Draft Minutes for TAG call on 30th Aug 2007

Draft minutes of the TAG's 30 Aug 2007 Telcon are available for review at:


A plain text version is attached below.

Stuart Williams
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

                               - DRAFT -

               W3C TAG Teleconference of 30 August 2007

4 Sep 2007


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0097.html


          Stuart, Rhys, Norm, Noah, TimBL, Raman, Dave_Orchard


          Stuart Williams

          Noah Mendelsohn, T.V. Raman


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Convene and Agenda Review
         2. [5]F2F Preparation
         3. [6]TAG Blog
         4. [7]scalabilityOfURIAccess-58 (ISSUE-58)
         5. [8]TagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)
         6. [9]httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)
         7. [10]Fragment identifiers and scripting
     * [11]Summary of Action Items

   <Noah> scribenick: Noah

   <scribe> scribe: Noah Mendelsohn

   <scribe> scribenick: raman

   <Noah> scribe: T.V. Raman

Convene and Agenda Review

   RESOLUTION: Approved minutes of the previous meeting

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-minutes

   Skipping URN Registries -- No HST

   Password in the clear: Stuart has sent message to chairs asking if
   other WGs would like to meet with the TAG

   <scribe> ACTION: STUART Send MEZ email asking for a joint meeting
   with the Security WGduring the Plenary [recorded in

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action01

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-40 - Send MEZ email asking for a joint
   meeting with the Security WGduring the Plenary [on Stuart Williams -
   due 2007-09-06].

   RESOLUTION: TAG calls will be at this time Thursday 10:00 PT13:00 ET
   going forward.

F2F Preparation

   Logistics -- Organizers need Mac Address

   <Stuart> Skeletal Draft Agenda at:

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/17-agenda

   <Stuart> Email suggesting and requesting agenda topics

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Aug/0038

   <scribe> Done with F2F Agenda for now

TAG Blog

   Question for TimBL:Can we use [16]http://www.w3.org/tag/blog as the
   uri of our blog

     [16] http://www.w3.org/tag/blog

   <timbl_> Yes we may

   TimBL: Yes we may

   <timbl_> 2001/tag

   <timbl_> blog.w3.org

   <timbl_> blog.w3.org/tag

   blog: //tag

   <Stuart> www.tag/blog/tag

   <Stuart> Not holding Tim to first answer.

   <timbl_> tagBlog

   <Noah> Even if we decide on www.w3.org/tag/blog, we could still have
   www.w3.org/blogs be a page that gives links to lots of group's blogs

   <scribe> ACTION: TimBL to investigate getting
   [17]http://blog.w3.org/tag recorded in

     [17] http://blog.w3.org/tag
     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action02

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-41 - Investigate getting
   [19]http://blog.w3.org/tag [on Tim Berners-Lee - due 2007-09-06].

     [19] http://blog.w3.org/tag

   <timbl_> [20]http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS

     [20] http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS

   <timbl_> [21]http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG

     [21] http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG

   <timbl_> [22]http://www.w3.org/blog/

     [22] http://www.w3.org/blog/

   <timbl_> I think [23]http://www.w3.org/blog/TAG seems to the logical

     [23] http://www.w3.org/blog/TAG

   for the record, [24]http://w3tag.blogspot.com is available.

     [24] http://w3tag.blogspot.com/

scalabilityOfURIAccess-58 (ISSUE-58)

   Discuss follow-up from Norm's announcement of the new issue
   "Scalability of URI Access to Resources"

   Norm would like some time next week or at the F2F

   <Norm> There seem to be two aspects to the discussion that followed
   the announcement: some related to retreival and urnsRegistries; the
   other about authoratative representations (RDF you have from
   somewhere vs. the representation you get through GET.

TagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)

   <Noah> Sam Ruby's article is at:

     [25] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/08/02/HTML5-and-Distributed-Extensibility


     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0043

   <Noah> It's really too bad that Dan isn't here for this discussion,
   suggest we discuss some now, then revisit when he's available.

   <Noah> TVR: I'd be happy for Dave to send his note on behalf of the

   Stuart: wait for Dan

   <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to check with Dan [recorded in

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action03

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-42 - Check with Dan [on Stuart Williams
   - due 2007-09-06].

httpRedirections-57 (ISSUE-57)

   TimBL: simple confusion: non-informational resource used to mean

   <Noah> We should remember that we do have a definition of
   information resource in AWWW

   <Noah> From AWWW:

   <Noah> "By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit the
   scope of what might be a resource. The term "resource" is used in a
   general sense for whatever might be identified by a URI. It is
   conventional on the hypertext Web to describe Web pages, images,
   product catalogs, etc. as resources.

   <Noah> The distinguishing characteristic of these resources is that
   all of their essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message.
   We identify this set as information resources.

   stuart: there are entities that fit the definition of "information
   resource" that are not web accessible

   <timbl_> There is no reason that something being an IR means it must
   be on the web.

   Noah: single resource, 2 URIs -- one could return a 303

   <timbl_> foo.rdf#poem

   <timbl_> That will cause a fetch of foo.rdf whcih describes

   <Noah> NM: With the obvious media type?

   <Noah> TBL: Yes.


     [28] http://example.com/thingsILike/poems/rollingenglishdrunkard

   <timbl_> That 303s to ttp://exa,ple.com/thingsILike/poems.rdf which
   has stuff about it

   <timbl_> and I might ahve a

   <timbl_> version which has a repreentation and doe s a 200

   <timbl_> All thse can be owl:sameAs each other

   <timbl_> Example to show: 303 does not mean a non-infortaaion

   <Noah> NM: Yes, strongly agree (except perhaps that my knowledge of
   the nuances of owl:sameAs is sufficiently limited that I can only
   assume that bit's right too)

   <scribe> ACTION: TimBL Find the paper that he annotated on the plane
   [recorded in

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action04

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-43 - Find the paper that he annotated
   on the plane [on Tim Berners-Lee - due 2007-09-06].

   Stuart: discussion on redirection 57?

   All to look at RL's draft

Fragment identifiers and scripting

   <edit> scribenick: Noah


     [30] http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2007/07/06/cnn.heroes.scott.southworth.two.cnn

   TVR: Retrieve this page, you get HTML, but there are no IDs in the
   page that match.
   ... Without indicating whether I think this is good or bad practice.
   They take out the fragid and cons up a new URL that references a
   piece of a video stream.
   ... example.com/a/b/c?b=1
   ... With text/html, they are doing that "ilk" of processing on the
   ... using # syntax and fragids.
   ... Is it time to document this, and explore interoperability
   ... Depending on your view of the media type spec. for text/html,
   the semantics of fragids are either very loosely or very narrowly

   TBL: architecturally, when you have e.g. a fragid being passed to a
   script, that's a different architecture and perhaps the fragid
   should be viewed as opaque
   ... the normal case is that it
   ... the normal case is that it's transparent in the sense that most
   everyone knows how to interpret it.

   TVR: Note that it conses up another URI.

   TBL: Inside the script?

   TVR: Interesting question. The script is calling the media player
   with that newly munged URI. You'll see the other URL there.

   DO: This is a URI mapping algorithm

   NM: Right, so a media typed representation was returned. The spec
   for that media type either does or doesn't allow for this
   interpretation of the fragid. Specifically as a question of web
   arch: I don't swe why the question is any bigger than "if this is
   going to be legal, then the media type spec needs to bupdated"

   <Rhys> I tend to agree with Noah, that this looks like a question of
   what the rules are for text/html fragment ids

   TVR: If that's the interpretation, we shouldn't be trading URLs with
   fragids if you don't know the rep

   Web arch on fragid semantics is at:

     [31] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid

   From: The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set
   of representations that might result from a retrieval action on the
   primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution are therefore
   dependent on the type of a potentially retrieved representation,
   even though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is

   If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment
   are considered unknown and, effectively, unconstrained. Fragment
   identifier semantics are orthogonal to URI schemes and thus cannot
   be redefined by URI scheme specifications.

   3.2.2. Fragment identifiers and content negotiation

   I find it a bit frustrating that we're discussing this without first
   reading over what we've already written on this, which is in 3.2.2
   of Web Arch. I agree with Norm it's unfortunately slippery, but we
   have said a lot about it.

   From AWWWW:

   "Consider an example where the owner of the URI
   "[32]http://weather.example.com/oaxaca/map#zicatela" uses content
   negotiation to serve two representations of the identified resource.
   Three situations can arise:

     [32] http://weather.example.com/oaxaca/map#zicatela

   1. The interpretation of "zicatela" is defined consistently by both
   data format specifications. The representation provider decides when
   definitions of fragment identifier semantics are are sufficiently

   2. The interpretation of "zicatela" is defined inconsistently by the
   data format specifications.

   3. The interpretation of "zicatela" is defined in one data format
   specification but not the other.

   The first situationconsistent semanticsposes no problem.

   The second case is a server management error: representation
   providers must not use content negotiation to serve representation
   formats that have inconsistent fragment identifier semantics. This
   situation also leads to URI collision (2.2.1).

   The third case is not a server management error. It is a means by
   which the Web can grow.

   TVR: OK, I didn't know we'd ruled on that.

   <Stuart> from RFC 2854 text/html media type registration:

   <Stuart> 3. Fragment Identifiers

   <Stuart> The URI specification [URI] notes that the semantics of a

   <Stuart> identifier (part of a URI after a "#") is a property of the

   <Stuart> resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and

   <Stuart> interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the
   media type

   TVR: I think at very least, the fragid specification for the HTML
   media type should be revisited

   <Stuart> of the retrieval result.

   <Stuart> For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier

   <Stuart> designates the correspondingly named element; any element
   may be

   <Stuart> named with the "id" attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME,
   IFRAME, IMG and

   <Stuart> MAP elements may be named with a "name" attribute. This is

   <Stuart> in detail in [HTML40] section 12.

   Right, which is why I asked from the start why this isn't mainly a
   question of that media type specification.

   <timbl_> #raman #intro #alert

   <timbl_> person, para, js fun

   TBL: I'm worried about mixed namespace documents, and the risk we'd
   head down the road of having the same fragid be both a person and a
   paragraph. I don't want to go there.

   <timbl_> Either the anchor namespace and people namespaces are
   separate or they are overlayed.

   <timbl_> i think in this case with xml ns miing we have a
   dociument-wide namepscem,so they must be overlayed, so an id must
   not be used to identify both aan anchor and a paragraph

   <Stuart> adjouned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: STUART Send MEZ email asking for a joint meeting with
   the Security WGduring the Plenary [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to check with Dan [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: TimBL Find the paper that he annotated on the plane
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: TimBL to investigate getting
   [36]http://blog.w3.org/tag recorded in

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action01
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action03
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action04
     [36] http://blog.w3.org/tag
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes#action02

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version 1.128
    ([39]CVS log)
    $Date: 2007/09/04 10:01:13 $

     [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 10:07:20 UTC