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

Approved minutes for TAG telcon of 2009-01-29

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:23:46 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6F7489D.2E3393B0-ON85257555.001258F0-85257555.0012A8A8@lotus.com>

The TAG today approved the minutes of its teleconference of 29 January 
2009.  The reference copy of the minutes is available at [1], and for 
convenience a text-only copy is included as part of this email.

Noah Mendelsohn
TAG Chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-minutes

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

                                  TAG telcon

29 Jan 2009


   See also: [3]IRC log


          Larry Masinter, T V Raman, Jonathan Rees, Stuart Williams, Henry 
          Thompson (in part), Dan Connolly, David Orchard, Noah 
Mendelsohn, Tim
          Berners-Lee, Norm Walsh (in part)

          Ashok Malhotra, Norm Walsh (in part), John Kemp

          Stuart Williams

          Henry S. Thompson, Noah Mendelsohn


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection
         3. [7]ISSUE-51 (selfDescribingWeb-51): (short) well known formats 
            URI based extensibility
         4. [8]ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41): (short) What are good 
practices for
            designing extensible XMLlanguages and for handling versioning?
         5. [9]Issue-20 Error handling
         6. [10]ISSUE-58 Scalability of URI access
         7. [11]Issue-1 w3cMediaType
         8. [12]Thank yous to outgoing members
     * [13]Summary of Action Items

   <raman>    CACM    Article:   The   Rest   Of   The   Story   --   See

   <scribe> Agenda:


   SW: Agenda?

   DC: Flyby of OAuth

   SW: At the end, if poss.

   NM: Requests came in to fix some broken links
   ... in the uriMediaType-9 finding:

   SW: Minutes from 22 Jan?

   DO: Pending. . .

   SW: Hold approval to next week
   ... This is my last call or meeting of any kind in the chair, NM will 
   our meeting next week, 5 Feb, and going forward

   DC: Regrets for 5 Feb

   SW: JR to scribe

   DO: Also last official meeting for DO and NW. . .

   SW: Traditional allows outgoing TAG members as guests until the end of 
   first F2F

   NM: I'm happy to go with that
   ... Anyone with a concern can say so now, or in private email

   SW: No obligation to attend outside official terms, but informal 
   helps the transition

ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection

   <Stuart> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/issues/57


   <DanC> ACTION-200 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-200 Revise "Uniform Access to Metadata" (needs title
   change) to add XRD use case due date now next week

   JR: ACTION-200, to add a use case, is nearly ready, but not done yet

   SW: Topic for f2f?

   JR: Yes, I think ISSUE-57 should be on the f2f agenda

   <DanC> (darn; date of next ftf is not on 
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ )

   SW: ACTION-184 appears to have generated some activity

   JR: I've worked through the 303 story with Lisa D of IETF in a series 
   ...  DBooth  has  pointed  out  the  value-add of having a URI for the
   redirected-to URI as well

   JR: I was accused of undermining httpRange-14, I'm in favor in general, 
   I thought pushing hard on IANA was going too far

   LM: What's the issue?

   SW: Entries in IANA registry for link relations

   <DanC> e.g. [20]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby

   <noah> FWIW: that URI provided by DanC is 404

   SW: Given that they are intended to denote relations
   ... we would like 303s, per httpRange-14

   <jar> Larry asks: What problem does the httpRange-14 rule solve?

   SW: [glosses the httpRange-14 resolution]

   HT: Is it the case that you explained the situation to Lisa, she 
   but you got no agreement to implement 303 redirects at these URIs

   JR: yes, oversimplifying a bit

   TBL:  [example  of  a  URI for a protein returning with 200 leading to

   <Stuart> <protein> dc:creator <someDocumentAuthor>

   LM: IETF/IESG have a complex relationship with IANA
   ... It's not always easy for IESG people to make things happen on that

   <timbl> In way, W3C would be more logical advisor to IANA's web site.

   LM:  [Some  discomfort  over  the  assumptions behind the httpRange-14
   resolution, and with the resolution itself --- scribe failed to record 

   TBL: The issue resolution may not be perfect, but it has the advantage 
   we can stop spending huge amounts of person-time continuing to discuss 

   <jar> sure... but I just did (with Mark & Lisa) - the resolution didn't 
   me avoid the talking-time...

   <noah> I fear we are about to back into the whole httpRange business. 
   it's worth reopening, I think we should do it with great care, and 
   after a few weeks' of sitting on the preliminary decision to do so. 
   suggests that alternative, equally imperfect, solutions will be 
   and time consuming to do better than we already have.

   <jar> Is relation:describedby a relation or a document?

   DC: If the argument didn't persuade, then maybe we should reopen the 

   <Stuart> Larry... your opinion is certainly noted... and it's quite in 
   for you to offer it.

   DC: If the IANA website were abusing web security guidelines, we would 
   hard until we got a resolution

   LM: I think it's at least worth getting a writeup of the outcome of 

   <DanC> (Is the URI standard quite clear on " Why can't a single string
   identify a relation for some purposes and a document for others?")

   <Stuart> Larry... FYI some of the working consensus beyond httpRange-14 
   detailed in [21]http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

   DC: The crucial point is "Why can't a single string identify a relation 
   some purposes and a document for others?"

   LM: I think it's worth distinguishing between identify and 
denote---when I
   say "I'm parked out back" it's not me, it's my car, and that's not a 

   JR: True, but not I think exactly relevant
   ... Having summarized the standard arguments, I went to the RFCs
   ... I think RFC 2616 says you can't return a 200 for a URI which 
   a relation
   ...  I  also  tentatively  canvassed  suggesting  a  404  response for
   non-information resources. There was, not surprisingly, pushback.

   <DanC> -1 404

   JR: But Mark Nottingham basically said that 2616 wasn't meant to be 
   that way
   ... So that line didn't fly either
   ... Lisa didn't think going directly to IANA would help
   ... Note that the registry hasn't been published yet, which is why the 
   aren't there yet

   TBL: They could use a hash?

   JR: No, because they want to use relative URIs

   <timbl>  "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
   considered  to be '[22]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/'" (in

   NM: As JR said, the points we're hearing are the ones we discussed at 
   in the httpRange-14 discussion
   ... Uniformity is a real value, and "using the same string..." 
   ... Either we should re-open this, and prepare to spend a substantial 
   of time on it
   ...  or we should just accept that our advice will never be completely

   TBL: Given that IANA haven't spent a lot of time using URIs like this 
   ways that raise the problems, we could spend a lot of time trying to 
   them, and then we would have to do that for many other people
   ... It's not that different from the move from plain text to HTML
   ... We could just wait
   ... Or we could ask to have the registry run at www.w3.org instead, and 
   we can do the redirect

   TBL: There is real growth in systems, particularly in the Linked Data 
   which depend on the 303 convention, and I would not like to make 
trouble for

   JR: I believe putting a w3.org URI in an RFC is not allowed

   <noah> As chair for next week, I would like to come out of discussions 
   this knowing whether we expect to schedule further discussion next 
week, and
   if so with what goals?

   SW: So, JR, is ACTION-184 done?

   JR: Yes.

   <DanC> (yes, ACTION-184 is done to my satisfaction)

   TBL: We could send them a HOW-TO for Apache servers. . .

   JR: No-one objected on the grounds of difficulty

   SW: Should the "move registry to w3.org" be put on the W3C-IETF Liaison 

   DC: Too slow

   <Stuart> close action-184

   <trackbot> ACTION-184 contact Lisa D of IESG, cc www-tag, to explain 
   303, with cool URIs and webarch as references. closed

   <DanC> ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with 
   Nottingham [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-217 - Raise moving the registry to w3.org 
   Mark Nottingham [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-05].

   <timbl> Jar, is your discussion with IANA folks in email or unrecorded?

   <jar> Tim, I didn't talk to IANA. The conversation is in private email, 
   Mark N (Yahoo!) and Lisa D (IETF).

   SW: We've had a reminder from the POWDER WG that they are nearing the 
end of
   their Last Call period, about to request CR:
   ... Anyone interested in reviewing

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note

   <DanC> "[27]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby"

   DC: In section 1.4.1 of their document, the very URI we were just 

   <DanC>  "[28]http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby"  in

   DC: Are we happy that they think it's a relation and IANA are serving 
it as
   a document?

   <timbl> No!

   <DanC> (wierd... which is the document in last call? I'm confused...)

   <jar> I think it's [29]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/

   <timbl> [30]http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/

   <jar> well, i thought so, because that's the 'latest version' link

   <DanC> "This is the Second Last Call draft"

   <DanC> no iana link in


   <DanC> what's wdrs:describedby ?

   <DanC> ah... [33]http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby

   <HST> I think
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html#atom is

   <timbl> Bug: You click on "latest version " and you get an earlier 
   from [35]http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html

   <timbl> [36]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/

   <DanC>                     [37]http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink

   DC: I propose to focus on the published Last Call draft, dated 
   ... describedBy is central to their design, right?

   <DanC> the full URI is 

   <timbl> xmlns:wdrs="[40]http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#"

   <timbl> collapsedescribed by

   <timbl> Type expandloadedProperty

   <timbl> Comment An RDF property to link to a POWDER document. Provided 
   use in RDFa, ATOM etc.

   <timbl> IsDefinedBy expandfetchsemlink

   <timbl> Label described by

   <timbl> Range opt off expandloadedPOWDER document

   <timbl> --------

   <DanC> (wierd... I can't find an HTML spec citations)

   "using the link element to relate an XHTML document"


   <timbl> [42]http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby works

   <Stuart> Full HTML source is at
   [43]http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/example_4_2.html and we ought to be 
   to follow noses to specs :-)

   [The above reflects a period when the discusion was fragmented as 
   participants chased pointers and looked at examples -- scribe did not 
   very much of the discussion, sorry]

   <DanC> I propose we say: at a glance, we can see some struggles around 
   spec, but that's understandable; otherwise, noting we didn't do a 
   review, we don't find any architectural issues

   DC: Straw poll on the above suggestion

   LM: Only just looking at this for the first time, it's interesting, I 
have a
   lot of questions

   <timbl>  I  would prefer from taste and UI "described by" to be called
   "description document"

   TVR: They should get their story right wrt what part of (X)HTML they 
   depending on

   <DanC>  (I'm  already up to 2 saying "let's study this more"; doubt my
   proposal is going to fly)

   <jar>  I  assume  they've  come to peace with the wdrs:describedby vs.
   iana.org.../describedby issue - aliases are not so nice. but MNot's 
   isn't an RFC yet, so they can't use it, as their pub date precedes his.

   TVR: They need to be very explicit about the (X)HTML connections, which 
   haven't done
   ... it's a bit of a mess as of now

   <timbl> [44]http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/

   <timbl> The set of documents

   SW: I need a volunteer to coordinate, or this gets left to individuals

   SW: OK, hearing none, I will tell Phil Archer that he may or may not 
   from individuals, but no official TAG input will be coming

   <DanC> +1 "several members are studying and may have comments" as 

ISSUE-51 (selfDescribingWeb-51): (short) well known formats and URI based

   NM: No progress, waiting on last week's minutes

   <dorchard> irc is at [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-tagmem-irc

   <DanC> ACTION-216 due next week

   <trackbot>  ACTION-216 Publish SDW finding, with 4 changes as noted in
   minutes of 22 Jan 2009 tag telcon due 29 jan 2009 due date now next 

   NM: I will publish internally to tag@w3.org to enable last-minute 

   DC: Critical path to publish was HST, NM and NW

   NM: NW dependency was for the diagram

   TBL: I am happy with what NW did to the diagram

   DC: Critical path is down to NM and HST

ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41): (short) What are good practices for designing
extensible XMLlanguages and for handling versioning?

   SW: DO, where are we?

   DO: I believe I am going to do some final cleanup, and then publish it 
as a
   white paper over my name, which did not command TAG consensus

   SW: We agreed that we need to carefully minute what we decided at the 
   as the record isn't perfectly clear

   NM: No-consensus, but a TAG document, editor DO, or personal document,
   author DO, with substantial impact from TAG discussion

   TVR: I prefer the latter

   SW: That's what I thought we decided

   <noah> Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 
   Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard 
   the TAG) as a note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input.

   <DanC> works for me

   <DanC> yes, W3C Note

   <noah> Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 
   Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard 
   the TAG) as a W3C Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input.

   <noah> NM: I thought it would be a note from Dave as an individual?

   HST: I don't think individual W3C Notes are possible

   DC: Correct

   <jar>  I don't think WG notes require group consensus on content; just
   consensus on desirability of publication

   <jar> this is from memory.

   <noah> Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 
   Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by Dave Orchard 
   the TAG) as a W3C Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, 
   making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents.

   <DanC> indeed, strike "not the TAG"

   <noah> Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 
   Dec. 2008 F2F, the versioning finding will be published by David 
Orchard as
   author as a W3C Working Group Note, acknowledging history of TAG work 
   input, and making clear lack of TAG consensus on the contents.

   <dorchard> Jonathan, I had hoped that the TAG would publish as a NOTE. 
   still very disappointed in this result.

   <DanC> aye

   <jar> sorry? isn't that what we just said?

   <noah> Can notes have authors, or just editors, per the process?

   <jar> dorchard, I don't understand your disappointment

   SW: I want to be sure this is what we decided in Dec., so discouraging 
   from those not there.

   Proposed resolution: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 
   F2F, the versioning finding will be published by as a W3C Working Group
   Note, acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear 
lack of
   TAG consensus on the contents.

   SW: Anyone opposed? Any abstentions?


   RESOLUTION: Clarifying the resolution reached at the 9-11 Dec. 2008 
F2F, the
   versioning  finding  will be published by as a W3C Working Group Note,
   acknowledging history of TAG work and input, and making clear lack of 
   consensus on the contents.

Issue-20 Error handling

   SW: There's an action to Henry
   ... There was some back and forth on the list about tag soup and error
   handling. Henry had action to follow up. Larry made a useful posting. 
   we schedule further discussion?

   <ht> HST will contribute to the resurrected XML / Errors / Postel's Law
   thread by the time his action is due, 30/1/09

   [HST leaves the call]

   LM: I'd like some chance to prepare for discussion.

   <DanC> +1 2 weeks

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 Feb 
   telcon [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - Schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 
   2009 telcon [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-05].

ISSUE-58 Scalability of URI access

   SW: Let's skip since Norm isn't here.
   ... Norm, welcome.

   [NW joins the call]

   NW: Re ACTION-163, I am working with Ted, and will continue to do so 
   my tenure ends. Target 19 Feb 2009.

   <masinter> missed last 10 minutes of IRC

   I've updated date on action 163

Issue-1 w3cMediaType

   <Stuart> I'm updating the status to pending review; I suppose we should
   announce the decision(s) that we have made and solicit feedback, esp 
   Mark Baker and the (heirs of?) the XMLP WG.

   DC: Someone made a joke about this pending for almost a decade. We made 
   few pertinent decisions, especially to approve the finding.
   ... Tried to figure out status in July 2006, didn't write anything 

   SW: What decision did we make?

   DC: To publish the finding.

   SW: Does the finding answer the question?
   ... So proposal is to address the xmlp group now?

   LM: Is this an architectural issue or process?

   DC: We accepted as architectural. We goofed.

   LM: There are both technical and process issues.

   <DanC> Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use

   <DanC> TAG Finding 30 April 2004

   The finding is at: [48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime

   <DanC> mark baker's original question

   We recommend that section 7.1 of [RFC3023] be amended to something like 

   The use of the charset parameter, when the charset is reliably known 
   agrees with the encoding declaration, is RECOMMENDED, since this 
   can be used by non-XML processors to determine authoritatively the 
   of the XML MIME entity.

   LM: W3C is change controller of 3023, so you have authority to do that.

   <Norm> I think we need to find way to get 3023 finished

   NM: Write token for 3023bis is somewhere between Chris and Henry, 

   SW: So, we can't close this right now.

   <masinter> thanks, all, need to drop off phone

Thank yous to outgoing members

   <DanC> +1 thanks Dave, Norm, Stuart

   <ht> HST would like to be recorded as joining in the motion of thanks 
to SW
   which he expects will be forthcoming

   <Norm> Thanks to you all!

   TBL: Thank you to Dave, Norm and Stuart for your wonderful service. 
   with you has been a great pleasure.

   <Norm> Au revoir.

   NM: As incoming chair, I have growing insight for just how much great 
   you've done for us Stuart, thank you!

   <jar> Thanks Stuart - it's been a pleasure to have you preside

   <timbl> Never mind .. my machine has learned them

   <jar> looking forward to it.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark
   Nottingham [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of ISSUE-20 for 12 Feb 2009 
   [recorded in

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [52]scribe.perl version 1.134 
    $Date: 2009/02/05 18:16:21 $


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

   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-tagmem-irc












  16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0118.html
  17. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/issues/57
  18. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html
  19. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
  20. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
  21. http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
  22. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/
  23. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03)
  24. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
  25. http://www.w3.org/mid/497DD071.2070707@philarcher.org
  27. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
  28. http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
  29. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/
  30. http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/
  31. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#semlink
  32. http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html
  33. http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
  34. http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html#atom
  35. http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html
  36. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/
  37. http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink
  38. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#semlink
  39. http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
  40. http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s
  42. http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
  43. http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/example_4_2.html
  44. http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/
  45. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-tagmem-irc
  46. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/199
  47. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
  48. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime
  49. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0063
  50. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
  51. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
  52. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  53. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 03:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:27 UTC