W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2007

minutes TAG weekly 13 Sep for review: contentTypeOverride-24, XMLVersioning-41

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:12:56 -0500
To: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1189714376.1829.625.camel@pav>

And now... the moment you've all been waiting for... weekly TAG minutes!
(and the crowd went wild...)


                              TAG Weekly

13 Sep 2007


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0051.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-irc


          Stuart, Raman, Noah_Bangalore, TimBL, Rhys, Ht, DanC,



          Dan Connolly, Henry Thompson


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]Next Telcon
         3. [7]September F2F Preparation
         4. [8]Issue UrnsAndRegistries-50 (Tracker ISSUE-50)
         5. [9]Issue contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)
         6. [10]Tech-Plenary: TAG Proposal of Discussion Topic
         7. [11]Issue XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)
         8. [12]Issue abbreviatedURIs-56 (ISSUE-56)
         9. [13]back to contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)
     * [14]Summary of Action Items


   <DanC> Scribe: Dan Connolly

   <DanC> ScribeNick: DanC

   <DanC_> [15]minutes 6 Sep

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes

   RESOLUTION: to approve minutes 6 Sep (2007/09/06 18:55:56)

   SKW: one recent change to agenda; any other comments on the agena?
   We'll juggle a few things until Dave gets here...

Next Telcon

   PROPOSED: to meet again 27 Sep, Rhys to scribe

   <ht> Regrets for 2007-09-27

   Rhys: regrets 27 Sep [?]

   RESOLUTION: to meet 27 Sep (scribe to be confirmed)

September F2F Preparation

   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/17-agenda Revision: 1.14 $ of
   $Date: 2007/09/11 09:54:43

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

   SKW: Monday part of the meeting will stop at 5pm sharp if we're to
   take up the offer regarding a social event

   HT notes weather merits warm clothing

   <ht> For wind and weather forecasts, I recommend

     [17] http://www.xcweather.co.uk/

   <ht> There are weather stations for both Southampton and St.
   Catherine's Point

   SKW: monday morning scribe?

   HT: OK, I'll scribe Monday 17 Sep AM

   DO: what time should I call in?

   SKW: we plan to pick up XMLversioning at 3:30pm UK time Monday
   ... same time window on Tues harder to predict, but agenda calls for
   Tag Soup with TVR

Issue UrnsAndRegistries-50 (Tracker ISSUE-50)

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding in
   response to F2F discussion (ACTION-33) [CONTINUES] [recorded in

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   HT: my work on that got preempted; sorry.
   ... yes, I saw Chime's comments.
   ... the [19]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HttpUrisAreExpensive was news to
   me; thanks

     [19] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HttpUrisAreExpensive

Issue contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)

   <DanC_> [20]update "Authoritative Metadata"/ contentTypeOverride-24
   based on HTML 5 spec?

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0033

   DC: our position on contentTypeOverride-24 is: if it says
   text/plain, it's text/plain. Recent HTML 5 drafts say: if you're
   looking for an image, treat what comes back as an image, even if the
   MIME type says text/plain (or something pretty close to that)

   <scribe> Scribe: Henry Thompson

   <ht> ScribeNick: HT

   NM: By "ask for an image" do you mean in the accept header?

   DC: No, rather where the GET comes from, i.e. the markup around the
   ... I can't remember whether the HTML 5 spec says anything about
   accept header
   ... I then thought about the overlap with HTTP
   ... and drafted an internet draft containing the sniffing rules
   ... which was enough to get Roy Fielding to join the HTML WG
   ... and some substantive discussion is now happening
   ... Ian Hickson says that having spent two years trying to do the
   right thing, and losing
   ... He believes that any browser that doesn't sniff will lose market
   ... Fielding disagrees
   ... Hickson has in the past suggested the TAG would have more
   credibility if they reopened the finding and added orange cones,
   that is, "in practice" exceptions

   <Zakim> Noah_Bangalore, you wanted to noodle a bit on accept headers
   vs. <img> tags

   SW: I've always understood that the mime type as delivered is a
   statement of server intent, and that doesn't _entirely_ determine
   what client use must be

   NM: it was asserted that the semantics HTML 5 wants is something
   like "if the link was from an <img> tag, then make different
   assumptions about whether the returned representation is an image,
   regardless of Content-Type".
   ... What bothers me about that is that not only is that different
   from HTTP as specified today, you can't even specify it in terms of
   information that's visible at the HTTP level.

   SW: Should we actually open this up?

   <timbl_> I wouldlike to push back on the HTML WG

   TVR: I'm not sure this is a good idea, on the grounds that we've
   already opened up the HTML issue, and we don't yet know what the
   result will be

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to concur with TVR about the risk here

   TVR: Until we know that the HTML WG will succeed, I'm concerned
   about putting even more of WebArch at risk

   <timbl_> Who at microsoft is the person who has to make that

   <Rhys> I agree with Raman

   DC: This is an issue which makes me worry about the viabililty of
   the HTML WG -- Ian Hickson's position is that we can't do anything
   that the major browsers won't come on board with. Roy Fielding's
   view is that that means abdicating responsiblity, and just
   standardise other folks bugs

   DO: I agree that this is not in the whole community's interest
   ... We had a less than completely successful attempt to do better in
   the Web Services area, I don't think we should roll over here as

   TBL: It's true that if we can't get the big vendors to change their
   minds, we're in a mess. I think the right answer is for the TAG to
   convince them to try to make their browser help users do better
   ... I'm prepared to put some efforts into make this happen
   ... For example, browsers should warn users when show cleaned-up
   source on Show Source or when they have to sniff
   ... Important to get this right _now_ -- this morning I was in a
   meeting talking about video, and for a number of practical reasons,
   content negotiation between the two major approaches is going to be
   _very_ important
   ... and this is going to happen again and again, so we _should_ take
   up the challenge and try to persuade Firefox and IE and so on

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to report a bit of hope for a mozilla build
   with an option to make bogus mime types visible to the user, and
   meanwhile, a fairly serious proposal to reduce the

   TVR: Sniffing is a slippery slope to disaster

   DC: HTTP WG is thinking about restarting at IETF
   ... fixing bugs, issues list, no WG yet but close
   ... Larry Masinter has filed an issue to deprecate content


     [21] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81

   DC: Julian Reshke said he'd like a configuration option which said
   "show me the true mime type"
   ... That seemed like a hopeful sign

   <timbl_> ... application/xml;dammit

   DC: There has also been discussion [where?] of replacing or
   down-grading or ??? the Content-Type: header, e.g.

   <timbl_> I don't see at all how that will solve the problem that
   ISPs don't allow folks to control the MIME heders

   SW: So reopening means strengthening our arguments, or considering
   changing our position?

   <Noah_Bangalore> +1 to reopen

   DC: Could go either way

   <Noah_Bangalore> or at least a strong concur

   <DanC> DC, Tim, Dorchard, Noah...

   SW: In favour of reopening: 4

   <Rhys> Rhys doesn't have a strong view

   SW: Abstain: HST, SW, RL
   ... Opposed: TVR

   <timbl_> +1

   TBL: Do we have to reopen the issue to discuss it?

   TVR: I'd like to discuss it, but not change it

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say enforcement

   <DanC> (if we just want to re-assert our position, I don't think we
   need to re-open it.)

   <Noah_Bangalore> I'm discouraged. For years we've asked ourselves
   whether the time is right to tell the story of the new parts of the
   web, like SemWeb, in an AWWW vol 2. Now it feels like we're deciding
   how much of V1 to withdraw. Sigh.

   HT: I think it's always in order to discuss how to best promote TAG

   DC: Not opening it says we're not listening

   <Noah_Bangalore> Not that I'm against openning the issue, just
   discouraged that we need to.

   TVR: Opening it says we were wrong

   <Noah_Bangalore> I also don't think that openning an issue signals a
   change. It signals a careful recheck, I think.

   DO: I guess opening it is sensible because it gives us a clean way
   to discuss, have actions, etc.
   ... There's a precedent in what we did with xxx-7

   <Noah_Bangalore> I do have to go now. See you in Southampton. Good

   DO: So if we reopen and say "We're doing this because there's new
   information, and we want to track that and interact appropriately"

   <DanC> +1 re-open (I think the economics of the issue merits
   re-opening it)

   SW: Asking again -- should the TAG reopen the issue

   TVR: What does opening it mean?

   HST: That it stays open until we close it or abandon it

   <timbl_> TBL: yes

   SW: In favour: DC, DO, TBL

   Abstain: HST, TVR, RL

   DO: If we're not going to open this, we shouldn't talk about it

   HST: What about opening a new issue on "How do we deal with the fact
   that the HTML WG is heading down a road that is incompatible with
   our finding on respectMediaType-???

   TVR: I like that

   DC: I could live with it, but I think it's odd

   DO: Same here -- it seems like a heavy burden on our process

   SW: Proposal to reopen fails -- only three in favour; majority of
   the TAG is 5

   <DanC> ScribeNick: DanC

   <ht> HST observes that there _was_ a majority in favour of talking
   about this matter. . .

   SKW: proposal to re-open issue 24 didn't carry; other proposals are
   welcome. on to other items...

Tech-Plenary: TAG Proposal of Discussion Topic

   DO: Tech Plenary program committee accepted one of our proposals,
   "The Importance URI based Extensibility", aka distributed
   extensibility... 45 min...
   ... panel... with Q&A... <= 5 ppl... maybe 4...
   ... on the panel should be advocates of short strings as used in
   microformats, somebody from HTML 5, etc.
   ... not sure if my role is just recruiting panelists, or MC, or
   participant, or what...

   <Rhys> I think it's fine for the MC also to be a participant in the

   TVR: goal of the panel? this is clearly a long-running discussion,
   but I'd like to set clear goals for this panel.

   DO: re-inforce our message in support of decentralized language

   DanC: goal is at least getting more of the community up to speed, if
   not achieving a whole lot of novel technical progress on the panel

   TVR: ok, outreach makes sense

   SKW makes suggestion to mitigate the risk that presentations would
   use all the time

Issue XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)

   <Noah_Bangalore> FYI, I made some limited progress on the plane on
   the way over in reading both the terminology and strategies parts of
   Dave's versioning drafts. Whether I'll be able to wrap them in an
   email before the F2F is not clear, but I'll certainly try.

   <scribe> ACTION: Dan Connolly to Review definitions of partial
   understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible ACTION-4
   [DONE] [recorded in

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   DanC: my review (Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:57:37 -0500) said "I don't find
   this appealing; looks like an open research problem". DO said "let's
   not formalize it that deeply" which seems ok, perhaps, to me and
   Noah... as long as it doesn't come up in the practical examples in
   the scenarios part
   ... Marc de Graauw is working on a formalism; I found it somewhat
   interesting as an academic exercise, but much moreso now that he's
   pointed out that it's grounded in a real-world scenario: HL7

   <ht> ScribeNick: ht

   DO: I've tried to add definitions, based on information, but that
   did not find favor
   ... Since I can't take it any further, I suggested dropping it
   ... I'm also interested in Mark DeGraaw's work, since there's a
   clear indication there of the value that success here would provide

   SW: HST, any input?

   HST: I know of no solutions from the Computational Linguistics side

   <DanC> ACTION: Dan Connolly to ask Mimasa and Mark Birbeck about
   feasability of using substitution groups in XHTML modularization, cc
   public-xml-versioning ACTION-27 [DONE] [recorded in

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

   DC: I asked, I didn't get a satisfactory answer
   ... Subst Groups are designed for distributed extensibility

   <scribe> scribenick: danc

   HT: I'm up to speed here... I read the modularization [of XHTML]
   spec and wrote up my thoughts...

   (which see ACTION-15 )


     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/xhtml-modularisation-thoughts.html

   HT: indeed, substitution groups are a great mechanism for
   distributed extensibility; I explain how...
   ... a couple problems, 1 minor and 1 major...
   ... putting things in multiple substitution groups isn't allowed in
   XSD-the-REC; it is in XSD-work-in-progress...

   <timbl_> "clean subsetting"?

   HT: but they [XHTML] have another goal, that substitution groups
   don't do: "clean subsetting"
   ... substitution groups are bottom-up, which is why they're great
   for decentralized extensiblitiy...
   ... but XHTML modularization is also top-down; I dunno how to do
   that with substitution groups
   ... I hope somebody finds a work-around

   DC: this "clean subsetting" ... not sure I understand the

   HT: you need it to build XHTML 1.1 out of modules

   <DanC_> [I'm not able to grok that right away]

   DO: this is an interesting point on the design of XSD 1.1
   ... seems like XHTML is an important use case for XSD

   <DanC_> [my understanding is that XHTML is _not_ widely regarded as
   an important use case for XSD]

   HT: I'd be more interested in addressing that requirement in XSD 1.1
   if I could see a clear design.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry S. Thompson to Review XHTML Modularization
   ACTION-15 [DONE] [recorded in

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action04

   DC: DO, seen my msg about SMIL?

   <DanC_> Subject: lots of SMIL namespaces, revisited
   [XMLVersioning-41 / ISSUE-41]

   <DanC_> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:52:24 -0500

   DO: yes; saw that; been working on something related...

Issue abbreviatedURIs-56 (ISSUE-56)

   <scribe> ACTION: Stuart Williams to Look at the difference between
   QNAME in XML and SPARQL ACTION-34 [DONE] [recorded in

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action05

   SKW: SPARQL uses "abbrevited names" which are similar to QNames, but
   not quite the same. [summarizing
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0036 ]

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0036

   DanC: recent RDFa designs seem to not use CURIEs in the href
   attribute, but only in new attributes

   some investigation into current status of curie, RDFa drafts,

   DanC: I think we can leave this issue be until a new WD of RDFa
   and/or CURIEs comes out.

   <ht> scribenick: ht

back to contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24)

   DC: TBL asked the question: Who makes decisions about this sort of
   thing for the vendors?
   ... We're planning a f2f of the HTML WG for the Tech Plenary week
   ... and we are hoping that there will be real technical
   representation from all the vendors

   <timbl_> "sensitive mode"

   TBL: I think showing only a clean XML version of veiw sourcfe for
   copy/paste is non-destrictive

   <Rhys> 'view problems' in the same sense as 'view source'?

   DC: The best suggestion I've seen was to allow the "This is my
   content, show me problems rather than fixing me silently"

   <timbl_> Firefox > Tools > Error Console

   DC: Roy Fielding is taking the HTML WG discussion seriously, but I
   don't know how far Ian Hickson has yet succeeded in changing his
   ... Who knows how to make a private build of Firefox? None of the
   people who do on the WG have stepped up so far. . .
   ... Boris Zbarsky seems like a candidate

   TVR: yes...


     [28] http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2006/10/do-you-know-boris-zbarsky/

   <ht_> web.mit.edu/bzbarsky/www/

   <DanC> oh... timbl... what news on the blog URI?

   <DanC> what is it you wanted to investigate?

Summary of Action Items

   [PENDING] ACTION: Henry to revise URNsAndRegistries-50 finding in
   response to F2F discussion (ACTION-33) [recorded in

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   [DONE] ACTION: Dan Connolly to ask Mimasa and Mark Birbeck about
   feasability of using substitution groups in XHTML modularization, cc
   public-xml-versioning ACTION-27 [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: Dan Connolly to Review definitions of partial
   understanding, backward compatible, and forward compatible ACTION-4
   [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: Henry S. Thompson to Review XHTML Modularization
   ACTION-15 [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: Stuart Williams to Look at the difference between
   QNAME in XML and SPARQL ACTION-34 [recorded in

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action05

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [34]scribe.perl version 1.128
    ([35]CVS log)
    $Date: 2007/09/13 20:04:51 $

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

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 20:13:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC