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

minutes TAG 16 Apr for review: XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41), contentTypeOverride-24

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:34:20 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1240281260.17682.16673.camel@pav.lan>

                              TAG Weekly

16 Apr 2009

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-irc


          Ashok_Malhotra, Noah, jar, TimBL, Masinter, Ht, DanC_lap

          John, Raman


          DanC_lap, noah


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Convene, take roll, review agenda, plan next meeting
         2. [5]Approval of Minutes from 2 Apr, 9 Apr
         3. [6]Administrative: upcoming events
         4. [7]XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)
         5. [8]contentTypeOverride-24
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

Convene, take roll, review agenda, plan next meeting

   <DanC_lap> scribenick: DanC_lap

   Note future regrets: Raman (April 23) Tim (April 23rd)

   NM: we're scheduled to meet again 23 Apr, 2 regrets...
   ... I have a conflict with agenda planning for next week; stay tuned
   for agenda or cancellation notice

   RESOLUTION: to meet again 23 Apr, ashok to scribe

Approval of Minutes from 2 Apr, 9 Apr

   RESOLUTION: to approve
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/04/09-minutes 2009/04/12

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/04/09-minutes

   NM: 2 apr minutes still in progress?

   LMM: right

Administrative: upcoming events

   NM: POWDER stuff... next week?

   DC: yes, I think so

   <ht> [11]http://www.w3.org/TR/hash-in-uri/

     [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/hash-in-uri/

   NM: on to "Progress report on publication of Usage Patterns For
   Client-Side URL parameters working draft."

   HT: it's published.

   RESOLUTION: to thank Raman, HT for successful publication of

   <ht> s/hash-in-url/hash-in/uri

XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)

   NM: though the issue name is "XML Versioning" we've discussed
   versioning of non-XML languages as well; I'd like to just leave that
   be for now... till the ftf, perhaps...
   ... I've been [...help? ...] 2 things: (1) [help2] and (2) ... HTTP
   header [help3]
   ... ... origin header, or do you want to let that go?

   LMM: no, I don't want to let that [origin] go...
   . ACTION: who? to what?

   <masinter> issues around extensibility of HTTP and the methods used
   to extend it

   <masinter> origin header, content-type sniffing, etc.

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to follow up with Larry around extensibility
   of HTTP and the methods used to extend it [recorded in

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-258 - Follow up with Larry around
   extensibility of HTTP and the methods used to extend it [on Noah
   Mendelsohn - due 2009-04-23].

   LMM: today in the HTML WG teleconference, I asked what people
   thought would be useful...
   ... [something about a document by jar]
   ... a summary: if you have readers and writers, there are 2 kinds of
   ... (1) current readers to work with future writers and (2) current
   writers to work with future readers [or was it the other way around.
   we called these backward and forward compatibility in earlier

   <noah> Larry was talking about the versioning formalism from JAR

   LMM: history of HTML includes quirksmode, CSS, [missed some?]

   <timbl> Interoperability in the sense that the behavior of existing
   code given unexpected input.

   <noah> The formalism I was thinking of is in

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0155.html

   LMM: ... it seems to several HTML WG members incl. Chris W. that
   such an analysis would help as background for HTML WG
   decision-making in the area of versioning

   NM: I liked some of the stuff in Sam Ruby's recent item
   ([14]http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification )

     [14] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification

   <ht> platform features vs. language features

   <ht> [15]http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification

     [15] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification

   "the idea of extensibility into two parts: extending the platform
   vs. extending the language. "

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk a bit about Sam Ruby's note

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to make an obligatory comment about
   release of confidential info

   HT: I think Sam's proposal is interesting...
   ... there are parts that don't appeal to me, but those are
   ... his claim that [help4?] bleeds thru is (a) symmetric and (b)
   ... this is the problem of HTML tag soup syntax leaking into SVG
   etc.; I'm not sure that's correct on a number of fronts.
   ... I think the "platform features vs. language features"
   distinction is useful

   <noah> I think Henry is saying that some people believe that, e.g.
   SVG, in TAG soup can't be automatically extracted for use by XML

   HT: none of what he [Sam] writes touches on forward vs backward
   compatibility at all

   <noah> scribenick: noah

   LM: No, we mostly solicited discussion of general extensibility, but
   want to ground in real experience
   ... HTML does it

   <DanC_lap> 3=who?

   <masinter> think the issue of "strict XML in SVG" embedded in "loose
   parsing rules in HTML" is indeed a good example of a versioning

   <masinter> put it into the framework of versioning

   NM: Can Larry, John, and Jonathan start working on details, since
   you agreed to work together last week

   JAR: I posted a related use case. (will paste URI below) It's about
   OWL datatype mapping. Ashok answered.

   <masinter> liked Jonathan's example as another use case, but want to
   make sure we actually answer HTML-WG issues specifically

   action 241?

   <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

   <masinter> action-241?

   <trackbot> ACTION-241 -- Larry Masinter to review TAG versioning
   situation and report back to TAG and HTML -- due 2009-04-09 --

   <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/241

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/241


     [17] http://w3.org/mid/760bcb2a0904160518k573399f0s795a4a7a2d65cb38@mail.gmail.com

   <masinter> suggest doing this on www-tag this week

   <ht> Hmm -- XML Schema 1.1 allows "extension datatypes" which have
   exactly the problem JAR points to in his reply to Ashok, and some of
   us were not happy about allowing that . . .

   <DanC_lap> scribenick: DanC_lap
   . ACTION: Larry kick of versioning discussion, engage jonathan and

   <noah> suggest perhaps the action should specifically include effort
   to apply general versioning principles to HTML and maybe to JAR's
   use cases too
   . ACTION: Larry kick off discussion of versioning principles to
   apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry...

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry kick off discussion of versioning principles
   to apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry. [recorded in

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-259 - Kick off discussion of versioning
   principles to apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry. [on Larry
   Masinter - due 2009-04-23].

   <jar_> . ACTION: Jonathan review and post the email exchange he had
   with Larry on versioning about 1-2 months ago

   <scribe> ACTION: Jonathan review and post the email exchange he had
   with Larry on versioning about 1-2 months ago [recorded in

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-260 - Review and post the email exchange
   he had with Larry on versioning about 1-2 months ago [on Jonathan
   Rees - due 2009-04-23].

   <noah> scribenick: noah


   <DanC_lap> 9 jan draft

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

   DC: We had a meeting in San Francisco. Subject of discussion is
   [21]http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-abarth-mime-sniff/ dated
   09-Jan-2009. Larry seems to be following more closely than I am.
   ... My goal is to have community consensus reflected both in the
   spec and in widely deployed code.

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

   <jar_> DC said: a test suite would be nice.

   DC: There's a page from SF in the ESWiki


     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/

   <DanC_lap> sfo meeting pg:

     [23] http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009

   <masinter> see "PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]" thread

   <DanC_lap> "Action Item: Lisa to review the current draft. "

   DC: See [24]http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009,
   3rd item under Agenda in the wiki says "Action Item: Lisa to review
   the current draft. " Do we know if the review has happened?

     [24] http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009

   <DanC_lap> msg from lisa re sniffing

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0065.html

   LM: She's aware of the issue, but I don't know whether she reviewed
   the draft.

   <DanC_lap> Lisa's review seems to be :

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0063.html

   DC: Dan reads a lot of links and says "this seems to be her review"
   ... Lisa seems to have given the ball back to Adam Barth and the
   HTTP working group. Do we know whether Mark Nottingham is OK
   coordinating this discussion?

   LM: He seems to be.

   DC: Do we know if software provides (Mozilla, MS, Apple, etc.) are

   <DanC_lap> aha... mnot has added an HTTP WG issue, #155.

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0114.html

   LM: Looking at April-June postings I see Eran, Ian Hickson, Anne van
   Kesteren (sp?), etc., so there's at least some engagement, yes.

   <DanC_lap> ACTION-233?

   <trackbot> ACTION-233 -- Larry Masinter to report back from
   IETF/HTML liason meeting in March regarding MIME type override --
   due 2009-03-11 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/233

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/233

   DC: Regarding soliciting TAG reviews.... I am optimistic that Mark
   Nottingham and the WG will come up with an answer acceptable to me.
   Tim, can you think of example test cases that would verify that?

   TBL: There's the question of the draft, and a separate question of
   overall direction. Working groups should try to lead toward cleaner
   answers, and I'm not happy this is going toward a cleaner answer.

   DC: Have you read this draft?

   TBL: I think so.

   DC: Which principle?

   TBL: One should put pressure to ... (do it right?)

   DC: Larry said there is engagement from the browser community.

   LM: I see participation. I don't know that browser vendors agree
   with the direction and/or will implement.

   <ht> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412

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

   <jar_> Dan wanted browser community engagement. But Tim was saying
   we should engage the content management system vendors. Those are

   LM: I suggest we check with Lisa & Mark and also with some browser
   vendors to get a sense of where this is going.

   TBL: The question is whether the TAG should at all endorse content
   ... We could put energy into getting servers to meet the original
   HTTP specification.

   DC: I'm OK with that, but I want the specs to agree with what people
   do. I'm willing to push on the spec or the system.
   ... My use case is: a bug tracking system with XML and I want to see
   it as text.

   <masinter> wonder if this fits into the versioning framework?

   <DanC_lap> it's not far, masinter

   <DanC_lap> (yes, everything fits in versioning. versioning is

   NM: My favorite variant of the use case is a bug tracking system
   with poorly formed XML as text/plain. Doesn't show at all.

   LM: In some ways can be considered as a versioning question, if you
   believe that the media-types should have changed to match the

   <ht> [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/IMG_5179_s.JPG

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/IMG_5179_s.JPG

   <ht> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412

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

   DC: So, a next step is to follow up with Mark and Lisa

   <ht> s/[32]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/IMG_5179_s.JPG//

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/IMG_5179_s.JPG//

   DC: Larry, will you followup with Mark and Lisa

   <scribe> ACTION: Larry to followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D.
   regarding Adam Barth's sniffing draft [recorded in

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action04

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-261 - Followup with Mark Nottingham and
   Lisa D. regarding Adam Barth's sniffing draft [on Larry Masinter -
   due 2009-04-23].

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask DanC about what the fate of our
   existing finding should be

   HT: We do have a finding. It's one we reviewed and re-endorsed a few
   years ago. It's the authoritative metadata finding
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412 , and it
   has no place for what's in the Barth draft.

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

   DC: Yes, that's why I reopened the issue.

   HT: Yes, but I didn't hear you suggest what to do about the finding.

   DC: Thought I did, can do it gain.

   HT: (Scribe missed something). The scope of the Barth document is
   now smaller than it was. It would pass your text/plain test. It is
   not documenting what browsers do today. So, as best I can tell, it's
   misleading to say that this "documents the way things are".

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to suggest the "XML view source" case
   as something to track and to remind HT that we re-opened issue 24
   and to note the XML-view-source test case/use case is

   HT: The direction suggested is neither where things are nor what we
   suggested in the finding.

   DC: We should see what the draft says about the XML view source

   <ht> I read the draft as saying the View Source case would be
   handled correctly, i.e., the <-brackets would show

   LM: Julian Reschke is another person was should contact

   DC: Our finding has neither convinved those writing the sniffing
   draft to do differently, nor to get browser vendors to change what
   they do, so in that sense it's been ineffective

   <jar_> how about promoting to rec?

   LM: Would it be reasonable to ask some of the participants why this
   finding isn't helpful?

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to observe that the draft appears to address
   only a small set of cases. . .

   <ht> We need to track down Hixie's original posting on why
   "Authoritative Metadata" doesn't work

   <DanC_lap> oh.. ok...

   <DanC_lap> (1) binary... image...

   <DanC_lap> (2) RSS feeds...

   <DanC_lap> scribenick: DanC_lap

   HT: Barth's 9 Jan draft seems to address just a few narrow cases...
   and is at risk of having to be updated every six months if it's to
   be any ongoing use
   ... (1) binary data that are images...
   ... (2) RSS feeds served as text\html

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about effectiveness of finding

   HT: ... common cause... this doesn't represent the status quo
   eitherand will take work to get adoption

   NM: on the effectiveness of findings...
   ... it's usually indirect. Occasionally we have direct comments on a
   WD, but more often it's indirect... [scribe struggles to paraphrase]

   LMM: so we have a finding and a situation; we think the finding
   applies to the finding but it's not clear to some that it does;
   would a note about the connection between the finding and the
   situation help?

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to discuss ways forward.

   <timbl> It is not juts a question of laying out an intellectual
   argument, itt is a question of whether to fight for the change, like
   commenting on this document and talking to apache

   <ht> I note that the internet draft addresses some cases which the
   finding doesn't cover, and it says some uncomfortable things, e.g.
   extension-based strategies for HTTP-delivered resources are ruled

   <ht> ... another example of where we could try to make common cause

   TimBL: there are more options than just leaving the finding alone or
   changing our argument; perhaps changing apache is the thing to do...

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to say no; ppl agree that the finding
   applies; they just don't find it compelling based on global
   cost/benefit analysis and to say HTTP and URIs are IETF

   <noah> DC: Ot

   <noah> DC: It's good news that this is being discussed in the HTTP

   <Zakim> jar_, you wanted to say that going for 'W3C recommendation'
   would be a way to find out whether W3C agrees, and if so record that

   DanC: [something about W3C and IETF venues]

   NM: I think the suggestion to make something a W3C REC was re the
   authoritative metadata finding, not the sniffing draft

   <ht> I also note that I read the internet draft as never leading to
   'text/plain' being treated as text/html or text/xml or

   <masinter> do we need a W3C/IETF coordination
   finding/recommendation, perhaps jointly with process issues?

   DC: yes, I agree that peer review is important here...

   LMM: there are coordination/architecture issues between W3C and the

   <ht> It only provides for treating 'text/plain' as various image
   types, or application/{pdf,postscript}, based on the usual magic

   <jar_> I didn't want to comment on this particular idea, just to
   advance the idea that peer review (in this case, the review required
   to go to W3C rec) has a lot of value, if we want to advance a
   document or issue

   <ht> So although DanC's View Source of (broken) XML example will
   work, a corresponding View Source of broken PDF or Postscript
   example would _not_ work

   <noah> DC: I hope we don't have to do a back ceremonial attack on
   the IETF / W3C overlap. Every chair is responsible for making sure
   that groups stay within charter, and do suitable coordination with
   other standards groups, etc. I hope that's already policy of the
   culture. Chairs do need help with this.

   <noah> LM: This came up with the origin headers.

   <noah> DC: Yes, and sniffing, and voice ML, etc.

   <noah> TBL: Put TAG finding through IETF track?

   <noah> DC: Interesting.

   TimBL: how about putting the authoritative metadata finding thru the
   IETF standards track?

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask about moving it to the IETF track

   <ht> WooHoo, what a good idea -- let's get a BCP for servers wrt
   Content-Type going!

   LM: another case is IETF geopriv and W3C geolocation API...

   <jar_> What TimBL just said would be consistent with what I was
   trying to say about raising the level of review. Peer review can
   happen in either organization.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about finding on standards track

   LM: the IETF geopriv had developed policy and the W3C geolocation
   API took a different tack

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to suggest geopriv i son the table for the

   [1:12pm] DanC_lap: TimBL: how about putting the authoritative
   metadata finding thru the IETF standards track?

   NM: how does that work? in parallel?

   TimBL: yes, in parallel; any conflicts would become apparent in the
   course of review

   <masinter> brief idea: add reference from HTTP spec to the TAG

   that reference isn't already there? odd.

   <masinter> no need to "put it through the IETF process" as a
   separate document, perhaps confirm normative reference

   HT: a BCP on server behaviour w.r.t. content type is one idea... re
   getting apache changed.

   [I think apache has been changed, fwiw.]

   <masinter> BCP on web server implementation?

   <timbl> Or maybwe we should write Aopache code

   <masinter> it's a problem with default configuration

   <masinter> ... of apache

   prefer to adjourn

   <ht> Code will always founder on the configuration rock

   <timbl> No, it will not.

   <ht> A BCP that said "Thou shalt always allow local specification of
   Content Type" and "thou shalt not default to text/plain" would go a
   long way

   <timbl> :)


   <timbl> :-P

   <timbl> text/plain; really

   <timbl> ooops

   <timbl> s/pllain/plain/

   <timbl> s/realy/really/

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan review and post the email exchange he had
   with Larry on versioning about 1-2 months ago [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry kick off discussion of versioning principles to
   apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D.
   regarding Adam Barth's sniffing draft [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to follow up with Larry around extensibility of
   HTTP and the methods used to extend it [recorded in

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([40]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/04/21 02:31:54 $

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

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 17:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:28 UTC