W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2011

TAG telcon of 2011-12-15 draft minutes

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:35:46 +0000
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b1urzwk4t.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
now available at

 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html

and as text below.

ht
-----------------
                                   - DRAFT -

                  Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

                                  15 Dec 2011

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Yves Lafon, Philippe Le Hegaret (in part), Ashok Malhotra, Larry
          Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jeni Tennison, Henry S. Thompson

   Regrets
          Tim Berners-Lee, Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Henry S. Thompson

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]Minutes of last meeting
         3. [7]Administrivia
         4. [8]HTML.next
         5. [9]F2F Planning
         6. [10]ACTION-509, Response to RDFa WG
         7. [11]ACTION-631 Microdata referenced from HTML5 spec
         8. [12]Pending review actions
         9. [13]Overdue actions
     * [14]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________

Convene

   NM: There will be a call on 22 December
   ... Regrets from YL

   JT: Regrets

   NM: LM, can you scribe?

   LM: Yes

Minutes of last meeting

   <noah> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/08-minutes

   RESOLUTION: Approve the minutes of telcon of 2011-12-08

Administrivia

   Local arrangements for upcoming F2F at
   [16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0004.html

   NM: HST, please arrange for a telephone bridge

   HST: Will do

   Agenda for f2f is building at
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda

   NM: Mark Nottingham will join us for the SPDY discussion
   ... Mark's time is limited, will have to fit in on Friday morning

   LM: Like to involve him on registries as well, as he's been taking the
   lead on the HAPPIANA work

   NM: Given time constraint, let's start the registries topic earlier, so
   we're well prepared to use Mark's time well
   ... Wrt XML-HTML unification work, chasing with Norm Walsh

HTML.next

   NM: This topic was suggested at the Edinburgh f2f, suggesting we should
   look at what involvement we might want to have wrt HTML after HTML5
   ... PLH has joined us, and will do so again at the F2F to help
   ... References to possibly relevant material in the agenda

   <noah> ACTION-637?

   <trackbot> ACTION-637 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask PLH to join us in Dec.
   to bring us up to speed on HTML.next, and also join in F2F discussion
   -- due 2011-12-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/637

   <noah> close ACTION-637

   <trackbot> ACTION-637 Ask PLH to join us in Dec. to bring us up to
   speed on HTML.next, and also join in F2F discussion closed

   NM: Most notably, a wiki at [19]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next

   PLH: Some background on HTML.next
   ... Not very far yet
   ... The HTML WG is focussed on HTML5, given the number of open issues,
   some of which are tricky
   ... So the discussions on .next have not gotten very far so far, most
   recently at TPAC
   ... Modularization of the spec. has been mentioned several times

   <Larry> Modularization work might benefit from some planning, even
   though it is premature to actually start with the work

   PLH: Some new features have been suggested
   ... Media ?? WG has brought some suggestions for some changes in their
   area
   ... A <data> element has been suggested by Ian Hickson

   <Larry> common protocol elements with other protocols as a big theme

   <noah> Larry, would you elaborate. Do mean things like HTTP-ish stuff
   in the <meta> tag, for example?

   NM: There's a sort of process issue about whether the future will be
   understood as working on a monolithic HTML6 or whether feature (group)
   by feature (group) will be specced through to REC independently

   PLH: Yes, but until we see a specific proposal, it's hard to know
   if/how this will work

   HT: A large architectural issue, which might arise, is whether there is
   any expectation within the WG (as opposed to rest of W3C) that they
   might want think about differing requirements for Web app delivery
   platform vs. browser.

   <Larry> I'd characterize what HT said was WebApps vs. HTML WG in W3C
   ... is that the right boundary in the long term

   NM: There's a background issue mentioned sometimes as to whether
   security has been well-treated in the current round
   ... Doug Crockford has weighed in on this

   <Larry> JavaScript & API rules

   <noah> Doug Crockford on HTML and Security:
   [20]http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072

   <noah> Title of article is "Discoverer of JSON Recommends Suspension of
   HTML5"

   NM: [Paraphrasing] This new spec. is chock-full of new features, and
   not only have you not done much to address existing issues, you've
   significantly expanded the surface area, and hence the risk of
   vulnerabilities

   <noah> He specifically criticizes the lack of clear resolution to cross
   site scripting problems, among others.

   <noah> Crockford is quoted as saying: "The XSS problem comes from two
   fundamental problems. The first is that the language of the web is
   unnecessarily complicated. HTML can be embedded in HTTP, and HTML can
   have embedded in it URLs, CSS, and JavaScript. "

   <noah> "JavaScript can be embedded in URLs and CSS. Each of these
   languages has different encoding, escapement, and commenting
   conventions. Statically determining that a piece of text will not
   become malicious when inserted into an HTML document is surprisingly
   difficult. There is a huge and growing set of techniques by which an
   attacker can disguise a payload that can avoid detection. New
   techniques are discovered all the time, and usually the attackers find
   them

   <noah> "The second problem is that all scripts on a page run with the
   same authority. "

   PLH: But DC has not pointed to any specific vulnerabilities. An EU
   study surveyed the spec. from this perspective, and identified some
   moderate issues, but nothing that stands out as a major problem:
   [21]http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/application-security/web-security/a-
   security-analysis-of-next-generation-web-standards A Security Analysis
   of Next Generation Web Standards

   LM: It's not clear that the kind of security review that is needed can
   be done properly

   PLH: It's always possible that there are holes, but we're trying hard
   not to let that happen

   LM: When we discussed HTML issues a while ago, we left some things off
   the list because they weren't timely -- should we pull them up again?

   NM: I can't easily find that list -- someone needs to take an action to
   find the list and prepare a discussion
   ... so that we don't waste time

   LM: I will find the list, if someone else will do the review

   NM: I will take an action to find the list and email a link to the
   group

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to try and find list of review issues relating to
   HTML5 from earlier discussions [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-641 - Try and find list of review issues
   relating to HTML5 from earlier discussions [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
   2011-12-22].

   NM: After that, I'll wait for specific requests for action wrt
   something there.

   PLH: That security review covers not just HTML5, but also related
   specs.
   ... It is often, as was the case with CSS, that it's combinations of
   specs that create security risks

   <Larry> perhaps ability to to security review is a goal for
   modularization

   PLH: The CSS risk was not CSS alone, but in combination with the DOM

   JT: From what you've seen about possible HTML.next features, is there
   potential overlap with other WGs?
   ... Because that's where problems have arisen in the past

   PLH: Not that I'm aware of, but only in-so-far as we often don't have
   WGs in the areas that have been mentioned

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask if review really covered Doug C.'s
   concern

   NM: PLH mentioned the existing study, but DC's interview does mention
   some specifics
   ... For example

   <noah> Doug Crockford (in article linked above): "HTML can be embedded
   in HTTP, and HTML can have embedded in it URLs, CSS, and JavaScript.
   JavaScript can be embedded in URLs and CSS. Each of these languages has
   different encoding, escapement, and commenting conventions. Statically
   determining that a piece of text will not become malicious when
   inserted into an HTML document is surprisingly difficult."

   NM: Is that the kind of thing which that EU survey looked at? We're
   carrying a huge historical overhang which it's hard to untangle, or get
   away from

   PLH: I don't know whether that issue was covered by the survey

   <Zakim> Larry, you wanted to talk about modularization guideilnes,
   reasons for, requirements for... examples of where modularization
   helps, things to avoid... is this something TAG could

   <Larry> for example, our recent finding on web applications and URIs
   for application state -- could we get that into HTML.next

   LM: One of the requirements for modularization is that it makes
   security reviews easier.
   ... That needs to feed in to any discussion of why modularize, and how,
   which the TAG might contribute to

   <noah> I agree, but I think another way of saying this is: separation
   of concerns is a good characteristic of a design. If that's achieved,
   then one benefit will be that specs can be reviewed in pieces.

   LM: We've recently published a REC on Application State, and are headed
   for something on API Minimization

   HT: He said, that we've published some things that weren't well timed
   to affect last year's work. Things like Storage and API work in the TAG
   could be focused on impacting html.next

   HT: Those should feed in early to improve the chance of impact

   PLH: There is very low interest in the WebApps WG in working on the Web
   Storage API
   ... But it will go forward simply because it is so widely used, even
   though there is a widely known bug, in the area of concurrent access to
   the API

   PLH, AM: The bug is called out in the current spec. draft, in fact

   PLH: Momentum is moving toward IndexDB

   AM: People have been saying that Web Storage is a very simple API,
   IndexDB is more complicated, they don't need that complexity.

   PLH: It will get done, but it won't get improved or extended

   NM: The TAG has discussed the whole question of client-side storage,
   and whether we should gear up to look at this area
   ... The Web started out pretty stateless, then along came cookies, and
   now various forms of client-side persistent data, Web Storage, IndexDB,
   etc. . .
   ... I think the TAG's concern should be at the architectural level,
   comparing these mechanisms to a local HTTP caching proxy
   ... and looking at the question of accessing it via an index rather
   than a URI
   ... We need to find out what people want from these, that they can't
   get from a caching proxy
   ... and maybe feed back to developers
   ... So even if Web Storage isn't complicated, or likely to be extended,
   there may be work for the TAG to do

   AM: In our recent discussion, we looked also at the relation of App
   Cache to Web Storage

   NM: Not sure how much we need to devote to this going forward
   ... but without more evidence of new ideas, we may have to reconsider
   using f2f time
   ... Thank you Philippe for joining us

F2F Planning

   <noah> List of topics:
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda.html#agendaInProgress

   NM: Embedded in agenda format, but focus on timeline fixed points, and
   Working List of Agenda Items

   AM: 11:30 end on Friday?

   NM: No, usual goal -- aim for 4 p.m.
   ... What's up with Privacy?

   AM: Not yet connected with DA on this

   AM: I have written a short doc't, arguing that although the W3C now has
   a Do Not Track WG, there are other problem areas which are worrying
   ... But it's not clear what W3C can do in these areas
   ... Perhaps W3C should make a few statements on such things: Net
   Neutrality, ???

   NM: Maybe this will fit in no problem, will see how the schedule goes

   JT: Previous agenda discussion included, wrt Publishing and Agenda on
   the Web, there is now probably not going to be a new document, because
   we haven't had any legal input
   ... But we did talk about having a brainstorming session on what kinds
   of punchy short outputs we should aim for
   ... This is a good thing for f2f

   HST: +1

   AM: +1
   ... Also need to think about how they should be delivered

   NM: Right, I'll plan to do that
   ... Aiming to wrap the agenda in the coming week, please note

   JT: I would like to have a brief slot to bring us up to date on the
   Microdata/RDFa situation

   NM: 30 minutes?

   JT: Yes

   NM: 10 minute update, 20 minute discussion

   JT: I'm not aware of any specific thing we need to do, but did want to
   report

   NM: There are several major document promises wrt preparation time
   before the f2f
   ... So the sooner the better
   ... Please get behind this and push if you're on the hook

ACTION-509, Response to RDFa WG

   NM: Are we good to go here?

   JT: Yes, given recent agreement to the amended wording, I think we're
   ready to go

   NM: No objections? None.

   <noah> Can we record a resolution pointing to the email with the agreed
   text?

   JT: I'll go ahead then

   <noah> Since this is communication with an outside group

   <JeniT> Final email in thread is
   [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0077.html

   RESOLUTION: TAG agrees that Jeni Tennison will send the text in
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0026.html to
   the RDFa WG and thereby close ACTION-509

     <JeniT> In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with
     fragment identifiers that are local to the document containing the
     RDFa fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom,
     which is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF
     serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities
     described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the
     expressive power of RDFa. The precise meaning of IRIs which include
     fragment identifiers when they appear in RDF graphs is given in
     Section 7 of [RDF-CONCEPTS]. To ensure that such fragment
     identifiers can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations
     for markup languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or
     indirectly reference this specification (RDFa Core).

ACTION-631 Microdata referenced from HTML5 spec

   <noah> ACTION-631?

   <trackbot> ACTION-631 -- Jeni Tennison to suggest how is best to deal
   with explicit reference to only Microdata (not RDFa) from HTML spec --
   due 2011-11-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/631

   NM: Near consensus that not much needs to be done

   JT: At the moment the HTML5 spec mentions neither Microdata or RDFa
   ... But that means there's no FYN route from the soon-to-be text/html
   media type definition to either of these

   <Larry> maybe this belongs in the MIME document

   NM: No action on FYN for HTML5, I don't think

   HST: I think this needs to be against HTML5 - unconvinced focusing on
   mime doc now is the right way to go

   JT: I'll take an action

   LM: I'd like to help

   <Larry> I think we need to address the issue of media type registration
   in the compound specifications and media type registration and use....

   NM: Due date just ahead of the f2f, so at least we can discuss this
   there by expanding the microdata nd RDFa session

   JT: It might also make sense to discuss it in the HTML.next session, as
   it's larger than just microdata and RDFa

   NM: Doesn't really fit with HTML.next -- time frame wrong, for one
   thing

   JT: It was mostly that I was hoping PLH would be there

   NM: OK, I'll expand both the time slot and the topic for what was
   called above the Microdata and RDFa reporting session

   <noah> ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for
   getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5
   Due: 2 January 2012 [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-642 - With help from Larry to make plan of
   action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA
   from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-12-22].

   <noah> ACTION-642 Due 2012-01-02

   <trackbot> ACTION-642 With help from Larry to make plan of action for
   getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5
   Due: 2 January 2012 due date now 2012-01-02

   NM: So, close ACTION-631?

   <noah> close ACTION-631

   <trackbot> ACTION-631 Suggest how is best to deal with explicit
   reference to only Microdata (not RDFa) from HTML spec closed

   <noah> ACTION-614?

   <trackbot> ACTION-614 -- Jeni Tennison to report on progress relating
   to RDFa and Microdata -- due 2011-12-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/614

   <noah> ACTION-614 Due 2012-01-06

   <trackbot> ACTION-614 Report on progress relating to RDFa and Microdata
   due date now 2012-01-06

Pending review actions

   <noah> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

   <noah> ACTION-528?

   <trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus on
   a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names -- due
   2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528

   HST: Was planning to discuss minutes of the workshop today, but someone
   asked for more time

   ACTION-588?

   <trackbot> ACTION-588 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Larry to update
   mime-web product page Due 2011-08-18 -- due 2011-12-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/588

   Overtaken by ACTION-636 (Noah successfully fobs this off on Larry).
   Marking PENDING REVIEW.

   close ACTION-588

   <trackbot> ACTION-588 Work with Larry to update mime-web product page
   Due 2011-08-18 closed

   ACTION-625?

   <trackbot> ACTION-625 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule followup
   discussion of [32]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per
   agreement in Santa Clara) -- due 2011-12-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625

   HST: There is a plan we hatched in Edinburgh, JAR will be letting us
   all know about it

   <noah> Include ACTION-625 in F2F agendum on URI Definition Discovery --
   new work to be available for discussion

   <noah> ACTION-639?

   <trackbot> ACTION-639 -- Noah Mendelsohn to invite Mark Nottingham to
   SPDY/HTTP F2F session -- due 2011-12-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/639

   <noah> close ACTION-639

   <trackbot> ACTION-639 Invite Mark Nottingham to SPDY/HTTP F2F session
   closed

Overdue actions

   <noah> ACTION-560?

   <trackbot> ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last
   call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560

   HST: Some progress behind the scenes, but nothing definite to report on
   yet

   ACTION-560 due 2011-12-20

   <trackbot> ACTION-560 Review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 due
   date now 2011-12-20

   <noah> ACTION-635?

   <trackbot> ACTION-635 -- Henry Thompson to update product page for Frag
   IDS and Mime types, to include realistic goals and dates -- due
   2011-12-08 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/635

   HST: I'll scope a session on this for the f2f, in case it's needed

   ACTION-635 due 2011-12-20

   <trackbot> ACTION-635 Update product page for Frag IDS and Mime types,
   to include realistic goals and dates due date now 2011-12-20

   HST: The updated page will not promise anything in time for the f2f

   <noah>
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

   <noah> ACTION-501?

   <trackbot> ACTION-501 -- Ashok Malhotra to follow up on whether
   GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per site/app
   etc [self-assigned] -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501

   <noah> ACTION-633?

   <trackbot> ACTION-633 -- Ashok Malhotra to drive TAG review of
   Geolocation last call Due 2011-12-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/633

   NM: It really matters that Product pages really need to tell the truth
   about when substantial documents will be forthcoming

   AM: I think these are done, I sent email about them, saying the spec.
   looked OK to me and no action was required

   <noah> NM: Right, we need that especially as input to the
   F2F...otherwise we will burn time there editing the product pages to
   reflect earlier decision

   <Larry> +1

   <noah> close ACTION-501

   <trackbot> ACTION-501 Follow up on whether GeoLocation finds reasonable
   answer on giving permission per site/app etc [self-assigned] closed

   <noah> close ACTION-633

   <trackbot> ACTION-633 Drive TAG review of Geolocation last call Due
   2011-12-06 closed

   AM: I've done my half of ACTION-634

   <noah> ACTION-634?

   <trackbot> ACTION-634 -- Noah Mendelsohn to with help from Noah to
   publish
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState-20111130
   as a TAG Finding -- due 2011-12-20 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/634

   AM: Waiting on NM for the other half

   <Larry> I will bump the dates on my open actions

   <noah> ACTION-632?

   <trackbot> ACTION-632 -- Ashok Malhotra to frame issues around
   client-side storage work Due 2011-12-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632

   NM: I do want to talk about this at the f2f, so need it before then

   <noah> ACTION-632 Due 2012-01-02

   <trackbot> ACTION-632 Frame issues around client-side storage work Due
   2011-12-06 due date now 2012-01-02

   LM: I have been working on xxx, and would welcome review from everyone

   <Larry> i've been making good progress, i'm ready for 1-1 review of the
   document i'm working on, but not in a mode where you read something and
   give me feedback days later...

   NM: Adjourned

   <Larry> i posted a couple of "uncool URLs must change" links

   <Larry> and HTTP status cats as a new registry

   <ht> +1 for HTTP status cats

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for
   getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5
   Due: 2 January 2012 [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to try and find list of review issues relating to
   HTML5 from earlier discussions [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01]
     __________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [45]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([46]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/12/20 10:55:19 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-agenda.html
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-tagmem-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item08
  13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item09
  14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/08-minutes
  16. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0004.html
  17. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda
  18. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/637
  19. http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next
  20. http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072
  21. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/application-security/web-security/a-security-analysis-of-next-generation-web-standards
  22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01
  23. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda.html#agendaInProgress
  24. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0077.html
  25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0026.html
  26. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/631
  27. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02
  28. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/614
  29. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
  30. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528
  31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/588
  32. http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options
  33. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625
  34. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/639
  35. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560
  36. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/635
  37. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
  38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501
  39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/633
  40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState-20111130
  41. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/634
  42. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632
  43. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02
  44. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01
  45. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  46. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 11:36:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT