- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:50:00 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Draft minutes are now available at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html
and as text below.
ht
- ----------------
- DRAFT -
TAG telcon
28 May 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, John Kemp, Ashok Malhotra, Larry
Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jonathan Rees, Henry S. Thompson
Regrets
T. V. Raman
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
Henry S. Thompson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]Call for Exclusion wrt Client-Side URI params
3. [7]F2F local arrangements
4. [8]Agenda planning for F2F
5. [9]Request for TAG Consideration of XML Schema 1.1 (XSD 1.1)
Candidate Recommendation
6. [10]Security
7. [11]Tag Soup Integration
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Admin
Future Regrets: 4 June, jar; 4, 11, 18 June, LMM; 11 June, HST; 4 June,
maybe, JK
NM: Last week's minutes? [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-minutes
HST: I have read and approved
RESOLUTION: [14]Minutes approved as published
Call for Exclusion wrt Client-Side URI params
NM: If and only if you personally have a patent to exclude/disclose, you
must do something
NM: Your company's patents are not relevant
JK: Can we discuss my action to contact Sam Ruby wrt RDFa in HTML?
... should be quick
F2F local arrangements
NM: Any admin questions:
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/06-f2f-local-arrangements.html
Agenda planning for F2F
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271
<noah> [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009May/0081.html
NM: JAR and I took an action to draft a starting point
<DanC> 0081 has Language versioning and evolution (focus on HTML), Web
application state.
NM: I reviewed our discussion at the last F2F, and went over the state of
issues and actions
NM: as well as TV's request to focus on one or two key goals
... So in the above email, I've set out a small number of top-priority
items, which will potentially get multiple sessions, if needed
... as well as lower-priority items destined for shorter/fewer sessions
NM: Two things in the big category at the moment:
<noah> * Language versioning and evolution (focus on HTML)
<noah> * Web application state
<noah> Henry, we should remind people that you are going to move forward the
Dirk/Nadia URI story
DC: I'm always ready to talk about "Language versioning and evolution", but
lack confidence we will make much progress
... Maybe LM will have something for us to work on
LM: I've produced an outline, and expect to have a fuller document in time
for the F2F
<DanC> [18]Versioning and HTML -- recap
NM: What concerns me most is whether we have any chance to get the HTML WG
to take any help from us
LM: I am baffled by the conflicts around HTML5 as well, but hopeful that if
we can resolve the differences between the TAG's work on version indicators
and the HTML WG's intentions
... That will be of value
<DanC> (for ref: ftf mtg is 23-25 June; T-2 weeks is 9 June; T-1 week is 16
June)
JR: Not sure that insisting ahead of time that we see our way clear to an
impact isn't setting too high a bar
... There are some questions we may be able to answer, and even if we don't
move the HTML WG right away, it will be helpful in other ways
NM: We could invite Sam Ruby to join a telcon or even at the f2f -- what do
people think
TBL: Sounds like a good idea
NM: Before, or during?
<johnk> before
+1 to before
TBL: Early sounds like a good idea
NM: I will reach out to Sam and see what we can schedule
JR: I'm quite optimistic that if we prepare, we can have productive
discussions
... I am prepared to put some time into this ahead of time
LM: Maybe JR can make some progress on my doc't while I'm away
<masinter> JR and I will talk on monday, i'll have something to give to him
by then
<scribe> ACTION: JR to report back to the TAG on outcome of collaboration
with LM [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-272 - Report back to the TAG on outcome of
collaboration with LM [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-06-04].
NM: Anyone else to help?
DC: I will
LM: I would like to see the Architecture for APIs question on our agenda --
we discussed the Device APIs for Mobile chartering issue, and agreed not to
engage specifically there
... But rather than such specific engagement, more general engagement does
make sense. For instance there are APIs throughout the HTML5 spec, where we
maybe should get to grips with this.
<jar> +1 architecture for apis
<noah> I also think there's an interesting question of balance between APIs
and declarative
<noah> Relates to rule of least power
NM: AM, are you interested in this? Could you pick this ball up from LM?
<johnk> I would be happy to help on this item
AM: I can try, but not sure what you want. . .
NM: Speak to as many people as you need
AM: I will talk to LM and come back to the group
JK: I'm happy to help
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to carry forward framing issues around Archicture of
APIs, with help from JK and LM [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-273 - Carry forward framing issues around
Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and LM [on Ashok Malhotra - due
2009-06-04].
LM: Consider the charter for GeoLoc, which is about an API, there are APIs
in HTML, then the Device API --- there's a lot of it around, but our
guidelines are mostly about languages, and don't really give much guidance
wrt APIs
... the issues about versioning are potentially different
... If the W3C Membership want us to start standardising APIs, it would be a
good idea if we came up with some guidelines
<DanC> (I agree that we don't know much about how to do API standardization
well, but I suspect the next step is to wonder around in the
somewhat-darkness for a while; I wouldn't recommend doing architecture work
based on a lack of info)
JK: We should have a look at how Mobile and the Web interact now and going
forward
... I have a presentation I've used before, that I'd like to share, which
has a list of items which might help the discussion
NM: We'll do that
JR: What are next steps wrt agenda planning
NM: With this input, I will republish the list
JR: I don't feel this quite gets to exactly what needs to be produced in the
way of prep material
... do you have a schedule in mind wrt agenda planning?
NM: We'll talk
Request for TAG Consideration of XML Schema 1.1 (XSD 1.1) Candidate
Recommendation
NM: We've discussed this by email and briefly last week
... time to wrap this up and decide what to do
HT: I agree with the main thrust of the argument from Mike Kay, Noah and
others that XML Schema 1.1 is clearly directed at the requirements given in
the WG charter and addresses them well, and that the time to object to those
requirements is passed. I do want to say something about uptake, because I
think a lot of unsupported assertions have been made about this topic.
HT: Wrt XML Schema uptake, I did the following small experiment:
HT: Take the cover page of the Cover Pages, the longest-running and most
carefully curated XML news site on the web:
HT: [21]http://xml.coverpages.org/
HT: Look at the news items
HT: Tabulate their schema language usage
HT: 9 of the top 10 items include or depend on one or more XML languages:
HT: Items 1, 3, 4 (from OASIS), 2, 10 (from the W3C), 6 (from Oracle), 7
(from Microsoft), 8 (Web Services Test Forum), and 9 (from ISO) all define
or depend on one or more XML languages specified via normative XSD schemas
HT: Item 2 also includes a (non-normative) DTD
HT: Item 9 also includes a (non-normative) Relax-NG schema
HT: I rest my case.
HT: Wrt to two of Rick's specific criticisms (lack of interop, and
inappropriateness for text-oriented, as opposed to data-oriented, XML), I
note that
HT: 1) wrt interop he falls back to only actually indicting data-binding
tools, an area which the W3C tried to address with a WG but which lost
critical mass w/o getting to REC---the spec. was not designed for this, and
there are certainly aspects of 1.0 which don't lend themselves to
data-binding easily, but those aspects are there in DTDs and Relax-NG as
well!
HT: 2) wrt text-oriented XML, items 7 and 9 above are text-oriented, NDW has
said the Schema 1.1 removes the main bar to using XSD for DocBook, and XHTML
modularization switched to XSD (from DTDs) once XSD was available. My own
experience with using XSD for a rewrite of XHTML Modularization was very
positive.
HT: It's probably the case that a better, layered, XML language definition
language could now be defined, based on 12 years' experience of XML itself
and varying amounts of experience with at least four well-developed schema
languages (DTD, XSD, RNG and Schematron). I think the time to start such an
effort is in a year or two, when the financial climate is better and we've
had some experience with XML Schema 1.1 and NVDL as well. Whether such an
effort can succeed in practice, given the conflicting 80/20 requirements of
different XML usage patterns, is an empirical question.
AM: I don't think it's worth arguing about whether XSD is used or not -- it
clearly is, and heavily
... What we should do is look forward -- is there something we can
recommend?
AM: Rick has a very specific request, that a profile of XML Schema be
produced:
<Ashok> I therefore ask the TAG to instruct, influence or otherwise
encourage the XML Schema Working Group to put XSD 1.1 on hold and instead to
work on a radical relayering into a two-layer model. Some of the XSD 1.1
changes would make their way into the basic layer, some would make their way
into the advanced layer which would be equivalent to the proposed XSD 1.1.
<masinter> I don't want to take this up. I think it's reasonable, in
general, when members are unhappy with W3C work, for them to solicit
interest from other members to do additional work to replace it
AM: HST thought it's too soon for this work -- I don't
... HST thought that it was perhaps not best done by the Schema WG -- I
guess I agree
NM: What should the TAG do?
<DanC> (I wishes there were 3 to 5 XGs that sprung into existence to explore
hypotheses such as Rick's)
AM: You would like us today to decide whether to recommend what Rick wants?
NM: In the first instance, what I want today is a decision on whether we
open an issue for this
... I agree with what HST said about the charter, while acknowledging DC's
point
NM: Against the background of a workshop which responded to the databinding
question by chartering the DataBinding WG, and pushed the 1.1 work forward
<DanC> (I find W3C Workshop on XML Schema 1.0 User Experiences
<DanC> ( [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp )
<DanC> * 21-22 June 2005
<DanC> * Redwood Shores, CA, USA )
<noah> [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0097.html
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to point to Norm Walsh's note
NM: Wrt the question of whether we should slow the progress of XSD 1.1
towards REC -- I strongly think we should not
... I found NDW's comments very much to the point in this regard:
Just to be clear (because some private correspondence suggests that I
wasn't), although I might personally wish that XSD was other than it is, I
also think that XSD 1.1 is an improvement over 1.0 and should be made a
Recommendation as quickly as practical. XSD 1.1 fixes several problems
that I think make it greatly more practical for the kinds of documents I
care about. I'll likely construct a useful DocBook XSD in 1.1 (where I
could never bring myself to bother in 1.0, mostly because of the
constraints on substitution groups).
<DanC> (by the way... I have a huge XSD that I'm using for a lifescience
project; what tool should I use to browse around it?)
<johnk_> DanC, if I use an XML "IDE" ever, it is
[24]http://www.oxygenxml.com/
TBL: I react to the claim that everybody I know use schema by wondering how
big the community that does actually is
<noah> I think Henry's evidence of Cover Pages spoke directly to the size
and importance of the community
TBL: without doing a survey I don't see how we can tell
NM: Weren't those major vertical standards
HST: Yes
TBL: But what about private use behind firewalls?
... We could go and ask the Members. . .
... There are certainly communities who just use Relax-NG
NM: All the evidence that I've seen is that The only question is the size of
the difference -- that is, is XSD 1, 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more used
than Relax-NG?
<masinter> There are places where different overlapping standards are more
harmful than others, I don't think competing technologies are
architecturally difficult
<DanC> (i note that the question of whether the TAG should consider this is
now moot; we have considered it at length.)
TBL: That is true of the people you know, the people in the Relax-NG
community will pbly say the same things
... but the other way around
<masinter> +1 to DanC's
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to see that while Henry is not impressed by the
suggestions that 'people' don't use schema, I am not that 'people' do.
Clearly two largely disjoint communities
LM: There may be areas where competing technologies are harmful
... I don't think this is such an area
... If there's new work to be done, the Members may or may not take it
forward
... I don't think there's an architectural issue here
... If Rick wants to take this forward, he should do so in the way work
normally gets taken forward, via the Process
<masinter> well, an issue that is worth TAG time on it
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask how the quote reflects a request for a profile
HT: Pass
NM: Wrt to whether the TAG should open an issue on whether XSD 1.1 should be
prevented from moving forward and/or to explore ways to move schema work at
W3C forward in a different way,
a straw poll revealed only AM in favour, so I rule that we will not open
such an issue.
Security
[25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/204
JR: I was hoping to write something up here, I will forward some emails
... Trying to figure out what the TAG should be paying attention to here
... Both the TAG and the W3C are dancing around the API issue, which is a
bit away from the WebArch home ground
... Wrt application architecture, we could either wait and watch, which is
not a bad strategy, but it's not what we did about WebArch
<timbl> +1 to getting involved, no being passive, as this is an area which
is important and inextricably linked to the web in general.
JR: I particularly like the Capability work, because it seems to me parallel
in interesting ways to aspects of WebArch -- particularly as regards how
things are named and how names are communicated
<johnk_> I think we would be "writing this down" too
<noah> Can someone help me put bounds on what "this" is? We've said we'd
worry about APIs vs markup/declarative. There's a general question of
security and isolation; there's a specific question of capability
architecture. What's the proposed scope of TAG noodling?
JR: The ECMAScript security work is looking at a number of issues, in
particular communication between mutually untrusting encapsulated apps
<DanC> (I suspect jar's "this" is capability based approaches to security
vs. other)
<noah> Jar's email referenced Caja
<DanC> ka-ha
JR: The Caja example illustrates their approach to this
<DanC> there's one in microsoft labs too
<noah> From JAR: Web app security - Caja demo email
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0116.html
JR: Secure cooperation in javascript containers: four or five approaches,
all coming together to standardize at ECMA
<jar> Cajita, ADsafe, Javaranda, and Dojo Secure are coming together via
Ecma.
JR:I think that email closes my action
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to see if I can reconstruct a discussion with tlr
where present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming
regarded as unsafe
<masinter> is this an area where W3C should have a workshop? rather than a
TAG agenda item or issue?
<masinter> this is the "origin" header issue?
<johnk_> yes, related to Origin header
<noah> That's the best XSRFF explanation I've heard (though it's not scribed
yet)
DC: Consider you're logged in to a gaming site, you have lots of treasure,
you go to another (black-hat) website which does a POST to the gaming
website in an onload method
... I was surprised this (a POST) was allowed effectively inside a GET
... The games website has a work-around, but it is a real pain, because the
workaround requires a nonce, so it can't be static
... This is promoting a view that links are not safe
<jar> zooko's triangle.
JR: zooko's triangle is an argument that the security of links is
constrained
DC: I'll try to reconstruct the connection
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to see if I can reconstruct a discussion with tlr where
present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming regarded as
unsafe [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - See if I can reconstruct a discussion with
tlr where present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming
regarded as unsafe [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-06-04].
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask if he should close 204
<DanC> close action-204
<trackbot> ACTION-204 Talk with Mark Miller about web app security and
report back closed
JR: There have been efforts to get some coordination with W3C on this --
keep your eyes open for ECMA-W3C coordination opportunities
<DanC> nov meeting sounds familar... looking...
NM: I'd like to see this as a f2f focus
<DanC> hmm... rather
[28]http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009 "The AJAX
Experience, Boston, September 14-16"
NM: DC said "Seems weird that you can do a POST from a page you do a GET
for" -- but doesn't that happen all the time?
... When I go to e.g. Yahoo it's a form, I GET it, then I POST to log in
NM: How is that different
<jar> [29]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery
HT: But in DC's example, you didn't do anything, the POST happened inside an
onload of the page you did the GET for
NM: Not so different?
DC: Seems different to me.
DC: I see an AJAX meeting in Boston 14--16 September, which was a possible
IETF-W3C cooperation opportunity. . .
... Maybe not ECMA -- maybe that's November
Tag Soup Integration
[30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/255
<johnk> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/240
JK: There is about a Creative Commons spec. about how to use RDFa in XHTML
-- they define a way to use a CURIE in a 'rel' attribute
... I emailed Sam Ruby, Mark Nottingham and Ben Adida
... Ben replied with some details, Shane McCarron gave more information
about RDFa in XHTML [sic -- but should be HTML?]
<DanC> the ccREL spec seems to be [33]http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL
JK: The XHTML Mod. spec. seems unclear about how/whether CURIEs are
supported in 'rel' attrs
... The larger issue is of course how RDFa might be integrated into HTML4
and/or HTML5
... Shane McCarron has sent a proposal about HTML4 integration to the HTML
list[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2009May/0015.html,
thread continues also from
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0125.html
... The use of CURIEs at all is also not settled -- MNot's Link Framework
draft doesn't provide for CURIEs at all
... I don't think there's any specific followup required
<johnk> here's Shane's proposed RDFa in HTML 4 proposal -
[36]http://www3.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html/
DC: CURIEs are the small end of the issue
<jar> I'm not too worried about lack of CURIEs in Link: header. Seems silly
as that's protocol level. Purpose of CURIEs is to make RDFa easier on the
eyes, easier for manual editing.
DC: CcREL is about allowing access to e.g. my pictures for reproduction
... There are a number of actors here, ranging from 0 (WGs chartered to
change HTML4) to 2 (WGs chartered with some responsibilitiy for text/html)
NM: Next steps?
JK: We haven't been asked to do anything by anyone
NM: I have an action to reach out to him wrt [xyzzy]
JK: I don't see any actions at this point
DC: There's a microdata proposal from Ian Hickson, which is intended to meet
the CcREL requirements, w/o using RDFa (or namespaces?)
<DanC> [37]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata
<DanC> <img itemprop="image" src="google-logo.png" alt="Google">
DC: HST, you interested?
HT: Yes, I will look at this if I can
... I accept to shepherd ISSUE-54
NM: Please clean this up as best you can
... Adjourned
<DanC> darn; lost henry to dinner; wanted to get his permission to update
tracker due dates for his action
sure
<DanC> ok... I'll move them back a couple months except the
urns-and-registries one
<DanC> ACTION-113 due 1 July
<trackbot> ACTION-113 HT to a) revise composition.pdf to take account of
suggestions from Tim & Jonathan and feedback from email and b) produce a new
version of the Elaborated Infoset finding, possibly incorporating some of
the PDF due date now 1 July
<DanC> ACTION-239 due 1 July
<trackbot> ACTION-239 alert chair when updates to description of
xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none made) due date now 1 July
<DanC> ACTION-232 due 1 July
<trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of
HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now 1 July
<DanC> ACTION-231 due 1 July
<trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in
HTTP spec due date now 1 July
<DanC> ACTION-33 due 1 June
<trackbot> ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008
F2F discussion due date now 1 June
<DanC> I think we closed this one today:
<DanC> ACTION-271?
<trackbot> ACTION-271 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with jar to draft strawman
agenda for F2F -- due 2009-05-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271
<DanC> ACTION-265 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-265 Work with Larry, Henry to frame technical issues
relating to the vairous overlapping specs. about URIs, IRIs and encoding on
the wire due date now next week
<DanC> ACTION-23 due 1 July
<trackbot> ACTION-23 track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML Schema
namespace document in the XML Schema WG due date now 1 July
<DanC> ACTION-270 due 1 June
<trackbot> ACTION-270 Provide additional material for review at F2F for
Issue 41 due date now 1 June
<DanC> ACTION-254 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-254 Send email to www-tag announcing issue-63 due date now
next week
<DanC> ACTION-261 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-261 Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding
Adam Barth's sniffing draft due date now next week
<DanC> ACTION-244?
<trackbot> ACTION-244 -- Noah Mendelsohn to plan June TAG F2F -- due
2009-05-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/244
<DanC> noah, do you want to do anything more with action-244?
<noah> Leave it open, it's just a memory jogger to me, though at this point
I tend not to forget about it anyway. The date should be pushed one week at
a time :-)
<DanC> ACTION-261: spoke with Lisa about an upcoming BOF
<trackbot> ACTION-261 Followup with Mark Nottingham and Lisa D. regarding
Adam Barth's sniffing draft notes added
<noah> I'll do it
<DanC> action-244 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-244 Plan June TAG F2F due date now next week
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ashok to carry forward framing issues around Archicture of
APIs, with help from JK and LM [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to see if I can reconstruct a discussion with tlr where
present course and speed will lead to GET-based links becoming regarded as
unsafe [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to report back to the TAG on outcome of collaboration with
LM [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01]
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.134 ([44]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/05/29 11:45:57 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-agenda.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-tagmem-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#ActionSummary
13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-minutes
14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-minutes
15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/06-f2f-local-arrangements.html
16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271
17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009May/0081.html
18. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0004.html
19. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01
20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02
21. http://xml.coverpages.org/
22. http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp
23. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0097.html
24. http://www.oxygenxml.com/
25. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/204
26. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0116.html
27. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03
28. http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009
29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery
30. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54
31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/255
32. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/240
33. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL
34. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2009May/0015.html
35. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0125.html
36. http://www3.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html/
37. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata
38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/271
39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/244
40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action02
41. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action03
42. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/28-minutes.html#action01
43. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
44. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKH8vokjnJixAXWBoRAt7TAJ9pljnvOTmQ9X2keCb4dsC2wh69IgCeO+8s
5loYvfxE+aBqlEC3+aro8/A=
=+FKm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 11:50:33 UTC