Re: Amended draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th February 2010

Thank you, John.  As one who was not present at the meeting, the minutes 
now seem to be very good, but of course I don't know what I'm missing.  I 
would prefer that someone who was there would take a look before we 
approve on Thurs.  Thank you in any case for the formatting corrections, 
which are a significant improvment.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
02/05/2010 08:39 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        Amended draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th 
February 2010


I have edited the minutes to reflect the correct scribing pattern, and the 
updated document is at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html and below. 

Regards,

- johnk

- DRAFT -

Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

04 Feb 2010

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
  Dan Connolly, Jonathan Rees, Daniel Appelquist, John Kemp, Henry S 
Thompson, T.V. Raman, Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Tim Berners-Lee
Regrets
  Noah Mendelsohn
Chair
  Dan Connolly
Scribe
  John Kemp

Contents

                 • Topics
                                 • Convene
                                 • ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232 
conneg, generic resources
                                 • ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232
                                 • ACTION-326: Polyglot documents
                                 • ISSUE-51 & ACTION-308: Propose updates 
to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the 
reality of sniffing
                                 • ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of 
Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case
                                 • ACTION-354: Client side storage APIs
                                 • ISSUE-41 & ACTION-369: Shorter document 
on version indicators
                                 • misc action review
                                 • resource/representation
                                 • HTML Microdata publication news
                 • Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 04 February 2010
<DanC> scribe: johnk_
Convene

DC: Can you scribe next week, Henry?
HT: OK
<DanC> minutes ok? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes

<DanC> "DKA: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur "
I can't understand DKA very much at all...
<DanC> PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes 
ammended to note that "DKA: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur" 
should read "DKA: As a former member..."
<DanC> DKA, is it enough to note the correction in today's minutes?
<DKA> fine
<DanC> PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-minutes 
ammended to note that "DKA: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur" 
should read "DKA: As a former member..." and to note that the security 
stuff is unclear
JK: I found the 'security' section unclear
<masinter> if there are errors in the minutes, send the errors to me and 
i'll update
<DKA> It should be "when I sat in on the first working group meeting as an 
observer"
JK: Happy to just note that and move on
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to take approval of minutes 28 Jan offline [recorded 
in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-385 - Take approval of minutes 28 Jan offline 
[on Dan Connolly - due 2010-02-11].
TVR: Take discussion offline
ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232 conneg, generic resources

<DanC> close ACTION-232
<trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of 
HTTPbis which has advice on conneg closed
LM: Sent a note to requestor - should close the item
ISSUE-53: ACTION-231 & ACTION-232

LM: Propose to close the actions
HT: Why did we (re-) open this?
... Conneg text hasn't changed, has it?
LM: In editors draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0033.html

<DanC> I propose that HTTPbis changeset 745 section.4.p.5, along
<DanC> with the Nov 2006 finding, addresses our ISSUE-53, Generic 
Resources.
<DanC> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/745

<jar> ht, description of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53 
seems pretty clear to me
<DanC> so RESOLVED.
HT: I'm happy with this
CLOSE ACTION-231
<trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in 
HTTP spec closed
ACTION-326: Polyglot documents

<DanC> action-326?
<trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Henry S. Thompson to track HTML WG progress on 
their bug 8154 on polyglot documents -- due 2010-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326

DC: Done to my satisfaction
<DanC> "2010-01-12 15:11:08: The offending para has been removed: 
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4458&to=4459 [Henry S. 
Thompson] "
DC: offending para has been removed, you (HT) wrote on Jan.12
<DanC> close action-326
<trackbot> ACTION-326 track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on polyglot 
documents closed
LM: Haven't understood about the doctype - whether there were actually 
valid polyglot docs
HT: this was a very narrow issue
LM: We still have an issue around polyglot documents
<masinter> agree to close action
DC: Interested in XML well-formed
HT: There might be other issues, but not under this action
ISSUE-51 & ACTION-308: Propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and 
Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing

JK: Ball is with the group
LM: Additional status - I sent review comments regarding the sniffing 
draft
... draft is inadequate
<masinter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-04

<DanC> tx
<masinter> dated January 26, 2010
<DanC> ("the issue"? which?)
HT: there is another action on sniffing not linked from the sniffing issue
... I sent changes to HTTPBis regarding sniffing
<DanC> action-370?
<trackbot> ACTION-370 -- Henry S. Thompson to hST to send a 
revised-as-amended version of 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.htmlto the HTTP 
bis list on behalf of the TAG -- due 2009-12-24 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/370

<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009OctDec/0346.html

HT: At TAG request I sent 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009OctDec/0346.html

<DanC> "Such 'sniffing' SHOULD NOT be done unless there is evidence that 
the
<DanC> specified media type is in error"
HT: Barth said OK
HT: However, change was rejected by editor
HT: We were asked whether we co-ordinated with HTML WG
<masinter> I am considering offering to rewrite barth-mime-sniff
<DanC> action-370?
<trackbot> ACTION-370 -- Henry S. Thompson to hST to send a 
revised-as-amended version of 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.htmlto the HTTP 
bis list on behalf of the TAG -- due 2009-12-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/370

DC: Can you pursue ACTION-370 HT?
<DanC> action-370 due +2 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-370 HST to send a revised-as-amended version of 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the HTTP 
bis list on behalf of the TAG due date now +2 weeks
<DanC> (arbitrarily; feel free to choose another date)
LM: I don't like the sniffing document
<DanC> (henry, "the rest of us liked it" doesn't speak for me)
<ht> HST would need to look at the f2f minutes
<masinter> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 15:17 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
<masinter> I reviewed draft-abarth-mime-sniff-03 and sent it to the 
authors and
<masinter> the IETF “apps-discuss”:
<masinter>
<masinter>
<masinter>
<masinter> 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html

<masinter>
<masinter>
<masinter>
<masinter> (ReferenceISSUE-24 and ACTION-308)
<masinter>
<masinter>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24
<masinter>
<masinter> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

<masinter>
<DanC> ("improvement" can still lead to something I don't like. 1/2 ;-)
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to comment on use of 'correct type'
<johnk__> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/24-minutes#item03

<johnk__> minutes from f2f where we created ACTION-308
<DanC> tx
LM: Notion that the file has a "correct type" is wrong
LM: You're making guesses about what the author intended
LM: language of "correctness" is wrong
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask lmm about the status quo which relies on 
something other than what's in the content-type header
LM: if someone tells you it's text/plain and you guess something else, 
this is your peril
DC: community standard is that web content providers rely somewhat that 
the consumer will consult more than content-type
LM: Not sure that's true
DC: I know they didn't consider it, but if you took it away they'll be 
shocked
<jar> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155 was closed 6 
months ago... adam's 1st draft was july 13 ... not clear whether the 
httpwg talked about it (trying to understand whether there's new 
information for httpwg)
DC: Is it more cost-effective to specify what's going on, or to move the 
community away fromthis reliance?
DC: The latter seems expensive, perhaps not possible
LM: value of reverse engineering decays over time
DC: Would be happy to see an alternative draft
LM: Happy to propose alternatives
LM: Recommend that the TAG does not update our findings to reference the 
current sniffing draft
LM: needs to be opt-in mech as well as uniform and secure
LM: set of criteria need to be met
<DanC> (can anybody write down the criteria lmm said?)
LM: reluctant to recommend sniffing until we have a good algorithm
LM: "fine-grained opt-in"
LM: happy to review barth sniffing draft 4 and suggest any necessary 
follow-up to TAG
<DanC> ACTION: larry to review draft-barth-sniff-4 and send comments, cc 
TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-386 - Review draft-barth-sniff-4 and send 
comments, cc TAG [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-02-11].
<DanC> ACTION-308?
<trackbot> ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to Authoritative 
Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing -- 
due 2010-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

<DanC> close ACTION-308
<trackbot> ACTION-308 Propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and 
Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing closed
JK: Would like the group to review 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html

<johnk__> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0028.html

HT: Will take a look
<DanC> ACTION: Henry to review JK/NM's stuff on sniffing, authoritative 
metadata, self-describing web, incl. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-387 - Review JK/NM's stuff on sniffing, 
authoritative metadata, self-describing web, incl. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html [on Henry S. 
Thompson - due 2010-02-11].
<DanC> issue-24?
<trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Can a specification include rules for overriding 
HTTPcontent type parameters? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24

<DanC> ACTION-376?
<trackbot> ACTION-376 -- Daniel Appelquist to send to www-tag a pointer to 
and brief summary of Mobile Web Best Practices working group's "Guidelines 
for Web Content Transformation Proxies" and its implications for content 
sniffing : http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ -- due 2010-02-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/376

DC: Related to content-type override issue
DC: DKA - content transformation proxies?
ACTION-278: Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google 
Calendar" case

DKA: Later...
<DanC> action-278?
<trackbot> ACTION-278 -- Jonathan Rees to draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata 
in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case -- due 2010-02-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278

JAR: Can continue my action 278
JAR: Change the due date
<jar> action-278 due 2010-02-09
<trackbot> ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover 
the "Google Calendar" case due date now 2010-02-09
LM: Thinking about this a lot
LM: What distinguishes capability-based system and what is proposed here 
is...
LM: If you have a resource, you should have just one URI
<DanC> (indeed, there's a tension with aliasing)
LM: Capability URI is not usable for an "access control system"
LM: If you combine the key with the URI, you can't do lots of things 
(expire the key without expiring the URI for example)
LM: Confidential in the finding means something really quite strong
LM: Another use pattern where the information is not confidential, but not 
widely known
LM: I don't really care if people can read my calendar
LM: Not really confidential
DC: No sharp distinction between that and passwords
DC: Counting on you not to pass it (password) around
LM: I can change the password without changing the calendar URI
LM It's the address as well as the capability
DC: Large random numbers can be revoked
DC: Rethink "don't make aliases"
LM: That _is_ one of the conflicts
LM: The other is that infrastructure of the web assumes it's ok to make 
easily available URIs (in logs etc.)
TVR Not a useful question to answer
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to gloss larry's point as revocation is willfully 
breaking a URI
HT: if you put a large random number in a uri, it says that URI identifies 
a resource
HT: you shouldn't ever revoke that capability
HT:& so you can't easily say that a URI can be revoked
DC: 403/410 them, not 404
HT: It seems you're "cheating" - if you name a resource, and then remove 
access to the resource at that URI
DC: I'm persuaded that capability URIs are OK...
<DanC> ("actual access control method" is needlessly pejorative... 
closed-minded, even.)
<jar> lm: Three cases (a) public, (b) obscure, (c) confidential
LM: I see that use of capability URIs are for non-confidential cases
JAR: Not sure what Tyler thinks of Larry's distinction
JAR: Would like to write up the "unsubscribe" case
<raman> have a hard stop, need to bale.
DC: we did write that up
DC: GET/POST finding
ACTION-354: Client side storage APIs

<DanC> action-354?
<trackbot> ACTION-354 -- Ashok Malhotra to review client side storage apis 
(web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other 
critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know 
about -- due 2010-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/354

AM:AM: Two client-side storage API specs.
<DanC> TAG Action-354 Review client-side storage API’s
AM: should have a better story than "cookies"
AM: name/value pairs should be made more useful
AM: I only looked at two possible cookie storage replacements
DC: Just talking about different use-cases?
AM: there's also a caching API spec and a web storage spec.
AM: I've not yet looked at these
DC: Would like to know about all these APIs and how they compare
AM: Many documents seem to explore this client-side storage case
AM: reviewed 'index' API, 'web SQL' API
<jar> indexed api and web sql api
<johnk__> WebSQLDatabase and Indexed Database API
AM: WebSQL API is not really a spec...
AM: Based on SQLLite database
<johnk__> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/

AM: Can look at the other ones, but with what goal?
DC: Is there room in webarch for all of these?
<DanC> Action-354: ashok to look at caching api, etc. as well
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage 
etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or 
interesting design features the TAG should know about notes added
<DanC> action-354: and web storage
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage 
etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or 
interesting design features the TAG should know about notes added
<DanC> action-354 due +2 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage 
etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or 
interesting design features the TAG should know about due date now +2 
weeks
ISSUE-41 & ACTION-369: Shorter document on version indicators

<DanC> action-369?
<trackbot> ACTION-369 -- Larry Masinter to write a shorter document on 
version indicators -- due 2010-02-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/369

DC: Larry wrote a short document on version identifiers, and I reviewed it
LM: Have not incorporated your comments
LM: Suggest we postpone
LM: This is related to polyglot docs
<DanC> subject of my review msg was something like "can't get behind 
DOCTYPE-based proposal"
LM: would like conforming xhtml to be conforming html when a doctype is 
present
LM: (scribe: regarding quirks mode, I missed this mostly)
<masinter> trying to speak to the polyglot issue
HT: all kinds of things wrong with the section about doctypes
DC: W3C validator will take a document without a system identifier...
<masinter> I'm asking for help with 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/171

<DanC> ACTION-364?
<trackbot> ACTION-364 -- Dan Connolly to ask HTML WG team contacts to make 
a change proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and 
today's discussion -- due 2010-02-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/364

<DanC> ACTION-334?
<trackbot> ACTION-334 -- Henry S. Thompson to start an email thread 
regarding the treatment of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type 
registration text of HTML5 -- due 2009-12-02 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/334

HT: difference between browser behaviour and "meaning" of HTML documents
<DanC> action-364 due +1 week
<trackbot> ACTION-364 Ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal 
re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's discussion 
due date now +1 week
<DC: can you review 0015 JAR?
<DanC> ACTION: JAR to take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html 
[recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-388 - Take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning 
proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html 
[on Jonathan Rees - due 2010-02-11].
misc action review

<DanC> action-354?
<trackbot> ACTION-354 -- Ashok Malhotra to review client side storage apis 
(web simple storage etc.), looking for architectural issues or other 
critical problems... or interesting design features the TAG should know 
about -- due 2010-02-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/354

AM: There's a note from mnot asking "why are they doing this?"
DC: Do we want to talk about resource/representation?
<Ashok> ACTION-354: Discuss MNot note when we next discuss this action
<trackbot> ACTION-354 Review client side storage apis (web simple storage 
etc.), looking for architectural issues or other critical problems... or 
interesting design features the TAG should know about notes added
LM: Yes
JAR: can talk more in email...
DC: shall we adjourn?
<DanC> ACTION: Larry to take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and 
turn it into a change proposal [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Take Dan's proposal on 
resource/representation and turn it into a change proposal [on Larry 
Masinter - due 2010-02-11].
<DanC> close ACTION-378 (edit)
<DanC> close ACTION-378
<trackbot> ACTION-378 Draft suggested text re resource/representation in 
HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR closed
resource/representation

LM: One more thing....
HTML Microdata publication news

LM: HTML WG is considering publishing microdata and RDFa FPWDs
LM: Vocabularies have "popped back in"
<johnk__> ADJOURN
<jar> Looking for an action on LMM to draft an html5 change request with 
DanC's work as input...
<jar> oh i see it now.
Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: DanC to take approval of minutes 28 Jan offline [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to review JK/NM's stuff on sniffing, authoritative 
metadata, self-describing web, incl. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0025.html[recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JAR to take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html 
[recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: larry to review draft-barth-sniff-4 and send comments, cc 
TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

]
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and 
turn it into a change proposal [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]

Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 22:51:35 UTC