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

Minutes of TAG teleconference of 27 May 2010

From: Noah Mendelsohn <noah@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:58:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4C1AC4AB.6080100@arcanedomain.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Draft minutes of the TAG teleconference of 27 May 2010 are available at 
[1] and in text-only form below.  These were scribed by Larry with some 
help from Dan, but since Larry has been quite busy lately, I did the 
formatting and checkin.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/27-minutes

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

               Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

27 May 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/27-agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Dan Appelquist, Dan Connolly, Jonathan Rees, Noah Mendelsohn,
           Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Henry Thompson, Yves Lafon

    Regrets

    Chair
           Noah Mendelsohn

    Scribe
           Larry Masinter

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]agenda from last week?
          2. [6]administrative
          3. [7]action-424
          4. [8]action-340
          5. [9]action-379
          6. [10]schema?
          7. [11]ACTION-411
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <DanC> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Date: 27 May 2010

    <masinter> scribe: Larry Masinter

    <masinter> scribenick: masinter

    <DanC> (changed the stylesheets on
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/20-minutes Date: 2010/05/27
    17:02:37 )

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/20-minutes

    <DKA> +1

    <DanC> +1 approve 20-minutes

agenda from last week?

    RESOLUTION: Minutes of 20 May
    ([14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/20-minutes ) are approved

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/20-minutes

administrative

    noah: F2F agenda looks stable

    jar: HT to organize talk about domain name persistence?

    noah: waiting to get info from people to finalize agenda, e.g., info
    from HT
    ... inclined to cancel next week telcon

    larry: likely to regret next week

    <DanC> . action-xxx due tuesday

    ht: hasn't gotten in touch with everyone needed; hoping to have that
    by next tuesday

    <DanC> action-414 due tuesday

    <trackbot> ACTION-414 Prepare a draft agenda, including goals and
    means, for a proposed afternoon session with invited guests, and
    circulate for discussion prior to a decision, on the subject of
    addressing the persistence of domain names due date now tuesday

    action-433?

    <trackbot> ACTION-433 -- Dan Connolly to help Tim get in touch with
    staff etc. re XML/HTML unification -- due 2010-05-28 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/433

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/433

    dc: nothing to say at this time, but due tomorrow

action-424

    action-424?

    <trackbot> ACTION-424 -- Larry Masinter to start discussion on
    www-tag about additional finding/web architecture around MIME types
    in web architecture, updating existing findings -- due 2010-06-07 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/424

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/424

    action-425?

    <trackbot> ACTION-425 -- Larry Masinter to draft updated MIME
    finding(s), with help from DanA, based on www-tag discussion -- due
    2010-05-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/425

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/425

    <DanC> 424 is done to my satisfaction

    <DanC> . action-425 due wednesday

    <noah> LM: ACTION-424 is to start discussion, ACTION-425 is wrap up

    close action-245

    <trackbot> ACTION-245 Noah to respond to TPAC survey saying TAG will
    meet Monday and Friday (half days) closed

    close action-424

    <trackbot> ACTION-424 Start discussion on www-tag about additional
    finding/web architecture around MIME types in web architecture,
    updating existing findings closed

    <DanC> (ah... 425 already has a due date in the future)

    <DanC> . ACTION Yves: review Larry's summary on mime types

action-340

    action-340?

    <trackbot> ACTION-340 -- John Kemp to summarize recent discussion
    around XHR and UMP -- due 2010-05-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/340

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/340

    <DanC> (very nice go at the summary, JK; I do hope we can get it to
    the point where all the parties agree to it)

    JK: sent a summary, and got some feedback. What I plan to do is
    incorporate comments and write up difference between two positions.

    <noah> I found it very helpful too.

    <DanC> 0048
    . ACTION: JK to incorporate email feedback and summarize positions?

    <DanC>
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010May/0048.html

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010May/0048.html

    DanC: There's a sentence about one proposal satisfying a use case
    that the other doesn't, could there be an example?

    JK: UMP satisfies use cases that don't require a pre-flight request,
    simple GET is supported, but PUT POST DELETE are not, they intend to
    write a separate spec.

    DanC: A 'simple get request' -- what does this have to do with
    either of them?

    <Yves> disclosing information to a malicious site can be done using
    "simple GET" anyway, like appending information after a ';'

    <DanC> ("some site"... fedex? for example? ah! photo/print... NOW
    we're talking my language)

    JK: Basically, the model proposed in CORS relies on an actual
    requestor, a web site returns content which contains an
    XMLHTTPRequest
    ... two web sites, client with web browser, using those two web
    sites. First site makes a request, gets something from a Photo web
    site (first site), and sends a XMLHTTPRequest to a print site
    (second web site).
    ... deal with current restriction on web browsers that content can
    only make requests back to its origin site.
    ... if you were to make an update to the 2nd site, e.g., to update
    the print queue, that required a POST, that would be supported by
    UMP but not CORS.

    CORS has a model that uses the Origin header, like Referer, and also
    uses cookies. If you go to a photos site, photos can make a request
    to print, which would essentially log the user into the print
    website. If you were to make a request that involved per-user data,
    e.g., a per-user queue, you would be using a logged-in .... (lost
    about 3rd party) ...

    Noah: in this, the photo site has stored cookies, and the print site
    has stored cookies. (Discussion: cookies are still per-site).
    ... the use case should include the prior interaction of the user
    with the print site.

    JK: instance that is current is the Facebook "Like" button

    <DanC> (hmm... but the facebook "like" button works without CORS and
    without UMP... so only partly relevant)

    JK: The button communicates with the Facebook site
    ... problem is malicious site causing 3rd party site to do something
    that the user didn't actually authorized. Proposal is that All
    XMLHTTPRequest are uniform, they do not send shared cookies or user
    credentials.

    Larry: ack

    Ashok: there is a spec called Web Storage which lets you actually
    store cookies for a session and lets you store cookies and data,
    even if the site is offline, ... there are a bunch of these...

    JK: not sure of relationship with CORS, unlikely to use UMP

    Asok: some of those specs actually help web sites share data...

    JK: My overall summary: essentially we have this model of using
    origin to prevent cross-site. CORS builds on that model, but doesn't
    actually solve the problem: someone could make a cross-site
    unauthorized request. I looked at it and agree, and will include
    this in my write-up. Any origin + cookies approach will still allow
    malicious cross-site requests.

    <DKA> +1 to it being worth-while

    noah: scheduled discussion at F2F, JK will not be there.

    JK: preparing a write-up which will be ready at F2F

    Larry: is there more to talk about?

    Noah: John's preparing, Ashok wants more discussion
    ... short session on this. Ashok suggests 30 minutes

    JK: Some would say CORS conflicts with web arch. In my opinion it
    doesn't encourage good use of web architecture.

    <jar> sunk cost

    noah: push-back is that UMP is less functional? CORS supports some
    use cases, but UMP doesn't necessarily support the same use cases?

    (CORS supports .. was JK)

    JK: CORS doesn't solve the problem it was intended to solve, in my
    opinion. Something else is needed.

    JAR: will ask Tyler about Ashok's question. Web Storage is a fancy
    version of cookies. All the same issues should arise.

    Noah: browsers already send cookies, do they also connect to data
    (??)

    action-340?

    <trackbot> ACTION-340 -- John Kemp to summarize recent discussion
    around XHR and UMP -- due 2010-05-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/340

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/340

    <jar> ACTION: jar to Consult Tyler Close regarding UMP-informed web
    storage vulnerability analysis [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - Consult Tyler Close regarding
    UMP-informed web storage vulnerability analysis [on Jonathan Rees -
    due 2010-06-03].

    <DanC> action-340: ...

    <trackbot> ACTION-340 summarize recent discussion around XHR and UMP
    notes added

    <DanC> action-340: reopened for reasons that JK just told NM he'd
    make a note about

    <trackbot> ACTION-340 summarize recent discussion around XHR and UMP
    notes added

action-379

    action-379?

    <trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Larry Masinter to check whether HTML
    language reference has been published -- due 2010-03-24 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

    <DanC> scribenick: DanC

    LMM: so yes, "HTML: The Markup Language" has been published as a WD

    (had the authoring guide gone to WD?)

    <masinter> [23]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/

      [23] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/

    <masinter> isn't a WD

    LMM: there's also this authoring guide in progress

    <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if now is a good time for JAR to
    summarize discussion of UMP/CORS going to last call (ACTION-344)

    <masinter> [24]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ makes reference to
    author view

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

    <Ashok> jar, from the Web Storage spec -- Each top-level browsing
    context has a unique set of session storage areas, one for each
    origin.

    LMM: the authoring guide hasn't become a WD and isn't one of the 8
    to be published in the upcoming round of WDs

    <masinter> noah: would like to see us follow up with this

    <masinter> noah: I'm pretty sure there was a discussion about how
    the authoring view was a significant part of the solution to our
    problem. I took it as implicit that this would be progressed.

    <masinter> DanC: there's also an authoring guide?

    [25]http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ has the "hide UA text" option

      [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

    <scribe> scribenick: masinter

    Larry: I was confused. Working Draft now has interactive "Hide UA
    Text" !

    noah: it may be the button does more than 'hiding UA text'

    danc: on the question of whether it is maintained: I reviewed the
    document, found something that was wrong, and it got fixed right
    away, so it's actively maintained.

    <DanC> (in particular, the boundary between "UA text" and other)

    noah: We had a discussion in 2008 where I had some expectations that
    things like front matter would also be appropriate...

    Larry: there are some documents. Whether they meet TAG requirements
    are unclear to me. I think everyone knows what the documents are.

    polling

    DanA: I don't have an opinion

    DanC: we need to decide
    ... I accept the current course and speed.

    JAR: I haven't reviewed the authoring guide or whether it qualifies
    as a language reference. Don't have much of an opinion.
    ... acceptable to me.

    Noah: I think the minimum bar the TAG should set is that we reach
    the point where we know what they are commited to progress.
    ... Not sure we know what they are doing.

    Ashok: I will vote +1 meaning there's nothing specific we want to
    do.

    <DanC> (re Noah's comment, I'm looking at the issues list to see if
    anything relevant lives there
    [26]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues )

      [26] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues

    <DanC> (found it: [27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59 )

      [27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59

    <noah> I don't entirely buy Larry's claim that you can infer
    commitments from the current heartbeats. The fact that there's a
    hide/show UA in the current view doesn't seem to me to answer one
    way or the other whether they're committed to maintaining it on a
    Rec track long term.

    <noah> Henry, dan is trying to poll you.

    <noah> As soon as Larry is done.

    <noah> LM: I want a schema.

    <noah> LM: Might be supportive of work on polyglot.

    Larry: I'd like there to be a schema. I think a schema might be more
    relevant for polyglot files, though.

    <timbl> not up to speed on auth doc

    <noah> DC: They have their issue 59 normative lang reference. Must
    have made some decision

    "It seems to be agreed that publishing a non-normative reference
    document would be appropriate and sufficient."

    [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0470.htm
    l

      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0470.html

    "The TAG seems satisfied with our course of action"

    "while reserving the right

    to raise further objections depending on how things go."

    <jar> "publishing a non-normative reference document would be
    appropriate and sufficient."

    I'm pretty sure that's Mike Smith's document H:TML

    <jar> link?

    [29]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

      [29] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

    This document is what I believe they have offered as a response to
    the TAG

    Noah: That document is useful, but I don't think it is sufficient as
    a language reference.

    <noah> I think schemas are useful for generators as much as for
    parsers, and that's for both text/html as polyglot

    <DanC> LMM: (a) a schema might be quite useful with polyglot
    documents

    (b) [30]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ is rec track

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

    it contains a reference to
    [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/

      [31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/

    but the latter isn't rec track

    [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0297.htm
    l

      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0297.html

    <jar> Let me see if I understand... (in case I have to consult these
    minutes in the future...) [33]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/, HTML:
    The Markup Language (a.k.a. H:TML), is rec track but is to be
    non-normative

      [33] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

    lists 8 documents being published as 'heartbeat' or FPWD

    <noah> NM: I'd like to see a commitment that
    [34]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/ is rec track

      [34] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/

    <noah> Henry?

    <DanC> action-379: spec-author-view clarification seems in order

    <trackbot> ACTION-379 Check whether HTML language reference has been
    published notes added

    <DanC> action-379?

    <trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML
    language reference has been published -- due 2010-03-24 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

    <DanC> action-379?

    <trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML
    language reference has been published -- due 2010-03-24 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

schema?

    <DanC> (schemas for the polyglot use case is something I hadn't
    given much thought.)

    <DanC> LMM: a schema might be quite useful with polyglot documents

    Larry: Pushing on schemas for polyglot and the ability to do
    schema-based processing as one of the justifications of XML/HTML
    unification

    DanC: EPub also seems to be relevant these days. EPub went to XHTML
    1.1 or 1.2, I think (tracking down)

    <noah> I'd like to be sure we'er minuting that we're talking about
    ACTION-403, which is to respond to Murata Makoto's request for
    RelaxNG schemas for XHTML

    action-403?

    <trackbot> ACTION-403 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ensure that TAG responds
    to Murata Makoto's request for RelaxNG Schemas for XHTML
    (self-assigned) -- due 2010-05-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/403

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/403

    <noah> Murata-san writes:

    <noah> Is it possible for W3C to publish RELAX NG schemas for XHTML
    modules?

    <noah> Such schemas were created by James Clark, but have not been
    published

    <noah> by any standardization organization.

    <DanC> [38]What Iād change about ePub

      [38] 
http://blog.threepress.org/2009/11/28/what-i-would-change-about-epu/

    <DanC> "Support any valid form of XHTML"

    <noah> LM: We're looking at HTML/XML unification; I think
    schema-based processing is an advantage we should pursue

    ashok: danger is that Murata will spend a month on it and working
    group will just throw it away

    <noah> AM: Danger is Murata-san will spend time and it won't then
    move forward

    <DanC> HT sent email... XProc just went to REC with non-normative
    DTDs, XML Schemas, Relax-NG schemas...

    <DanC> ... none of them is claimed to be exactly right, but they're
    useful.

    <DanC> "Michael Smith, HTML Activity Lead" --
    [39]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity

      [39] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity

    noah: will respond to Murata-san, suggesting (1) work with HTML WG
    and (2) TAG is interested in XML/HTML unification

    <DanC> ACTION: Connolly bring "Schemas for XHTML" inquiry to the
    attention of Michael Smith, HTML Activity Lead [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-436 - Bring "Schemas for XHTML" inquiry to
    the attention of Michael Smith, HTML Activity Lead [on Dan Connolly
    - due 2010-06-03].

    [41]http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-autho
    ring-guide.html

      [41] 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html

    <DanC> (good point; I'd like to see Murata-san's take on the
    polyglot spec.)

    <DanC> action-403?

    <trackbot> ACTION-403 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ensure that TAG responds
    to Murata Makoto's request for RelaxNG Schemas for XHTML
    (self-assigned) -- due 2010-06-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/403

      [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/403

ACTION-411

    action-411?

    <trackbot> ACTION-411 -- Larry Masinter to take the next step on
    announcing IRIEverywhere -- due 2010-04-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/411

      [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/411

    <noah> scribenick: noah

    <DanC> LMM: HTML WG issue 59 is still open... status is unclear to
    me...

    <scribe> scribenick: DanC

    UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I wrote a change proposal; there's a
    couter-proposal... the outcome isn't clear...
    ... so that part of the plan... that the HTML spec would reference
    the new IRI spec... looks likely, though the details aren't nailed
    down

    LMM: the XML Core WG asked for a clarification "should we really
    [look at? point to?] the ??iri? document?" and I said yes, and I
    don't think they have finished with [that review]
    ... then there's the question of updating W3C XML specs that
    wouldn't be covered by the XML Core update...

    <jar> curious, why might xml core care about IRIs? namespace prefix
    definitions, or xsd:anyURI, or what? ...

    LMM: [details missed] which suggests we shouldn't close [i.e. should
    re-open] this IRIEverywhere issue

    <masinter> XML defined 'LEIRI' and had a separate spec

    <masinter> Request is to get people to reference
    [44]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis

      [44] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis

    <masinter> or its update

    <masinter> [45]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters meeting in late
    July

      [45] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Connolly bring "Schemas for XHTML" inquiry to the
    attention of Michael Smith, HTML Activity Lead [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: jar to Consult Tyler Close regarding UMP-informed web
    storage vulnerability analysis [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

      [46] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
      [47] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [48]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([49]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/06/18 00:57:57 $

      [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 00:58:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:06 UTC