W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Draft minutes of W3C TAG Teleconference of 4 Dec 2008

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:38:26 -0600
To: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1228487906.6924.207.camel@pav.lan>

On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 19:19 -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Unapproved draft minutes of today's W3C TAG teleconference are available 
> at [1].  Thank you.
> Noah
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/04-minutes.html

For the benefit of tracker, mailing list archive search,
etc., a text version follows...

    W3C Technical Architecture Group Teleconference of 4 Dec. 2008

04 Dec 2008


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/04-agenda


          Dan Connolly, T.V. Raman, Stuart Williams, Jonathan Rees,
          Noah Mendelsohn, Ashok Malhotra, Henry Thompson, David

          Tim Berners-Lee, Norm Walsh

          Stuart Williams

          Noah Mendelsohn


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Approval of last week's minutes
         2. [5]Scheduling of next meeting
         3. [6]Issue httpRedirections-57
         4. [7]Issue uriBasedPackageAccess-61
         5. [8]Agenda for the F2F
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

Approval of last week's minutes

   <DanC> to wit
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/20-tagmem-minutes 2008/12/04

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/20-tagmem-minutes

   RESOLUTION: The minutes of the TAG telcon of 20 Nov 2008 at
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/20-tagmem-minutes are

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/11/20-tagmem-minutes

Scheduling of next meeting

   SW: Next telcon will be on 18 Dec. 2008, our last before the

   <DanC> 18 Dec ok for me

   AM: I can scribe

   SW: Any regrets for that?


Issue httpRedirections-57

   <DanC> action-178?

   <trackbot> ACTION-178 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare initial draft of
   finding on uniform access to metadata. -- due 2008-11-25 --

   <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/178

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/178

   SW: Jonathan has made some progress on actions 178 and 184.

   <DanC> . [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html

   JR: On 178 I've prepared something and it's linked from the agenda.
   See [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html .
   Not sure this discharges my action but I think it's worth

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html

   <DanC> (I see a bunch of whitespace at the bottom; browser bug?)

   SW: As to the action, I'll leave it as PENDING REVIEW. Should we
   discuss now?

   JR: We can, but I'm not sure people have had time to read it.

   SW: We'll discuss at the F2F, and will discuss reviewers later.

   <DanC> action-184?

   <trackbot> ACTION-184 -- Jonathan Rees to write to Lisa D of IESG,
   cc www-tag, to explain about 303, with cool URIs and webarch as
   references. -- due 2008-11-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/184

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/184

   JR: On action 184 I sent mail to Lisa and have not yet received a
   reply. This has to do with the link header draft that he's

   DC: There are URI's for relationships. If those go to an IANA Web
   server that responds with 200's, then that claims they are
   information resources.

   <DanC> I'd like the action to be "contact" rather than "write to"

   JR: I'm not sure I've followed all of the discussion on link header.
   Perhaps the next step is to contact Mark Nottingham?

   <DanC> action-184 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-184 contact Lisa D of IESG, cc www-tag, to explain
   about 303, with cool URIs and webarch as references. due date now
   next week

   SW: I'll leave the action OPEN. Perhaps you would update the due

   JR: Sure.

   SW: There are some things cross posted from the IETF working group
   and www-tag, but more is on the IETF list. I think the draft is a
   bit vague on whether relations are between representations and
   resources our between resources and resources.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to sugges that the way to continue an
   action is to move it back to open and move the due date; by default,
   just say: action-nnn due next week

   DC: I'm not sure that, on the draft, PENDING REVIEW is the right

   DO: Joining the call now.

   SW: More discussion on this topic?

   HT: First of all, my apologies for arriving late, I'm here now. I
   like some of what Jonathan has written. Are we ready to discuss

   SW: We can.

   <DanC> ht, until you got here, noone had read jar's draft of 25 Nov

   <Ashok> I have read it!


     [16] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt

   <DanC> note -03 is recent: December 1, 2008

   <ht> Note that link-values may contain multiple relations; for

   <ht> Link: <[17]http://example.org/>; rel="index start";

     [17] http://example.org/>;

   <ht> rel="[18]http://example.net/relation/other";

     [18] http://example.net/relation/other

   <ht> rev=copyright

   <ht> Here, the link "[19]http://example.org/" has outbound links of
   the types

     [19] http://example.org/

   <ht> "[20]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/index",

     [20] http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/index

   <DanC> sorry to presume, Ashok

   <ht> "[21]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/start", and

     [21] http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/start

   <ht> "[22]http://example.net/relation/other", as well as an inbound
   link of

     [22] http://example.net/relation/other

   <ht> type "[23]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/copyright".

     [23] http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/copyright

   HT: OK, a question then. In Mark Nottingham's document at
   t is quite anodyne, though doesn't clearly distinguish resources and
   representations as clearly as we might like. From the draft:
   Note that link-values may contain multiple relations; for example

     [24] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt

       Link: <http://example.org/>; rel="index start";

   Here, the link "http://example.org/" has outbound links of the types
   "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/start", and
   "http://example.net/relation/other", as well as an inbound link of
   type "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/copyright".

   HT: Does he really means that links have links?

   TVR: I think he meant target.

   <Stuart> FYI... my participation in the ietf thread begins at:

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008OctDec/0294.html

   <DanC> ("outbound" seems wrong/backward to me too; the link is from
   the resource in the HTTP transaction to <[26]http://example.org/> )

     [26] http://example.org/>

   HT: That doesn't make sense either. I think he's talking about the
   link. Having a clearer ontology would be very helpful. I think he
   means that he means this syntax to signal four links, 3 outbound and
   1 inbound.

   JR: I suspect Mark might accept that.

   SW: Henry, did that get to the point?

   HT: Yes, though with a residual issue. I have not been a participant
   in this discussion, and am not sure whether I should respond or ask
   Stuart to respond.

   TVR: He cross posted to www-tag, and you can respond there.

   SW: Yes, though note that the discussion has forked and more is on
   the IETF branch.

   HT: I'm happy with responding on www-tag.


     [27] http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/09/discovery-and-h.html

   HT: I read
   l and was at least somewhat convinced by it. I might question
   Jonathan's formulation of "use link headers, but for efficiency do
   this on request", perhaps changing to work with dynamic resource
   mapping (scribe isn't familiar with this) falling back to link
   headers when that doesn't work.

     [28] http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/09/discovery-and-h.html

   JR: A Google group has been set up and discussion is progressing of
   things like site metadata. I don't have anything written. We could
   discuss at the F2F.

   SW: We have a F2F session scheduled. The session on this will be
   Wed. 11-12:30 at the F2F.

   DO: I want to participate, please.

   oMetadata says 11:15; skw acks that as a bug)

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/09-f2f-agenda#uniformAccessToMetadata

   SW: Have we recruited you as a reviewer, Dave?

   DO: (Laughter). Uh, sure.

   JR: Answering Henry. My hesitation is that more apparatus is needed
   to make a URI -> AboutTheThingURI mapping work. It's being worked on
   by Mark, et. al. Lines of communication are quite good, and better
   than a few months ago. Had I put link header ahead of URI rewrite
   consciously, that would have been my reasons.

   HT: Understood.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask a Link header question

   HT: It will have an impact on update too.

   JR: Yes.

   AM: Wanted to ask Jonathan about Google group, but update next week
   will do it.

   <DanC> # Metadata discovery David Orchard (Friday, 21 November)


     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0103.html


   The Google group is at:

     [31] http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/thread/d34e7fd9c9387a97

   TVR: The Google group will have an ATOM feed and an RSS feed.

   JR: Not sure site metadata in particular is being discussed on the
   Google group, but there are probably pointers.

Issue uriBasedPackageAccess-61

   <DanC> close action-196

   <trackbot> ACTION-196 Notify webapps wg that TAG is unlikely to meet
   the 3 month timeframe and ask for notification when tests relevant
   to widget URIs become available closed

   SW: I have fulfilled my action to warn the Web applications group
   that we will not make our 3 months target, and to ask that we be
   notified of test cases pertinent to widget URIs. Both are done, and
   they have established their own action regarding notifying us of
   such test cases. I've done some more thinking about this, and I feel
   that the right extension point is media types and fragid syntax. I
   tried to work that up in the message
   at[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0119 . Who
   has looked at it?

     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0119

   <DanC> (I read that sketch only once, but not carefully.)

   AM: Looked reasonable to me. You do a good job of using a
   hierarchical scheme to address a hierarchical structure. You got
   pushback, and I'm not sure why you did. Do you understand the

   SW: I think the pushback, mainly from Marcos was to the effect that
   they are not interested in network retrieval of packages. The
   widgets are in some way installed in the Widget engine.

   <jar286> they could use tag: URIs if network reference isn't an

   <Stuart> ?

   AM: They have a different and more limited use case, right?

   SW: They need to resolve relative URIs within the structure into
   absolute URIs.

   <Ashok> Marcos Cacares

   DO: I'm starting to understand what they're looking at. Perhaps we
   should look for general solutions. Architecture astronautics is a
   risk. Stuart, I'm glad you followed through. I think it's worth
   looking at whether we can do something that will bring communities

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask why use URIs at all?

   <ht> scribenick: ht

   NM: I'm just starting to pay attention to this. Has anyone said why
   they need URIs at all? My understanding from this call is that they
   don't need to get outside their closed world Google/Firefox use
   funny URIs for their local config data is because they want them to
   appear in URI contexts. So I'm missing a careful statement of
   requirements which among other things makes clear why these things
   need to be 'on the Web'. Sure, general is good, but only if there's
   prospective synergy.

   <noah> DC: The Web app groups needs URIs because they need to use
   DOM APIs.

   DC: They have explained -- WebApps need URIs, because their system
   context is the DOM API, e.g. <img src="...."/>, where that src can
   be a widget

   <scribe> scribenick: noah

   <Stuart> [33]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r36.- probably
   is the requirement that applies

     [33] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r36.-

   TVR: So if not going to the network, they can use widget:

   <DanC> does r36 refer to the DOM API? double-checking...

   DC: I'm not sure Web Apps requirements are shared by anyone else.

   SW: They almost need a skolemized URI scheme.

   <noah_> Yes, exactly re: skolemized.

   DC: I got conflicting input on that at the F2F. Some seemed to imply
   these never escape from the local environment, some seemed to imply
   a need for cross site linking.

   SW: They did ask the TAG to look at their requirements, which is why
   I put it on our agenda.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to answer why use URIs at all

   <Zakim> DanC2, you wanted to note

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/

   DC: There is a new mailing list, Marcos asked for it, and Mike Smith
   gave it to him.
   ... Stuart, would you like to send your proposal there?

     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/

   SW: Yes, I will. Will suggest further discussion on that list.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask why normal base URI rules don't do the

   <DanC> (worth an action?)

   HT: I tried during the week to understand why Larry's points weren't
   well taken. If there's a package, there's a base URI. Why isn't that
   the obvious answer?

   SW: Let's say the package is installed in a widget agent in a user

   DC: In the meeting they gave the case of two clock widgets, and you
   want one to be set to analog and one digital. They allow script
   writers to associate preferences with the name of the widget. If
   they have the same name, you can't set the properties on the two
   clocks separately.

   HT: Seems to me we need to frame this as a what's the base URI

   NM: Yes, and if we're using fragids, what's the media type.

   <Stuart> yes... indeed "...a what's the base URI problem."

   TVR: I agree with Noah to an extent, though if you say the URI is
   the HTTP that's not always enough given what's happened with
   text/html and scripting.

   <Stuart> +1 to raman scheme/prot and media-type/frag are orthogonal

   DC: Back to some of Henry's question. Some might say that the base
   URI is the file where I found it...

   TVR: That isn't good enough for the clock case, as we've seen with
   Google gadgets.

   DC: Some of the implementors did follow the file: path, and it
   turned out to be a privacy concern by giving script writers access
   to names in the filesystem.

   <ht> Stuart, yes, so this now sounds like what we know in the Schema
   WG as the 'left hand side' problem, for Schema Component Designators
   -- the components are distinct from the document fragment which gave
   birth to them

   DC: One of the requirements, I believe, was to get away from file:.

   <ht> I hear the words "install-time identifiers" as useful

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say you can't squat on scheme space even
   if you don't expect it to escape

   DC: Another angle was to leave this unspecified, but the worry was
   that some implementors wouldn't notice the concern and use file:

   <ht> scribenick: ht

   <DanC> 2 requirements I'm not sure they've written up clearly: (1)
   install-time naming to give distinct names to the 2 clock widgets
   (2) prevent leaks of the form that file: experience shows

   NM: TVR said that as long as we knew these wouldn't escape to the
   network, a widget: scheme would be OK, But I don't agree, in that
   this amounts to squatting on scheme name space -- if someone
   registers a public widget URI scheme, no widget user could get at
   them, because they already have a private, conflicting, meaning for
   a scheme of that name.

   <DanC> (is chrome: registered? yes, in the esw registry...
   [36]http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes/chrome )

     [36] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes/chrome

   TVR: So, we should use random digit strings?

   NM: Well, some of these (chrome?) do get typed by people

   <DanC> (I asked whether widget: was going to get written in files
   and such, and the answer I got was "no." then somebody else said
   "well, maybe")

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note file: experience and arguments
   against it

   NM: So I think the right thing to do is register these things, even
   if they are not expected to escape

   TVR: agree

   <scribe> scribenick: noah

   SW: I think we will come back to this at the F2F, focussing
   especially on their direct request that we consider addressing

   <DanC> "To develop a response to a direct request for feedback on
   widget addressing requirements" --

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/09-f2f-agenda#uriBasedPackageAccess-61

   <DanC> where "direct request" is linked

Agenda for the F2F

   Draft agenda for the F2F next week is at:

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/09-f2f-agenda

   <DanC> "2-4: Will review inputs on the session reading list"

   <DanC> --

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34270/F2FPriorities200812/results

   NM: How did I wind up on URNS&Registries?

   SW: You voted for it.

   NM: Yes, because I think it belongs on the agenda.

   <DanC> action-183?

   <trackbot> ACTION-183 -- David Orchard to incorporate formalism into
   versioning compatibility strategies -- due 2008-12-05 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/183

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/183

   SW: We are waiting for versioning input.

   <DanC> (one computer is not enough. I keep 2 in working condition
   and 95% of my work on the net)

   <DanC> ("redundancy in all critical systems")

   DO: My Mac drive crashed. Just got it back. Will try and get finding
   out this afternoon.

   SW: I'm concerned about the nature of the discussion we should have.
   One option: press on reviewing document as we have been doing, but I
   sense fatigue setting in for other TAG members. Or, we could step
   back, and ask how to conclude in a way that leads to a result. Do we
   want the meta discussion of minimum to declare victory?

   <Stuart> ?

   DO: A possibility would be to proceed to cut things down, perhaps to
   just forwards-compatible versioning. If there next few F2F's are
   West Coast, I could possible travel to them. Another possibility
   would be to get as far as we can, and then volunteer to work past my
   term, as I did in the past. Yet another possibility would be to add
   an editor.

   SW: I've left space for up to 2 sessions. I would like some guidance
   from the TAG as to the direction they'd like to go.
   ... What are your thoughts?

   HT: The only thing that's sparked my interest is the formal
   approach. That's not on the table.

   DC: Why not?

   HT: There is no current proposal for a future for that?

   SW: There is an action to incorporate it.

   HT: Not what I said. The document I find exciting. Cramming it into
   another document isn't as exciting.

   <Ashok> I agree that would make a better finding

   NM: What Jonathan has done is, if I speak honestly, the simple clean
   framework I had in mind from the start. If we went down that path,
   I'd want to also tell some stories with examples, etc. for people
   who can't handle the math directly. That said, I would really like
   to get value out of the hard work already done on Dave's draft; if
   there's a slice that's nearly ready to go, I'd be glad to wrap that
   up and ship.

   TVR: I suggest publishing what we have, not necessarily as a
   finding, but as background that we can use if we start with
   Jonathan's. The passwords in the clear finding was much simpler, and
   it took us 2 years after Ed left. I'm very concerned doing without
   active editor.

   NM: I don't think we should back into making versioning a priority
   in the coming year. It will be one of the 3 or so big things we do
   if we move ahead with it. If it makes the cut as one of the 3 most
   important, then I'm excited about doing it. If not, we should put it
   down, and publish Jonathan's as background work too.

   <DanC> ftf agenda says "due 2nd Dec 2008"; should read "due 5 Dec"

   <noah_> I would like to be dropped as a reviewer for
   URNSandRegistries. Never meant to volunteer.

   <DanC> likewise for urns and registries, ftf agenda says "due 2nd
   Dec 2008" should say 5 Dec

   HT: The document I circulated today is not formally for F2F reading.

   NM: I would like to be dropped as a reviewer on this one.

   SW: OK

   JR: I think uniform access to metadata is set.

   AM: What do we do here? Publish a TAG finding? Start a dialog.

   SW: At least we can be involved in the community. We can publish in
   varying forms. You were one of people who asked for discussion.
   Where would you go with this?

   <DanC> (I'm decreasingly excited about tag findings, but the TAG
   agreed to address issue-57 ... hmm.. is the "HttpRedirections" name

   <DanC> (workshops are not out of the question)

   AM: I have argued that this is central to the Web. I want to get the
   right people together to work on this, but am not sure best how to
   do it, except maybe something like a workshop. Not sure whether
   that's practical.

   JR: Maybe we can add as a F2F goal to bring people up to date on
   what's happening in the community. I'm very optimistic that people
   like Eran are working well together on this.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say I'm happy for AM and other TAG
   members to be creative about how the TAG addresses issues; findings
   are somewhat traditional but not in any way the only

   DC: Findings are traditional, but not the only choice. On Javascript
   security. I have not yet read, but am hoping to read, mashing with

   SW: URI based package access I put on. Review material is linking
   into specific widget requirements. You may want to look at
   surrounding context too.

   <DanC> said email doesn't seem to be cited

   <DanC> action-194?

   <trackbot> ACTION-194 -- Noah Mendelsohn to revise Self-Describing
   Web Draft Finding in response to September 2008 F2F meeting -- due
   2008-12-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/194

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/194

   NM: New self describing Web draft is out at

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2008-12-03.html

   <DanC> (noah, stuart and I sometimes leave actions pending review
   until we have some *other* action on that issue)

   SW: Tag soup got a lot of support as a discussion topic, but nobody
   has suggested a structure for the discussion.
   ... Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([44]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/12/05 00:14:43 $

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

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 14:39:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:25 UTC