W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2010

Draft TAG telcon minutes of 12th August 2010

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:07:24 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9zW17PBEh-C5htt_wCPPaGm0Wc9=ppSpqt=Mu@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
and in plain text below.



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

                               - DRAFT -

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

12 Aug 2010


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/08/12-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-tagmem-irc


          Tim_Berners-Lee, Yves_Lafon, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn,
          Jonathan_Rees, Henry_Thompson


          Noah Mendelsohn



     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Minutes of 15 July
         2. [6]Privacy workshop
         3. [7]TAG Status Report
         4. [8]Announcing IRI Everywhere
         5. [9]Developer feedback camp
         6. [10]Redirecting from secondary resource to secondary
         7. [11]Distributed extensibility and HTML
         8. [12]The HTML-XML Chasm
     * [13]Summary of Action Items

   trackbot, start meeting

   <trackbot> Date: 12 August 2010

   <scribe> scribenick: jar

Minutes of 15 July

   RESOLUTION: approve

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/07/15-tagmem-minutes

   (discussion of agenda)

Privacy workshop

   <Ashok> draft subject to further editing, hope to have it out in a
   week ... 45 participants across industry, around 43 position papers
   ... privacy icons idea ... may fail for the same reasons as P3P ...
   identify the parameters that users care most about and come up with
   machine readable things ... others vendors reluctant, but firefox
   eager to implement ... other thing: data that is gathered via API
   from the user, parallel to geopriv ... what secondary use, how long

   ashok: TLR on Tuesday said a workshop report will come out soon
   ... There's another privacy & data workshop coming up in October,
   somewhat different focus, W3C

   note ACTION-455 remains open, we'll discuss when Dan A is around and
   report is out

   <Ashok> Followup privacy workshop

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/policy-ws/

TAG Status Report

   noah: There's been some review and revision, any comments now?

   <noah> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/sum07

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/sum07

   noah: Propose to publish the report

   No objections

   RESOLUTION: Publish status report

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/sum07

   to be made fully public.

Announcing IRI Everywhere

   <noah> Previous discussion:

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/24-minutes#item02

   noah: We were supposed to talk about this on july 15

   <noah> We are to discuss:
   l [email from Adam Barth]

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0394.html

   noah: (in Larry's absence... hmm)

   (everyone reading Adam's email)

   <noah> The email from Adam Barth quotes Roy Fielding:

   <noah> "Some people have proposed that most of that pre-processing
   be added

   <noah> to the IRIbis spec, but I have seen no evidence to suggest

   <noah> such pre-processing is even remotely standardizable (it seems

   <noah> be different for every input context). If you can demonstrate

   <noah> get agreement on a single way to preprocess an input string,
   or at

   <noah> least a few named processes (like single-ref and multi-ref),

   <noah> that would be useful.

   <noah> "

   <noah> ==end quote from Roy==

   ht: Bullet number 2 "I object to HTML5 being blocked in the IRIbis
   working group..." - isn't this what Larry is trying to do in the
   IRIbis WG?

   <ht> I'm ready to discuss, to the effect that we shouldn't discuss

   <noah> NM: But that's offered just as rationale...then change
   proposal itself stands on its own, no?

   <noah> HT: Not convinced...this seems fundamental to what LM et. al.
   are trying to do, no?

   ht: I conclude we can't take this further without Larry, since the
   rationale depends crucially on the claim that IRIbis is holding
   things up, and we need to hear from him on that

   noah: HTML is representative of a class of languages that will need
   this kind of processing - not unique

   <noah> In effect, this change proposal urges the working group to
   adopt Roy's

   <noah> proposal

   noah: "In effect, this proposal urges the WG to adopt Roy's
   proposal" - what does this have to do with IRIbis?

   ht: Roy's experience is directly contradicted by XML Core experience
   (system identifiers, LEIRIs, etc.) - there's quite a bit of

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to disagree based on XML COre WG experience

   ht: we discontinued work on a separate spec because IRIbis was
   willing to take it on... I think Roy's wrong

   noah: Not sure the facts support what you [ht] say. The question is
   whether the place to specify common behavior is in IRI spec, [or
   someplace else]

   <noah> Sure it defined what people type, to put it circularly, in
   the particular cases where someone's spec called for a string that
   was in fact a URI.

   <timbl> People write?

   <noah> What it does not do is outlaw the converse, I.e., for specs
   to call for strings that require processing to get to a URI.

   <noah> (of course, there's usually at least UTF8 interpretation or
   some such)

   ht: URI is only about what's in an HTTP request. Adam's claim seems
   to be that anything else needs to be in HTML5 spec

   (scribe may have mangled that)

   noah: Are we missing a window for constructive comments if we wait
   for Larry?

   <ht> [20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56

     [20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56

   ht: Issue 56 is listed as open. Discussed 15 July. No apparent

   <noah> action-448?

   <trackbot> ACTION-448 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of
   l on 26 August (followup to 24 June and 12 August discussion) -- due
   2010-08-24 -- OPEN

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0394.html

   <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/448

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/448

Developer feedback camp

   noah: Nervous about this

   <noah> action-454?

   <trackbot> ACTION-454 -- Daniel Appelquist to take lead in
   organizing possible Web apps architecture camp / workshop / openday
   -- due 2010-07-22 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/454

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/454

   waiting on Dan...

Redirecting from secondary resource to secondary resource

   <noah> ACTION-452?

   <trackbot> ACTION-452 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule, when Tim is
   available, discussion of redirection from A#B to C#D -- due
   2010-08-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/452

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/452


     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/07/15-tagmem-minutes.html#item04

   <noah> <timbl> ? GET A#B -> 307 C#D ??

   <noah> JAR: We were confused in the minutes. It's wrong in the
   minutes (except in one place), and wrong in today's agenda.

   jar: Meaning of A#B where A redirects to C#D

   <timbl> ? GET A --> 307 C#D ??

   jar: 307 C#D not allowed in 2616, but is allowed in HTTPbis

   <timbl> in the LocatioN: field

   <timbl> Why then did they change it?

   <noah> JAR: In the location header, 307 C#D not allowed in 2616, but
   is allowed in HTTPbis

   <Yves> GET /chapter2 => 301 /entirebook#chapter2

   <noah> Is this the first precedent for fragment ids being part of an
   on-the-wire HTTP reference, as opposed to client-side only?

   HT: The change to HTTPbis seems reasonable and meaningful -- if
   there's no # in the original URI(ref)

   timbl: I'm surprised that this got changed, since all clients will
   have to be updated

   HT: HTTPbis isn't final, I'm just saying why it is plausible

   <timbl> The purl server will return this in practice

   yves: Depends on media type, so if you have redirection [to C#D]
   media type will matter [?]

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say seems somewhat antithetical to KISS

   (scribe not getting what Yves is saying)

   noah: Until now, the Location: header has been something you can do
   a GET on, right?

   <timbl> No precedents already there

   noah: Now we're going to have to distribute responsibility for

   <noah> ok

   <Yves> Yves: fragment processing depends on the media type, also the
   kind of fragment iss to take into account, absolute references, or
   relative references (like in xpointer), but the mechanism has to be
   defined somewhere

   <noah> Well, as I said, if there is on precedent, then this is
   introducing architectural as well as code complexity. I basically
   always assumed that HTTP was oblivous to fragids.

   <timbl> $ curl -I [26]http://purl.org/dc/terms/title

     [26] http://purl.org/dc/terms/title

   <timbl> HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily

   <timbl> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:44:26 GMT

   <timbl> Server: 1060 NetKernel v3.3 - Powered by Jetty

   <timbl> Location:

     [27] http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf#title

   <timbl> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

   <Yves> Location was absoluteURI, not relative ones

   <noah> This violates RFC 2616?

   So we're discussing what [28]http://purl.org/dc/terms/title#zebra
   would mean

     [28] http://purl.org/dc/terms/title#zebra

   <noah> RFC 2616 is the current RFC.

   <timbl> If in RDF you follow the latter thing you get a document
   which tells you about C#D

   <timbl> The document C tells you about A

   <timbl> This example does NOT work in Tabulator

   noah: And what DC does violates 2616

   <timbl> A 303 to C would have been perfect

   jar: 303 Location:
   [29]http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf#title not permitted
   by 2616

     [29] http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf#title

   <timbl> Location: [30]http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf

     [30] http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf

   <timbl> would have been fine

   jar: yes

   <timbl> and then that document tells you about A#B

   timbl: The new PURL software lets you do bulk 303 redirects

   jar: Has it [the new software] been deployed at purl.org?

   <noah> I just noticed that Paul Cotton is asking whether we have
   input on their distributed extensibility change proposal. Input
   closes within the next day or so.

   <timbl> [31]http://purl.org/docs/help.html#purls

     [31] http://purl.org/docs/help.html#purls

   <noah> We should briefly discuss that after we wrap this discussion.

   timbl: I propose HTTPbis is wrong. We don't want clients to get
   ... There is a perfectly good alternative for OCLC to use, namely

   <timbl> [32]http://purl.org/docs/help.html#purlmodify

     [32] http://purl.org/docs/help.html#purlmodify

   <Yves> Introducing fragment in Location is

     [33] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/6

   timbl: If HTTP Location: is going to change we need a very good

   Yves: Best thing would be for me to track down discussion so far in
   HTTP mailing list

   <Yves> another pointer

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Yves to locate past HTTP WG discussion on Location:
   A#B change, and make the TAG aware of it [recorded in

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-456 - Locate past HTTP WG discussion on
   Location: A#B change, and make the TAG aware of it [on Yves Lafon -
   due 2010-08-19].

   <timbl> ^ doc about how to change your PURL.

   action-456 due 2010-08-17

   <trackbot> ACTION-456 Locate past HTTP WG discussion on Location:
   A#B change, and make the TAG aware of it due date now 2010-08-17

Distributed extensibility and HTML

   noah: Deadline = tomorrow, from Paul Cotton

   <noah> On 5 August I sent out:

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Aug/0002.html

   <noah> No response.

   <noah> Paul Cotton says input needed tomorrow, 13 August:

     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Aug/0006.html

   timbl: The call is for people inside the HTML WG to stand up for
   particular proposals, right?

   ht: Of the 5 proposals, 2 were precursors, leaving 3 proposals, one
   of which is status quo. All 3 have champions.

   <noah> Rob Ennals

   <timbl> 4 obsoletes 1 and 2

   ht: Proposals X and Y were put forward by Rob Ennals. 4 obsoletes 1
   and 2.

   <noah> #4 supercedes #1 and #2

   <noah> All other proposals have advocates.

   noah: Suggest: Thanks for soliciting input, our concern was that all
   proposals have advocates, and they seem to.

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to respond to Paul Cotton indicating TAG
   awareness that all current proposals have advocates, and will
   therefore not be dropped. [recorded in

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-457 - Respond to Paul Cotton indicating
   TAG awareness that all current proposals have advocates, and will
   therefore not be dropped. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-08-19].

The HTML-XML Chasm

   <ht> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54

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

   <timbl> HTML and XML divergence

   <timbl> Proposed new issue

   <timbl> source document

   <ht> Is the indefinite persistence of 'tag soup' HTML consistent
   with a sound architecture for the Web? If so, what changes, if any,
   to fundamental Web technologies are necessary to integrate 'tag
   soup' with SGML-valid HTML and well-formed XML?

   <timbl> 54 is a subissue of the divergence isue

   <noah> htmlXML-66?

   <noah> Title: Interoperability of HTML and XML

   <noah> Product: HTML 5 Review

   <noah> Shepherd: Tim?

   <noah> Title: HTML and XML Divergence

   <noah> ISSUE-66?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-66 -- The role of MIME in the Web Architecture --

   <trackbot> [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/66

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/66

   <noah> ISSUE-67?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-67 -- HTML and XML Divergence -- raised

   <trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/67

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/67

   <Yves> related to

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/428

   <noah> ISSUE-41?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- What are good practices for designing
   extensible languages and for handling versioning? -- open

   <trackbot> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41

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

   <noah> ISSUE-67?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-67 -- HTML and XML Divergence -- raised

   <trackbot> [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/67

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/67

   <ht> [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54

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


     [46] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-041

   <noah> [47]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

     [47] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

   <noah> [48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/67

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/67


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to respond to Paul Cotton indicating TAG
   awareness that all current proposals have advocates, and will
   therefore not be dropped. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Yves to locate past HTTP WG discussion on Location:
   A#B change, and make the TAG aware of it [recorded in

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-tagmem-irc
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [51]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([52]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/08/17 14:03:32 $

     [51] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [52] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 14:07:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:35 UTC