W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2009

Approved minutes of the TAG F2F of 3-5 March 2009

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:51:30 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6EB7EF01.00A0B9A1-ON8525758C.0071B99A-8525758C.00723E45@lotus.com>
The TAG today approved publication of minutes from its face to face 
meeting of 3-5 March 2009.  An overview of the meeting, including the 
agenda, background reading, and links to pertinent sections of the minutes 
is at [1].  Minutes of the individual days are at [2-4], and text-form 
copies of those minutes are appended below.   Thank you.

Noah Mendelsohn
TAG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-tagmem-minutes
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes
[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/05-minutes

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                        TAG F2F, 3-5 March 2009

03 Mar 2009


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc


          TV_Raman, Larry_Masinter, John_Kemp, Tim_Berners-Lee,
          Henry_Thompson, Dan_Connolly, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra,

          Noah Mendelsohn

          DanC, John Kemp


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]Introductions
         3. [7]HTTP Content Negotiation (maybe track under ISSUE-57 or
            should we open a new one?)
         4. [8]HTML and "TAG Soup" Integration (ISSUE-54)
         5. [9]URNsAndRegistries-50 ISSUE-50
         6. [10]Review of ongoing TAG projects
         7. [11]Issue status: whenToUseGet-7, etc.
         8. [12]Administration: TAG Operations, Scheduling Future
     * [13]Summary of Action Items


   <DanC_lap> Scribe: DanC

   <DanC_lap> ScribeNick: DanC_lap

   NM reviews goals...

   "Review F2F Goals

   * Bring new TAG members "up to speed" on continuing work

   * Make progress on high priority technical issues

   * Establish TAG priorities for coming year - ensure issues list
   reflects actual priorities

   * Refine TAG administrative procedures


   TimBL: welcome to new tag members! I'm excited to get the burst of
   new momentum that comes with new members...
   ... and thanks Noah for chairing!

   NM: by way of agenda review... not as much in the way of drafts to
   review in preparation for this meeting...
   ... thanks, ashok, for arranging the meeting facilities
   ... we'll start with active technical work on the 1st day before
   stepping back to look at overall priorities
   ... we'll talk about meeting schedule etc. this PM; if you can check
   your calendar during a break, that'll probably help

   LMM: for this AM, I should defer input on priorities?

   NM: well, I don't want to start 1st thing with wiping the slate and
   setting priorities, but this will be iterative

   AM: conneg and redirections are related but scheduled separately...

   NM: yes, they're related... we'll see... we don't yet have an issue
   on conneg
   ... minutes 19 Feb [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/19-minutes

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/19-minutes

   2009/02/23 21:03:34

   NM: we'll look at that later


   JK: John Kemp, working for Nokia ~6 years; prior to that, liberty
   aliance, OASIS Security Services Technical Committee; so my
   background in SOAP based Web Services, XML, ...
   ... web applications, a few start-ups doing software as a services;
   that goes back to ~1996
   ... I'm interested in the versioning and error handling stuff... and
   web application security

   LMM: Larry Masinter I'm Adobe. Was doing metdata for video. Web
   Standards is now my full time job. In the 1980s I worked on the
   Common Lisp standard...
   ... I was at Xerox Parc when KR was done with ()s rather than <>s.
   Overlapped HT there.
   ... at Xerox we had experiments in networked information
   retrieval... then I went to a gopher conn... then I heard about WWW
   and downloaded a client...
   ... in the Common Lisp standards process, one of my main
   contributions was an issue form where you had to describe the
   problem independent of the solution and such.
   ... so I brought some of that experience to chairing the IETF URI WG
   and the HTTP WG.
   ... I was on the W3C advisory board and helped develop the TAG
   charter. I thought it was important to deal with conflicts between
   WGs and show leadership

   TVR: Raman ... at Google... I care a lot about the Web and I'm
   concerned that the Web is being defined in terms of browsers too
   much; perhaps in reaction to being too far from browsers for a
   decade or so.

   TBL: never mind history, where I am at now... when I find time for
   software, I work on systems where the Web and the Semantic Web are
   completely integrated...
   ... where systems are connected with other systems we haven't
   invented yet

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say Interested in arch coherence of the
   whole network of systems; the tech getting better not just older;
   very integrated sem web and web viewpoint; modularity

   TimBL: I'm interested in the Web continuing to improve and involve
   and not fossilize

   AM: Ashok Malhotra at Oracle, mostly doing Web Services...
   ... but I'm also looking at taking relational data and mapping it to
   the Semantic Web

   HT: Henry Thompson; I'm half time W3C Team and half time U.
   Edinburgh. My TAG time comes from the U. Edinburgh time...
   ... some conflict with teaching duties this spring
   ... my background is in computational linguistics...
   ... a theme in my TAG work is to find ways to apply that background
   ... I have a number of paused TAG tasks; some because I'm stuck,
   some [for other reasons?]
   ... some of you know Harry Halpin, also at E. Edinburgh...
   ... Harry Halpin has now submitted his PhD thesis [applause]

   <ht> scribenick: ht

   DC: WebArch scales down as well as up, I've been learning about that
   with my new G1 phone
   ... Stuff about privacy, caching, web on hip connecting to the big
   ... HTML5 has a bit about offline apps
   ... The WebApps WG has published a WD on Widgets
   ... There's a Google OpenWeb advocacy group which I pointed ot the
   Widgets work
   ... Free Software background, purposely multi-platform
   ... I'm the official Team Contact for the TAG

   NM: DC is the human archive of the TAG

   <scribe> scribenick: DanC_lap

   JAR: my background is in computer science, esp programming
   ... was involved in capability security... and scheme standards

   [much scheme/lisp experience in the TAG]

   JAR: [something?] led me to the phrama industry, molecular biology,
   which led me to science commons...
   ... so I'm trying to help make the web better for science...
   ... URIs/naming, data integration, etc.
   ... I gather there's friction in using the web that we could do
   something about

   NM: Noah Mendelsohn... was at IBM... operating systems... highly
   transparent distributed unix... XML and SOAP... Java at IBM when
   Java was an "emerging technology"...
   ... I enjoy the overlap between my personal interests, my employer's
   business interest and what the TAG does
   ... what Dan said about the smaller platforms... smartphones and
   such... I see a tipping point approaching

   SKW: Stuart Williams at Hewlett Packard in Bristol, England. working
   in an HP labs group on Semantic Web... growing with the linked data
   ... naming and addressing is a focus of mine... from bits, bytes and
   nibbles... LAN mac addresses are 48bits and not [n] bytes...
   ... also some work on how you can introduce devices that didn't know
   each other; e.g. a phone and printer
   ... got involved in W3C... found myself elected to the TAG... found
   myself co-chairing; after the WebArch, took a break for a couple
   years, then another go at chairing... it's been a wonderful
   community to work with
   ... expect to continue to do related work

HTTP Content Negotiation (maybe track under ISSUE-57 or should we open
a new one?)


   Several recent email threads have raised questions about the proper
   use of content negotiation on the Web. ..."

   <DanC_> (hmm.. URI for "view on this bug" vs "this bug"; no, doesn't
   sound like a case for conneg to me)

   <raman> correct.

   <noah> Yes, Stuart, thank you. The Martin Nally question is squarely
   within webApplicationState-60

   <ht> HST: I've produced a review of

     [15] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/TAG_conneg_200903.html

   (hmm.. copy should go to www-archive. here's hoping)

   <DanC_> "The RDF response (modulo the lack of redirection) implies
   the resource is not an IR" huh?

   <skw> Raman wrote a finding on Generic Resources which also bears on
   this issue... and I'm wondersing whether there was a TAG issues that
   that was written against.

   <DanC_> (for reference:
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html )

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html

   <DanC_> [17]HT's notes on conneg for TAG meeting


   HT: in sum, yes, I see issues in this conneg thread that should be
   re-opened or opened

   LMM: background... in the '80s, the convention was naming,
   addressing, and routing... variant content types wasn't the norm...
   ... [Weiser?] had an idea of variant forms... Xerox work at the time
   asked these questions about "the gettysburg address" and such when
   tim visited us... I wonder if that's where Tim got the idea

   TimBL: we could check the dates of my web architecture notes...

   LMM: at the time, the idea was one HTTP transaction per click...
   ... there's some stuff in the HTTP spec that should be updated...
   just because the client knows 1000s of media types doesn't mean you
   should send 1000s of accept headers... "deprecate conneg" wasn't
   really what I meant
   ... I'm concerned that web architecture refers so directly to
   HTTP-specific mechanisms...
   ... questions of best practices should be approached with extreme
   ... better to come up with descriptive findings "if you do X, then
   Y" rather than "you should X"

   [chair seems to be writing on the whiteboard; scribe hasn't looked
   at it]

   JAR: I think the advice from the TAG is pretty consistent and we
   could quickly address this...
   ... conneg came up "cool URIs for the semantic web", came up in
   "XRDs" which they have since abandoned in favor of [x?], came up in
   MH's question...
   ... this group's answer seems to be: we'd rather you didn't conneg
   in [which situation?]
   ... a test for conneg is: does it violate common expectations around
   a URI; does it lead a user to wrong [?] information. [?]

   <timbl> Advice: Don't use conneg when it would mess up th
   eexpectations of normal web users

   <jar> Test: If conneg might lead a use of the URI to the wrong
   result for some client, try to figure out a different way to do what
   you want to do.

   <johnk> I agree with timbl's advice, however, a) what is the "wrong
   result" for a client that says it prefers RDF?

   TVR: thanks for the nice summary, HT... on the generic resources
   finding... it was written using the old model of the web: one click,
   one http transaction...

   <jar> see my email. The RDF might be viewable in a browser, so info
   provided by RDF should be same info as infor provided in HTML rep

   TVR: then you got CGI... and conneg still works...
   ... but with active content, where the HTTP response is a program to
   run on the client, that turns the conneg situation upside down

   <ht> HST thinks his TAG blog entry refers wrt Ramans point:

     [18] http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/10/the_impact_of_javascript_and_x.html

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask about TAG finding on authoritative
   metadata in this context

   JK: the authoritative metadata finding has this notion of metadata
   in the container...
   ... is it relevant? does any of this [thread?] run counter to that

   <johnk> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412#why

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412#why

   HT: the authoritative metadata finding tells what should be done;
   it's relevant in that it tells me that the punning examples are not
   at all compelling

   JK: conneg is not just about the server saying what the server has;
   there are cases where the client wants only RDF and leaves the
   server in a position of [?]

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say conneg between metadata and a
   document it s is about is always wrong.

   TimBL: Larry, yes, a lot of webarch is only implemented in HTTP. So
   while it's important to distinguish generic architecture for HTTP,
   it's also natural to talk about HTTP specifically
   ... I was a little disappointed that MH had to ask; I thought there
   was a community consensus that no, don't use conneg for [that]. So
   yes, perhaps we need to write it down.

   <masinter> conneg definition was carefully hammered out in HTTP-WG,
   and some assumptions about it seem to be counter to the intent and
   (I hope) the written spec

   TimBL: setting up the tabulator has been important in working out
   the practicalities of content negotiation...
   ... and for using RDF as a human-readable format

   <timbl> 1) Much of web arch is only implemented in HTTP. 2) TAG
   giving advice is asked for and useful; 3) never use conneg between a
   document and metadata about that document.

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to suggest that HTTP is design as an
   embodyment of webarch and to suggest that the conneg story includes
   all 3 cases: server side, transparent, and client-side

   LMM: I think it's useful to move beyond what is to belief/intent...
   ... getting that worked out in HTTP was tricky but worthwhile
   ... [image/rdf ?] is a big leap that I don't think we should be

   <DanC_> [darn; forgot to make my point about safety and POST and
   onload, which is the most important of the N things I q'd for]

   AM: so this idea that conneg is only to be used for "equivalent"
   ... am I hearing others say we should move away from that?

   NM: I think [Martin?] is sympathetic to that position... that
   distinct URIs should be used, but he finds that when he builds it
   that way his users aren't happy

   <johnk> is the only case where conneg is actually an arch issue in
   the link between data and metadata?

   whiteboard experiment:


   * AWWW discusses mainly the simple cases

   * When conneg is used, how many resources are there?

   * should "web" arch be independent of HTTP where possible?

   * AJAX returns a program. conneg needs to be rethought for this?

   (pertinent issues: generic resources & web app state)

   * role of authoritative metadata & content type

   * proposed test: "same information in different form?"


   <DanC_> aha... I like that formulation of the test: "same
   information in different form?"

   LMM: there's a section of the HTTP spec that's being revised... it's
   non-normative... about what conneg is for
   ... I have an action in the HTTP WG to work on that; I'm happy to
   get TAG input on that

   TimBL: light-weight issue... yes... I'll help Larry

   LMM: yes, same from the point of view of the speaker
   . ACTION Larry: draft replacement for "how to use conneg" stuff in
   HTTP spec

   <ht> LMM: and if you abuse that you'll confuse people
   . ISSUE: capture "same information in different form?" test for

   NM: the ajax bullet seems still live... let's take that under web
   applications tate

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say "clarify same info in different form"
   should be done

   HT: another point to capture: ... everything that needs to be said
   about the relationship between relationships in the generic
   resources finding...

   NM: that sounds like the "how many resources" bullet...

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to suggest re-using generic resource
   rather than making a new issue

   NM: considering: to re-open the generic resources issue re the "how
   many resources" bullet


   <trackbot> ISSUE-53 -- Generic resources -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53

   RESOLUTION: to re-open Generic resources ISSUE-53

   LMM opposed, TVR abstains [ I think]

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry to draft replacement for "how to use conneg"
   stuff in HTTP spec [recorded in

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Draft replacement for \"how to use
   conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-03-10].

   <ht> trackbot, status?

   <ht> ACTION: ht to Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of
   HTTPbis which has advice on conneg [recorded in

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's
   a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg [on Henry S. Thompson
   - due 2009-03-10].

HTML and "TAG Soup" Integration (ISSUE-54)


   * Review history, successes, and challenges with respect to TAG's
   efforts ..."

   JK: mixing XML languages with HTML... is that the goal?

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to review the founding statement

   HT: "Is the indefinite persistence of 'tag soup' HTML consistent
   with a sound architecture for the Web?" --

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to say that space for unstructured
   discusion helps

   DanC: space for unstructured discussion here helps balance social
   dynamics in the HTML WG

   LMM: is this an HTML issue or a webarch issue?
   ... is extensibility, versioning, error handling... are these HTML
   problems or webarch problems?

   <masinter> well, they're all webarch, but are they restricted only
   to HTML

   HT: I noted "Is the indefinite persistence of 'tag soup' HTML
   consistent with a sound architecture for the Web?"; but note also "
   If so, what changes, if any, to fundamental Web technologies are
   necessary to integrate 'tag soup' with SGML-valid HTML and
   well-formed XML?"

   LMM: yes, this is an architectural issue, but is it wider than HTML?

   HT: it's wider because it's the thin end of a long wedge...
   ... extensibility mechanisms in HTML are likely to be picked up

   <Stuart> Larry's "no" above was in response to an aside question
   "Stuart wonders whether when speaking of HTML Larry is also
   including XHTML?"

   HT: what I heard in the ARIA discussion was "we don't need
   extensibility because extension happens rarely"; applying that
   generally is at the very least a general architectural issue

   <jar> (noodling on what raman's saying: html = 'shell' for the
   OS=web ?)

   TVR: [missed some] a model was: how can we make a web where lots of
   languages can play at the end of one link?
   ... in the 1990's, we thought mixed namespaces, DOM, events
   bubbling, was the way things would work...
   ... more recently, others say no, [this other thing] is how it works
   ... does this mean we need to re-design SVG, ...

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to comment on XML and HTML, esp RSS,
   SVG, RDFa

   DanC: on the one hand, HTML is just one among many content types in
   web architecture, but on the other hand the web _is_ HTML to 3 or 4
   significant digits...
   ... and [more... even though larry repeated it...]

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to suggest creative commons as a nice case
   in point, whcih suggest that there si no lace where we can draw a
   clean lin between html and xhtml

   TimBL: some say "HTML is its own thing, not XML"; on the other hand,
   RDFa is designed in the XHTML context ...
   ... then a discussion was sparked by Creative Commons suggesting use
   of RDFa in HTML, regardless of whether it's XHML or HTML...

   <masinter> is this issue about "namespaces" really?

   TimBL: so attempts to keep XHTML and HTML separate have broken down

   <Zakim> raman, you wanted to add that we need to remember that like
   namespace extensibility at its time, tagsoup today is also an
   experiment. Some would say that the experiment is not

   TVR: we've taken the namespace-based architecture as orthodoxy for a
   while, but that was an experiment as much as the tag soup
   ... for all we know, either could fail in the 4 year timeframe...
   ... if you look in the 10 year timeframe, we should acknowledge that
   experiments will fail... and we should look for ways that they can
   live together [close to that, anyway]

   LMM: the name of this issue misled me...
   ... I think maybe it's re-considering namespace based architecture
   ... a story: somebody came to me a the W3C TPAC and said "we need a
   registry; how do we make one?" I tried to make a joke about "there's
   this way of doing decentralized naming..." but they didn't get the
   ... namespaces were introduced as a way of decentralized naming...
   they were rejected for perhaps technical/usability reasons...
   [scribe lost train of thought here]
   ... one position is "within this context, we don't need
   distribution; we can manage the chaos by getting all the browser
   developers in the room/group" ...

   <raman> union of namespaces was proposed by people like Tantek
   multiple times

   LMM: we probably need union namespaces

   <DanC_> (reminds me of prospero... union links are a great idea; I
   wonder if they can ever get widely deployed in filesystems. )

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention the sniffing draft


   <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Can a specification include rules for
   overriding HTTPcontent type parameters? -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24

   <masinter> jar: seen something like this before -- Common Lisp
   package system


     [25] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-abarth-mime-sniff/

   HT: perhaps we would re-open the authoritative metadata issue for

   DanC: yes, issue-24 was re-opened for that

   NM notes it's in an "unscheduled" pile in the agenda

   NM: I think decentralized naming using URIs is architecturally
   important, but I've never seen a user-friendly syntax for it...
   ... looking at Java packages, people can see the use case for
   DNS-based naming when they borrow code from elsewhere
   ... but there are screw cases with bug fixes across domains and such

   <DanC_> (+1 look at both sides)

   NM: I think both sides are making important points and we should
   take both seriously

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to point to lack of agreement on need for

   NM: [something about convenient syntaxes being less self-describing

   <masinter> I don't think we can abandon namespaces, but without
   namespaces, may need registries or some other clear extensibility

   TimBL: something is either self-describing or it's not...
   ... I think we can solve the problem with manageable cost for all
   the relevant parties
   ... HTML parsers are already huge; a little more code to handle
   namespaces is a negligible cost...
   ... [an example elsewhere; scribe missed; help?]
   ... I think yes, it's a goal to get the creative commons feature
   working on HTML 5

   <masinter> +1

   TimBL: by whatever technical or social means necessary

   <Zakim> ht2, you wanted to query state of media-typed based NS

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to suggest etchnically that html5 adopt ns
   for new browsers.

   <johnk> agree with timbl, masinter that a good concrete goal is to
   get RDFa working in HTML5

   HT: this idea about default namespaces based on media types has been
   discussed in "we should..." mode, though I don't know that anybody's
   actively working on it
   ... I'd like to establish a reward for cleaner markup in _this_
   ... it was at best naive to expect XHTML would dominate; but we
   don't have to give up on the idea that XHTML has real benefit.

   TVR: absolutely

   HT: I concur with the idea that tim has presented: let's remove the
   step function in the reward of cleaning up HTML markup. [?]

   <johnk> is there a link to that work?

   <masinter> not sure "media type based namespace declaration" is the
   right formulation

   <timbl> You can addd xmlns for cc and get the benefit of having cc
   markup without having to put quotes around attribute values
   everywhere for example.

   LMM: not sure "media type based namespace declaration" is the right
   formulation... but perhaps formulate it in terms of mapping rules
   between contexts
   ... i.e. how to interpret one as the other

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to separate costs to readers, cost to

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss wrapup

   NM: I made some notes on the board [scribe wishes for a photo in
   www-archive] but let's not go into those

   LMM: let's keeping working toward a deliverable... finding/note no
   ... esp. on conversion between namespaced and non-namespaced forms

   TVR: I think the TAG has a critical role in bringing 2 sides of the
   community together

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to note HTML WG agenda for this week

   close ACTION-226

   <trackbot> ACTION-226 Report at March on tagSoup progress since TPAC

   <noah> DC: Chris Wilson has an action HTML WG action to write up
   distributed extensibility

   <masinter> trackbot, action-226?

   <trackbot> Sorry, masinter, I don't understand 'trackbot,
   action-226?'. Please refer to
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

   <noah> ACTION-226?

   <trackbot> ACTION-226 -- Dan Connolly to report at March on tagSoup
   progress since TPAC -- due 2009-02-24 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/226

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/226

   <noah> scribenick: noah

   TBL: Henry mentioned talk I gave at AC meeting suggesting both sides
   should make some concessions to come together on this. I can review
   ... It met with some criticism that it's asking too much of both
   sides, but my opinion hasn't changed.

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask about timbl's idea of addressing
   the CC use-case in HTML5

   TBL: Henri Sivonen pointed out that current HTML browsers don't
   actually populate DOM namespace properties.

   <masinter> if it is parsed as an HTML document

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss use cases

   JK: so, you think discussing the CC use case is important.

   TBL: yes

   <timbl> Hmmm. yes sorry that is in fact not totally written up ...
   it has bullet point in it

   <DanC_lap> [28]Cleaning up the Web

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/22-cleaning-tbl.html

   <DanC_lap> (crud; I marked the essay world-readable, with
   permission, but I didn't link it from
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/TPDay-Agenda.html )

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/TPDay-Agenda.html

   <timbl> Those are notes from the talk, but should go with the slides

   <DanC_lap> you didn't use slides when you presented it at TPAC 2008

   <jar> danc: The namespace skeptics are in the minority in the

   DC: Dominant browser ships namespace-based extensibility. Similar in
   spirit to XML namespaces, but not exactly XML.

   TBL: Does it use xmlns?

   DC: not remembering

   <masinter> Chris Wilson from MS will report on this in HTML WG

   <DanC_lap> [30]HTML WG ACTION-97

     [30] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/97

   <DanC_lap> Following SVG-in-HTML thread, propose decentralized
   extensibility strategy for HTML5

   HT: What I want us to do is: "produce a document which specifies a
   mechanism for bridging the gap between namespaced and non-namespaced
   forms of languages conveying the same things"

   <DanC_lap> break for lunch, resuming at 1:15pm

   <DanC_lap> scribe: John Kemp

   <DanC_lap> scribenick: johnk

URNsAndRegistries-50 ISSUE-50

   HT: introduces issue, noting languishing of this issue


     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namingSchemes.html

   ht: intends that this doc is the one to be blessed
   ... origins of this issue were concerns about uri scheme and
   namespace proliferation
   ... OASIS eg. uses URNs for XML namespaces
   ... thus no straightforward way to dereference
   ... notes URI scheme examples such as XRI
   ... wrote a doc to defend the proposition that http: was sufficient
   for naming
   ... concern was that original doc would not actually help those who
   needed it most
   ... there is an opinion that everything relevant to be said is said
   already in the relevant RFC already
   ... Dirk & Nadia attempt to document the story a la AWWW
   ... example: boss says we want names, Dirk says let's use URNs,
   Nadia says new scheme!
   ... biggest problem is the taxonomy of requirements: e.g. what is
   ... (describes document structure)
   ... not worked on this doc recently
   ... but wanted to introduce this to new members and give us a memory

   NM: (asks the room what we think)
   ... not sure the description reveals the issues
   ... gives HT the chair for this session

   LMM: describes link on problems URIs *won't* solve

   <masinter> [32]problems URIs Don't Solve

     [32] http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

   LMM: people confuse name assignment with service level agreement
   about name resolution
   ... when you buy domain name, you get a service guarantee
   ... (discusses control and monetization in name assignment)
   ... biggest piece of puzzle from Dirk & Nadia is issue of control

   biggest piece of puzzle _missing_ is issue of control

   LMM: new URI scheme, or URNs may provide more benefit than cost for

   DanC: URI space owned by all, not "some"
   ... issue of namespace collision

   timbl: (challenges)

   LMM: use uuids
   ... (see XMP uuids)
   ... they weren't locators

   <ht> No-one ever expects the network effect

   DanC: http is good for domain + path hierarchy

   <DanC_lap> ... but uuids are outside that case

   LMM: look at lifecycle of content and its movements

   HT: introduction of Dirk & Nadia needs to say that interest is in
   naming things with a Web context, not other naming

   is widget naming "for the Web"?

   <jar> danc: anyone smart enough to use large random numbers doesn't
   need to go to school at our school

   DanC: people want to recreate a naming hierarchy, is the issue

   HT: previous document set out to sell HTTP, Dirk & Nadia provides
   instead a cost/benefit analysis
   ... lookup + hierarch will meet most requirements, and HTTP URI
   already provides that
   ... intent of doc is to show you how to sharpen your reqs, and if
   you use HTTP URIs, how to meet them

   LMM: distinction between a film and the (actors) in it
   ... identification problems are different
   ... identifying media means identifying the content container
   ... identifying concepts described in the content is different

   HT: doc not written to address those problems

   JAR: assumes you have your own theory of naming

   LMM: no one has a well-defined theory of naming

   JAR: there are some theories that work

   (in practice)

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask if we've documented costs

   NM: have we documented or understood the _costs_
   ... to what extent do you plan to dig into the costs of

   <jar> in reply to Larry who said xxxx is not well-defined:
   well-defined and adequate are not the same thing

   HT: moved costs to 'spare parts' section

   <jar> what I mean to say is that the theory of what is named is
   orthogonal to naming system mechanics. can solve the 2 independently

   HT: large analysis of the tradeoffs - how you get confidence in
   certain guarantees, by contract or otherwise
   ... that level of analysis did not belong in the finding

   NM: namespace pollution is only part of the issue
   ... ... other reason is association of HTTP URI with widely-deployed
   dereference mechanism
   ... two parts of this story could be told fairly simply
   ... your decisions affect other people (if you take a name, no-one
   else can)
   ... wide deployment of existing schemes may be useful to you

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask: who needs this finding? What
   W3C work depends on an answer to this question?

   LMM: prioritizing - whose work depends on us answering this?

   HT: we were asked by W3C members

   NM: will discuss explicit priorities tomorrow

   TVR: (echoes LMM)

   JAR: (thinks a contribution can be made here)
   ... ... particularly when trust is lacking, naming is an issue

   HT: D&N does address that somewhat (by noting checksums in URIs)

   JAR: we should talk about priorities, issue is important in SemWeb

   <masinter> *IF* we could resolve this effectively *THEN* there might
   be value

   TBL: rate of non-HTTP ways has remained steady

   LMM: (mentions TDB, DURI schemes in this context)

   HT: next decision points comes with a next draft

   LMM: [trust, authority, control, monetisation] all go together

Review of ongoing TAG projects

   NM: one time only (we will not repeat this in future meetings)
   ... we had 28 open issues at time of writing agenda

   <masinter> ... as motivating factors for why people want new schees


     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda#issues

   NM: believes that some issues are open because we think there is
   something to be done here, but in practice it is not clear what we
   should do

   <DanC_lap> (not just to remind ourselves that it's open, but as a
   marker in the community that yes, you're not the only one with this

   NM: proposes we close issues which fall below some mark
   ... and sort the rest appropriately
   ... (wants to get others involved in managing the issues well)
   ... (profers the issues list at
   ... proposal to schedule two sessions with break
   ... first session, divide into groups
   ... new TAG members circulate between groups
   ... (shows tracker)
   ... (introduces tracker functions)
   ... nowhere does it say in tracker item where are we?

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda#issuetable

   DanC: (expresses enthusiasm to move forward)

   <timbl> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open

   <noah> deliverables are we expecting to produce

   <noah> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

   NM: describes how he creates the agenda
   ... some day it would be nice if the summary of agenda input were
   more to the point
   ... shows a template for describing issues
   ... (describes template)

   TVR: we need to figure out the meaning of the criteria

   LMM: what other activities depend on the work?

   NM: let's take ISSUE-50
   ... and work a real example

   HT: where do you propose to put the info (from the template)

   NM: show tracker fields are very fixed
   ... put this information in the description field

   JAR + LMM: use Notes instead?

   NM: 'notes' falls to the bottom when read

   TBL: limit each of the things in the template to one line?

   LMM: does priority belong in description?

   (working ISSUE-50)

   NM: priority: 'medium'

   (discussion about whether this is right)

   TBL: which are the issues that we're doing while Noah is chair?

   NM: concurs
   ... (describes how he will handle issues)

   AM: can we add a field?

   NM: tables the question
   ... and all other 'meta' questions
   ... trying to capture where we are accurately

   LMM: what is the priority, and how certain of it are you?

   NM: OK to say 'don't know'

   DanC: no way to find priority in our (past) records

   NM: use your collective consciousness to work it out
   ... in many cases, you know

   LMM: what do you think the priority of each issue was?
   ... vs. what do you think the ongoing priority _should be_?

   AM: questions how we do this for very long-running issues

   NM: (back to ISSUE-50)
   ... edits tracker item -

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50

   <DanC_lap> ("current deliverables: ...namingSchemes" is redundant
   w.r.t. actions; I suppose that's sorta by design.)

   (group discusses communities affected by ISSUE-50)

   HT: 'raised by' now means 'principally responsible'

   NM: external commitments on ISSUE-50?
   ... goal is to do all issues by 16:00
   ... (proves, by PIE, that not all administrivia is bad)

   (group breaks into two to divide issues list)

   (no more minutes for now)

   <jar> re issue-24:

     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jun/0116.html

   <timbl> [39]http://www.w3.org/TR/WICD/

     [39] http://www.w3.org/TR/WICD/

   <DanC_lap> issue-30:

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#binaryXML-30

   <trackbot> ISSUE-30 Standardize a "binary XML" format? notes added

   <DanC_lap> issue-30: [41]http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-best-practices/

     [41] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-best-practices/

   <trackbot> ISSUE-30 Standardize a "binary XML" format? notes added

   (back to minutes)

   NM: summarizes what happened wrt the tracker issues
   ... would like to appoint a shepherd for each active issue to help
   prepare related agenda items

   JAR: could it be done via ACTION assignment?

   NM: would propose we do add an action for each one which is not in

   each one == each issue

   LMM: issues not open don't need shepherds
   ... some issues should be moved from 'open' to 'raised' (or
   ... ones marked as background don't need shepherds

   NM: "au contraire"
   ... let's go over the issues and decide how to resolve

Issue status: whenToUseGet-7, etc.

   DanC chairing this session

   NM: go till 16:30
   ... (moves to open issues)



     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/7

   HT: HTML WG work on ping attributes is believed to be moribund

   DC: (disagrees)

   HT: Seems unlikely we need to do anything about this
   ... Revive if discussion is raised again in HTML

   (discussion over who should shepherd)

   LMM: could we close it?

   <timbl> NM, 2009-03-03

   DC: does anyone volunteer to declare victory?

   HT: do we want to give that message?

   NM: if we leave it open, I'l monitor this

   <timbl> NM, date +"%Y-%m-%d"

   LMM: worthwhile to discuss what it means to close an issue
   ... communicate to community what it means when we close an issue

   HT: sending any such message in this case would be inflammatory

   NM: history about how we use the 'open' designation
   ... community has expectations based on that designation
   ... do other TAG members agree with Larry?

   LMM: if we close a number of issues at once we're sending a
   different message
   ... not saying anything specific about any particular issue

   DC: in this specific issue (ISSUE-7) feel compelled by Henry's

   TBL: There are issues with 'ping', and then close it
   ... see the whenToUseGET finding
   ... notes other issues (beyond using GET)

   NM: Is there consensus over text I'm typing?

   (seems not)

   DC: Is this proposal to close?

   NM: just to agree text for current description?

   DC: (asks group for thoughts on decision to close)

   HT: (some dissent)

   NM: don't want to change the criteria for closing

   JK: would abstain

   NM: if we believe we should keep an eye on some issue, we keep it
   ... if no obvious reason to come back to the issue, then close it
   ... I would rather look over definitions of open and closed over
   ... that is not the goal for this session

   TBL: am I allowed to ask about how we use tracker?

   DC: polls whether to close ISSUE-7

   NM: describes 3 possible actions mostly missed by the scribe

   DC: is this text (ISSUE-7 description) what you would like on record
   as resolution for this issue?

   NM: keep it open, is text OK?




     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/16

   JAR: kept open in case RFC 3205 was too restrictive

   LMM: BCPs not normative

   NM: what is the TAG's role here?
   ... appoint shepherd

   DC: not worth the effort needed to close it
   ... mark pending review


     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20

   come back to ISSUE-20 tomorrow


     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24

   HT: what does description text mean?

   DC: AWWW says something about this

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry to report back from IETF/HTML liason meeting
   in March regarding MIME type override [recorded in

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Report back from IETF/HTML liason
   meeting in March regarding MIME type override [on Larry Masinter -
   due 2009-03-11].

   DC: connection to tagSoup unclear, happy to delete from text
   ... shepherd?

   LMM: (nominates himself)

   NM: will discuss role of 'shepherd' later


     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/27

   DC: rank high is surprising

   HT: open action actively pursued

   NM: high rank is related to a big piece of work we will do this year

   HT: medium is OK for me

   NM: (marks it as medium)
   ... (adds more context)

   LMM: issue is misnamed

   DC: proposal?

   LMM: "Use of IRIs in W3C Specifications" as new title

   NM: do we mean only W3C specs?

   TBL: "when should IRIs be used"?

   LMM: don't want to talk about IRIs in email e.g.

   NM: what have we actually been doing?

   <ht> LMM and DC please note [48]http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri/ wrt your

     [48] http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri/

   TBL: everywhere you use URI you should use IRI

   (that's what we've been saying)

   DC: this is an involved discussion
   ... suggest we move on

   <timbl> s/verywhere you use URI you should use IRI/We were saying
   "verywhere you use URI you should use IRI"/

   HT: no title proposal has yet attracted support

   old title: Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs?

   NM returns as chair

   NM: this work is important, even if unpleasant
   ... proposes we put the exercise down for now, perhaps return

   <DanC_lap> (I wonder about a shotgun approach to sheperds...)

   NM: designation approach for naming shepherds

   DC seems to agree ^

   NM: goal is come out with a more refined view
   ... any concerns about this?

   JAR: if you want to get through the list come up with an offline
   procedure to follow

   NM: will do that and see how it goes

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to propose to close httpSubstrate-16
   and to suggest merging fragmentInXML-28 with
   abstractComponentRefs-37 and to note 12 May 2004 decision that puts
   28 in

   AM: fragment in XML brought up by WSDL group
   ... this is water under the bridge

   <DanC_lap> PROPOSED: to close issue-28 on the grounds that WSDL 2.0
   is a REC

   NM: will entertain a proposal to close ISSUE-28

   LMM: mark pending review
   ... will look at it

   <DanC_lap> (+1 pending review an LMM to look at it)

   <DanC_lap> RESOLVED: to close issue-28 on the grounds that WSDL 2.0
   is a REC

Administration: TAG Operations, Scheduling Future Meetings

   NM: [49]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html
   ... (describes reasons for writing the document)
   ... are we willing to agree that this describes how we will work?
   ... reads text about good scribing practices to help the chair
   ... also updated document to note that draft minutes should include

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html

   LMM: sent feedback that document combines procedural things with TAG

   NM: would you like to rewrite this?
   ... Will think about your feedback
   ... intend this to be a hitchhikers' guide to the TAG

   LMM: procedural issues may have no longevity, philosophical ones may
   have more
   ... perhaps should be separated for that reason?
   ... if you're asking whether this is a good starting point, then

   NM: (would like to have practices that he can "enforce")
   ... do you buy the goal?
   ... do you have any objections?

   JK: what actually though are the long term goals of this document?

   (essentially agreeing with Larry about the impression of mixing two
   separate, perhaps both important but perhaps better separate

   <DanC_lap> (I have a bias against standing items.)

   AM: (raises procedural issue I didn't really catch)

   TBL: concerned that this doc is not public

   NM: I want this doc to be for us, not for public feedback
   ... but if we decide that our public commitment is obvious elsewhere
   would be OK with this being public
   ... asks whether he should schedule additional work on this document
   or whether it works roughly

   (group agrees to work with what is written)

   NM: next TAG meeting scheduling?
   ... would like to do another f2f meeting around summertime
   ... any sympathy for Boston area meeting for early June?

   HT: have scheduling difficulties generally

   NM: proposes 2/3/4 June

   16/17/18 June?

   27/28/29 May in Boston?

   or 17/18/19 June

   TVR: Is this just about picking dates?
   ... can we do this in email?

   two concrete proposals: i) 27-29 May, ii) 17-19 June

   23-25 June?

   PROPOSED: tentative 23-25th June meeting

   RESOLUTION: to check this against the previous proposals

   NM: adjourns meeting

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: ht to Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of
   HTTPbis which has advice on conneg [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to draft replacement for "how to use conneg"
   stuff in HTTP spec [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to report back from IETF/HTML liason meeting in
   March regarding MIME type override [recorded in

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [53]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([54]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/04/02 20:42:59 $

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



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                TAG f2f

04 Mar 2009


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04PDT-tagmem-irc.txt


          Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, John Kemp, David Orchard (in
          part), Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, T.V.
          Ramam, Jonathan Rees, Henry S. Thompson, Stuart Williams (by
          'phone, in part)

          Noah Mendelsohn

          Tim Berners-Lee (afternoon), Henry S Thompson (morning)


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]TAG priorities for the coming year
         2. [6]webApplicationState-60: Web application state management
         3. [7]httpRedirections-57: Resource description discovery and
         4. [8]xmlFunctions-34: XML Transformation and composability --
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

TAG priorities for the coming year

   NM: We'll start with some factfinding
   ... More opportunities for strategy discussion later in the agenda
   ... A brief look at our charter:

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html

   NM organised and [11]recorded a round-the-table on measures of
   success for the TAG]

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.txt

   <DanC_lap> "What audiences should we address?" is the heading in
   Noah's emacs buffer that we're brainstorming in

   <DanC_lap> yup; +1 video, mobile, web 2.0 (both the technical side,
   AJAX etc., and the social side: peer production)

   <DanC_lap> [12]http://esw.w3.org/topic/IetfW3cLiaison

     [12] http://esw.w3.org/topic/IetfW3cLiaison

   <DanC_lap> (I note a vacancy in the W3C->OASIS liaison
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#OASIS )

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#OASIS

   <Stuart> FWIW: I think we (you) should continue with
   UniformAccessToMetaData; start taking a architectural perspective of
   WebApps (which takes in Conneg and #fragId) ie. develop conceptual
   model/vocab to speak about/identify client side entities; help find
   the balance point between distributed web language extensibility and
   mono-lithic centralise language dev;.

   <DanC_lap> (note [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/em27 has various
   "foil sets" a la what Ashok suggested)

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/em27

   <DanC_lap> (the reason I've passed is that while there's lots of
   things I'd like to see, I have a hard time saying the TAG is the
   right place to do any of them.)

   <johnk> why not say them anyway, for now, DanC?

   <DanC_lap> because it raises expectations in a way that, as I say, I
   hesitate to do

   <jar> (DanC, I conjecture that the TAG's docket my be populated by
   issues that fall through the cracks - that other WGs don't own - for
   better or worse)

   <noah> This morning we did some fact finding as to what TAG members
   think might be success criteria, communities to be served, and
   specific work items for the TAG next year. We did not yet prioritize
   these, just list ones that anyone thought might be intersesting. The
   working list is checked in at

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.txt

webApplicationState-60: Web application state management


     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60

   <masinter> (conversation in break:
   [17]http://larry.masinter.net/duri.xml )

     [17] http://larry.masinter.net/duri.xml

   NM: SW, do you intend to work further on ACTION-143?

   SW: No sorry

   trackbot, please close ACTION-143

   <trackbot> ACTION-143 Review Raman's draft of webApplicationState-60

   <masinter> action-144?

   <trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Noah Mendelsohn to attempt to articulate
   some of the higher level questions for inclusion in the draft. --
   due 2009-03-03 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/144

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/144

   trackbot, close ACTION-144

   <trackbot> ACTION-144 Attempt to articulate some of the higher level
   questions for inclusion in the draft. closed

   <jar> (JAR's explanation for posterity: ACTION-143 was on Stuart,
   who was asked to be left off the hook as he's no longer on the TAG.
   Consensus was that the action was not on a critical path and if a
   new action on someone else was needed we would issue it.)

   NW: TVR, please introduce the issue

   TVR: There's a draft finding, which hasn't progressed much for the
   last 6 months
   ... the goal is not to find 'the correct answer'
   ... the work has been carried forward in an unstructured way by
   Javascript hackers
   ... They use # to convey arguments to the script that runs on the
   client in many 'modern' pages
   ... This is a big divergence on the face of it, because # was
   supposed to be media-type specified
   ... But now text/html is often a program instead of/as well as a

   <DanC_lap> (it might have been nice if a new media type had come
   along when HTML became turing-complete; maybe it's worth having a
   MIME type for HTML-with-no-javascript)

   Draft finding: Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters:

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url-20080211.html

   TVR: Because state is important to program-synthesised views, you
   need a way to reconstruct state from URIs

   <masinter> application/postscript in early 90s was active content,
   program you downloaded. application/pdf has program parameters and
   has from pretty much the first plugin

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to ask to hear the rest of raman's
   question and to

   TVR: You can put all your state in a JSON dictionary, attach that
   dictionary to your URI with a #, and then you can reconstruct your
   state on invocation
   ... So pulling on a URL doesn't get content, it gets you a program
   which when run gives you the content

   <DanC_lap> (well, I disagree that it doesn't give you the content;
   the program is the content; the output of the program is something

   <masinter> W3C Media Fragments working group is dealing with
   relationship to fragments too

   TVR: The goal is, e.g. for a shopping cart, to get the UI and DOM
   state to a known prior configuration
   ... Consider a real-world example: playing a chess game

   <masinter> Note that "bookmarking" is part of the web but not really
   clear part of webarch

   TVR: We could reconstruct a board state by either recording the
   moves or by taking a picture of the board

   <noah> Tim: certainly in the case of Google maps, the answer is yes,
   you can get links and email them. Whether they are implemented in
   quite the way Raman is describing, I don't remember (and can't check
   now because I am projecting)

   <masinter> (might have something to do with relationship of state to
   search engines, too -- when do search give you a URL?)

   TVR: The JSON + # story is the latter, which avoids the potential
   downside of side-effects which might come with the replay approach
   ... This approach also helps with Undo -- by keeping a stack of JSON
   dictionaries, which you can pop to implement Undo

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about history of active content
   in MIME types, note architectural hole about relationship of # to
   MIME types in webarch

   NM: We will need to come to the question of what we do about this,
   but let's go to the queue

   LM: We did think of HTML for active content, for example
   application/postscript, as far back as the early 1990s

   <DanC_lap> (I wonder when I read about "safe tcl" ...)

   LM: There is an architectural gap: we blythely gave the advice "what
   comes after the # depends on the media type"
   ... but we left too much unspecified after that, as it were

   <DanC_lap> (some data: Python Archives (1994q2): Fwd: twin
   interpreters in safe-tcl, but ...

   <DanC_lap> )

   LM: Media fragments, for example, are struggling with this now, that
   is, pointing into the middle of a video stream
   ... Or, application/pdf has a notion of parameters which can be
   passed to the renderer. . .
   ... It would be good to look again at these architectural issues:
   just what is it that we mean by media-type-dependent semantics
   ... It occurs to me that bookmarking come up again and again in this
   area, and we haven't said enough about that from the architectural

   <DanC_lap> (what more would you expect in webarch re bookmarking?
   "There are substantial benefits to participating in the existing
   network of URIs, including linking, bookmarking, caching, and
   indexing by search engines, and there are substantial costs to
   creating a new identification system that has the same properties as

   TVR: and the Back button

   LM: The progression of interactions between the user and the page
   results in a divergence between the URI you clicked and the one you
   need to reconstruct where you are

   <DanC_lap> ("it's also under 3.4.1. Unsafe interactions and
   accountability, where "Although Nadia can print out the results, or
   save them to a file, she would also like to bookmark them.")

   TBL: Sometimes it appears that I've bookmarked something, but it
   only works because there's a session ID in the background, which
   means they won't work later

   TVR: Web apps have to manage state themselves, to make the Back
   button work

   TBL: For multiple tabs, applications have a more complex management
   ... I.e. If I'm tabbed out, and then tabbed back in again, here's
   how I recover my state

   <Zakim> timbl2, you wanted to mention the issue that video fragments
   needcommon media type

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask whether in these apps typically one
   can bookmark these URIs and email them at all

   TBL: I've been asked, wrt the TAG, that we have some consistent
   across all video formats way to use fragids to address by seconds or

   <Stuart> Just dones some tag archaeology seraching for a mention of
   fragIds as "client-side indirection" from Roy... and have found an
   early life www-tag posting from him on the history of fragIds at:

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0253.html

   TBL: and across all audio formats

   <noah> Specifically, Tim is talking about vectoring only off the
   main (pre-slash) part of the mime type.

   TBL: That is, this should be stated at the image/ or audio/ level,
   not at the level of individual media types

   TVR: It would be useful to standardise at that level, but in the
   absense of that, what people are doing today is using text/html to
   ship a program, and # to ship its arguments, and you can do anything
   you want
   ... For example, see the CNN video example in the draft
   ... So the challenge is that although we can come up with
   content-type specific semantics of the #, but that's not how it's
   being used today

   <noah> Interesting... Martin Nally's case is similar in a way. With
   CNN, the # is on the URI for the container page, but the real
   (video) data has its own hidden URI.

   TBL: Understood, but that doesn't change that we should encourage
   getting the high-level media type generic # interpretation for
   addressing into video and audio streams

   <DanC_lap> (the video use case is 2.1
   46 )


   TBL: The fact that things are being hacked currently via text/html
   doesn't mean we can't get it right in the future

   <masinter> the question is whether the current design patterns for
   using # to send parameteres to HTML with Javascript containers for
   video.... whether we could/should actually promote that to a

   JK: The server makes a representation, the client transforms it
   based on the #-passed arguments
   ... So what the client produces may have nothing to do with the
   original media type

   LM: I think perhaps the program is a representation of the content

   TVR: Well, how many arguments does a postscript program take?
   ... PDF would be a better example

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to wonder if the arch issue is that the
   final representation is not that sent by the server

   <masinter> the resource / representation == consider a program which

   JK: Is there an architectural issue, that what the user of a UA sees
   is not immediately well-described by the media type of the original
   GET response

   HST: Yes

   TVR: In principle a program is a representation of what it produces,
   but in practice that confuses people

   <masinter> the ambiguity between "representation" and "program that
   generates the representation" is fundamental and irresolvable

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about bookmarking and email

   NM: Bookmark via email is particularly interesting for me, because
   it means the URI must be useable with no session context or other
   local App state storage

   <masinter> a JPEG image is really a program written in the
   (impoverished) JPEG programming language which, when executed by a
   JPEG processor, produces an image on a screen or processor

   NM: This connects up with Martin Nally's use case
   ... There's a URI, with a fragid which in some way records the state
   of a data resource

   <masinter> turing complete is interesting but not relevant

   NM: wrt the presenting UI
   ... You do eventually get down to resources and their
   representations --it's not all javascript, the data comes in via
   XMLHttpRequest and/or JSON fetches of some kind

   <DanC_lap> hmm... I was drawing a kinda sharp line at turing
   completeness, but yeah, larry, I don't see any essential reason to,
   now that you put it that way, masinter

   NM: There is typically a many-to-one story here, with data from a
   number of sources
   ... in that respect Nally's use case is perhaps too simple, as in
   his case there's only one subsidiary resource involved

   <DanC_lap> (I find it awkward to refer to technical topics by
   people's names; looking up "Martin Nally's use case" ...)

   NM: The bug itself is not enough to reconstruct the UI

   TBL: The bug is an abstract thing

   NM: No, it's a bug report, which is a document

   <johnk> Martin Nally's email:

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0198.html

   NM: If you conneg for RDF, I'll give you the metadata in RDF
   ... The point is that in this case one of the data sources is

   TVR: He could still have done multiple queries

   <masinter> resources: angels, uris: pins

   NM: In the mashup cases, you wouldn't be tempted to the kind of
   conneg approach Nally tries

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to follow up on bank web site builder

   DC: It's good that the JS library guys are showing good taste, and
   providing the wherewithall for things to "work right"
   ... It's not good that banks still don't take advantage of that, and
   so bank website usage is still often frustrating

   <masinter> I think we should be careful to consider whether "they
   need a clear URI" questions are really "they need a good bookmark"

   LM: I think the ambiguity between a program that generates a
   representation and a representation is fundamental

   <jar> +1

   LM: I don't think we can make a useful distinction between 'active'
   and 'passive' content
   ... What's much more important is related matters of sandboxing,
   access control, operational vocabulary, etc.

   <Stuart> Hmmm... henry's writing on Web Proper Names spoke of a
   difference of what was transferred over the wire and what was
   presented to the user... but I forget the terms that he used....

   <ht>[representation and presentation][I think]

   LM: Similarly, the parameters in fragments issue involves security

   <johnk> "passive content", ie. HTML with fragid pointer into it
   could still be regarded as a program representation FWIW

   LM: The requirements of a bookmark are important to pin down
   ... This happens all the time with 'active content'

   NM: A client-side 30x redirection

   LM: When you look in the address bar, they may not be happy with
   what they see
   ... If we include that the thing being displayed is a
   representation, and that an important bit of metadata is "how to get
   here again"

   <Stuart> FWIW: Roy always referred to fragIds as providng
   "client-side indirection".

   LM: and that the answer "what you used to get here" is just the

   TBL: The reason you don't put it in the address bar is that the
   browsers force a reload when you do that

   <Stuart> see last 5 (short) paras of

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0253

   TBL: for among other things security reasons
   ... Thus the prevalence of the 'permalink' convention
   ... Maybe we should reconsider the redisplay requirement, to see if
   that could be relaxed in favour of allowing the permalink to be
   shown in the address bar

   JAR: Email is still the litmus test

   LM: Not sure, reproducability and longevity are not necessarily the

   <masinter> don't understand the email test, would appreciate an

   NM: What next steps do we commit to?

   <masinter> "perma"link -- link needs to be repeatable and
   communicable, somewhat independent of its forever longevity

   <johnk> I think Tim's statement about wanting the URL that appears
   in the browser address bar to be the "permalink" regardless of what
   is displayed in the browser is important

   TVR: I walked away last year because there wasn't much interest or
   the necessary expertise in the TAG to take it further

   <jar> (email is more demanding, but similar to bookmarking. what URI
   should get captured/sent/squirreled away, and what will be expected
   when it's used/received. bookmarking is transmission over time,
   email is transmission over space)

   TVR: We could publish it 'as is' as a Note
   ... but if we are going to take it forward, we'll need a commitment
   to serious work to survey current usage more, and to articulate the
   analysis to the point where we're confident that we've found any
   conflicts that might be hidden

   <masinter> I'm interested in pursuing the architectural issues we've
   raised, in a way that are relvant to HTML, Media Fragments,
   publishing this as a Note is fine as some background

   NM: Who would be interested in taking this work forward?

   AM: I found it very good when I read it, but didn't get a direction
   from it
   ... That is, what is benign, what is dangerous

   <masinter> permalink, relationship of fragments to media
   identification. this itself publish can be a background link

   TVR: That wasn't my goal, yet -- facts first, evaluation later

   AM: I think it's worth publishing in its current form

   DC: I agree

   <DanC_lap> (I understand better the concern that the TAG doesn't
   have the relevant expertise; indeed, I don't have a list of these
   patterns in my pocket, and I don't know specifically where to look.)

   LM: I'm interested in pursuing the architectural issues raised here,
   particularly wrt the media fragments work already underway at W3C

   <Stuart> Hmmm... I don't recall... but as a finding... what did it
   find - that people are making creative use of fragIds - i think that
   findings offer direction/advice.

   <masinter> and publish this as a note with a preface that it is

   LM: I would like to see URL replaced by URI here

   <masinter> because we are engaged in 'good speak'

   <timbl> +1 s/URL/URI/g

   <DanC_lap> (publish it as a "looking" rather than a "finding"? ;-)

   HST: I heard support for publishing, but not as a finding

   NM: We still need review before going ahead
   ... I need volunteers to review this with an eye to publication

   JK: I will

   <masinter> i request that a note be added first identifying this as
   background material for the architectural issues we're going to
   address, and that we should raise those issues and reference the
   issues in the note

   AM: I will

   trackbot, status?

   <scribe> ACTION: John to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns
   For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Review the current draft of Usage
   Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication [on
   John Kemp - due 2009-03-11].

   <scribe> ACTION: Ashok to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns
   For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Review the current draft of Usage
   Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication [on
   Ashok Malhotra - due 2009-03-11].

   <DanC_lap> (I take it as implicit that the status section will be
   updated as part of publication)

   LM: I would like to see statement that this is background material

   AM: I think that requires a lot more work

   LM: I don't think so

   NM: We'll discuss form and status subsequently

   <DanC_lap> (wow... if I were one of the reviewers, I wouldn't be
   able to judge publication readiness without knowing the publication
   target status. but oh well.)

   NM: We do need to decide what else we do on this issue as a whole --
   this is an important area, and don't think this publication will be
   all we want to do

   LM: I'm willing to compose a preface that will be attached to the

   TVR: I'd like to publish this as a Working Draft, without prejudice
   to how it eventually appears
   ... so that we have a heartbeat

   <DanC_lap> +1 WD

   HST: I think we would benefit from talking about the general issue
   of the relevance of the old-fashioned view of a web of documents
   with media types given the prevalence of synthesised content

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to Schedule discussion of the stress on media
   types imposed by client-side synthesised content [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Schedule discussion of the stress on
   media types imposed by client-side synthesised content [on Noah
   Mendelsohn - due 2009-03-11].

   NM: Adjourned for lunch

   Noah: [reviews actions]

httpRedirections-57: Resource description discovery and access


     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57

   TBL: action-116 continues, remind me in a month

   <DanC_lap> action-116 due 4 Apr

   <trackbot> ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with
   the vocabulary in the rules
   [28]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
   either as needed. due date now 4 Apr

     [28] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules

   <masinter> Larry: what does this action have to do with the issue?
   It's not clear

   [noah adds note to action 178]

   <DanC_lap> action-178?

   <trackbot> ACTION-178 -- Jonathan Rees to update draft of finding on
   uniform access to metadata. -- due 2009-02-13 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/178

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

   <johnk> actions 178 and 200 seem to be almost identical

   A decision is made to review JAR's draft.

   <johnk> [30]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-02

     [30] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-02

   JAR: I probably need more info on what people want in order to edit
   my draft.

   <masinter> not sure what this action is, what it's waiting for, etc.


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

   [discussion of what that action was about, with tracker not giving a
   lot of clues]

   JAR: That
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html is the
   doc I prepared for the November face-to-face. This is not the draft
   we are talking about

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

   This [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access.html is the
   memo we are talking about which I promised to add a use case to.

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

   <DanC_lap> action-178: jar says
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access.html is the doc to

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

   <trackbot> ACTION-178 update draft of finding on uniform access to
   metadata. notes added

   Ashok: There is a 5 Feb 2009 version of that document
   (uniform-access) ... so isn't the action done?

   JAR: Yes

   <DanC_lap> close action-178

   <trackbot> ACTION-178 update draft of finding on uniform access to
   metadata. closed

   DanC: I want to talk about this substantively.

   <DanC_lap> action-200?

   <trackbot> ACTION-200 -- Jonathan Rees to revise "Uniform Access to
   Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case -- due 2009-02-24

   <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200



   DanC: Let's discuss this, with respect to ACTION-200

   TBL: This is the most interesting case to me.

   TBL: I am interested about steps 1-6 but not stage 7.

   LM: We have chopped this metadata problem into the wrong chunks...
   we keep stumbling over all kinds of subproblem - trust, provenance,

   <DanC_lap> This = "Cross-site communication of end user information"
   , which is related to current work on OpenID, OAuth, XRD, etc.

   JAR: You need the roadmap I think. I will present it.
   ... This is my roadmap for the issue.
   ... There is the redirections issue, which is about 30x responses.
   ... we have gone though about 10 steps in this one particular
   protocol -- the Description Resource Discovery Protocol. DRD
   ... This is a protocol. It does one particular thing.
   ... This is not uniform access, that is a different issue, which can
   be uniform access to metadata, to information about things, etc.
   ... The uniform access to information came about from discussions of
   303 responses.

   <DanC_lap> issue-36?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-36 -- Web site metadata improving on robots.txt,
   w3c/p3p and favicon etc. -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/36

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/36

   jar: the proposed protocol DRD involve the link header, the link
   element and site metadata.
   ... The way that prople got to this protcol is really interestiung.
   This is interesting from an appliations point of view.
   ... There are a bunch of people whose interests are now aligned, and
   so this had momentum.
   ... The directions come from POWDER -- the first to bring it to the
   TAG's attention --, and
   ... it comes from the OpenID and XRD technology.
   ... So this grows from the TAG's interaction with XRI --we wanted to
   do XRI in a more web arch way.
   ... Eran was charged by OASIS to come up with a replacement protocol
   to replace the conneg hack they were using.
   ... i got interested in this from the metadata point of view. People
   don't want to change the GET behaviour but they do want to provide
   ... there are a million ways to do it -- one has to pick one. That
   is how I came at this from the metadata point of view.
   ... These people often can't edit the HTML pages to add link
   elements for example.
   ... Things out of scope of this discussion are concepts of
   authority, format and ontology/schema of the metadata.
   ... (Authority being in this case for example the authority
   conferred upon a URI owner. We are not discussing the
   authoritativeness of the metadata)
   ... this solves a way of setting a second communication channel, the
   communication of metadata.

   NM: We are sticking close to the scope of Issue-57.

   JAR: Historically this came to our attention through POWDER.

   <DanC_lap> (I was reluctant to add issue 57 in the 1st place; I hope
   I said so at the time.)

   <DanC_lap> (I'd be happy to close issue 57 and replace it by issues
   much smaller than computer science and philosophy.)

   <johnk> I'll just say this in IRC - the key to Eran's doc seems to
   be the describedBy relationship (ie. it's common to all that Tim
   wrote on the board)

   <DanC_lap> (I didn't say so [i.e. don't open httpRedirections] at
   the time. oops.
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 )

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to discuss the template versus powder as
   the main remaining issue in this area, happy with link header and
   link element and not sure about sitemeta as it is

   <DanC_lap> (Dec discussion to which AM refers is recorded at
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/10-minutes#item02 )

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/10-minutes#item02

   Tim: I think the issue is important. The Link header and link
   elements are important solutions. There are more issues with the
   hostmeta system. More roundtrips, syntax of hostmeta file, template
   system covers same ground as POWDER labels. And the way the spec is
   written is as an algorithm everyone must follow, but not on what the
   headers mean.

   <johnk> Eran's draft mentions the 'describedBy' relationship, too,
   Tim - is that "what the headers mean"?

   <masinter> I'm interested in the general question of metadata,
   formats, access methods, and authority, and I think the issues have
   been chopped up in a way that gets in the way of addressing the
   problems. You can't really talk about access to metadata without
   also establishing the range of formats and how you're going to
   indicate them, dealing with embedded metadata in formats for images
   (JPEG) video (closed captions) as well as HTML (RDFa)?

   Ashok: there are these things described in the draft, have had two
   other possible mechanisms mentioned -- conneg, which we are not
   happy with --, and MGET, but it has a special data format. But MGET
   does not give you a set of URIs of metadata resources.

   <masinter> putting a lot of effort into HTTP 303 redirection without
   having a roadmap of how it fits into the bigger picture will lead us
   into "ratholes": lots of effort looking at what might be the wrong

   <DanC_lap> HT, would you type the problem description you gave a few
   minutes ago? it appealed to me but I don't see it in the log

   Tim: Conneg cannot be used for this.

   <ht> Problem description: A number of people have document
   collections with which they wish to associate metadata, without
   being able to edit the (HTML) content of the documents

   <ht> They would like to appeal to a recognised standard which people
   can use to access their metadata

   Ashok; What about MGET?

   <masinter> We could close this issue to say "Using 303 is a bad
   idea, using CONNEG for this is a bad idea, and there are other
   mechanisms, but we're going to look at the big picture"

   Tim: See appendix A

   Masinter, we should recommend everyone use the same header so we get

   <masinter> [40]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery

     [40] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery

   <masinter> metadata doesn't fall from the sky: people make it,
   produce it, manage it, offer it, update it, disagree with it. The
   publication mechanism has to fit into the overall lifecycle of
   metadata, including accommodate the different ways in which sources
   of metadata have the authority and ability to control the mechanisms
   of dissemination.

   [discussion of the bit about WebDAV OPTIONS and PROPFIND --
   basically no one wants to do that level of upgrade to all their

   <DanC_lap> (maybe it was: $WHO has a bunch of web resources with
   URIs and some metadata about them and wants to help other parties
   find the metadata corresponding to them)

   Tim: Also there is a big issue that MGET metadta does not have its
   own URI

   Ashok: suggest we don't do anything until [something] happens.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about MGET

   [discussion of scope]

   <DanC_lap> (jar, the words you use to describe the problem make me
   sympathetic to LMM's concern)

   JK: What is important is that the realtionship 'describedBy'.

   JK: My idea of this issue is that we [...] [i]n this case does the
   describedBy relationship solve HTTP redirections?

   <jar> (5-minute break)

   Jar: i think LM is setting up a atrawman. The problem here is not
   metadata, it is access to metadata.

   <DanC_lap> (metadata is in the image file sometimes, but not always)

   Jar: You talked about metadata for image and video, then often it is
   inside the file, so access to metadata is not a problem. But access
   to metadata is what we need here.
   ... If Eran and co. go ahead and implement and deploy this, what
   risks may be involved?

   NM: I want to discuss the description of the issue.

   Tim: Clearly we have a problem in that LM does not approve of the
   use of 303 it seems, but we should not let that get in the way of
   resolving this issue.

   <masinter> I don't think it's a strawman in the sense of a false
   target. and if this issue is scoped as "access to metadata for
   circumstances where there is no other access method, and where the
   format is well defined and the schema is agreed" etc. then i might
   be OK. But it says "access to metadata"

   <DanC_lap> yes, masinter, that's a helpful refinement

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say not either/or but both/and

   HT: There is a problem for which these people are conveging on a
   solution. It is of interest to the TAG as it seems architecturally
   sound. I want to keep this issue open and watch and help it. Also we
   should open another broader discussion about the constelation of
   problems which Larry has talked about.

   <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- The use of HTTP Redirection -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57

   <masinter> i'd still wonder whether this was high priority among all
   of the metadata problems facing the web, and whether metadata is a
   high priority compared to other TAG issues

   <masinter> by 'this' I meant link headers, 303 responses, etc. as
   metadata access methods

   <masinter> primarily because I htink it is very common for metadata
   publishers to be different from the data publisher, and methods that
   are only useful for the common authority won't be general useful

   <DanC_lap> (indeed, we don't have a separate "uniform access to
   metadata" issue)

   <DanC_lap> -1 broader issue

   Poll: Informal 5 in favour of keeping open, 2 in favour of closing

   <jar> Possible issue title: How does one discover description

   <DanC_lap> (I'd like noah to open an emacs buffer, put 2 thingies
   per tim's suggestion and paste larry's refinement above under one of

   <masinter> i'm not suggesting having a "really broad" issue as much
   as reconsidering how they're chopped up

   <masinter> 'discover' and 'publish' are two sides, and both need to
   be addressed

   <DanC_lap> [2:31pm] masinter: i don't think it's a strawman in the
   sense of a false target. and if this issue is scoped as "access to
   metadata for circumstances where there is no other access method,
   and where the format is well defined and the schema is agreed" etc.
   then i might be OK. But it says "access to metadata"

   <jar> How are description resources discovered and communicated?

   <jar> ... that's too ambitious, too broad. Of course 3rd parties are
   often more reliable, but we need to hear from 2nd parties too,
   especially when we don't know about any 3rd party

   "At their meeting in 16th July 2007 [$1\47] the TAG resolved to
   create a new issue, HttpRedirections-57 as a response to a community
   request [$1\47] that we give further consideration to the use of the
   HTTP 303 status codes for obtaining a description of a resource
   (typically a non-information resource) where the referenced resource
   is not capable of providing representations of itself."

   <jar> If we parameterized by link relation (desrcibedby vs. etc.)
   that might help address format question

   <jar> POWDER and OpenID might use different formats

   Use of HTTP 303 from thing to data about thing

   <masinter> where the mechanism for agreeing upon the metadata format
   is part of the solution and there is an interoperable mandatory to
   implement subset....

   Uniform access to metadata

   <masinter> and where there is some method for resolving the
   understanding of the meaning of the schemas for metadata

   Given the URI of an HTTP-accessible information resource R, how can
   an agent learn the URIs of metadata documents about R?

   <jar> strike the word 'information'

   <jar> strike 'HTTP-accessible'

   <masinter> of the metadata documents about R which are intended by
   the publisher of R"

   <jar> s/strike 'HTTP-accessible'/ /

   <jar> I still think 'information' can be stricken, but keep

   <jar> (I don't know what an 'information resource' is but I think I
   know what 'HTTP-accessible' means)

   [discussion of splitting the issue]

   <DanC_lap> 1st party metadata

   <DanC_lap> (hmm... "from" or "endorsed by"?)

   <noah> Issue 1:

   <noah> Title: Use of HTTP 303 from thing to data about thing

   <noah> Description:

   <noah> The use of the HTTP 303 status codes for obtaining a
   description of a resource (typically a non-information resource)
   where the referenced resource is not capable of providing
   representations of itself.

   <noah> Issue 2(Tim):

   Discussing new split issue:

   <noah> Title: Uniform access to metadata

   <noah> Description:

   <noah> Given the URI of an HTTP-accessible information resource R,
   how can an agent learn the URIs of metadata documents about R
   authorized by the owner of the original URI.

   RESOLUTION: To split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with
   one abstension DanC

   <noah> Propose new shortname uniformAccessToMetadata-XX

   <DanC_lap> issue: uniformAccessToMetadata

   <trackbot> Created ISSUE-62 - UniformAccessToMetadata ; please
   complete additional details at
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62/edit .

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62/edit

   Askok: I will shepherd issue-62

   <DanC_lap> action-227?

   <trackbot> ACTION-227 -- Jonathan Rees to summarize TAG work on
   metadata, with Larry -- due 2009-02-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227

xmlFunctions-34: XML Transformation and composability -- review


     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34

   HT: I am projecting this [45]http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML as a
   focus for discussion of questions of how you interpret in general
   XML documents, so that specs could quote a normal default way of
   interpreting XML documents.

     [45] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML

   For example I assume entities will have been replaced, xincludes
   will have happened, etc and so on .. and all x y and z for some set
   of x y and z.

   this has taken Tim and me to the question of whether it is useful to
   think of the application semantics (?) of XML ... -- the vocabulary
   is tricky here --

   HT: but you might find it useful to distinguish between three layers
   of XML semantics.
   1) The mimimal XML semantics - XML 1.0 and NS.
   2) The elaborated XML semantics which is the result of doing all
   this stuff.
   3) and there is application semantics, which is a third layer.

   HT: The documents which I have written about this are the earlier
   one (2007-11-27)
   "The elaborated infoset: a proposal"

   scribe:HT: We don't want to freeze this set of x y and z.
   ... So the elaborated infoset .
   ... Current caes are the XML stylesheet PI, the author's intent to
   convey additional meaning, the readers licence to interpret hte
   document as having it;
   ... There are elements in xinclude, and decryption.

   Tim: Actually the stylesheet document duality thing was what has
   nested XSLT function elaboration

   HT: All these things signal elaboration.
   ... But Tim wasn't happy because of the probelm of quoting.
   ... The information content of an XML document should be
   compositional in the traditional sens eof recursive specification of
   the element in terms of the meaning of its children.
   ... but quoting gets in the way -- it is up to each vocab to tell
   you which elements are quoting and block the recursive elaboration
   of XML.

   <johnk> noting that HT is now showing


   HT: I was only a while ago able to frame this compositionality of
   XML documents in a formal way ... please forgive the lambdas

   <DanC_lap> [47]Compositionality, elaboration and XML document
   semantics by Henry Thompson (28 November 2007)

     [47] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/compositional.pdf

   [Tim cut-and-pastes something from the above PDF, but IRC clients
   mangle it] can't find lambda

   HT: I think there is a formal apparatus which supports the ...
   multiple vocabulary XML documents, which would be fully general.
   ... The need comes from the fact that any new XML vocabulary might
   arise which has to be elaborated in some way [or are quotes and stop
   ... I am happy for HT being recorded as shepherd for this.

   <DanC_lap> (XProc is sequential?)

   HT: This will become timely in the next quarter, as the XML
   Processing model WG was charter to do two things: to make a scriping
   language -- which is in CR -- amend to do the default processing
   ... The WG has been reluctant to address the default processing
   model, as we didn't think we know what that meant.
   ... The chair may well ask the TAG to tell the group what it means.
   ... I am motivated to take this forward a bit.

   <masinter> [48]http://larry.masinter.net/temp-ht-compositional.html
   for now

     [48] http://larry.masinter.net/temp-ht-compositional.html

   <masinter> converted PDF to HTML [but equations mostly lost]

   HT: Not sure how this connects to other web arch questions and

   <johnk> this issue is related to


   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to note GRDDL went to REC with a "we
   hope the TAG solves this someday" pointer and isn't having much pain
   that I know of; and to ask if the XQuery community

   DanC: The GRDDL WG went to rec without solving the default
   processing model issue. eg do you do xinclude before or after grddl?

   DWC: IN fact implementations have a runtime command line -i flag
   ... tell me about XQ -- did the XQ groups solve this?

   HT: They just ok with a data mdel and do not address how the data
   model gets there. they do not address how xslt:document() works or
   what it actually does

   HT: In practice this is being handled on an ad-hoc basis

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask that "Semantics" be qualified by
   context and perspective -- semantics of X to whom when seen where?

   LM: When you say "the semantics of x" you must be careful to say the
   semnatic sof what to whom.

   HT: That is why there has been slow and limited progress in this
   area. That is a tar pit.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to relate to self-describing Web

   NM: Any connection to the self-describing web finding? I think so.
   ... It is about how to find which spec you need to apply at which

   4d-ad8e-c9681e58c36f [another rendering of the compositionality


   NM: The media type description could say that the XML spec applies
   to this, and that if there is a ns qualified root element then
   several things are true

   NM: 1) You can apply this kind of reasoning
   ... 2) The XInclude spec applies
   ... 2a) Someone has given you an xinclude document
   ... 2b) There is a XInclude output document from applying the
   ... Have you transmitted that data? Is it part of the document? ..

   HT: Yes, suppose the xinclude element is inside a bit of rdf which
   is inside a bit of quoted RDF XML literal, then there is a question
   as to which trumps which.

   NM: I have always assumed that the top down approach applies

   DanC: That is what is not written down and what we are trying to
   write down.

   <masinter> we're getting to the point that i want to the make the
   "TAG shouldn't do research" speech

   HT: I have not found any expression of that which isn't too complex
   ... and when I tried to do it it used a lot of lambdas

   NM: How about: There is a standard style in which you document the
   meaning of your element. You can do it with or without invoking the
   recursive eleboration of the contents.

   <masinter> describing the semantics of documents and the meaning of
   postings is a serious deep research problem in the extension of
   linguistics to acts of the web, and is a hard problem, and we should
   admit that solving this is a research problem TAG doesn't seem to be
   able to solve

   <raman> given this is unresolved for such a long period, should it
   remain a TAG issue for the present TAG, especially given that folks
   like XML processing could also address this. Note: I'm interested at
   a technical level in this solution, but I dont see us making

   tim: Would the TAG be prepared to say that the document should by
   default be processed top down?

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to talk about uptake wrt xinclude and decrypt

   HT: this is important to the W3C as actually XIncldue and XML
   encryption have languished largely because this has not been solved.

   <DanC_lap> (I'm not aware of anybody who's more likely to deploy
   xinclude nor xml sig if the TAG resolves this)

   HT: People neeed to be able to just rely on the processing, assume
   it without everyone having to specify every case in every new spec.

   <masinter> 1+ XInclude and xml encryption don't depend on this

   HT: Specs should be able to start with this richer notion.
   ... Signatures and xincldue and decryption are just not plumbed in.

   <johnk> XML encryption and signature processing order is defined in
   WS-SecurityPolicy FWIW

   LM: The TAG should not do research, we should do architcture.

   <raman> larry has said what I wanted to

   LM: Sometimes these questions are as hard as hard philosophical
   ... researchers belong on the TAG to bring research results to the
   TAG but the TAg should not do research.

   <jar> but there is existing research on this. sprinkled through POPL
   over the past 25 years

   LM: I don't think XInclude depends on the solution to this problem.

   <DanC_lap> (no, that question about signatures is not bigger than
   the problem of semantics. it's the same problem.)

   LM: Signatures have a stronger need than semantics.

   TVR: We should put research questions out to the research community.
   But lets get them off our plate.

   HT: I think the dsposition of this issue has to begin by settling
   the question we have had 2 opposing positions on. Noah and tim have
   said this isn't a big deal, just state it. LM has said it sounds too

   TVR: Versioning is another area we could [throw?] to research.

   Ashok: There is a web servcies security technical committee in OASIS
   which specifies policies which spell out which part of a message
   ought to be signed or interpreted, and whether you should sign
   before or after signature.
   ... This is not research. This is a spec.

   <johnk> WS-SecurityPolicy, specifically

   Ashok: This is not signing for legal purposes ... only to determine
   whether it has been altered.

   <DanC_lap> (well, to determine whether it has been altered as part
   of deciding whether to act and take some risk; so it's not far at
   all from the legal case)

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to try
   [51]http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML on for size again

     [51] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML

   <masinter> xinclude has some sercurity issues that a straightforward
   semantic interpretation might conflict with

   <masinter> deciding what spec to write might be a research problem

   TBL: So DanC, when I suggested a fairly simple definition of
   elaborated infoste where you can spec an xinclude EII as being the
   infoset of the document pointed to, and the semantics of html:p as
   being a paragraph whos contents is the EII of the its contents etc..
   that would be simple... should we not do that .. why not?

   ----------------------- [ aborted due to lack of time ]

   <DanC_lap> (I think I could only review it in an academic sense, but
   it's something that shouldn't be considered "done" until it's had
   some real users try to deploy it and such, Tim)

   Tim: Propose to talk about it for a few more minutes

   Real users, yes

   <ht> Other point which I found leads to complexity is having to talk
   about what you're combining with 'XML functions'

   <masinter> What's the smallest amount of this we could agree on and
   produce something useful?

   NM: The bit henry says is problematic was explaining quoting in a
   way that doen't take 6 pages. Instead of saying that there is a rule
   which applies everywhere, to say that the rule is in your spec for
   your elements, if it is non-quoting, will appeal to.

   <masinter> is this a clarification of the XInclude spec?

   NM: If your element is a quoting element, it will just spec whatever
   it specs for the treatment of its contents.

   [minuting lost]

   <masinter> maybe there's something other than a 'finding'

   <noah> FYI: Agenda has been updated to show error-20 tomorrow after
   morning break.

   <masinter> about 'research': if we discover that something is a
   research problem, we don't have to drop it, we can write something
   that says 'this is a hard problem, here's our analysis, we don't
   know the answer but here is something that will help you think about
   it': document what we know and move on

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention fixed point as another tarpit

   HT: There is a problem of fixed point that you must go on until you
   get to a fixed point because it is recursive.

   Tim: No, i don't think there is

   <masinter> HT: there's a tension between staying with the infoset,
   and accomodating vocabulary-sensitive notion of quoting. That really
   did screw it

   <masinter> there's nothing in the infoset model that allows for

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about bounded set of specs

   <masinter> HT thinks he might be able to make this work

   HT: There is a problem with sticking with the infoset as domain is
   that quoting generates something different from the infoset.

   <masinter> maybe this is just a problem with the infoset model

   NM: I thought that maybe we should talk about 3 specific mechanisms

   HT: The intention is to be general
   ... not to just address three cases.

   <masinter> is this actually an issue with XML encryption? Active WG,
   are they really asking for this?

   NM: We must give people guidance on how to write specifications



   <noah> Actually, what I tried to say was a bit more nuanced. I think
   that helping the community learn to write specs that work well on
   the Web can be a very good thing for the TAG to do. In this case, I
   think we can share insights on how to handle the quoting and
   recursion, how to make XML self-describing, and how to make the
   specifications for individual elements compose well.

   <jar> translate the problem into lisp, solve it there, then
   translate it back

   <jar> much research on processing models for simple lisp-like

   <jar> quotation, top down, bottom up, quasi-quotation, macros,
   static analysis, etc. etc.

   LM: This won't work for signtures, they don't work with a top-down

   NM: Yes they do. (Example of xml Purchase order document on
   whiteboard. the semantics of the PO are declared to be void if the
   signature does not match.

   <masinter> actually, they might be top-down, but top-down is
   different from one to the other

   Asok: the signature can sign something outside the tree .. the top
   down model doesn't work.. Think about an xinclude in the signed bit.

   JK: When you decrypt you map infoset to infoset -- signatures don't

   <masinter> HT makes a good explanation about the problem with
   infoset replacement being a generic problem

   HT: They do -- NM's example was wrong -- people should be able to
   just sign part of a purchase order without the PO spec being aware
   of that. The result of checking a sig is in fact the document with
   no sig in it
   ... The point of all this is to foster orthogonality.

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to suggest requirements

   <ht> NM: Can't treat signatures orthogonally, because the signature
   might be quoted

   LM: If you have multiple signatures.

   <noah> NM: I think there's only so much orthogonality you can have
   here, because you have to deal with the possibility that an ancestor
   of the signature element might have been a quoting element.

   JAR: This is all familiar from the LISP world of the 80s.

   <ht> HST: LISP has the domain==range property

   <noah> NM: So, that's why the spec for the root element, and the
   specs for all descendents must at least say: "use the standard
   processing model for my children, no quoting"

   <ht> HST wonders whether the domain==range property is important, or
   a red herring

   JAR: Maybe we want to state some requirements and call for
   processing models, which would be a call for research -- or we could
   say it is an engineering queston.

   <ht> HST has not (yet) been able to reconstruct why it was necessary
   (just desirable?) to interleave elaborated infoset 'construction'
   and application 'semantic' processing

   <ht> HST thought quoting was it, and maybe NM's example will help

   LM: If we think we don't quite understand the problem we should not
   prioritize this.

   JAR: i would like to synch up with HT

   HT: Sorry I didn't figure out what was wrong with the original

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to ask what's the start and stop of
   "the N point summary" and see if the answer converges

   <ht> OK, so the pink box and the five bullets are coordinated in
   TimBL's conception in [53]http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML], i.e.
   one recursion + fixed point pass

     [53] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML

   <ht> and the original draft was rejected because it required two
   distinct passes

   random: [54]http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conneg

     [54] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conneg

   <noah> I think this issue is in pretty good shape. Henry has been
   informed by this discussion. Keep it open, medium priority, have
   Henry prepare new draft(s).

   <masinter> I'm still not clear who needs the answer to this question

   <masinter> please identify and ask them to tell us why they need

   <ht> And maybe quoting was one reason why the two can't be separated

   <ht> DC: HST's compositionality paper might work better as a one
   page exposition and all the details in an appendix

   <noah> From the TAG charter:

   <noah> The TAG will [...] will [also] anticipate growth and
   fundamental interoperability problems.

   <ht> ACTION: ht to Ask the XProc WG what their plans are in the area
   of the default processing model [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Ask the XProc WG what their plans
   are in the area of the default processing model [on Henry S.
   Thompson - due 2009-03-12].

   <masinter> one or more members of ....

   <johnk> ACTION: John - Ask Security Maintenance WG about relevance
   of a default processing model [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - - Ask Security Maintenance WG about
   relevance of a default processing model [on John Kemp - due

   <noah> ACTION: ht to alert chair when updates to description of
   xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none made) - Due 15
   March 2009 [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - alert chair when updates to
   description of xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none
   made) [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-03-15].

   <ht> [58]http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/compositional.pdf

     [58] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/compositional.pdf

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ashok to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns
   For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: ht to alert chair when updates to description of
   xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none made) - Due 15
   March 2009 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: ht to Ask the XProc WG what their plans are in the
   area of the default processing model [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: John - Ask Security Maintenance WG about relevance of
   a default processing model [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: John to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns For
   Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to Schedule discussion of the stress on media
   types imposed by client-side synthesised content [recorded in

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [65]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([66]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/04/02 20:43:26 $

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



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                           Tag f2f, Thursday

05 Mar 2009


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc


          Stuart, JohnK, TimBL, DaveO, Ashok, Henry, DanC, Jonathan,



          John, johnk, jar, DanC_lap


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]TAG Priorities for 2009
         2. [6]Error Handling 20
         3. [7]Other items
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   <timbl> ------------------------------------------------------

   <johnk> scribenick: John

   <johnk> ScribeNick: johnk

   NM: (reviews agenda)

   <ht> Thanks

   NM: dive into priorities discussion

TAG Priorities for 2009


      [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda#TAGpriorities

   NM: converted a spreadsheet so that all major items were done as
   single line

   JAR: you should note the mismatch between what people want to work
   on and the listed priorities

   NM: we didn't go over the open issues previously, so I have added
   the high priority items to this priorities list

   list at:

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

   <noah> [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

   NM: look at this list and identify 1/2/3/4 of these items that you
   are willing to work on

   TBL: (questions process)

   NM: if it doesn't look like a deliverable, then just skip it

   <timbl> test

   list at

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

   <masinter> one more time

   <masinter> pls


     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

   NM: look through list
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv and
   pick some items that you are interested in

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

   <Ashok> 3, 13, 19

   <raman> 4 9 10 17 21

   16, 4 (perhaps not all/only in TAG), 5, 10/16 intersection, 3

   I meant 10/13 intersection, not 10/16

   LMM: should group/name differently

   NM: we can revisit the naming

   LMM: split out 22

   NM: (roughly) yes

   TBL, re-use 6,7,8 for sub-components of 22

   I don't see any URIs here ;)

   <ht> HST: 2, 4, 5 12, 17, 21, 24, 25

   DanC: 6, 10, 20

   AM, (adds 7 as a possibility)

   TBL: 1/15,4/6, 8,12,14, 19

   LMM: treats this list as things willing to talk about
   ... 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 (then notes other things not
   on the list at this point) .... 27 (liason)

   DanC: +1 to 27

   TVR: changes 9 to 20 (web app state)

   NM: given that I am chair will not put my name by them yet

   (discussion of how to do clustering of issues)

   LMM: offers to lead clustering

   NM: let's try it for 10-15 minutes
   ... new version of the file at

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/groupPriority.csv

   LMM: (moves to whiteboard discussion)

   NM: as you fold these, let's remove the old ones

   TBL: let's not remove anything yet, just group


   4, 6, 17, 25

   LMM: is it OK then to restrict error handling to HTML?

   HT: let's not restrict anything yet

   NM: let's remove 25 from cluster
   ... should 21 be in cluster?

   LMM: OK

   first cluster now 4,6,17,21

   TBL: 1,2,15,18,23 as cluster?

   is 15 in this cluster?

   HT: 15 seems orthogonal

   NM: 23 should be separate
   ... move 'scheme/protocols' out of 1

   <Stuart> Is there a difference between 18 and 19?

   thinks Stuart might find it useful, but if not, I will stop?

   <Stuart> Dan/John... don't worry about me... I doubt there is much
   that you can do to help me :-)

   (stops recording whiteboard discussion for now)

   HT: we didn't include conneg in this list

   NM: (adds to list)
   ... (let's LMM continue to lead session beyond his granted 15

   TBL: combine 3, 15, 27?
   ... rules, education and liason are related

   (broad agreement)

   (discussion of 8 - semantic web)

   HT: not losing track of URI-related resources and their relation to
   things "off the Web"
   ... linked data synchronization / update
   ... security is a cluster

   AM: "web security" is different from "javascript security"

   LMM: I think we can't look at one without relating to the other

   (rough agreement)

   <Stuart> I wonder to what extent TAG attention to security is
   informedBy, duplicates, or contributes distinctly from the
   activities of exting security focussed WGs at W3C

   good question

   first task is probably to investigate exactly that - whether there
   actually *is* work to be done by TAG here

   TVR: suggests making a matrix to prioritize according to some set of

   (such as member-indicated interest)

   6,Avoid doing things we can't complete

   7,Put as low priority things that have only short term value. High
   priority to things that produce documents that have long term value.

   8,"We should emphasize activities that produce artifacts"" of long
   term value (findings, etc.)"

   (pasting old lines from Noah's file)

   TVR: we should try to connect WGs when working on a particular

   LMM: we should try to estimate the audience for our work on each

   TBL: TAG provides the glue between WGs
   ... if something falls between the cracks of WGs, TAG should do it

   LMM: do the things that *only* the TAG could do

   NM: what we need to get to from this is more focussed priorities

   LMM: we have put a lot of energy on a "small thing" without
   addressing the relationship to the larger "problem"

   TBL: would be happy if we pick two clusters, write list of
   straightforward questions to be answered.
   ... each one gets a general direction, someone goes and writes
   ... then review, and pipeline each issue

   NM: i) who is audience? ii) metrics for success?

   LMM: work products:

   i) publications

   ii) liason

   iii) slides, blog et al (education materials)

   iv) formal rules of some form



   LMM: useful to think about these categories against the reasons we
   would work on them

   TVR: I would like to do that F2F today

   LMM: ... and what would be the deliverables (base on the rough TAG
   work product list above)

   NM: would like to get to prioritization ASAP
   ... when we start working on something, what are the metrics?

   LMM: in coming AC Meeting is there no agenda place for TAG report?

   NM: no
   ... move to error handling

Error Handling 20


     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-agenda#errorhandling

   <trackbot> ISSUE-20 What should specifications say about error
   handling? notes added

   (didn't want to add a note, but oh well)


     [17] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/TAG_errorHandling_200903.html

   NM: shepherd for ISSUE-20?

   HT: I'll take it

   NM: PROPOSAL - close ACTION-199

   <DanC_lap> close action-199

   <trackbot> ACTION-199 Follow up on error handling thread (8 Oct)

   (reviewing thread on HTML and XML -

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0040.html)

   HT: lot of well-formed problems occur at very lowest level
   ... ie. bad serialization code, not bad keystrokes
   ... see
   ... related to 3023bis
   ... should we ask XML Core to look at question of whether there
   should be a serialization spec to go with infoset spec?
   ... would such a spec. cause implementors to implement it?
   ... mostly this occurs in aggregators
   ... " pull things into a matrix, and then serialize it

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0060.html

   NM: you're talking about XML, not HTML
   ... some say XML held up as a strawman - it's broken, should be

   HT: I attempted to summarize the email thread in response to my
   TAG-actioned email
   ... NM made good summary of the language/spec. behaviour distinction
   - [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0181.html
   ... lot of sub-issues and areas where work could be done
   ... XML serializers and output which is not well-formed
   ... Assertion that XML spec. does not define error handling

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0181.html

   LMM: if something is an error, and then you specify some normative
   behaviour then it is no longer an error

   HT: responsibility of conformance sections to say something about
   behaviour on error condition

   NM: agrees with Larry, but there's more...
   ... you write a spce.
   ... agree what a legal doc is
   ... some things look like specifications for *code* not language

   HT: does the TAG want to explore the narrow question of the XML
   treatment of errors?
   ... general question will keep coming back
   ... Opera drafted rewrite of the XML Stylesheet PI REC
   ... ... which discusses error recovery a la HTML5
   ... relation to tagsoup "just keep truckin" approach
   ... declarative spec. of error handling
   ... not work for TAG
   ... bridge the gap from XML issues to larger HTML issue

   <DanC_lap> (I note, again, hsivonen implemented a subset of HTML 5
   that can be parsed in one pass. I'd like to see that written up as a
   separate note or something.)

   HT: there are HTML5 issues that tread on others
   ... language def vs. consumer behaviour are felt by many that it is
   useful to make orthogonal
   ... anything else?

   LMM: would like to talk about scope of what we do here
   ... XML would fall within XMLCore, some would fall in HTML5 WG, some
   activities would be liason
   ... XML serialization issue sounds nice to solve
   ... should we talk to PHP implementors, for example?

   <DanC_lap> (

   <DanC_lap> (I still don't see goal #1 written down)

   from above: HT: XML serializers and output which is not well-formed

   LMM: what should specs say about error handling in general?

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to lump 6 (HTML) with 4 and to say, re
   "nobody on mobile," that it's part of a device-independent approach
   to web app security

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about the big picture

   NM: your (HTs) points seem very specific, which is good
   ... community is thrashing on view that HTML5 is on the right track
   ... grounding in reality of the moment is good
   ... but.... do we really want to wrestle with XML PIs?
   ... success is moving the community
   ... which is proving difficult
   ... we need to consider how to address the big picture
   ... so, what to do next?

   LMM: general guideline about error behaviour
   ... in general better to write a spec to say that if you do this,
   good things will happen
   ... important to document why it is that XML specificies error
   behaviour of ill-formed content

   TBL: you are defining what an XML doc serizialization is
   ... separate spec. to say if you find an error what to do about it
   (erro recocvery)

   LMM: Postel's Law example - how does it fit here? (didn't get all of

   NM: not customary in C community to blindly write bad code
   ... have a spec. that this is correct. Core language spec. doesn't
   say anything about what bad code "means"

   <masinter> Postel law, robustness principle: conservative what you
   send, liberal in what you accept

   <masinter> XML encourages parsers to *not* be liberal in what they

   NM: if I'm writing something more like lint than a compiler, error
   recovery is more important

   TVR: when writing such as program you don't need to say what is "bad

   <masinter> Within the context of a browser run by an ordinary user,
   "Liberal in what you accept" is reasonable

   TVR: lint doesn't need to recover, it's not running the code

   <jar> a browser is not a compiler.

   LMM: to be specific - we could come up with some writing about
   robustness, reasons why XML does what it does, relation between
   browser (processor very, very liberal)

   <noah> I pointed out that compilers like gcc are doing two things 1)
   helping you to run correct programs and 2) helping you to diagnose
   problems in documents that aren't C-language after all.

   LMM: reason that not everyone should be that liberal

   <noah> Thus, gcc is processing two languages at once: the path that
   actually causes the program to run accepts only legal C; the other
   path processes a superset language.

   LMM: how to say something useful about error-handling in a spec. in
   a general way

   <jar> (JAR wants to insert a mention of Martin Rinard's work on
   error handling in embedded systems... will google for a URL)

   LMM: we still want to encourage conservative senders
   ... even if receivers will be liberal

   <timbl> Thanks for all the fish, Stuart.

   NM: recognizes Stuart's help in getting him up to speed

   <jar> (Rinard: Enhancing Availability and Security Through
   Failure-Oblivious Computing )

   all: thanks, Stuart!

   <jar> (
   df )


   HT: as shepherd, I will attempt to take this feedback and structure
   it appropriately

   LMM: will help
   ... role of robustness in language specs.


   <timbl> --
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0105.html ?

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0105.html

   <timbl> 49956DAC.9010804@musc.edu

   <timbl> mid:49956DAC.9010804@musc.edu

   <timbl> message:<49956DAC.9010804@musc.edu>

   <jar> scribenice: jar

   <jar> scribenick: jar

   signs of convening...



   <timbl> Adding a Url Scheme to a Qt Application Running on Mac Os X
   and Win32

   Noah will propose at next telecon a procedure for putting inactive
   old issues to sleep.

   Review of late / unscheduled agenda items

Other items

   (reviewing bottom of agenda)

   <ht> SCRIBE PLEASE NOTE: Link to this wrt this morning's discussion
   of error handling:

     [24] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/TAG_errorHandling_200903.html

   Re use of CURIEs in RDFa: explicit request for TAG attention

   ACTION johnk to read thread on RDFa, CURIEs and profile and

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0295.html

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - johnk

   <scribe> ACTION: john to read thread on RDFa, CURIEs and profile and
   recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc]

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0295.html
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Read thread on RDFa, CURIEs and
   profile and summarize
   [on John Kemp - due 2009-03-12].

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0295.html

   next: content type override 24

   Noah will schedule telecon discussion of ISSUE-24.

   Next: request for versioning input from HTML

     [29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/108

   <scribe> ACTION: Masinter to review TAG versioning situation and
   report back to TAG and HTML [recorded in

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Review TAG versioning situation and
   report back to TAG and HTML [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-03-12].

   <noah> LM: There's no need for Noah to schedule versioning
   discussion now

   <masinter> i'll ask for a discussion after that review

   next item: Mobile web? Noah happyt to defer

   LM: We've been asked to consider mobile and multimodal web issues

   raman: these two are separate

   <masinter> not for TAG, on ac-forum as topic for W3C

   next item: AWWSW - deferred

   <DanC_lap> (I think mobile comes up everywhere rather than nowhere)

   <DanC_lap> (esp security, HTML, error handling, etc.)



   Next agendum: priority setting

   noah: Sooner or later interest areas have to map to issues (perhaps
   new ones)
   ... In spreadsheet but not on whiteboard: what everyone was willing
   to work on

   (noah sorts the spreadsheet by cluster)

   lm: Suggestions: reasons why we're doing them, things that we can
   do. What kinds of products should result?

   noah: Can you name 1-2 most important things in each cluster?

   lm: In area A (HTML) there's quite a bit of liaison to be done
   ... priority is reducing conflict within W3C
   ... specific areas where findings would be useful, e.g. error

   timbl: harmonize xhtml and html from DOM up - is most important

   john: Education theme - just describe specifically what the issue is
   - is a good contribution

   noah: audiences?

   john: TAG is one; ... "a short recent history of versioning"

   lm: trying to drive toward metrics (for evaluation)

   <masinter> e.g., as a NOTE?

   john: (other audiences) and the HTML group, others involved in these

   <johnk> a NOTE, if "approved" by the TAG

   danc: I want to lay out distributed extensibility arguments in the
   ESW wiki. Each person says there piece over and over, would be good
   to collect on one page

   john: Yes, this is similar to what I suggested (write down what we

   <DanC_lap> (importantly, "we" includes both the TAG and the HTML WG;
   the esw wiki is neutral turf)

   lm: Potential topic: Layering of protocol / media / scheme reference
   - orthogonality of schemes & protocols?
   ... spec layering is possible subject of a finding
   ... it could be useful.

   danc: really?

   <DanC_lap> (spec layering sounds like motherhood; i'm struggling to
   see how a finding there would help)

   ht: Larry this morning volunteered to write in the area of Postel's
   law and exceptions...

   lm: yes, that falls under exception handling
   ... Whether the role of non-W3C specifications, plugins,
   extensibility needs to be accounted for in web architecture
   ... ... not sure where that fits

   ht: The missing action belongs here - either bridging gap, or
   media-type namespace defaulting thing, although larry didn't want us
   to call it that
   ... the gap between namespace aware and unaware languages

   noah: Let's move on to cluster B (metadata access, http use)
   ... I will photograph the whiteboard

   NOTE TO MINUTES EDITOR: ensure photo linked

   <DanC_lap> and a [32]text list of clusters: A HTML, B metdata
   access, ...

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/05-whiteboard-priorities.txt

   <johnk> A: [33]HTML + XML

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_a.jpg

   <johnk> B: [34]Metadata Access + HTTP use

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_b.jpg

   <DanC_lap> (my understanding of the Martin bug database example is
   that conneg is OK)

   ht: Need to say succinctly an answer to the conneg use question...

   ashok: There are RFCs in progress, let's wait and see?

   noah: What do we want to deliver/achieve in this area?

   timbl: Two things, firefighting and architecture
   ... Put in place a new piece of architecture saying here's how to do

   dorchard: Link header is web arch, not semantic web arch?

   timbl: non-RDF uses of Link: are legacy

   (someone): we'll be ignored if we say it's semweb

   noah: We have 2 issues open. One about getting metadata, the other
   about 303
   ... Is the goal to help an RFC draft, or to solve community problem?

   timbl: yes

   noah: Tactic: to help out with drafts

   lm: There is significant concern with documents being outside of the
   organization. Independent review is less productive than a liaison
   activity. Review without meeting is not so good

   danc: No one's suggesting this

   ht: We have not established that it's great work

   noah: What should TAG do (by way of process) - how/when to spend
   time on it

   lm: Draft review can be private

   john: Structure according to liaison, education, finding

   lm: Everything around this is liaison

   noah: What else to track?

   ashok: Third part of this is site-meta
   ... JAR has useful summary ...
   ... Nobody has stood up and said X is wrong, should be done very
   ... questions of detail...
   ... help them get the 3 drafts right

   ht: My memory was *not* that these were all on the right track.
   Prior goal: do we have consensus around the architectural soundness
   of the goals they're aiming for?
   ... We need to satisfy ourselves that these 3 documents are
   architecturally sound

   lm: As a group?

   ht: Yes. Documents from last year were a start for our own education

   lm: What would we do to make our opinion known?

   dorchard: Wish that the TAG would take an interest. Surface
   principles involved. E.g. Can an HTTP resource speak for an email

   can http: be authoritative for mailto: ? "No" answer led to the DNS

   <masinter> this is a large, hard problem, and a small finding will
   be confusing rather than helpful

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to argue against TAG attacking this

   lm: This is a large hard problem, attacking it piecemeal is
   ... For me this is lower priority
   ... Let's document that this is hard, lower priority, and punt

   timbl: I don't agree. Yes, top down metadata is hard, but community
   has needs now

   <masinter> no, i don't say 'punt'

   <masinter> I think this is an important topic, just less important
   than a few other things

   NOTE TO EDITOR: Masinter didn't say 'punt', that was scribe's word.

   <masinter> counter-productive, not destructive

   <johnk> C: [35]URIs, Naming, Meaning of names

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_c.jpg

   sorry larry. when i scribe i rephrase for expediency & take

   character flaw

   <masinter> I'd support a review meeting with the proponents, even if
   it was low priority

   <DanC_lap> (yes, i recall a nice article by eran; i gather it's the
   basis of the requirements-evaluation appendix in his Internet Draft)

   <masinter> it's fine, please proceed, i'll correct as I notice

   noah: On to cluster C

   What's goal for URNs and registries?

   <DanC_lap> rephrasing isn't a character flaw; it's a natural part of

   ht: Success is, does it answer the question members came to us with,
   as we've interpreted it

   <johnk> masinter: review meeting with which proponents? (see your
   comment above)

   what are the tradeoffs in using http versus creating a new naming

   <masinter> (to whose satisfaction)

   ('naming system' is agnostic regarding how manifested, scheme vs.
   urn registration)

   noah: SchemeProtocols - was confusing to me when I started with the

   lm: Can't argue against the desirability of this, have been involved
   in this for a long time

   <DanC_lap> scribenick: DanC_lap

   lm: I think this fails the "can complete" test.

   NM: I have some experience in support of that

   <masinter> [36]http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

     [36] http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

   <masinter> 1999 presentation on "problems URIs don't solve, but
   think they should"

   NM: while in the case of some hard problems it's obviously hard, in
   this case, many people think they know how it works, but they know
   different things; maybe explaining why it's hard to agree is worth

   <masinter> i think the XRI discussion was foolish and the TAG should
   have refrained from giving a strong proposal

   DO: we eventually decided to advocate against the XRI spec, though
   it took us too long to get there; I encourage the TAG to continue to
   [not sure I got it...]

   <scribe> scribenick: jar

   lm: I know the argument tree very well
   ... You're suggesting an educational activity?

   ht: Yes. Maybe it fails at its goal

   noah: Draft attempted to do both
   ... Anything else in this area [cluster C]?

   lm: Strongly opposed to making this high priority

   noah: If we can serve the community ...

   lm: Can't imagine anything we write can be helpful

   (observes general lack of consensus)

   <masinter> anything *new* that we write, that's better than things
   that are already helpful

   jar: I need to work on this... it will be helpful for me

   dorchard: Larry, would you have agreed with XRI recommendation?

   lm: Would not have agreed

   <masinter> jar, I'm happy that you continue to work on it, and i'm
   willing to help, offline, i just don't think the TAG could be

   dorchard: In my 7 years of experience, this was one of the few
   places where we changed someone else's work for the better

   <masinter> a) I think XRI is irrelevant and not particularly
   significant, and b) it's not clear how much better

   raman: Only time will tell what 'better' is

   <johnk> D: [37]Semantic Web Architecture

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_d.jpg

   lm: Was there any part of semantic web architecture not covered by
   other clusters?
   ... Answer was specific vocabularies

   (We have moved on cluster D, which is semantic web architecture)

   <masinter> the category (D) "Semantic Web": what things weren't
   covered by (B) and (C)?

   timbl: linked data synchronization?

   lm: that was my attempt to scribe what someone said, not sure

   timbl: AWWSW work is valuable - ontology for HTTP so we stop arguing
   about what 'representation' means [etc.]
   ... RDF-izing webarch is a tool that we can use

   lm: Doesn't know what AWWSW is about

   <DanC_lap> action-201?

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW
   discussions -- due 2009-03-30 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

   timbl: Possible TAG activity - use AWWSW output as building block in
   some new document

   <DanC_lap> action-201: [39]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHome

     [39] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHome

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions notes

   (revised webarch)

   ht: You haven't suggested this before - the idea to reissue to

   <DanC_lap> odd... "This is an informal group; it has no particular
   charter."; i thought it was chartered by the TAG. I think I can find

   timbl: It would be volume 2, not a revision

   lm: If there's a separate AWWSW group, shouldn't they be the primary
   mover on this work?

   noah: Is it in their scope to do new AWWW work?

   <masinter> for [b] and [c] as well as [d]

   noah: On to cluster [40]E - security
   ... Is browser security a good generalization of javascript

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_e.jpg

   timbl: I think javascript security should be a very separate thing

   noah: This is a broad bumper sticker. Are there concrete proposals?

   timbl: Javascript security is a very specific topic

   noah: Not an activity / action

   timbl: E.g. someone would review and track these outside activities
   ... E.g. someone would track cross-site scripting issues

   <masinter> Security should be built into AWWW

   timbl: they're already relevant to javascript security

   <masinter> Liaison should expose design problems which cause
   security problems later

   johnk: There are so many groups working in this area: origin header

   <masinter> working groups currently don't take security as a first

   johnk: Would be good to understand the general picture first

   <masinter> security should be than accessibility

   <masinter> liaison with IETF Security directorate, signal sign-on

   johnk: origin = barth and hickson

   <DanC_lap> (I updated [41]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHome to refer
   to [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-afternoon-minutes near
   "task force of the TAG" and removed "no particular charter". perhaps
   there's not much of a charter, but "no particular charter" suggests
   there's no formal connection to the TAG)

     [41] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHome
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-afternoon-minutes

   timbl: anti-phishing - authentication - lots of stuff falls under

   lm: security is a general architectural issue that we tend to
   address late

   <DanC_lap> (which WGs don't take take security as a first

   lm: w3c has people proactive in other issues such as acessibility;
   security should have similar status [scribe license]

   <johnk> Can we recommend 'security considerations' for all specs. in

   <DanC_lap> (which existing security orgainzations do you have in
   mind, larry?)

   lm: e.g. review AWWW against security requirements
   ... specific liaison with web security organizations
   ... anti-phishing work
   ... domain name spoofing, etc.

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to note

     [43] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#secure-by-design

   danc: I disagree that we don't think it's important

   dorchard: we did do passwords in the clear finding

   <masinter> independent of whether it was important in the past, the
   question is whether it's important going forward. It doesn't fit
   into any of the other clusters

   ashok: Maybe the people interested should do some outreach [scribe

   lm: Sorry for casting aspersions on past work of the tag... but
   security work doesn't seem to fall under other categories of TAG

   timbl: Attacks are not usually on the specs; they're on the
   ensemble. No algorithm will find flaws



   <masinter> top 10 security problems lists -- lots of them

   timbl: Immediate response from those who know this stuff is: Excuse
   me, talk to us, we know this



   <DanC_lap> not sure this got captured:

   <DanC_lap> LMM: security is perhaps the biggest threat to the Web
   reaching its full potential.

   timbl: it's not clear that the TAG could by sheer will effectively
   address security

   lm: I'm suggesting liaison, and to look at places where W3C isn't
   working but should be

   timbl: constant vigilance

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to expre some concert with hostmeta

   <timbl> q was historical

   <DanC_lap> (I'm sympathetic to LMM's point that there are these
   lists of security issues that don't get the attention they deserve
   around here; [46]http://delicious.com/connolly/security is a sort of
   guilt-pile where I put stuff when I find it.)

     [46] http://delicious.com/connolly/security

   noah: Seems success here might be influencing the AC. W3C does or
   doesn't have an investment in security activities; question is
   whether they're adequate

   lm: Looking for areas where we could show technical leadership

   johnk: Would like to have evidence - go out and talk to people

   <johnk> ie. like evidence that TAG can really do something in this
   area, and clearly describe what that could be

   noah: Mobile used to be like voice browsers - niche. But they're
   coming to dominate [scribe liberty]

   johnk: [47]F: Mobile

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_f.jpg

   danc: There's lots of mobile stuff

   <johnk> I have a sense that security is important and
   under-represented at the web-arch level,

   raman: For a long time it was thought to be distinct - now they're

   <johnk> but I also have the sense that there are many experts
   working here, both within and outside the w3c

   <masinter> plea for multi-modal web focus


   noah: Typical person building browser assumes keyboard/mouse. But
   now it's going to accelerometers etc
   ... Is there a standard way to get acccess to accelerometers?

   danc: Yes, we had a workshop
   ... It increases the concern about javascript security. Intensifies
   many other architectural concerns
   ... maybe we could spend time on the workshop report

   <johnk> security for access to device APIs report -

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report

   <timbl> logger, pointer?

   <scribe> ACTION: DanC inform the TAG about the mobile workshop
   report [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report recorded in

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-242 - Inform the TAG about the mobile
   workshop report [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report on
   Dan Connolly - due 2009-03-12].

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report

   noah: Web-based solutions are one piece of the puzzle. Generic or
   platform specific?

   <masinter> What "the web" is changing as the range of devices is
   extended, what W3C specs ....

   noah: (missed, about relation of web to mobile devices)

   lm: Look at orthogonality of core (shared) vs. non-core; have we
   abstracted properly
   ... Hard to see what the articulation points are if we consider
   [webarch] as one big spec

   <masinter> location specification etc

   <masinter> this is another area where most of the work is currently
   going on outside of W3C

   <masinter> but they're not looking at the space from an
   architectural point of view

   <masinter> and interaction with webarc and other elements aren't

   raman: Is this [missed antecedent] a TAG issue?

   noah: Can you do things through the web that you would expect these
   devices to be able to do?

   danc: I'd love it if the platform guys would come tell us about
   their platform

   <masinter> been some W3C non-success of device independence, etc.,
   don't want to repeat the failures

   danc: I'd be more comfortable with "device independence in the
   emergence of mobile"

   <DanC_lap> platform guys, e.g. palm webos platform

   lm: Most activity in this area is outside of W3C. A lot is not being
   done with an architectural point of view. It's a question, not
   assertion, are there ways we could modify webarch to enhance mobile
   ... How do we get in front, without getting in the way? Liaison
   ... Many things people tried were not successful
   ... We don't want to repeat this kind of work, but it be useful to
   understand why it didn't
   ... Can't think of anything to do other than liaison at this time
   ... I'm expecting our list of major topics as a statement from the

   <masinter> we're doing fact-finding and learning, and inviting
   community to bring up architectural issues

   <masinter> and liaison

   noah: (concurs)

   timbl: But no one has flagged issues in this area for the TAG?

   ht: Didn't we get asked about the transforming proxy stuff?

   <DanC_lap> (er... this list is going in our minutes; that doesn't
   seem to be a big statement. I wonder what big statement LMM has in

   <masinter> i would like the TAG areas and prioriites to appear on
   the TAG home page

   john: people see reasons to bend the architecture

   <DanC_lap> ah. do you have CVS write access? do you know?

   <johnk> (to masinter)

   <johnk> DanC - me?

   lm: When we've decided on priorities, home page should be changed to
   reflect them

   The following links are to photographs of the issues collected on
   the flip charts during this discussion:
     * A: [53]HTML + XML
     * B: [54]Metadata Access + HTTP use
     * C: [55]URIs, Naming, Meaning of names
     * D: [56]Semantic Web Architecture
     * E: [57]Security
     * F: [58]Mobile

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_a.jpg
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_b.jpg
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_c.jpg
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_d.jpg
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_e.jpg
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/priorities_f.jpg

   A transcription of the content of the flip charts is available at

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/05-whiteboard-priorities.txt

   <DanC_lap> well, was addressing masinter, but I'm happy for you to
   tidy the group page too, johnk

   noah: Thanks to local arrangements / host Ashok

   <masinter> would like shepherds to review open issues against the
   "reasons"/evaluation criteria -- can complete, long term value,
   producing artifacts, member/tpac interests, etc.

   raman: Put 6-month inactive issues to sleep

   ashok: Regrets for a telecon next week (March 12)

   timbl: Regrets March 12

   jar: Regrets March 19

   <timbl> Regrets March 12, 19

   <masinter> regrets March 26


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: DanC inform the TAG about the mobile workshop report
   [60]http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: john to read thread on RDFa, CURIEs and profile and
   recorded in [63]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Masinter to review TAG versioning situation and report
   back to TAG and HTML [recorded in

     [60] http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc
     [62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0295.html
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [65]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([66]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/04/02 20:43:45 $

     [65] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [66] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 20:51:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:01 UTC