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

Draft minutes of the TAG teleconference, 18th November 2010

From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:39:45 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOBk+dfmXdg_QtKvKiROdcxddOqeQe_8x5Pmss@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
The draft minutes of yesterday's teleconference are available at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/18-minutes.html and below.

Regards,

- John


                               - DRAFT -

                 TAG Teleconference 18th November 2010

18 Nov 2010

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/18-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Noah Mendlesohn, Henry Thompson, Ashok Malhotra, Jonathan
          Rees, Larry Masinter, Yves Lafon, John Kemp

   Regrets
          Dan Appelquist

   Chair
          Noah

   Scribe
          John Kemp, Jonathan Rees

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Administration
         2. [6]"deep linking"
         3. [7]Minutes approval
         4. [8]Generic processing of fragment IDs
         5. [9]IRIs related to RDF/XML et al
         6. [10]Redirecting to a secondary resource
         7. [11]Interaction in Web Arch
         8. [12]Security
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <johnk> Scribe: John Kemp

   <johnk> ScribeNick: johnk

Administration

   NM: next call will be in two weeks

   HT: regrets for next call

"deep linking"

   JAR: goal is to figure out what the TAG should say regarding policy
   around deep linking

   NM: Will setup a call with Thinh (from Science Commons) for next
   call

Minutes approval

   NM: F2f minutes?
   ... Will wait one more week for approval
   ... Lyon minutes?
   ... I found them satisfactory

   <jar> monday IRC log = [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-tagmem-irc

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-tagmem-irc

   <jar> says scribe: DKA

   NM: one admin item from those minutes
   ... "Noah to send a note to www-tag and chairs mailing list to drive
   awareness of the mine [sic] document and solicit feedback?" was a
   potential action, but has not been actually assigned

   LM: I will check apps-discuss list to see if there has been
   discussion
   ... the action may no longer be timely

   NM: there is not yet any action

Generic processing of fragment IDs

   ACTION-476?

   <trackbot> ACTION-476 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a short note to
   3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... -- due
   2010-10-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476

   NM: What should we say to the RFC3023 editors?

   JAR: I composed an email
   ... if the message I composed is OK, I'm happy to send the email

   <noah> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html

   <ht> [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0059.html

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0059.html

   NM: any objections to sending this email (0070)?

   JAR: I can send the email

   <noah> RESOLVED: Jonathan to send text of
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html to
   3023bis editors on behalf of TAG

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html

   NM: do you recommend we put any follow up on the RFDa issue?

   <noah> . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben
   Adida regarding fragid processing for RDFa

   <Larry> In Jonathan's message to 3023bis editors, of the two
   choices, I prefer #1 over #2... but I'm willing to live with #2,
   even though it makes me uneasy.... (anything grandfathered once is
   likely to happen again)

   AM: what will we do if RDFa decides not to do anything there?

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to respond to ashok

   JAR: would like to make the specs consistent

   <jar> . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben
   Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa

   HT: I agree but this is not related to 3023bis

   <noah> Draft action is fine with me.

   JAR: it does - argues in favour of choice #1 (as noted by Larry)

   <noah> HT: The media type for rdfa example is not an XML media type

   HT: RDFa specs are not related to XML media types

   <noah> Really? Not application/xhtml+xm;

   <noah> Really? Not application/xhtml+xml

   <noah> HT: Never mind.

   HT: the RDFa issue is separate from the feedback we agreed to send

   NM: agreed

   <jar> ACTION: jar to report back on discussions with Ben Adida
   regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-502 - Report back on discussions with Ben
   Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [on Jonathan Rees - due
   2010-11-25].

   close ACTION-476

   <noah> close ACTION-476

   <trackbot> ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors
   reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed

   <trackbot> ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors
   reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed

   <Larry> action-487?

   <trackbot> ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of
   IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487

IRIs related to RDF/XML et al

   ACTION-487?

   <trackbot> ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of
   IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487

   JAR: what are we doing about versioned specifications?

   <noah> Jonathan's email:
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0135.html

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0135.html

   <noah> OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs

   <noah> JAR: OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs

   JAR: OWL cites a particular version of the IRI specification, which
   puts them at risk for that spec changing between versions

   <Larry> I'm confused why OWL doesn't cite LEIRI instead

   <Larry> OWL should cite LEIRI, which will update when IRI updates

   HT: it would do no harm if you suggest to OWL that they ought to say
   "or its successors"

   <jar> "or its successors"

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's a tradeoff

   JAR: That's what RDF says... and OWL should be compatible with RDF

   NM: would rather not re-open the question about how specs should be
   future-proofed
   ... when you buy into some particular version at least you know "it
   works"

   <Larry> I thought 'future-proofing' was covered at one point by the
   QA activity

   NM: if you say "or successors" you take a gamble
   ... I don't feel informed enough to tell OWL what to do here exactly

   LM: why don't they reference LEIRI?
   ... this effort was exactly to create a citeable reference

   <noah> Henry, do you know why a group might be reluctant to
   reference LEIRI? Should RDF reference it?

   LM: I don't, generally, like the "or successors" rule for specs.
   outside of the organization creating the spec

   <Larry> I don't see what the problem is with referencing a specific
   version of IRI, though

   NM: you propose to close this action, Jonathan?

   JAR: yes

   LM: potential impact: probably not much?

   JAR: yes, but I don't know for sure, but would like OWL to make that
   judgement

   <noah> NM: JAR, you suggest we close this, without at this point
   scheduling any followup?

   LM: it's an assessment, not a judgement

   <noah> JAR: yes.

   <Larry> it is part of the charter of the IRI group not to make
   changes that mess up other things

   JAR: there is potential for a future IOP problem if nothing is done,
   but seems unlikely

   <jar> ahh...

   <jar> that's helpful

   NM: seems the right thing to do is to close the action with no
   followup at this point

   <noah> close ACTION-487

   <trackbot> ACTION-487 Assess potential impact of IRI draft on
   RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle closed

Redirecting to a secondary resource

   <noah> ACTION-492?

   <trackbot> ACTION-492 -- Jonathan Rees to review Larry's health
   warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or
   fix -- due 2010-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492

   <Larry> note: [24]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters: * The IRI
   specification(s) must (continue to) be suitable

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

   <Larry> for normative reference with Web and XML standards from W3C

   <Larry> specifications. The group should coordinate with the W3C
   working

   <Larry> groups on HTML5, XML Core, and Internationalization, as well

   <noah> ACTION-491?

   <trackbot> ACTION-491 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon attempt
   to formulate health warning on secondary resource redirection noting
   Larry proposal in 21 Oct 2010 F2F record -- due 2010-11-09 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/491

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/491

   <Larry> as with IETF HTTPBIS WG to ensure acceptability.

   NM: I believe you agreed, Jonathan

   JAR: yes

   NM: what do we want our health warning to be?

   <noah> Larry's proposal:
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/21-minutes#item06\

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/21-minutes#item06

   NM: shall we look at Larry's proposal?

   <noah> masinter: If you do conneg, don't do it where fragids mean
   different things

   <noah> From Oct. 21 record.

   <jar> ? "LM: You can do this [have 2 fragids], but something might
   break."

   <Larry>
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html

   ACTION-492?

   <trackbot> ACTION-492 -- Jonathan Rees to review Larry's health
   warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or
   fix -- due 2010-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492

   <noah> JAR email:
   [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html

   NM: Can you quote what you agreed with JAR?

   <noah> masinter: (4) You can have one fragment id, but not two.

   <noah> masinter: You can do this, but something might break.

   <noah> masinter (reworded by jar): If you deploy a 30x Location:
   C#D, then be

   <noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be
   inconvenienced

   <noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules).

   <Larry> yes: it's If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be aware
   that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced (since
   there are no fragment combination rules).

   <noah> Larry agrees with:

   <noah> If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be

   <noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be
   inconvenienced

   <noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules).

   JAR: "you can do this, but something might break"

   <noah> RESOLVED: The TAG endorses the health warning "If you deploy
   a 30x Location: C#D, then be

   <noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be
   inconvenienced

   <noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules)."

   NM: should we send this to anyone?

   HT: Yves: pay attention ;)

   <Larry> yves should take an action?

   NM: I will send this to www-tag

   <Larry> +1
   . action noah to send a note to www-tag noting this resolution

   <noah> . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag & chairs health
   warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010

   <Yves> + ietf-http-wg@w3.org

   <noah> . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org &
   chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved
   on 18 Nov 2010

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org &
   chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved
   on 18 Nov 2010 [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-503 - Publicize to www-tag
   ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs health warning on secondary resourc
   redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
   2010-11-25].

   <jar> lm: this should go to http wg

   NM: I propose we close 491, 492

   <noah> close ACTION-491

   <trackbot> ACTION-491 Schedule telcon attempt to formulate health
   warning on secondary resource redirection noting Larry proposal in
   21 Oct 2010 F2F record closed

   NM: any objections?

   <noah> close ACTION-492

   <trackbot> ACTION-492 Review Larry's health warning on redirection
   to secondary resources and either agree or fix closed

   (none heard)

   ACTION-355?

   <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
   AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
   Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

Interaction in Web Arch

   <noah> ACTION-355?

   <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
   AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
   Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

   <jar> NM: John, let us know where this stands

   <jar> scribenick: jar

   <johnk>
   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html

   JK: Question: Impact of webapps on interaction section of AWWW
   ... A few things to note: client-side state and URIs (TVR), updating
   state without user action, client provision of web resources (e.g.
   GPS),
   ... the word 'user-agent' appears a lot often synonymously with
   'browser', & this isn't appropriate
   ... things look different when the 'user-agent' is something
   exposing user's resources to servers

   lm: Terminology is a problem. user-agent != agent != user interface

   NM: ok, hang on, can we think about end states for the project,
   goals. if not put on hold maybe.

   LM: What are our options for 'end states'?

   <Larry> can we start annotating webarch with issues & notes, for
   example?

   <Larry> can we publish it as a note, or as a blog post?

   NM: Update AWWW, maybe new chapter(s)

   <Larry> is there something lighter weight we can do to annotate AWWW
   without updating it?

   <Larry> or can we make AWWW more into a wiki?

   LM: We might explore option of something lightweight
   ... Get it out, maybe as a note? So it doesn't disappear?
   ... AWWW update vs. nothing seems like a false dichotomy

   NM: I want someone to say that they own this, to take it in *any*
   direction.

   <Zakim> Larry, you wanted to comment on what kind of product

   NM: What if we get comments that we have to follow up on. Who's
   going to guide this process.

   <noah>
   [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html

   <noah> JK: I wrote down list of use cases.

   AM: Beyond this [4 June email], are there other things you're
   working on?

   NM: Pls link action-355 to any subsequent related writings...

   JK: (searching)

   <noah> ACTION: John to make sure ACTION-355 links all significant
   writings including use cases. [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-504 - Make sure ACTION-355 links all
   significant writings including use cases. [on John Kemp - due
   2010-11-25].

   JK: Would like to publicize use case work. TAG blog entry [or note]
   might be good, but mindful of your (Noah's) concern about followup.
   ... There are needed changes to interaction model; this is
   important. But looking for guidance.

   <johnk>
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html

   <johnk> these are the interaction examples I sent

   LM: how to deal with webapps in webarch - i'm inclined to think an
   AWWW update is the way to go. If a new edition is too hard, maybe
   publish a description of how it *would* be updated

   JK: I started out that way, but AWWW goes into a lot of detail
   around HTTP, and a lot of the relevant interactions will happen
   outside of HTTP. So maybe decrease level of HTTP detail, so we can
   see patterns better

   <Zakim> Larry, you wanted to note preference for updating AWWW vs
   writing a new AWW section

   <Larry> WebSockets isn't HTTP

   NM: A lot of this is HTTP... or stretched HTTP...

   JK: It's a question of putting HTTP in perspective

   NM: Possible historical presentation

   JK: I tried that, & tried updating AWWW. It didn't work very well.

   NM: Any manner of moving ahead is fine, pick one

   JK: Comments on use cases, when I send them, would help me

   <noah> close ACTION-493

   <trackbot> ACTION-493 Schedule discussion of interim work on
   ACTION-355 Due: 2010-11-09 closed

   <noah> I'm asking whether we should reopen ACTION-355

   <johnk> yes, reopen it, if not closed

   <johnk> ACTION-355?

   <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
   AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
   Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

   <johnk> yes, it's still open

   <johnk> yes, available but will have to dial back in

   <johnk> yes, my call dropped

Security

   <noah> ACTION-417?

   <trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
   due 2010-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

   <johnk> I did send this URL out prior to last F2F

   <noah> See: [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/www-security.html

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/www-security.html

   (reading docs linked from agenda)

   JK: What are the architectural issues involved in security? as
   opposed to details.
   ... quick intro [cf. www-security linked above]
   ... Maybe form could be a section in the webapps work as discussed
   at f2f

   LM: given upcoming TAG elections, maybe we could actively recruit in
   areas where we need expertise

   <Larry> we're saying what the areas of important work are, and lay
   out the work we've done on it

   (discussion of TAG's needs regarding work in progress and how to
   fill them)

   LM: Raise awareness of work in progress via blog

   NM: Table of contents for web apps work is pretty long

   LM: Web apps, HTML5, security overlap significantly

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask what I should do next - happy to do
   another round on this topic too

   <Larry> they overlap completely

   JK: AWWW has no discussion of security - totally ignored - that's a
   flaw
   ... I suggest framing a section on security in web arch. Willing to
   do another round
   ... Thing to do is develop use cases. Would like to recommend
   practices that work (re security)
   ... Cookies and SOP are central, controversial

   NM: How to build a site that's not vulnerable?

   JK: Yes, CSRF tokens, which can be put in content or in URI...
   ... detailing issues about client/server trust is important, but
   could run into controversy

   ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: jar to report back on discussions with Ben Adida
   regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: John to make sure ACTION-355 links all significant
   writings including use cases. [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org &
   chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved
   on 18 Nov 2010 [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([44]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/11/19 12:33:48 $

     [43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 12:40:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:29 GMT