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

TAG Telcon Minutes for 31st January 2008

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:37:35 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <m263x96b28.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/01/31-minutes

W3C[1]

                                   - DRAFT -

                        W3C Technical Architecture Group

31 Jan 2008

   Agenda[2]

   See also: IRC log[3]

Attendees

   Present
           Stuart, Norm, Jonathan, Tim, Ashok, Dan, Noah

   Regrets
           Dave, Raman

   Chair
           Stuart

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Agenda review
         2. Accept minutes of 17 Jan 2008
         3. Next telcon: 7 February 2008
         4. Welcome to new members
         5. 2008 f2f schedule
         6. Issue tagSoupIntegration-54 and contentTypeOverride-24
         7. Issue passwordsInTheClear-52
         8. UrnsAndRegistries-50
         9. Vancouver F2F Agenda Requests
     * Summary of Action Items

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Agenda review

   Stuart: Pretty much as published, with a little reordering and a new item
   from Henry

   Agenda accepted

  Accept minutes of 17 Jan 2008

   Accepted

  Next telcon: 7 February 2008

   Proposed to scribe: Dave

   Stuart to chair

   Possible regrets from Ashok for 7 Feb; Tim for 21 Feb.

  Welcome to new members

   Stuart: Welcome in a more formal way to Ashok and Jonathan. Also
   congratulations and welcome back to Henry and Raman.
   ... Perhaps we could do a bit of a round table.

   Dan: I co-chair the HTML WG, occupying about 150% of my brain. Tag soup
   integration is always on my mind. Also IETF liason so mime-type issues
   always pique my interest. I'm interested in the Namespace Document 8 and
   sem-web related issues.

   Henry: I have three documents on the critical path: Namespace Document 8,
   which is close, XML Functions 34, URNsAndRegistries 50. Otherwise known as
   why all schemes other than http: are evil.

   <DanC_lap> (I forgot to say: I'm interested in learning about information
   theory and economics, since large-scale considerations often dominate
   semicolon-vs-comma level design decisions, even in HTML)

   Henry: I'd like to spend more time on the vocabulary work currently going
   on in the sem web subgroup.
   ... we could do better making it clear about what URIs are and what
   resources are, etc.

   Jonathan: I'm at Science Commons and from that PoV we have a strong
   interest in the semantic web and identifier schemes and document metadata.

   Noah: I'm not sure how much introduction is needed, I know Ashok and
   Jonathan a bit. I'm no longer on the Protocol WG. I am still involved in
   XML Schema.
   ... I can't say I have a technical hot button, I just think the web is
   really important and at its best the TAG has an opportunity to explain
   things that are subtle.
   ... We can also promote clear thinking.
   ... The web is something like a telephone system, it has to keep working
   in 30 or 50 years.
   ... I'm wrapping up a draft on the self-describing web, which doesn't have
   an issue.
   ... I tried to take a crack at the relationship between schemes and
   protocols, but I've put that down for a bit.

   Stuart: I've been co-chairing for a while. My strong interests are in the
   semantic web. I can't seem to leave issues related to identifiers alone. I
   find some of the ontology aspects really absorbing and hard.

   Tim: Generally the semantic web. I think it's great that we have a
   subgroup doing semantic web architecture.
   ... We need to be able to write these things in RDF and describe
   relationships between them.
   ... My current 'tabulator' project makes some of these issues urgent for
   me.
   ... All sorts of other things hit me at glancing angles: versioning in
   HTML and XML.
   ... There have been discussions, for example, about XML being upgraded.
   That's an example of one of the many times we've messed up versioning.
   We've got a lot of material thanks to Dave but we haven't boiled it down
   to truths.

   Ashok: I started on Schema in 1999. I worked with Noah and Henry on it for
   many years. I also did XML Query where I worked with Norm. Most recently,
   I've been doing WS-Policy where I'm working with Dave.
   ... Now I'm focussed mainly on web services. I've been doing lots of OASIS
   work on web services: WS-Policy, etc. The other thing I'm trying to start
   is an incubator group to map relational data to RDF and OWL.
   ... That's taken a little while to get started, but once it starts, I
   think the TAG might have some wisdom to offer.

   Norm: I'm co-chair of the XML Core WG and chair of the XML Processing
   Model WG so XML issues are always on my mind. I'm interested in the
   tag-soup nexus of issues. I'm interested in issues related to URIs and
   resources and the semantic web as well.

  2008 f2f schedule

   Staurt: I'd like to make a formal decision about the two meetings
   following Vancouver.

   Stuart: There's been a WBS poll for a while now. The September proposal is
   pretty strong.
   ... For Bristol, we are at risk for not having TV, Dave, and Dan for some
   or all of that meeting.

   Dan: The risk for me is a semweb conference on the west coast that looks
   really cool, but I guess I could miss it.

   Dave: Monday is a public holiday in CA, so we're likely to have plans,
   though we don't have any yet.

   Stuart: Does anyone have reservations about us meeting w/o those
   participants.

   Henry: Given how hard we've tried to find another date without success, I
   think we should go ahead.

   Dan: My risk is negligible, let's ignore it.

   Norm: I'm with Henry, it may not be ideal, but we can't find anything
   better.

   Stuart: I propose that we adopt those two sets of dates.

   Dave abstains, no objections.

   Accepted.

   <timbl> * Spring: 19th-21st May 2008 (Mon-Wed), Bristol UK, hosted by HP
   Labs, Bristol (Stuart)

   <timbl> * Summer: 23rd-25th September 2008 (Tue-Thu), Kansas City, USA,
   hosted by W3C (DanC)

   RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet 19-21 May in Bristol and 23-25 September in
   Kansas City

  Issue tagSoupIntegration-54 and contentTypeOverride-24

   Stuart: Noah posted a note about the use of META tags to trigger
   standards-compliant rendering in browsers

   <Noah>
   http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/01/21/compatibility-and-ie8.aspx[4]

   Noah summarizes his message and how he came to discover this topic.

   Noah: Roughly what's going on is that users got dependent on how older
   versions of IE rendered pages.
   ... But there is a desire to move forward. Some versions keyed off the
   presence of the DOCTYPE declaration.
   ... For a combination of reasons, they feel that's no longer working. If
   they did the same thing in IE8, it would break a lot of content tailored
   for IE7 and IE6.
   ... The proposal that's been floated is to use a new http-equive meta tag.
   ... I think the spin on that is that a site-wide HTTP header can set a
   global optoin.
   ... If you don't use the meta tag, you get quirky interpretation. If you
   do use the meta tag, then you identify the level of IE that you believe is
   best for your content.
   ... I have at least two concerns: the first is whether this is in any way,
   shape or form a good idea. The other is, what happens to follow your nose.
   ... I don't think it woudl break webarch at that level if (scribe: iff?)
   the HTML spec says something about that meta tag.
   ... Without that in the HTML spec, I'm not sure it's legitimate at all.

   Dave: I think this is a great thing to discuss. This is effectively a kind
   of browser sniffing as TV pointed out.
   ... I guess there's a bunch of different aspects that are ... interesting.
   ... One is that if there's a version attribute, it'll be the *browser*
   version.
   ... Then there's where it's going to be, in the meta tag instead of a
   version attribute on the HTML tag or as a parameter on the media type.
   ... Then there's the fact that the default is going to be IE7 mode. The
   expectation is that a lot of people are going to forget to do this, so
   they'll be frozen indefinitely at IE7.
   ... Then there's the question of whether or not anything can actually be
   done about this.

   <Noah> Norm: I don't think this is a great solution.

   Norm: I appreciate that there are some hard problems here, but I think the
   proposed solution is awful.

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to think about economics and information
   theory of the http header

   <timbl> How about an HTTP spec where you can quote the tracker URI of a
   bug you require?

   Dan: David Barren gave a pretty coherent argument about the economics of
   putting the version identifier inside the document.

   <timbl> So we have a tag for "Best viewed by" at last .. sigh.

   Dan: If the HTML WG decided that this was the right thing to do then,
   Firefox version 12 would contain versions 11, 10, 9, etc.
   ... This is only practical for the guys with the biggest guns.
   ... I found this pretty compelling argument against a version attribute in
   the language

   <timbl> Maybe the HTML spec should give a set of "Best viewed with" which
   are automatically inserted when this ttribute is found.

   DanC: On the other hand, having the version inside or outside the document
   is important.
   ... The spec documents say I send you a request, you send a document.
   ... In practice, you send me some bytes and you expect those to be
   interpreted according to the dominant browser at the time.
   ... So if you want your document to be interpreted per the specification,
   you're in the minority.
   ... It makes sense from an economic sense that the minority should pay a
   few more bits.
   ... If we get to the story where the deployed software obeys the specs,
   then you can throw away the HTTP header.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to query dan

   Henry: I don't understand how what you just said renders less signficant
   Dave Baron's observation.
   ... I thought you were going to say that if you move it into the HTTP
   header, then you can just launch the right browser.
   ... But then I thought you said it worked equally well inside or outside
   and that doesn't work for me.

   DanC: What I mean is that if you have a version flag that can be used in
   either place, you can have a marketplace where some browsers ignore the
   flag and just go as close to the specs as they can
   ... and other browsers obey it and the web gets better over time.

   Henry: I don't see the connection with inside or outside

   DanC: If it's outside, then the document doesn't have to change as the
   browsers evolve.

   Some more discussion

   DanC: I'm not interested in supporting users who write code for a specific
   browser.
   ... MS can't ship a browser that obeys the standards because it won't get
   uptake.

   <Zakim> Stuart, you wanted to ask folks how we feel abouts a situation
   where we have to deal with versions of interpretation/implmentations
   rather than the spec.

   Stuart: We're now in a situation where we're concerned about the
   interpretation of a particular version of a spec. That seems weird.

   <ht> HST wonders how serious the pushback was to the IE7 move which
   sparked this

   <Zakim> Noah, you wanted to ask about range of user agents

   DanC: Everything is weird about the HTML space. It's about economics and
   biology more than computer science.

   Noah: The rule of least power encourages users to write content that is
   idependent of particular user agents. That's a good thing when you can get
   ther.
   ... The simplest HTML is sort of like that. There are headers and
   paragraphs, and exactly how that's interpreted is up to the UA.
   ... Certain kinds of commercial work demanded greater fidelity.
   ... When you see this meta thing, if we could say that the core
   abstractions were the same, but that the meta would promise that corners
   on tables wouldn't be rounded, that'd be one thing.
   ... But I don't see any bound on it. I'd love to see a stake in the ground
   that says "here are the things you can't change in the meta tag".
   ... As long as I stick to certain things, I'll know that everyone is going
   to interpret it the same. If I go beyond that, to CSS corners or broken
   markup, then maybe the meta value will matter.

   Stuart: Increasingly with subscription environments, the question is less
   about what pixels go on the screen and more about what DOM gets built.

   <Zakim> Stuart, you wanted to stay that it goes way beyond screen
   rendering

   Noah: The punchline for me is, when I see a meta tag, are all bets off or
   is there some level of functaionlity that I can rely on.

   DanC: The hardest part about this stuff is that you don't find out what
   the tokens mean until well after they're issued. The browsers see the
   "Mozilla" token and so they send CSS. So IE sends the Mozilla token. And
   then some labels become labels for sets of bugs.
   ... What the label stands for is really hard to figure out in advance.
   ... Another kind of code tries functions and based on return values makes
   decisions about functions it can actually use.
   ... Consider the GNU autoconf stuff. It starts with now information and
   probes for various things.

   <jar> danc, i think you meant 'autoconf'

   Stuart: Is there more to be said now?

   Dave: I wonder how this relates to our work on the versioning finding. I
   haven't really thought that through.

   TimBL: This would definitely be a good story.
   ... So would the XML 1.0 5e story.

   Stuart: I don't see a particular action to leave dangling here.

  Issue passwordsInTheClear-52

   Stuart: Dave had an action to publish it and solicit comments.

   Dave: The edits that I did were slightly more than I was asked to do.
   Because I picked up the ball recently, I wanted to make sure that the
   group was happy with my changes.
   ... I had hoped to get a diff out. Norm offers to diff them.

   Norm: Diff 20071124 with 20080124?

   Dave: yes.

   <scribe> ACTION: Walsh to create a diff of passwordsInTheClear [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action02[5]]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-97 - Create a diff of passwordsInTheClear [on
   Norman Walsh - due 2008-02-07].

   <ht>
   http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Ftag%2Fdoc%2FpasswordsInTheClear-52-20071108.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Ftag%2Fdoc%2FpasswordsInTheClear-52-20080124.html[6]

   Dave: I'll listen until Wednesday and send something out if no one
   objects.

   Stuart: Ok, that's what we'll do then.

  UrnsAndRegistries-50

   Henry: It turns out that the XRI TC has published a Committee
   Specification for XRI resolution 2.0.
   ... The comment period closes tomorrow.

   <DanC_lap> (ends tomorrow? when did it start? ah... 2 Dec. hmm... who is
   our oasis liaison, I wonder...)

   <ht> http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/xri_notes.html[7]

   Henry: This is what I wrote on the basis that it's been a long time since
   we talked about it.

   <jar> do w3c and oasis coordinate?

   <DanC_lap> (the main place where XRI shows up on my radar lately is near
   OpenID)

   <DanC_lap> (oasis liaison is Karl, says
   http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#OASIS[8] )

   Henry: For reasons I have to say I don't understand, they've gotten
   themselves written into OpenID 2.0.
   ... Implementing OpenID 2.0 mandates implementing XRI.

   Noah: Can you explain that?

   <dorchard> I had understood that it was optionally in open id.

   Henry: You have to be able to decode XRIs and implement the authority
   lookup protocol in order to find out what the OpenID is.

   Danc: Folks are saying http:// is too ugly, let's have =danc instead. And
   then people ask about email addresses. The subtext is "oh, no, no, no, we
   want to be able to collect money when people invent these"
   ... I've heard that one of the reasons the OpenID folks didn't go to the
   IETF is because the IETF would expose this.

   Henry: It's very hard to find the current, relevant bits. Lots of stuff on
   the web is old.
   ... I was told I could register =henry, =henrythompson, and @ibm!
   ... I

   <jar> dns costs money too... ??

   Henry: I'd like to talk about this more, but the fundamental architectural
   proposal behind this is to introduce a mandatory level of indirection into
   all addressing.
   ... The core operation you can do is to retreive metadata about a
   resource.

   DanC: So the design mandates an extra round trip on the network. That's
   the number one thing to avoid in a protocol.
   ... I'm happy to say that on behalf of the TAG by tomorrow.

   Henry: That will put a stake in the ground, but it's fundamental to their
   design.
   ... at the end of the docment I pointed to earlier, you'll see a list of
   the services you can get on an XRI
   ... With the right bits, the redirection would have been automatic.

   Tim: If we haven't said it strongly enough, we should say again and again
   that conneg should only be used for two different representations of teh
   same thing.

   Henry: Yes, that seems to be broken here too

   Stuart: I've heard two things, one on the content negotiation, and one on
   the mandatory round trip.

   Henry: I don't fully undertand all the dimensions of this yet. There's a
   distinction between URIs with and without service identifiers, for
   example.

   Stuart: It is possible to express concerns in a general way and ask for
   more time?

   DanC: We can also ask them as questions in the meantime.

   Tim: Can't we do both?
   ... Lodge the complaints we really have and ask for clarification
   elsewhere.

   TimBL: Isn't the privately owned naming scheme a problem to OASIS?

   Henry: I don't see how we can make that argument given taht you have to
   pay someone to get a DNS name.

   Stuart: Another possible technical question, XRI has been injected into
   OpenID, does that mean that XRI URIs are special in OpenID. So you're not
   treating URIs in a general way.

   Henry: On the wiki's and things, they use XRIs so the agents do have to be
   able to recognize and interpret them.

   Noah: Is the lack of URI syntactic compatibility another issue? Let's say
   that XRIs happen, can I put them in the same slots where URIs can go or is
   that another issue?
   ... Do you really always know that when you want an XIR you don't want any
   other kind of URI or vice-versa?

   <ht> Something like "Do we understand that XRIs _without the xri:// part_
   must be recognised as alternatives to http: URIs for OpenID2.0
   implementations?"

   Stuart looks for volunteers to submit these comments

   Henry says he's draft it now

   <Noah> I think it's more than Open ID. "To what extent is it expected that
   there will be use cases in which a choice of URI or XRIs without the
   explicit scheme name to be allowed in, for example, the same attribute
   value or input field? If so, then how are the syntaxes to be coordinated
   to avoid collision?

   <ht> "Is it a consequence of the spec., as it appears to us to be, that a)
   All access to resources identifies by XRIs requires (at least) two round
   trips and b) that content negotiation is used to return metadata or
   resource representations?"

   Some discussion of the optional nature of the xri: part of the URIs.

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to craft comments and send them on our behalf.
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action03[9]]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-98 - Craft comments and send them on our
   behalf. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2008-02-01].

  Vancouver F2F Agenda Requests

   Noah: As promised, I'm mighty close to a new draft on self describing web.

   Noah: I'd like that on the agenda.
   ... I've also been thinking about http-range and 303 and that might be
   ready in time.

   Stuart: I think namespaceDocument-8 is really on the brink of closure, we
   should try to get that closed.

   Norm: I'd like to see xmlFunctions-34 on the agenda.

   Stuart: Dave's not here so I can't ask about logistics.
   ... Are folks generally happy with the logistics?

   For the meeting, yes.

   Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to craft comments and send them on our behalf.
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action03[10]]
   [NEW] ACTION: Walsh to create a diff of passwordsInTheClear [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action02[11]]
    
   [End of minutes]

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/01/31-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-irc
   [4] http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/01/21/compatibility-and-ie8.aspx
   [5] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
   [6] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Ftag%2Fdoc%2FpasswordsInTheClear-52-20071108.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Ftag%2Fdoc%2FpasswordsInTheClear-52-20080124.html
   [7] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/xri_notes.html
   [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#OASIS
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
   [10] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
   [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[12] version 1.133 (CVS
    log[13])
    $Date: 2008/01/31 19:25:07 $

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 19:37:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:55 UTC