public-web-security
>
>   Larry: JAR could send note to public-web-security and see if we can
>   get discussion started
>
>   Noah: We should try and get some shared terminology
>
>   Larry: Next step?
>
>   JAR: Spell out use cases more clearly?
>
>   Noah: Some disagreement. Some feel just because it is a commen
>   usecase it should be condoned.
>
>   JAR: We should say what the finding is about
>
>   Noah: We have differeing assumptions about what people can put in
>   URIs
>
>   JAR: Notion of URI is much broader than these public URIs
>   ... URIs used in all sorts of situations. Web is just one use.
>
>   <masinter> I think the point that putting the secret in the FragID
>   rather than in the main URI itself is interesting.
>
>   Noah: Way private keys are managed is fundamental to their use
>
>   JAR: You are saying URIs have a connotation to a public space on the
>   web
>   ... I don't agree with this.
>
>   <masinter> maybe this is also a justification for Origin vs.
>   Referer? because Origin doesn't include private keys
>
>   JAR: Noah, this is your opinion
>
>   <masinter> Use cases & discussions of them would be really great
>
>   JAR: I'll take an action to drill down on the usecases
>
>   Noah: Shall we add that to Action-278 and change the due date
>
>   <noah> ACTION-278: Due 2010-02-04
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to
>   cover the "Google Calendar" case notes added
>
>   Larry: I'm not hesitant to ask the Web Security Group to jump in
>
>   <masinter> might add the acrobat.com one too while you're at it; let
>   me know if you need more details
>
>   <noah> AM: I hear Noah and Jonathan disagreeing about how URIs are
>   used? Will doing use cases fix that?
>
>   <noah> NM: Not sure it will, but it may clarify the context for the
>   discussion.
>
>   <masinter> Ashok: I think the finding needs to be more nuanced, and
>   that different kinds of security situations will need different
>   advice. Having use cases will help us understanding of the
>   situations and thus what kind of contextual advice to give.
>
>   Noah: There is no harm in any of us coming up with new text. This
>   could spark useful discussion.
>
> ACTION-372: Redrafting of HTML for resource vs. representation
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-372 -- Larry Masinter to tell the HTML WG the TAG
>   encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and
>   endorse his request for more time. -- due 2010-01-20 --
>   PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372
>
>     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372
>
>   <noah> Note error in agenda, should have referred to HTML not HTTP
>
>   <noah> LM: I sent the email. Got a response which might be viewed as
>   to me as HTML WG or to the TAG.
>
>   Larry: I sent the mail. I got a response. The staus of the issue is
>   - Roy is unavailable to work on this issue
>
>   <noah> Larry: that's not quite right -- Roy says not available for 4
>   months, then available.
>
>   Larry: actually Roy said "not available for 4 months to work on
>   issue"
>   ... not sure it was interpreted as a TAG request
>   ... Noah, please, as chair clarify how we communicate.
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to frame discussion about how TAG communicated
>   with WGs [recorded in
>   [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action01]
>
>     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action01
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-377 - Frame discussion about how TAG
>   communicated with WGs [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-01-28].
>
>   Larry: I would like Noah to talk to HTML WG ...
>
>   Noah: Some WGs communicate with other WGs. The WG votes on this and
>   someone is asked to send the msg.
>   ... the TAG has as part of its charter to help WGs do their work
>   ... in some cases TAG will ask individuals to talk with WGs
>
>   Larry: I got a response and I don't think the WGs response is in
>   line with what was requested
>
>   Noah: The process is fine ... we need to decide what to do?
>   ... Larry, what should TAG do?
>
>   Larry: If we are happy to give on this that's ok with me
>
>   <masinter> i'm not sure they acknowledged hearing our opinion
>
>   Dan: I don't understand why Roy cannot do the 2 edits?
>
>   <masinter> Roy said: "Honestly, unless you can prove to ME that
>   there is a substantial ...
>
>   <masinter> burden being imposed upon *someone* by reordering the
>   entirely random order that chairs have decided to call for
>   consensus, then it should be obvious that *MY* constraints are more
>   important than whatever you personally think the procedure should
>   be. Otherwise, you are just railroading a particular conclusion.
>
>   Dan: I can understand if they close this; we might say we don't like
>   it, but unless we have a proposal...
>
>   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note issue in abarth-mime-sniffing
>
>   <jar>
>   [20]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg012
>   50.html
>
>     [20]
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html
>
>   Larry: John Kemp on authoritative metadata finding cites
>   abarth-mimesniffing. I did a review of this
>   ... go down to "terminology"
>
>   <noah> Quoting:
>
>   <noah> TERMINOLOGY "resource"
>
>   <noah> This document seems to have the same use of "resource"
>
>   <noah> to talk about what is fetched and not just the source
>
>   <noah> from which it is fetched, as discussed in HTML-WG
>
>   <noah> at length:
>
>   <noah> [21]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81
>
>     [21] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81
>
>   <noah> For example
>
>   <noah> For HTTP resources, only the last Content-Type HTTP header,
>
>   <noah> if any, contributes any type information; the official type
>
>   <noah> of the resource is then the value of that header,
>
>   <noah> interpreted as described by the HTTP specifications.
>
>   <noah> Right, the phrase "type of the resource" is highly suspect
>
>   Noah: The continuing non-resolution of issue 81 is haveing
>   deleterious effect on the Web
>
>   Larry: Roy is arguably the most qualified person on planet to do
>   this
>
>   <noah> To be clear, I was asking Larry whether the "continuing
>   non-resolution" was his position, and he said "yes".
>
>   Noah: We could send a note as the TAG saying that we feel it is very
>   important that this gets resolved
>   ... Just say "this remains impt"
>
>   <masinter>
>   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0853.htm
>   l
>
>     [22]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0853.html
>
>   <masinter> Write clear definitions of all affected terms, possibly
>   in the form of suggested edits to the terminology section, and
>   demonstrate correct usage of the terms by suggesting specific edits
>   to one or two representative sections.
>
>   Larry: The above is something the TAG could take on.
>
>   <masinter> The definitions of these terms don't belong in HTML, they
>   belong in Webarch
>
>   <masinter> Defining the terms of the web architecture seems like a
>   fine job for the TAG, and that there is no other group more
>   authoritative.
>
>   Noah: This could take up a lot of resources/time
>
>   Larry: I'm willing to work on it and I would like some help
>
>   <jar> 799 occurrences of "resource" in Overview.html
>
>   <masinter> are the terms not already clearly defined in WebArch?
>
>   <jar> no
>
>   Noah: You would a great volunteer, Dan!
>
>   Larry: Deadline is Jan 23
>
>   <masinter>
>   [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0930.htm
>   l
>
>     [23]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0930.html
>
>   <masinter> "... let the Chairs know if they are interested in
>   drafting a proposal to resolve Issue-81."
>
>   <DanC> ACTION: Connolly to draft suggested text re
>   resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR
>   [recorded in
>   [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action02]
>
>     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action02
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Draft suggested text re
>   resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR
>   [on Dan Connolly - due 2010-01-28].
>
>   <masinter> [25]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources defines
>   "resource"
>
>     [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
>
>   <masinter> [26]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-representation
>   defines "representation"
>
>     [26] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-representation
>
> Review Pending Actions
>
>   <noah>
>   [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
>
>     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
>
>   <DanC> ACTION-213 due next week
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-213 Prepare 21 Jan weekly teleconference agenda
>   due date now next week
>
>   <DanC> ACTION-213?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-213 -- Noah Mendelsohn to prepare 21 Jan weekly
>   teleconference agenda -- due 2010-01-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
>
>     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
>
>   <DKA> I must leave the call now - apologies - Noah please feel free
>   to put me on the scribe rota for a future call except for Feb 18
>   where I will have to give my regrets.
>
>   <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> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278
>
>     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278
>
>   <masinter>
>   [30]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg012
>   50.html is linked from ACTION-308
>
>     [30]
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html
>
>   <noah> On ACTION-337, Larry wants to punt.
>
>   <DanC> ACTION-337: Larry wants to punt.
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-337 Prepare material for next phone conf metadata
>   formats/representations notes added
>
>   <DanC> close action-337
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-337 Prepare material for next phone conf metadata
>   formats/representations closed
>
>   <DanC> order? is Larry asking for futher discussion of ACTION-367?
>
>   <DanC> it's done to my satisfaction.
>
>   <noah> trying to find out
>
>   <DanC> if there are possible follow-ons, then it should be kept
>   pending review. sigh.
>
>   <DanC> (no, I don't see a URL for the bug)
>
>   <masinter> [31]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
>
>     [31] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
>
>   <DanC> close ACTION-372
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-372 Tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the
>   direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and endorse his
>   request for more time. closed
>
>   <masinter> action-373?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-373 -- Noah Mendelsohn to convey, re language
>   reference, to encourage the path they've indicated; we can't tell if
>   we're satisifed; we'll stay tuned and comment when drafts become
>   available -- due 2010-01-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/373
>
>     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/373
>
>   <DanC> action-373?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-373 -- Noah Mendelsohn to convey, re language
>   reference, to encourage the path they've indicated; we can't tell if
>   we're satisifed; we'll stay tuned and comment when drafts become
>   available -- due 2010-01-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
>   <trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/373
>
>     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/373
>
>   <DanC> I'm happy with Maciej's reply.
>
>   <DanC> i.e.
>   [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0031.html
>
>     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0031.html
>
>   <DanC> ACTION: Larry to check whether HTML language reference has
>   been published [recorded in
>   [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action03]
>
>     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action03
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-379 - Check whether HTML language
>   reference has been published [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-01-28].
>
>   <DanC> action-379 due in 4 months
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-379 Check whether HTML language reference has been
>   published due date now in 4 months
>
>   <noah> close ACTION-373
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-373 Convey, re language reference, to encourage
>   the path they've indicated; we can't tell if we're satisifed; we'll
>   stay tuned and comment when drafts become available closed
>
>   <DanC> action-379 due 21 may
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-379 Check whether HTML language reference has been
>   published due date now 21 may
>
>   <noah> Hmm,10 pending non-trivial actions == approx 5 weeks telcon
>   time.
>
>   <DanC> I note there's a list of docs the HTML WG chairs are
>   considering putting a publication question on, and the language
>   reference isn't one of them.
>   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010
>   JanMar/0005.html
>
>     [36]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010JanMar/0005.html
>
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [NEW] ACTION: Connolly to draft suggested text re
>   resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR
>   [recorded in
>   [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action02]
>   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to check whether HTML language reference has
>   been published [recorded in
>   [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action03]
>   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to frame discussion about how TAG communicated
>   with WGs [recorded in
>   [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action01]
>
>     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action02
>     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action03
>     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#action01
>
>   [End of minutes]
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>
>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [40]scribe.perl version 1.133
>    ([41]CVS log)
>    $Date: 2010/01/22 13:27:39 $
>
>     [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>     [41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Received on Saturday, 23 January 2010 10:24:49 GMT

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