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

Minutes of 8-10 December 2009 TAG F2F

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:58:16 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org, public-tag-announce@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBC954EA6.25C7DB42-ON852576A2.00614AE2-852576A2.0062612C@lotus.com>
I am pleased to announce the availability of approved minutes of the TAG 
F2F that was held from 8-10 December 2009 at the W3C Offices at MIT. Links 
to discussions of particular subjects are available from the agenda page 
[1].  The records of the three days are checked into separate files at 
[2-4], and are attached in text-only form below.  Thank you.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda

[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/09-minutes.html

[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/10-tagmem-minutes.html

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142


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

        Technical Architecture Group F2F Meeting, Cambridge, MA

08 Dec 2009


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-irc


          Noah Mendelsohn, Tim Berners-Lee, Jonathan Rees, Ashok
          Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Henry Thompson, Dan Connolly, John

          TV Raman (partial regrets, present in afternoon via phone)


          John Kemp (morning), Tim Berners-Lee (afternoon)


     * Topics
         1. [4]Convene, review agenda
         2. [5]Web Application Architecture: Security and Policy
         3. [6]Review agenda, meeting goals
         4. [7]Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-63: Metadata Architecture
            for the Web
         5. [8]Web Application Architecture
         6. [9]HTML 5 review: ISSUE-20 (errorHandling-20): What should
            specifications say about error handling?
         7. [10]Admin: meeting planning
         8. [11]ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50) (status check)
     * [12]Summary of Action Items

   <scribe> Scribe: JohnK

   <scribe> ScribeNick: johnk

Convene, review agenda

   <noah> Thomas, we're missing a phone here, working on getting one.
   Should be a few mins. Sorry.

   trackbot-ng, start telcon

   <trackbot> Date: 08 December 2009

Web Application Architecture: Security and Policy

   NM: (connects us with TLR)

   TLR: there was a well-attended session at TPAC on Web Security
   ... strict transport security paypal proposal
   ... XSS discussion

   <DanC_> [13]strict transport security wiki topic

     [13] http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Strict_Transport_Security

   TLR: next steps for Origin header draft
   ... no formal minutes available, however
   ... have the impression that Origin draft is moving forward in IETF
   ... HTTP state WG is "under review"

   <DanC_> (I saw a draft charter re cookies, I think; where did I see
   that? ...)

   <tlr> ietf mailing list

   TLR: sense is that group should do two deliverables: - one
   documenting current state, another more normative

   <DanC_> [14]public-web-security archive

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/

   <noah> FWIW, I recommend that TAG members willing to deal with the
   traffic subscribe to the mailing list. I find it to be

   <masinter> News on http-state



   <masinter> HTTP-STATE WG charter finished IETF review and IESG
   Evaluation, and waiting on a few edits & input responses

   TLR: fairly happy with state of affairs

   DC: has an area director stepped forward to shepherd the Origin

   TLR: I believe so

   <DanC_> ( "Lisa" == Lisa Dusseault , as in
   [16]http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html )

     [16] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html

   LMM: haven't heard a positive direction on Origin yet

   some of the mics appear to be on mute

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask which AD is shepherding the Origin

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask for a bit of intro on the strict
   transport/paypal stuff




   NM: what is strict transport security about?

   TLR: let a site declare that it wants to use HTTPS even if it sees
   an HTTP link

   [18]http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Strict_Transport_Security ->


     [18] http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Strict_Transport_Security


   <DanC_> "draft specification proposed by Jeff Hodges (=JeffH,
   Paypal.com), Adam Barth (UC Berkeley), Collin Jackson (CMU-SV). "

     2.2 Strict Transport Security Policy Summary

     The characteristics of the Strict Transport Security policy, as
     applied to some given web site, known as a STS Server, is
     summarized as follows:

     1. Insecure ("http") connections to a STS Server are redirected by
     the STS Server to be secure connections ("https").

     2. The UA terminates, without user recourse, any secure transport
     connection attempts upon any and all errors, including those
     caused by a site wielding self-signed certificates.

     3. UAs transform insecure URI references to a STS Server into
     secure URI references before dereferencing them.

   <masinter> Miller's note about "origin:" header being harmful



   TLR: limits DNS corruption and MITM attack

   LMM: what are future plans for organizing web security in some way?

   more microphone mayhem...

   TLR: TPAC tried to coerce volunteers to get involved in review
   ... usual problem: how do we recruit volunteers?

   LMM: is there some possibility for a "formal" security board - a way
   of being able to sign up more consistently?

   TLR: use the chairs of the security WGs, but we don't have critical
   ... create a TAG-like body, focused on security?

   HT: I had a conversation with Mark Miller at TPAC - he was heartened
   by the meeting
   ... disagreements are purely technical

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention personal feedback from Mark Miller

   TLR: skillful chairing has contributed to the positive movements

   <tlr> +1 to the value of face-to-face meetings, in these points, btw

   LMM: keep this as a topic to review periodically
   ... too early to decide on a formal structure, but would encourage
   some thought about a process for improving security review

   NM: anything specific for us to follow up on?

   <DanC_> I'm gonna close this in a minute unless anybody objects:

   <DanC_> ACTION-323?

   <trackbot> ACTION-323 -- Dan Connolly to as Thomas for a report form
   the security BOF -- due 2009-12-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/323

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/323

   NM: any specific specifications?

   <DanC_> (I'm glad Noah is persuing getting actions if we're to keep
   this on our agenda. LMM seems to be pursuing a process point, which
   is not the TAG's mandate, so I'm OK if nothing comes of it.)

   <masinter> origin header -- is it in, is it out, is it dead, is it

   <DanC_> (tlr, do you want to be here when we talk about confused

   <masinter> IRI spoofing -- who has the responsibility for insuring
   that user agents don't depend on showing the user a IRI and
   expecting them to distinguish

   <DanC_> (where's the list tlr is reading? I don't see websockets on
   [22]http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Main_Page )

     [22] http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Main_Page

   TLR: XHR, CORS, HTML5, WebSockets... encourages LMM to add his short

   <tlr> I said "I think websockets should go on there, too"

   <jar> johnk: Add Uniform Messaging to the list

   JK: asks about Uniform Messaging Policy proposal

   <tlr> XHR has a last call that closes in a week.

   TLR: XHR documents current usage and is in LC

   <tlr> [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20091119/

     [23] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20091119/

   <tlr> LC for XHR ends on 15 December

   JK: XHR and UMP both have XHR-like APIs, and seem to be related

   <jar> tlr: XHR assumes SOP

   <DanC_> DanC: the XHR whose LC is 15 Dec is async with one that
   takes on UM, right? [tlr said right]

   JK: and UMP allows cross-origin with opt-out from SOP

   ACTION johnk to review XHR and UMP together and provide comments to
   TAG as relevant

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - johnk

   <DanC_> trackbot, status?

   ACTION John to review XHR and UMP together and provide comments to
   TAG as relevant

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-340 - Review XHR and UMP together and
   provide comments to TAG as relevant [on John Kemp - due 2009-12-15].

   <DanC_> [24]http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/HTML5 has an answer to
   NM's Q

     [24] http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/HTML5

   <tlr> (and that's just the *trivial* list of likely relevant

   NM: any TAG members willing to look at this security wiki and take
   any other actions regarding the items listed there?

   TLR: HTML5 security policies are worthy of review!
   ... we don't know what we don't know
   ... possibility of a workshop around these items

   NM: rough guess about when that might happen?

   TLR: probably a few months out

   <DanC_> . ACTION: noah to let the TAG know about any upcoming HTML 5
   security workshop

   <tlr> ACTION: noah to follow up with Thomas about security review
   activities for HTML5 [recorded in

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-341 - Follow up with Thomas about security
   review activities for HTML5 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-15].

   <masinter> [26]http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Talk:HTML5

     [26] http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Talk:HTML5

   DC: do "sandboxed iframes" work as well as they could or are there
   possible improvements?

   (seems like no-one knows the specifics well-enough)

   TBL: permeability of iframe boundary has been in flux during our
   work on tabulator...

   <masinter> at least 100 messages on sandboxed iframes in



   TBL: is this in research phase, or fairly solid in browsers?

   TLR: (thinks still research phase)

   LMM: lots of messages on sandboxed iframes this week, so situation
   is still evolving

   NM: (reviews the agenda item)

   <DanC_> close action-321

   <trackbot> ACTION-321 lightly edit TAG input to DAP WG per 8 Oct and
   tell Noah closed

   <DanC_> close action-318

   <trackbot> ACTION-318 Send note to Device APIs and Policy (DAP)
   Working Group on behalf of the TAG closed

   DC: can I close actions?

   <DanC_> close action-323

   <trackbot> ACTION-323 As Thomas for a report form the security BOF

   LMM: I would be happy if there were an interest group for tracking
   these issues

   <tlr> (encouragement heard, but not going to happen this year. ;-)

   LMM: part of web arch is security, and it probably requires more
   attention than the TAG is able to give it

   NM: TAG still has a role, and I'm not sure if a W3C mechanism to
   track all of these things outside W3C is useful
   ... what problem does IG solve?

   DC: possibility of a workshop is a good start

   <jar> I just added uniform messaging to the security wiki FYI

   ACTION Noah January 15th ask the TAG again about more formally
   tracking security issues in HTML5

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - January 15th ask the TAG again about
   more formally tracking security issues in HTML5 [on Noah Mendelsohn
   - due 2009-12-15].

   AM: read the UMP draft, which speaks about 2 actors

   <tlr> jar, CORS and UM are closely enough linked that I'd prefer to
   keep them together

   AM: does UMP extend to multiple actors?

   <DanC_> (I'd like to see an explanation of how UM generalizes to
   multiple parties)

   JAR: yes

   <DanC_> action-340: to include an explanation of how UM generalizes
   to multiple parties

   <trackbot> ACTION-340 Review XHR and UMP together and provide
   comments to TAG as relevant notes added

   LMM: in last IETF, long discussion about non-ASCII chars in IRIs and
   related security issues
   ... possibility of constructing IRIs that the user cannot really
   tell whether they represent what the user is actually trying to do
   ... this is not a security mechanism, but there is a security issue




   NM: is the current group of the group working around the web
   security wiki looking at issues such as the one Larry describes?

   TLR: not specifically, no

   <DanC_> (I too think Singer wrote that bit)

   NM: next steps?
   ... should someone from TAG work with the community around this wiki
   to frame the issues?

   LMM: would like to make normative references from various specs. to
   something relevant for web security
   ... a wiki is not enough

   DC: we have IRIEverywhere issue - can we track the relevant security
   portion under that?

   NM: HTML5 tells user agents what to do; should perhaps be giving
   advice about, for example, IRIs that might confuse the user

   thanks Thomas

   <ht> Everyone says "Thank you Thomas"

   DC: there's an opportunity to engage the people involved in this
   wiki... but not sure how/whether we will declare victory

   <noah> TLR, thank you >so< much for taking the time to join us. It
   was very, very useful!

   JAR: mentions pet names: that one should never trust the names given
   to you by anyone else
   ... you get to designate your own name, rather than blindly
   accepting the name given you by a server

   DC: I visit 10000 web pages a day, can't give them all pet names

   JAR: solution is proposed, but isn't yet usable perhaps?

   NM: when about to click on a link, I should know what I'm clicking

   <DanC_> (tracker, note we're discussing ISSUE-27 IRIEverywhere-27 )

   NM: if a page contains 50 links (to images for example), should I
   get to choose whether I want to access all 50 of them?
   ... associate my own pet name with a given URI?

   TBL: what's the process?

   JAR: the point is that it makes it possible for the user to

   NM: the user can be confused, but only the first time - when they
   make the pet name association

   TBL: system should protect you from confusing your pet names

   JAR: overall constraint is exactly that - to make it more difficult
   to confuse the user with names

   DC: can you (JAR) post to www-tag about pet names?

   LMM: how about IRI list instead?

   <tlr> note that petnames were discussed and even speced
   *extensively* in the WSC WG. Implementers wouldn't have any of that.

   <DanC_> ACTION: jonathan discuss petname application to IRI spoofing
   in public-iri and www-tag [recorded in

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-343 - Discuss petname application to IRI
   spoofing in public-iri and www-tag [on Jonathan Rees - due

   HTML5, WebSockets, XHR, CORS

   <DanC_> action-343?

   <trackbot> ACTION-343 -- Larry Masinter to discuss petname
   application to IRI spoofing in public-iri and www-tag -- due
   2009-12-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/343

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/343

   NM: WebSockets is moving fast...

   LMM: wanted to noted the IETF meeting on HyBi

   <tlr> [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

     [31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

   LMM: two groups - one documenting current practice on long-polling
   et al with HTTP


     [32] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol

   LMM: and another discussing WebSockets
   ... result, I believe, was that WG forming would focus on WebSockets

   NM: how about CORS?

   <DanC_> ACTION-331 ?

   <trackbot> ACTION-331 -- Dan Connolly to consider ways to track the
   'confused deputy problem' issue in webapps/cors -- due 2009-11-24 --

   <trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/331

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/331

   <DanC_> [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/108

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/108

   DC: TPAC goal achieved
   ... Mark Miller took the ball, resulting in the UMP proposal:



   <DanC_> DanC: what's critically different between UniformRequest and
   XMLHTTPRequest is that no cookies go out; it's not clear to me why
   that's more secure

   <noah> NM: Note that uniform messaging looks at the Javascript level
   just like XHR, except that you "new" a different object to start.

   <DanC_> ... if you want to do something different, you have to put
   your credential/permission elsewhere

   JK: there are two parts to the spec:

   <DanC_> HT: yes, you put it in your code

   <DanC_> DanC: but who is "you"? the server? the client? the

   i) that an HTTP response header can be sent saying that the server
   opts-out of SOP

   <DanC_> JAR: the code is the attacker...

   <DanC_> ... if he doesn't have permission, he can't do anything

   ii) the UA uses a new XHR that doesn't send cookies

   meaning any "credentials" are i) not site-specific ii) not sent

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to talk about credential/permission

   DC: some concerns about the terminology regarding 'permission' sent
   as editorial comments

   <DanC_> on permission and such



   JAR: proof of permission?

   <DanC_> "proof of permission" would be good; maybe I'll suggest that
   in email to the editors

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about community reaction to uniform
   messaging draft

   DC: it's good that CORS has an issue open on confused deputy so the
   WG has to choose UM or not before going to LC
   ... how, for example, does this impact sandboxed iframes, for

   ACTION Jonathan to alert TAG chair when CORS and/or UMP goes to LC

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-344 - Alert TAG chair when CORS and/or UMP
   goes to LC [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-12-15].

   <DanC_> close action-321

   <trackbot> ACTION-321 lightly edit TAG input to DAP WG per 8 Oct and
   tell Noah closed

   <DanC_> action-331?

   <trackbot> ACTION-331 -- Dan Connolly to consider ways to track the
   'confused deputy problem' issue in webapps/cors -- due 2009-11-24 --

   <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/331

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/331

   <DanC_> close action-331

   <trackbot> ACTION-331 Consider ways to track the 'confused deputy
   problem' issue in webapps/cors closed

Review agenda, meeting goals

   NM: we discussed 3 big items (linked in agenda) before the summer
   ... later moved to closely study HTML5
   ... is there something bigger than the sum of the parts (ie. action
   items) similar to webarch that we want to do beyond review of
   detailed actions?

   AM: as we begin talking about web apps, metadata it might become
   obvious if we want to write something more "overarching"

   LMM: we had talked about creating products of long-term value?

   NM: such as the "architecture of web applications"
   ... agenda is in service of a set of goals
   ... agenda does reflect those goals

Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-63: Metadata Architecture for the Web



   <trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on
   metadata architecture. -- due 2009-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

   JAR:Our job is to encourage a connected, open Web, and a "global"
   approach to metadata seems important for that. Is there a related
   way to understand some of the "puzzles" - RDFa vs. Microdata,
   XRD/LRDD/Link, related HTTP semantics; using URIs to "refer" rather
   than to "locate"; link rel="canonical", multimedia "bookmarking" and
   the nature of "authoritative"?

   [Jonathan's draft at
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/metameta.html is what we're

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/metameta.html

   TBL: I thought we were doing an overall model of the whole "shebang"
   - not just philosophical layer. This includes APIs, no?

   JAR: that seems like an opportunity we have

   <DanC_> (I'm not sure I agree with TBL that the AWWSW model is "not
   philosophical". I'm not sure there any falsifiable claims in it.
   Maybe around "immutable resources", but I don't see that as a
   pressing issue.)

   AM: we should start from metadata use-cases
   ... these are the situations in which you might want some metadata
   ... then we can say "in situation N, here's what you ought to do..."

   JAR: yes, use-cases are very important

   JK: what if someone doesn't acquire metadata in the way you suggest
   even in a given use-case?

   TBL: You can tell them what they would be losing by doing it

   LMM: in my earlier work, I was taking a narrower perspective on
   "what is metadata" than I think we have generally taken. For
   example, perhaps related to the difference between metadata about
   information resources vs. metadata about non-information resources?

   TBL: Metadata is data about documents. If it's about an information
   resource, then it's metadata. If it is about something else, it

   LMM: That's the conventional meaning, I think

   <ht> [40]http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/metacrap.htm

     [40] http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/metacrap.htm

   JAR: that is part of the work we need to do to bound this project.
   Metadata can come from many different places - a protocol might only
   get that metadata from one place - "first-party provided" metadata

   NM: you're stopping short of discussing the impact of provenance?


   NM:There is a big difference between we know a claim about
   something, or whether we know the thing itself. There is a
   difference of trust. Is the statement "noah says the wall is brown",
   or "the wall is brown"?

   AM: yes

   <ht> [the metacrap reference is old: Version 1.3: 26 August 2001 --
   here's the original [41]http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm ]

     [41] http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm

   TBL: Almost anyone who deals with any data on the web technology
   deals with and is aware of provenence. It is a large area, but we
   don't have to get into it deeply now.

   JAR: Most of my draft is a list of questions. Those questions could
   stimulate actions items - there is a lot of work here. Does metadata
   have any special role on the web?

   TBL: Metadata is data about documents, and as docuements have a
   special role in web architecture, so metdata has a special role to a
   certain extent.

   LMM: In the narrow definition, metadata is data about "information

   NM: if someone makes a statement about a document, it is clearly
   metadata. If someone makes a statement such as "I was born on
   November 3rd" what do we call that statement?

   LMM: There are some special properties of documents that make them
   more interesting in this regard.

   DC: Can you be more specific?

   HT: There's a fundamental difference between representations whose
   referents are available digitally and those which are not. Therefore
   reasoning about them is different

   DC: Larry, can you be more specific about the properties of a
   document that make it more interesting this way?

   TBL: AWWW spends a lot of time trying to describe this so it's very
   important - deal with the Web, you deal with docs.

   <masinter> the library and digital library community have a long
   history of establishing "metadata" for items that might appear in a
   world of managed information, and that this tradition is
   instructive, helpful, and with available techniques for management,
   refinement. The general "knowledge management" problem is hard, but
   the "metadata management" problems are tractable

   NM: take a set of measurements and record them
   ... if I then also record that I took these measurements on a
   particular date, then that is metadata about the measurements
   ... if you limit only to digital representations, it seems to me you
   lose the historical meaning of metadata

   <DanC_> ("I don't want to get hung up on terminology" <-- famous
   last words. terminology _is_ the problem. Agreeing on terminology is
   solving the problem.)

   LMM: metadata was about "what was in the card catalogue"

   <noah> let's do terminology after we cover use cases.

   <DanC_> no, let's not

   LMM: common way to describe that the book in library a was the same
   book as in library b

   <DanC_> let's try out terminology as we discuss use cases, and keep
   careful eye on which terms comfortably fit and which ones don't.

   LMM: Dublin Core was a way of cataloging metadata about documents /
   ... value is to leverage that work

   NM: you don't buy my 'measurements' example?
   ... not scoped only to library usage

   AM: I think we should ask different questions

   <masinter> there are things that are on the boundary ... you can
   treat them as "information resources" or not

   AM: what could *we* write that would be useful here?

   <DanC_> ([42]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata is disappointing
   in that it doesn't have a history section like most good
   encyclopedia articles)

     [42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say "yes" to NM wrt measurements

   Dublin Core: I think you should split the screen

   HT: yes, Noah, your example is within "metadata" scope
   ... I think Dublin Core is useful for any set of digital data


   JAR: back to document...
   ... not a lot of standardization
   ... poor incentives for creating explicit metadata
   ... difficult to deploy - why?
   ... difficult to validate
   ... it doesn't feel that all of these things are adequately
   connected - it doesn't feel like a "Web"

   <DanC_> (the mismatch betwen CiteULike and Amazon ... I wonder how
   many man-hours a day that costs the world. Sounds a lot like what
   LMM was talking about for library metadata in the 1st place... "how
   do you know it's the same book?")

   HT: host-meta is data about a set of resources

   LMM: there's a question about metadata when related to statements
   made about a person

   TBL: lots of people are not doing metadata when they are making
   statements of identity of people. The issue of different people
   assigning different names to the same person is quite general. Let's
   not expand the scope of "Metadata" to the semantic web in general.
   There is a general problem of co-reference... different people
   assigning different names to the same thing ... let's not try to
   tackle that under the rubric Metadata as though it were special to
   people or people were special to metadata.

   TBL: people, music, place names, countries (and other administrative
   areas) all have data about them and coreference issues
   ... we shouldn't focus only on authors

   JAR: is RDF "nose-following" a metadata use-case?

   LMM: metadata has a data model, a vocab, a serialization, and method
   of association (linking/embedding)

   <DanC_> [43]Framing an Architecture for Metadata on the Web

     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jul/0153.html

   <DanC_> LMM was talking about that ^

   <timbl> RDF nose-following is a technical solution for many of these
   problems, coupled with the stitched-together quilt of grass-roots

   <Noah_phone> From Wikipedia:

   JAR: what are interesting cases that deal with metadata?

   <Noah_phone> Metadata (meta data, or sometimesmetainformation) is
   "data about data", of any sort in any media. Metadata is text,
   voice, or image that describes what the audience wants or needs to
   see or experience. The audience could be a person, group, or
   software program.

   LMM: if we have a framework for metadata, we can use this to explore
   the specific cases and see how/if it applies

   <Noah_phone> The above is Wikipedia def of metadata. Consonant with
   my assumptions.

   JAR: that suggests a matrix between your framework items (LMM - see
   earlier list) and the uses documented in my draft
   ... (describes examples listed in linked document)

   <masinter> note

     [44] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-05

   JAR: is anything different since RDF/Dublin Core?
   ... (references Metadata Activity statement)

   <masinter> [45]http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/

     [45] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/

   metadata activity statement: [46]http://www.w3.org/Metadata/Activity

     [46] http://www.w3.org/Metadata/Activity





   <timbl> jar, [48]http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/#rec6

     [48] http://gov2.net.au/about/draftreport/#rec6

   <DanC_> that's wierd.

   <timbl> --------------------------

   <timbl> scribenick: timbl

   <DanC_> just a sec while I sync the agenda

   Noah: We have to Web App Arch slots, one now and one for the same
   time tomorrow.

   Raman: I can't make tomorrow morning PST
   ... I can make 15:00-17:00 EST

   Noah: Philippe Le Hégaret has offered to join us.

   <noah> [49]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly#Application

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly#Application

Web Application Architecture

   <noah> [50]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/content-to-apps.html

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/content-to-apps.html

   <noah> [51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921

   That is the thing which Ashok et al did, This is what JAR did

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921

   Noah: We have two documents to frame this discussion:
    1. Jonathan as revised the [52]Table of Contents for Web
       Application Architecture that was gathered at the June and Sept.
       TAG F2F Meetings.
    2. Ashok, with help from Raman and Larry, has prepared [53]From Web
       Content to Applications

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/content-to-apps.html

   Ashok: Most of this talks about how the web started as a web of
   documents, and is now turning into a web of apps.
   ... That is useful stuff, but we wanted to extract the issues
   engendered by this fundamental shift.
   ... None of us looked at Web IDL -- we didn't have the knowledge
   ... One question is, how to capture state. This is complicated.
   ... There is HTML5 work split out into Storing Client-Side State, as
   there are two specs, one SQL-based, and the other keyword/value
   ... You send in data from the user, and the app by its nature has
   lots of data. It has to be protected: it has to have policies about
   its access.
   ... The third on which Larry put up is that the Web is now more
   ... It has different sorts of user agent, different URI schemes, and
   so on. What does this imply?
   ... So those were are main pints, plus the UMP stuff -- how does UMP
   extends to multiple agents? (UMP = Uniform Messaging) [seee required
   ... The trouble is, you are going to make a request of an app, and
   the app is in fact behind many appliances. The appliances can
   communicate. WHat do we do about this data being secure, protected?

   <noah> [54]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921

   Masinter: My intent, I thought, was to elaborate some of these
   points into paragraphs.

   Masinter: Other bits still need to be done.

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to answer tbl: yes, the state of the art
   is (a) "installed stuff", including extensions and MacOS widgets and
   phone apps (b) remote code, e.g. scripts in web

   Tim: Some times will the application be downloaded by the user and
   installed and trusted, making the security situation surely much
   simpler? Like with an installed desktop app or a iPhone app

   DanC: There are two design centers. The installed code, and the web
   site script case. But they are starting to overlap in some cases.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about device APIs permissions

   TimBL: Like running Mac mail and a web version of it which try to be
   the same interface.

   Noah: If I am a smart user, then I expect there are bounds to what I
   have trusted it to do, and those bounds are being stretched, like
   with geolocation. The stickiness of the policy is where this
   happnes. Does the permission stick?

   <DanC_> (speaking of letting my browser run javascript, after
   reading crockford's writings, I installed noscript immediately. It's
   fairly painful, but the alternative is to turn my computer over to
   anybody on the internet who wants to use it for whatever purpose
   they see fit and blame it on me.)

   Noah: A huge barrier to getting people to move apps to the web, it
   asks anew whether it can have your location, which is frustrating.
   Maybe a longer term storage of the preferences would help.

   TimBL: I am surprised if these things are not remembered by web site

   Ashok: Where would that be stored? On the client or server?

   Noah: Not relevant

   DanC: In fact a Firefox extension can change that from local to

   John: A common trust model is this origin-based thing -- a (widget)
   package which is verified as coming from an origin via a signature.
   ... Another common trust model is like iGoogle -- Google gadgets are
   assembled onto a home page for you, and Google has 'vetted' the
   code: Google is the thing which you trust

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to note that code for an application might
   come from multiple un-trusting (of each other) elements

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask TBL about gmail

   John: There is a third possibility we hadn't even counted about,
   where the client is making the mashup and assembling things from
   multiple sources which may not trust each oither. A more dynamic
   situation. This involves cross-site scripting.

   Henry: Normal users do not really understand the distinction.

   TimBL: They know whether they have installed an iphone app

   Noah: GMail on the gPhone is really a web abb which behaves like an

   <noah> zaki, close the queue

   Ashok: It looks as though there are just two cases, downloaded
   [installed] app and web app. There could be a third situation.

   Henry: No, the consumer would not distinguish.

   <masinter> (a) The "WebApps" working group is working on something
   like Adobe AIR -- something that uses web technology for building
   traditional applications, where the fact that it's using web
   technology is pretty much irrelevant to the end user experience.

   <masinter> (b) I want to see if we can separate the conversation
   between mechanisms for providing security, vs. the different kind of
   user models. of course they don't match, and getting them to match
   -- is that in scope for this ?

   JAR: The problem of getting the user to connect them is them user
   programming system.

   <DanC_> ack

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask if anybody knows the state of the
   art in maybe cultural anthropology about how many brand names we can
   trust: mom, dad, my school, my town, my country,

   DanC: What is the state of the art in what we can trust?

   HT: People trust a lot.

   LM: There are people working on web apps more like adobe air, which
   is like installing an application because it gets the same

   <ht> LMM mentioned Adobe Air, Microsoft silverlight is another

   <ht> ... distributed app deployment platform

   Noah: There is a widget spec which allows you to make an installable

   Masinter: Note that Web Application can be used for either animal.

   <noah> I propose the following working terminology for use in the

   Masinter: We have mechanisms for providing security -- and user
   perception -- and we know they don't match. But that we knew.

   <noah> Web Application -> A zero-install application accessed by
   doing HTTP GET of the main page (which in turn tends to use

   Masinter: To tackle it, we would have to understand the [inherent]
   user models of security. I am not sure we are ready to deal with

   <noah> W3C Widget -> An installable application built of Web
   technologies per [55]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/

     [55] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/

   <masinter> lmm: are we ready to take on the "user model"

   <DanC_> I prefer "zero-install" and "installed".

   <masinter> -1 don't like Noah's "Web Application" definition

   Noah: I propose we use "Web Application" to mean a zero-install

   <ht> So I hear three categories: functionality running in the
   browser on the [AJAX] platform or, maybe, on browser plugins, e.g.
   Flash; functionality runninng on other metal-installed distributed
   deployment platformsl, e.g. Silverlight; and Widgets, which are
   installed but run on the [AJAX] platform

   <masinter> the line between these two things are blurry, and it's
   not clear that making categories is useful

   <ht> DC: Running is not the same as getting: when you run, you allow
   all kinds of privileges, e.g. to write all over your disk

   <masinter> why is it useful to make these categories when they are
   aspects of technology decisions with many variables which don't
   correspond to these categories, and users have trouble
   distinguishing too

   Noah: We have 45 minutes . We have no future work in the web apps
   ... . We can let this go and go back to the table of contents.

   <DanC_> (fwiw, we do have actions in the webapps area/product,
   though they're mostly about security
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/7 )

     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/7

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to underline _three_ categories

   <DanC_> (I stipulate that we _need_ to manage storage; I still don't
   _want_ to 1/2 ;-)

   TimBL: Users need to be able to see which applications are taking up
   the space on their phone, and a good UI would let a user manage that
   and decide which apps to let go in order to install another when the
   device is full

   Henry: Look at Silverlight aps -- they don't fall well into Noah's
   two categories.

   E.g OpenStreetMap: 3.46G [x] Uses location [ ] use contacts [remove]

   <DanC_> ("open standard" is orthogonal to most of the technical
   issues we've been talking about, no?)

   <johnk> plugins i) get access to platform APIs below the browser ii)
   get to "violate" the SOP

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to argue against premature categories
   as per above

   <raman> it's very hard to participate in this discussion via the

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to note that installable iPhone apps are,
   in may respects, sandboxed

   (( [...something missed here...]ways of disrupting discussions like
   this:(on webapp) 1) Widening -- "ah, but what about apps in
   general?" 2) Splitting hairs "If authorship of the data is webapp,
   is the author's address? or is that data about a person and so not
   metadata?" 3) Considering time-variance: "But isn't it not just a
   question of the webapp now, but how the webapp has changed over
   time"? 4) Let's see what happens when we look "webapp" up in the
   dictionary. 5) .. i

   wikipedia... 6) Do we really have an agreement on a definition of
   "webapp"? ))

   Raman: If you have the (Google) 'native client' plugin installed,
   you can run them locally as apps

   <DanC_> (yeah... native-client goes one way, and phonegap goes the

   Noah: I think the web app case I was talking about is fairly well
   ... Limited access to other clients, etc

   Raman: The browser sandbox is getting richer .. so the sandboxing is
   getting more powerful, so the line is blurring.

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to note that there is probably no useful
   distinction to be made between widget and "web app"

   Raman: Like web and internet being pervasive.. The net is one more
   part of the computer.

   John: I don't think there is a useful distinction between "widget"
   and "webapp". One possible distinction would be if you have separate
   decisions to make as to whether you will download it and whether you
   will run it.
   ... I am not sure it is a useful distinction.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to emphasise DC's point which I scribed above

   Henry: Categories are valuable
   ... Desktop apps can do anything

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to try to get "native-client goes one way,
   and phonegap" in a TOC or TODO list or something

   Noah: iPhone apps can only run in theor own memory, not communicate
   one to the other.

   DanC: Phonegap allows you to write HTML and JS and deploy it as an
   ... NativeClient allows you to download machine object code.

   These are existing technologies

   <DanC_> These are existing, concrete technologies that we could use
   to explain concepts to people.

   <DanC_> (IE's trust categories are, in a distant way, similar to
   noscript's trusted site lists and petnames.)

   TimBL: Maybe making up distinctions as a design point, then defining
   the properties of them (like IE did with levels of trusted sites in
   the past say) so that you can then prove what sorts of functionality
   you can get from applications in each category. Not observing a
   distinction but inventing one.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to note that W3C Widgets share things like
   device access APIs with Javascript apps running in the browser

   Noah: I am convinced by the point that proprietaryness is not an
   *architectural* concern.
   ... However, there things we W3C are responsible for as we are not
   responsible for silverlight or Flash. these are the AJAX
   ... We additionally have the widget work. With W3C Widget packaging.
   ... I am told phonegap may converge with widgets.
   ... I think the policy model will be shared by those two models.
   ... For example the geolocation API can be used from either type of
   ... I think that the policy issues are interesting in both cases.

   Raman: Also it is our responability to make sure all bits of tech
   work on the web whether or not they come from W3C.

   Ashok: If you use a webapp, the danger is that you will give it
   data. It might sell that data.

   Noah: Same for iPhone apps.

   Ashok: You will need different types of protection mechanisms,
   different types of policies.
   ... I was talking at lunch to Lalana Kagal, who is a policy person.

   <DanC_> [57]http://people.csail.mit.edu/lkagal/

     [57] http://people.csail.mit.edu/lkagal/

   Ashok: She felt that the note we sent out about policy [@@link]
   wasn't strong enough.

   <DanC_> action-318?

   <trackbot> ACTION-318 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send note to Device APIs
   and Policy (DAP) Working Group on behalf of the TAG -- due
   2009-11-20 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> [58]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/318

     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/318

   Ashok: She would like something stronger,. with an outline of
   architecture and outline of protection mechanisms.
   ... It just said "You have to have a policy" Nothing in what kind,
   where enforced, etc .. the next layer of the architecture.

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to prompt for "what are we trying to
   promote/prevent?" and to note "phonegap converge with w3c widget
   work" as perhaps something we're trying to promote

   DanC: What are we trying to promote? to prevent? Maybe we should
   promote the convergence of phonegap and w3c widget work.

   <DanC_> problem making ajax crawlable

     [59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0030.html

   <noah> I would be willing to take an action to investigate
   Phonegap/W3C Widget convergence plans

   <johnk> I think your distinction is interesting, Larry (re: which
   sandbox is used) and definitely, the issues you raise re protection
   et al are correct

   DanC: Also I wrote an email about his idea about making AJAX space
   crawlable: a mapping from a URI with an AJAX hash in it to a URI
   without an AJAX hash in it. There is a question then as to whether
   the original URI should be the one without the hash or the one with.
   There is a really broken idea of having a standard mapping from any
   URI with a hash to some equivalent/related URI without. The people
   who define such mappings don't have the right to say things about
   everyone else's URI space.

   <DanC_> (the point I'm trying to make is about squatting; i.e. who
   gets to choose which names)

   Masinter: Mainly the same except a widget as a security domain which
   is the local machine.
   ... We might be advantaged by not making the distinction at all.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say that the bit Dan talked about with
   server/client URI aliasing is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to
   see us explore, perhaps in an Arch of Web Apps.

   <DanC_> . ACTION noah to investigate Phonegap/W3C Widget convergence

   ACTION Noah to investigate possible convergence of phonegap and w3C
   widgets, by January 30

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Investigate possible convergence of
   phonegap and w3C widgets, by January 30 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due

   <DanC_> action-345 due 30 jan

   <trackbot> ACTION-345 Investigate possible convergence of phonegap
   and w3C widgets, by January 30 due date now 30 jan

   <DanC_> action-345?

   <trackbot> ACTION-345 -- Noah Mendelsohn to investigate possible
   convergence of phonegap and w3C widgets, by January 30 -- due
   2009-01-30 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [60]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/345

     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/345

   <noah> b

   <DanC_> action-345?

   <trackbot> ACTION-345 -- Noah Mendelsohn to investigate possible
   convergence of phonegap and w3C widgets -- due 2010-01-30 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [61]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/345

     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/345

   <DanC_> action-345?

   <trackbot> ACTION-345 -- Noah Mendelsohn to investigate possible
   convergence of phonegap and w3C widgets -- due 2010-01-30 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [62]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/345

     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/345

   Noah: About this trickery between client-side and server-side URIs
   .. the Google maps URIs are neat -- the server generates a map with
   URIs, but the javascript knows how tro generate permalinks to panned
   versions of the map which will work when you use them on the server
   ... This is a really useful idiom. We should promote it.
   ... In fact, if the code was really trusted, then the URI bar would
   change in real time as one pans anyway.

   TimBL: A Firefox extension is trusted like that, so Tabulator can do
   that with URIs

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask about addressbar updating

   Henry: A taxonomy or enumeration of who you are trusting when you
   perform which gestures would be interesting.
   ... When you are doing a GET then you are trusting the browser
   implementation to not do anything as a result of that get. But when
   you install something, you are trusting the source of the code you

   DanC: Browsing isn't safe. When you do a GET, in fact you can load a
   script which can do a POST. Which is broken.

   [ADJOURNED to XX:15]


HTML 5 review: ISSUE-20 (errorHandling-20): What should specifications
say about error handling?

   We start without John for the moment.

   John arrives

   Noah: This item is a combination of error handling and content

   <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 2009-12-25 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [63]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

   <DanC_> action-309?

   <trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to henry to bring back
   proposed TAG pushback on sniffing and HTTP bis draft

   -httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html, or his recommendation that we leave
   it alone -- due 2009-11-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW


   <trackbot> [65]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309


   <trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to henry to bring back
   proposed TAG pushback on sniffing and HTTP bis draft

   -httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html, or his recommendation that we leave
   it alone -- due 2009-11-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW


   <trackbot> [67]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

     [67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

   Henry: I attempetd in this email
   to get everyone up to speed. Section 3.2.1 of HTTP-bis is where we
   left our valiant hero.
   ... This has all stablized, and this is *all* the draft currently
   say about sniffing, and nothing else.

     [68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0006.html

   TimBL; When the spec says "[the receiver] MAY assume that it is
   application/octet-stream" then that does of course say much. It is a
   stream of bytes.

   Henry: It is crucial that they say that you should not override the
   given media type.

   Masinter: In the abarth draft, the introductory text is all about
   incorrectly labelled resources

   masinter: Does it say you should override the content-type

   Henry: It is careful about privilege escalation but that is *all* it
   is careful with
   ... We don't want to say "Authoritative metadata or death"

   <DanC_> +1 phrase it in terms of "risks of misrepresentation"

   Noah: Any agent which interprets data in a way inconsistent with the
   content-type risks drawing incorrect conclusions.

   Masinter: I am reluctant to ask the HTTPbis group to say more than
   they think is in scope.
   ... We might recommend changes to the mime-sniffing document.

   <DanC_> +1 getting the HTTPbis spec to cite the MIME sniffing draft

   Masinter: As that is where the main analysis.

   JAR: No "no security escalation" idea is one thing to keep. Can we
   isolate other principles?

   DanC: Like "If a lot of people do it then it must be right' :-/

   Henry: They did go against IE6

   JAR: Error correction case, whether the given content type does not
   make the document valid

   <ht> We've gone mute

   [misssed HT]

   Noah: Say what you want about existing servers -- but in many cases
   the user agent cannot distinguish betwen an error case and in fact a
   correct deployment. JAR gave a counterexample, if the bits are not
   legal for the advertized type, then you have more reason to try
   error recovery.

   Masinter: I think apple mail clients sniff too.

   JAR: Should we change the MIME registries?

   <noah> [69]http://www.noahdemo.com/rte/Metadata/broken_text.xml

     [69] http://www.noahdemo.com/rte/Metadata/broken_text.xml

   Serves as text/plain, first bytes look like XML, but in fact is not
   well formed. Renders fine in Firefox, breaks in IE6

   <jar> No, that's not what I asked. What I asked was, does anyone
   know if barth et al. considered updating lots of mime type
   registrations, INSTEAD of writing a sniffing RFC?

   <noah> Updating mime type regs to say what?

   <jar> To say whatever the Barth "sniffing rfc" draft says.

   Henry: I wonder whether they are just rewriting things which could
   not be text plain documents. If the first bit is a unicode Byte
   Order Mark, then you treat it as text/plain, and if none of the
   first N bytes are binary then you must stick with text/plain. If the
   first bytes of the resource match a magic number the see the table.
   You can promote text/plain to application/postscript

   TimBL: You can do denial of service with PS, no?

   Masinter: Apple promise PS

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to object to trapping HTML as "scriptable"
   early on when it is not necessarily.

   Henry: you can promote to zip or image

   TimBL: I'm constantly frustrated by the way my machine and its
   software deals with scriptable things. It keeps warning me about
   HTML files downloaded from the Internet or in email. Given that a
   lot of HTML doesn't have script in it, this idea that "HTML is
   scriptable" worries me.

   the machine goes to so much trouble to keep track of where things
   came from; can't it use a non-scripting viewer? Why does it assume
   that the document is dangerous rather than the viewing app?

   Jonathan: but isn't the point to get interoperability between apps
   that are going to do this [?] anyway?

   <noah> FWIW, I'd like to gradually evolve this discussion to next

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to note content security policy and to
   project the web apps product to show what actions we have

   DanC: The idea of a non-scripting viewer is interesting.
   ... The content-providers have this problem as people contribute
   HTML which should not have scripts in, and no one notices.


     [70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0063.html

   <DanC_> [71]http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Content_Security_Policy

     [71] http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Content_Security_Policy

   DanC: There is a proposal to add a feature to "please ignore all
   scripts in this.. it is our stuff but we are not sure about it".


     [72] http://people.mozilla.org/~bsterne/content-security-policy/

   <johnk> [73]https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/CSP/Spec

     [73] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/CSP/Spec

   <DanC_> [74]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

     [74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to clarify my attitude to mime-sniff

   Henry: Parenthetically, my own university allows me to publish by
   submitting an HTML body which wraps it by a wrapper I have no
   control over.

   <DanC_> ... e.g. scripts

   Henry: About the "Lowest Common Denominator" problem of tarring all
   HTML with the same brush. I don't think the current situation is the
   one we want to be in, but the current draft is the best for the
   given situation. This Barth-Hixie draft rules out the worst of the
   bad behavior, and documents the existing behaviour, so they should
   be encouraged, but so should the HTTP-bis folks, to comment on thhe
   best bits of the draft.

   scribe: We need to both warn of the risks and identify the

   John: Why in HTTP?

   Henry: Because it is the HTTP spec which specifies the content-type

   DanC, no the HTTP bis spec is not a big PR option -- but it is a
   reference to which people will fall back in their arguents.

   Henry: I will still be arguing for "SHOULD"s in there

   John: What about modularity of specifications

   Henry: They changed the spec to licence sniffing but did not say
   that if you do that you get burned.

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to rephrase my concern

   Noah: Tim brought up the idea of a non-scripting viewer... but just
   showing the data with no script running is not always what we want.
   Maybe there should be a warning?

   <DanC_> action-309?

   <trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to henry draft input to
   HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion -- due
   2009-12-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [75]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

     [75] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

   <DanC_> action-309?

   <trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to draft input to HTTP
   bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion -- due 2009-12-09 --

   <trackbot> [76]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

     [76] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

Admin: Upcoming Teleconferences ...

   <DanC_> NM: tag election ongoing...

   <DanC_> HT: ends 9 Jan

   <DanC_> NM: 4 candidates for 2 slots

   <DanC_> NM: reminder: TAG meeting 17th-19th March 2010, MIT,
   Cambridge, MA, USA

   <DanC_> NM: inclined to not schedule next ftf until election done,

   <DanC_> [agreement by silence]

   <DanC_> discussion of timing of upcoming TAG ftf w.r.t. AC

   <DanC_> someone suggests 24-26 Mar, Wed-Fri of the week of the AC

   <DanC_> better for 2 people, worse for 1

   <DanC_> ACTION: Dan to collect March 2010 W3C Team day info
   [recorded in

     [77] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-346 - Collect March 2010 W3C Team day info
   [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-15].

   <ht> [78]http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt

     [78] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt

ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50) (status check)

   <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming
   systems and associated registries for naming on the Web -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [79]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50

     [79] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50

   <DanC_> ACTION-121 due 1 Mar 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-121 HT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK
   RFC due date now 1 Mar 2010

   <DanC_> action-33 due 1 Mar 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to
   Dec 2008 F2F discussion due date now 1 Mar 2010

   <DanC_> ADJOURN (for today)

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Dan to collect March 2010 W3C Team day info [recorded
   in [80]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: jonathan discuss petname application to IRI spoofing
   in public-iri and www-tag [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: noah to follow up with Thomas about security review
   activities for HTML5 [recorded in

     [80] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

     [81] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

     [82] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [83]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([84]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/01/05 17:42:21 $

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

     [84] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


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

                                TAG f2f

09 Dec 2009


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-irc


          Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, John Kemp, Ashok Malhotra (in
          part), Larry Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jonathan Rees, Henry
          S. Thompson

          Noah Mendelsohn

          Henry S. Thompson, Jonathan Rees, Noah Mendelsohn


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Metadata Architecture (HTTP Semantics): ISSUE-57
            (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection
         2. [6]HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our
            HTML 5 review topics) etc.
         3. [7]ISSUE-50 and persistent domains
         4. [8]ISSUE-53 (genericResources-53): Generic resources
         5. [9]Web Application Architecture (ACTION-306 etc)
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   [Agenda planning. . .]

   NM: Let's try issue HttpRedirections-57

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


     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html#HttpRedire


   ... Going through the history---first two points are the origin of
   ... 1) 303s aren't supposed to be cached -- bug in 2616 -- fixed in

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0057.html

   DC: Let's endorse that fix

   LM: Not sure about that -- not prepared to endorse -- abstain

   NM: This becomes relevant because we encouraged people to use 303

   JR: Any reason not cache 303 responses?

   LM: No

   NM: draft RESOLUTION: TAG endorses the proposed change to HTTPbis to
   allow caching of 303 responses

   DC: Specific proposal is where?




   <DanC_> is this OK? "A 303 response SHOULD NOT be cached unless it
   is indicated as

   <DanC_> cacheable by Cache-Control or Expires header fields."

   JR: This is different from 307. . .

   DC: I think the HTTP spec. is usually neutral wrt caching

   JR: OK, we need to explore this further -- the difference from 307
   is worrying

   <noahm> I heard DC say HTTP was neutral in the absence of
   cache-control or expires header

   <DanC_> ACTION: jonathan to research 303 caching change in HTTPbis
   [recorded in

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-347 - Research 303 caching change in
   HTTPbis [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-12-16].

   JR: Sub-issue 2) There's a need for a non-3xx response, in order
   that the original URI stays in the status bar
   ... Unlike 302, 303 or 307, where the target goes in the address bar

   <DanC_> (researching the bug...)

   JR: This is described as a security concern

   <DanC_> (many/most purl users want the purl bookmarked, not the
   redirected addressed)

   TBL: But we really don't want that for e.g. 307, because it's only a
   temporary redirect, so people shouldn't e.g. bookmark it

   LM: The single result display in the address bar is insufficient for
   what we want to tell the user
   ... Doing UI design is inappropriate for us. . .

   JR: I agree, that's why I want to lose this part of the issue

   LM: The principle we can endorse is that the URI you see should be a
   URI you can use to get you what you see
   ... Going further to say it should be a long-term, bookmarkable,
   etc. URI is a bit fuzzier

   NM: WebArch says use one URI for a resource
   ... even when they're not going away, it can be a problem, for
   example when example.com redirects to example-1.com or example-2.com
   for load balancing

   JR: What should I do

   <jar> For all practical purposes it's impossible to get a purl.org
   URI into your bookmarks list

   DC: Let's find out why Mozilla decline to address the PURL folks'
   request to fix this, so that you could bookmark PURLs

   TBL: Flight of fancy on 303x, 303y, 303z. . .

   <DanC_> "304622 min -- All nobody RESO INVA Adding a live bookmark
   via feedview uses the location of the feed rather than the location
   given in the referring page's link element; redirects, PURLs don't
   work "

   <DanC_> maybe this is the bug

     [15] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304622

   <noahm> proposed ACTION: Jonathan to research reasons why browser
   providers (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from
   purl) to switch address bar URL following successful redirect

   <noahm> ACTION: Jonathan to research reasons why browser providers
   (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from purl) to
   switch address bar URL following successful redirect [recorded in

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-348 - Research reasons why browser
   providers (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from
   purl) to switch address bar URL following successful redirect [on
   Jonathan Rees - due 2009-12-16].

   <jar> or to not switch

   JR: 3) Rhys Lewis was working on a finding wrt httpRange-14, but
   that work stopped when the SWEO note Cool URIs for the SemWeb was
   ... I think that work should be picked up and made into a finding
   ... which would replace/elaborate the email message which currently
   stands as the resolution of httpRange-14
   ... That was the context for ISSUE-57 at its inception
   ... Additional points that have been added, are my points 4--6
   ... Latest news: AWWSW task force has reported:

   ... A number of forms for this work, of which I'm the main editor
   ... helped along by our discussion at the last f2f
   ... A lot of text to introduce one key definition:
   ... for the phrase "corresponds to", which comes from the definition
   of the 200 response code, in 2616 and HTTPbis


   LM: I wouldn't take this too seriously -- we didn't when we wrote it

   JR: We agree entirely. It's the practice which matters to actually
   pin this down

   LM: I note that this story works/should work pretty much for ftp: as

   JR: Wrt WebArch, 'representation' corresponds to 'entity' or
   'content entity'
   ... and 'represents' corresponds to 'corresponds to'

   <DanC_> LMM: the HTML spec uses 'resource' for what HTTP calls
   entity. I filed a bug; we'll see...

   LM: Note that the correspondence is at a particular instant

   JR: Yes, at a particular time

   LM: And in a particular context

   JR: It's hard to pare things down to the point where we could focus
   ... So there's now a bunch of stuff which has been moved off the
   ... Section HTTP Exchanges summarizes what we all know about GET

   DC: hmm... in pt 5, "preferably"? the server decides which resource
   the name refers to...

   JAR: but an intermediary might get confused

   DC: ah... "preferably" makes more sense for intermediaries

   TBL: 304? 307?

   JR: Yes, step 6 pbly should be clarified wrt responses other than
   ... [works through the RDF formalization]

   TBL: Why did you avoid 'representation'

   JR: Because people objected to giving a URI to something called
   'representation' a URI

   TBL: All I was concerned is to distinguish the original resource,
   identified by its URI, and the 'resource' which is some
   representation of that resource, which also may have a URI, but is
   not the same

   JR: Right
   ... correspondence is a 4-place rel'n between resource, a content
   entity, a start time and an end time

   HST: Context is richer than just time

   LM: Accept headers

   TBL: But there's still something core

   JR: I try to work breadth first

   HST: I didn't mean Accept Headers, but rather deixis, e.g.

     [18] http://localhost/

   DC: or [19]http://my.yahoo.com/

     [19] http://my.yahoo.com/

   JR: On to section "What this semantics is careful not to say"


     [20] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-05

   <masinter> vs

     [21] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-06

   LM: Server response is a speech act

   JR: Precisely -- let's look at some more recent slides
   ... How do you prove correctness of an HTTP proxy, cache, API or

   <DanC_> [22]Potatoes don't say anything


   <DanC_> bug in "Content negotiation" slide: speaks_for should be

   slide21 should have corresponds_to instead of speaks_for in conneg
   slide (21?)

   <jar> TOPLAS 1993 ?

   <DanC_> (I think of it as BAN logic)

   JR: Now make use of Abadi, Burrows, Lampson and Plotkin logic (ABLP)
   ... originally for crypto
   ... and access control

   <DanC_> (a larch formalization
   [23]http://www.w3.org/Architecture/iiir-larch/BAN.lsl based on a
   1989 SRC Research Report )

     [23] http://www.w3.org/Architecture/iiir-larch/BAN.lsl

   LM: What's good about this is precisely that it qualifies everything
   with the principal who/which/that says it

   JR: Crucial observation -- HTTP defines corresponds_to as follows:

   "example.com controls {[24]http://example.com/foo corresponds_to E}"

     [24] http://example.com/foo

   JR: The domain of "says" is principals, Non-principals don't say
   ... Not all resources are principals

   NM: Break for 15 minutes

   <jar> There are two versions of ABLP, the DEC SRC TR from 1991, and
   the TOPLAS paper from 93 or 94

   <jar> not to be confused with the earlier BAN paper from 1990, which
   overlaps in content

   NM: Resumed

   JR: [Gets to slide 12, reconstruction of httpRange-14]

   NM: So this is stronger than the original conclusion?

   JR: Yes
   ... The original 'resolution' simply constrained the range of the
   corresponds_to relation
   ... but it didn't actually address the original problem

   NM: Elaborating the "image conneg example": URI identifies a photo.
   Conneg used to retrieve either jpeg or gif. They agree up to a point
   in conveying the photo, but not completely, does the theory
   allow/explain that?

   JR: This theory as it stands isn't articulated enough to determine
   the relationship between corresponds_to and speaks_for

   NM: Good progress here, wrt httpRange-14
   ... Note that we're OK, mostly, when we ask for, say, the
   Declaration of Independence, and what we get back has some
   advertising in a sidebar
   ... and I think this can address that

   LM: I think this is very good stuff. I hope we can use it to clarify
   what is meant by Origin

   LM: The whole CORS, confused deputy, etc. debate is hampered by a
   lack of clear definition of precisely this kind of thing: what is an
   origin, a deputy, etc.

   LM: Linking SemWeb and Security would be a great thing, possibly a
   win for both sides

   NM: Great idea -- specific action?

   DC: I'd like to write this up in a different editorial style

   <timbl> Have we finished JAR's slide set?

   JR: Sure

   <timbl> ah

   JR: Connects with CAPdesk, DARPA-funded DARPAbrowser

   <noahm> The chair would very much like for Dan to propose an action
   for himself.

   <DanC_> . ACTION Dan write up speaks_for applied to httpRedirections
   and httpRange using motivating examples

   <noahm> Thank you!

   <DanC_> ACTION Dan write up speaks_for applied to httpRedirections
   and httpRange using motivating examples

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-349 - Write up speaks_for applied to
   httpRedirections and httpRange using motivating examples [on Dan
   Connolly - due 2009-12-16].

   <johnk> Pointing out Miller et al's Horton paper:

     [25] http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/horton/

   <johnk> re: "delegating responsibility in digital systems"

   <jar> JAR is babbling about Mark Miller's previous work:
   DARPAbrowser and CAPdesk (w.r.t our discussion of 307 and what's in
   the browser URI bar, etc. )

   TBL: Slides done, can we try to find a replacement for 'speaks_for'
   ... We have a URI, we get a 200
   ... Using 'speaks_for' as the relationship which relates content to
   the resource
   ... but if R is a person, the content can't 'speak_for' a person

   <DanC_> contexts in which the term gets used "a secure channel from
   Bob speaks for bob"

   TBL: that is, an entity speaking for the agent

   <masinter> you get a 200 from a server, where the server speaks for
   the person

   JR: In the old days we sent letters, and my letter did 'speak_for'
   ... No resource speaks for me, it doesn't say that

   <DanC_> (it's clear to me that offline witing is going to be more
   efficient than group discussion, but if Tim has a clear example, I'm
   interested to capture it.)

   <DanC_> i identifies Pat Hayes

   <DanC_> 2. 200 from resource identified by i

   Slide 9 appears to back Tim

   <DanC_> conjecture: 200 response speaks for Pat

   HST: Stipulate that we have a URI for Pat Hayes
   ... Then your slides appear to say that if I get a ContentEntity
   from GETting that URI
   ... that it a) corresponds_to Pat and therefore, per the
   'Controversial Axiom', that it speaks_for Pat

   JAR: would give us a reason to ask Pat not to assert such things,
   because it breaks our theory

   JR: Ah -- the ContAx isn't licensed by any existing spec.
   ... I think it's useful to explain a lot of WebArch

   TBL: So if it is, we have a reductio wrt Pat saying what he says
   about that URI

   <DanC_> phpht

   JR: Oh, yes, and, the ContAx should include server says that E
   speaks for R
   ... not E speaks for R directly

   AM: Looking at R doesn't say any s, then E doesn't (mustn't) say any

   JR: This is meant just to be a restatement of the positive direction

   AM: This says E's only role is to say what R says

   JR: Yes, that's the ContAx

   JAR: yes, advertising conflicts

   DC: I'm getting useful input, not guaranteed to end up in the same

   LM: Please try to include Origin

   DC: Not sure how, but I'll at least try.

   HT: I think perhaps there are too many levels at which entities say
   things. It's clear to me that an XML document says some things,
   because of the semantics of XML. I.e. the infoset.

   TBL: I dispute that it says those things.

   DC: I understand both positions.

   JAR: Me too.

   HT: I'm being intentionally obtuse in part to get to talking about a
   3rd party, which is the interpreter of the message. We often think
   of this as a human observing a screen, can also be listening to

   HT: It's that which ultimately says things.

   JAR: Similar to the crypto case, in which the interpreters have to
   be part of the proof system.

   <masinter> A potato says "help i'm a potato" ?

   <DanC_> (the dispute between TBL and HT is issue ISSUE-28
   fragmentInXML-28; odd that tracker considers it closed when it's
   plain that the TAG doesn't have consensus.)

   TBL: When it's RDF, what it says is what the triples it produces say

   <DanC_> (the resolution in tracker sides with Tim)

   HT: Isn't that analagous to my statement that what an XML document
   "says" is first order the Infoset, and then 2nd order the
   interpretation of those.

   TBL: No, I'm talking about the interpretation of the graph.

   HT: Ah.

   HT: What I [originally] scribed is wrong when I attributed to TBL
   "what it says is the triples it produces"; should have scribed "what
   it says is what the triples it produces say"

   NM: good progress here, great work JR
   ... DC is going to try to restate/elaborate

   <DanC_> action-201?

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW
   discussions -- due 2009-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

   <DanC_> . action-201 due 15 Mar 2010

   [procedural discussion]

   <DanC_> action-201 due 15 Mar 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date
   now 15 Mar 2010

   TBL: I'd like to see some interaction with the Tabulator work

   <DanC_> ACTION-116 due 31 Dec 2009

   <trackbot> ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with
   the vocabulary in the rules
   [27]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
   either as needed. due date now 31 Dec 2009

     [27] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules

   <noah> ACTION-201 Due 2 March 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date
   now 2 March 2010

   LM: Could we have used a Link Header in a 404 response?

   JR: Yes

   LM: But not a link in the body of 404 document itself?

   DC: No

   LM: But I like the idea of having links in the body, because you can
   have lots of them

HTML 5 review: References to versioned specs (#15 in our HTML 5 review
topics) etc.


     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html


     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

   <noah> This is in relation to ACTION-303

   AM: Doesn't this allow me to just support an earlier version?

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about problems with >requiring<
   future proofing

   HST: The 'earliest appropriate' sentence is meant to rule that out.
   ... Maybe that needs to be stronger

   NM: I have a long history of interest in this
   ... I like this as a goal for many circumstances
   ... But there are cases where it doesn't work
   ... The XML 1.1 experience is illustrative in this case
   ... So we shouldn't require this kind of future-proofing of
   ... Specifically in terms of systems which are involved in

   <DanC_> +1 "should future-proof" is too strong. The simple case of
   citing a frozen spec is fine in many cases

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to wonder whether it is confusing to
   combine conformance and referencing behaviour in one statement

   <noah> Seeing where you're going, Henry, unless new editions >never<
   allow for new content, I think my concern stands.

   JK: Conformant implementations? Should that be separated from what
   is referenced? Trying to pack too much in?

   <noah> Or maybe I'm not guessing right as to what your
   concern/suggestion will be.

   JK: How references are written is different from what is a
   conformant implementation

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask for a reminder of a specific case
   we're particularly interested in... it was somewhere in the HTML 5
   references, yes?

   DC: There was a specific case wrt the HTML 5

   <masinter> think IETF tradition is to make the 'future proofing'
   more part of general policy than being specific in each draft. A1
   references B1. When B2 updates B1, implementations of A1 may or may
   not follow B2

   HT: As it stands, there are only stubs in the HTML 5 references.

   DC:HT: No.

   HT: Last I looked. E.g. following link from content-sniffing you got
   something that just said content sniffing.

   <DanC_> [30]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/references.html#references

     [30] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/references.html#references

   <noah> We pause to read HTML 5 references section....

   HT: Ah, it's better than it was.

   DC: So if we pushed on any of these, we would pbly find the editor
   would have a reason

   HT: E.g. the text in the references says "[CSS] Cascading Style
   Sheets Level 2 Revision 1, B. Bos, T. Celik, I. Hickson, H. Lie.
   W3C, April 2009.", but links the undated copy.

   HST: So what does it mean for an implementor? Specifically,
   implementors 5 years from now have to figure out what was meant.
   We're trying to fix that.

   <Zakim> TBL, you wanted to point out that anyone using this language
   assumes there is a contract with future working groups to maintain
   the operability of the referencing spec, when

   TBL: If you propose we use the present and the future -- why not
   earlier ones?
   ... As for the future, that depends on the sort of WG and the sort
   of spec.
   ... If the group doesn't commit to back compatibility, you can't
   rely on it

   <masinter> Is the distinction between "edition" and "version"

   TBL: You might try to negotiate a commitment from the WG that they
   won't change. . .
   ... Or you might just require people to check

   <masinter> Can distinction between "technical specification" and
   "applicability statement" be useful? "applicability statement" calls
   out specific dated versions, while general "technical specification"
   doesn't? Two documents, one of which updates.

   TBL: So it's not clear that we can go with what you propose

   LM: I like the difference between edition and version
   ... We used to differentiate between applicability statements and
   language specs.
   ... So you would only have to update the appl. statement

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to reply to Noah wrt editions vs. versions

   LM: Alternatively, you could have policy outside the doc. altogether

   NM: You haven't addressed my concern, because it wasn't lack of
   back-compat that broke the XML 1.1 situation

   HT: The response to Noah and Tim is to say "yes, all those
   criticisms apply to unrestricted blank checks" (leaving aside for a
   sec refs to older versions), by relying on the W3C Policy for
   Edtions (stepping gently around XML 1.1/10 5th edition in
   particular), is precisely because it makes this plausible.

   NM: Do new editions allow new content?

   HT: Yes.

   NM: Then I still have a problem. See problems deploying XML 1.0 5th
   edition. A sometimes inappropriate (depending on the specs)
   expectation is created that implementations that haven't been
   updated will support new content sourced by those that have been.

   JR: Conformance to a spec. that has a variable in it is
   intrinsically vague

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to consider classes of comforming
   implementations (conforming to various combinations of specs)

   JR: So there's a time-sensitivity wrt the answer to "does this

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to mention that there can be issues with
   3rd party specs.

   NM: TBL mentioned SOAP in passing

   [AM leaves]

   NM: SOAP wasn't sure about supporting XML 1.1
   ... It depended on the Infoset, and we weren't sure that even if we
   went to XML 1.1, the Infoset would have been well-future-proofed
   enough for it all to hold together
   ... So in some ways, my willingness to future-proof my references
   depends on other specs also being well future-proofed

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask how can we apply henry'd text to
   the specific issue noted?

   HST: Yes, we have a real case of this with XML 1.0 5e and XML NS 3e

   JK: Addressing dated prose in conjunction with an undated URI is
   separate from future-proofing?

   LM: My assumption is that the dated ref. is normative

   <jar> If dated spec A normatively cites undated spec B, and artifact
   Z conforms to A - what does that mean? Maybe: (1) it conforms to
   A(B(t)) for some t, or (2) it conforms to A(B(t)) for all t, or (3)
   if conforms to A(B(t)) for t >= now

   DC: Hidden URIs are less significant

   <DanC_> (editorially I like including the full, dated URI in a
   citation, but I much prefer using the document title as the link

   HST: Jonathan attempted to answer John. I agree as far as it goes
   but want to go further. You're right, I was trying to address two
   problems: 1) dated vs. undated refs conflict, and BTW some peoples'
   styles to make the URI explict...
   ... there are many variations on that 2) usually, all that people
   tend to say is by grouping into normative and non-normative. It's
   rare for the conformance section to clarify what is meant by making
   a reference normative.

   <noah> FWIW, Dan, though it's clunky, I tend to feel that making
   both live links, to the same URI, is the least bad approach.

   <jar> the normative reference speaks for the spec that refers to it

   <DanC_> (oh... and I don't like "available at"; I consider the
   semantics "identified by", and I leave it implicit)




   <noah> Queue is open only for next steps discussion

   DC: I asked the HTML 5 editor to add 'work in progress' to links to
   documents which identify themselves as work in progress
   ... The response was 'busywork'

   NM: I don't think this can go further unless my concerns and maybe
   TBL's are addressed

   <DanC_> (aha! found some work I did in this area:

   'formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t.
   recent TAG versioning terminology' )

     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136

   JR: I thought restricting to editions was good enough

   TBL: I had missed that HST meant to constrain to editions, that
   satisfies me

   <noah> What I have in mind is something along the lines of:

   <noah> The TAG believes that this is good practice in many cases,
   but not in all. We recognize that, particularly in cases where no
   assurance is given that future editions won't support use of new
   (I.e. previously invalid) content, the advice given here may be

   <DanC_> I think the short para HT proposed is "too clever by half";
   it'll only be an effective communication if it recapitulates
   critical parts of the edition policy

   <DanC_> also, I want to make it clear that it's not the only
   "template" we endorse by providing more than one template; e.g.
   another one for really frozen, dated specs
   . ACTION: Henry to revise

   /0002.html based on feedback on www-tag/html-comments, and the
   feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion


   <jar> whether in practice the "edition" process as specified and
   executed is sufficient to protect investment is something I'm not
   qualified to answer. it sounds as if it would be, as specified, if
   followed, but haven't checked...

   <DanC_> close action-303

   <trackbot> ACTION-303 Draft text on writing references closed

   <DanC_> close action-304

   <trackbot> ACTION-304 Write up issue around normative references to
   particular versions of specs closed

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to revise

   based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f
   2009-12-09 discussion [recorded in

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-350 - Revise

   based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f
   2009-12-09 discussion [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-16].

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

   <johnk> [37]http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/horton/

     [37] http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/horton/

   <DanC_> Miller et. al.

   NM: Adjourned for lunch.

   Note: the lines below, up to the announcement that the meeting is
   "resuming", are in response to informal requests that were made
   during breaks for information about certain recent Microsoft
   announcements. These were not discussed during the formal meeting

   <timbl> [38]http://pinpoint.microsoft.com/en-US/Dallas

     [38] http://pinpoint.microsoft.com/en-US/Dallas

   <noah> Tim, if you're interested in Microsoft's Dallas, it was
   introduced at their developer's conference a couple of weeks ago.
   You can go to the transcript of the keynote at

   and look for the word "Dallas". The video of the keynote, with
   demos, is at


     [39] http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/ozzie/2009/11-17pdc.mspx


   <noah> You can use the transcript to find the right place in the

   NM: Resuming.

   <masinter> I believe the TAG asked me to review widget:

   <masinter> I did so

   <masinter> the webapps working group replied

   <masinter> i answered their replies this morning

   <masinter> if the TAG would like to review the correspondence and
   chime in later, then we don't need to take up meeting time here. If
   you'd like, I can go over what I think the open issues are.


     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/

   <masinter> see "Comment on Widget IRI" messages

   (still working on the agenda)

   <noah> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda.html

ISSUE-50 and persistent domains

   <timbl> [43]http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PersistentDomains

     [43] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PersistentDomains

   close action-311

   <trackbot> ACTION-311 Schedule discussion of a persistent domain
   name policy promotion closed

   timbl: Above link is old, but background
   ... Argument against using http: URIs as names, is that DNS doesn't
   socially support you. The domain name is rented, not owned.
   ... One proposal, if it's broken, fix it.
   ... DNS was controlled by IETF, ICANN, and it being up for rent was
   assumed a good idea
   ... now the dangers are becoming known.
   ... All the white house pages disappeared when the administration
   changed (e.g.)

   danc: (asks about how that example bears...)

   <masinter> points to [44]http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf


     [44] http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

   timbl: Many companies put up things that people would like to find

   danc: There is a third-party business around finding things like

   <DanC_> (I don't see how domains would help in either of the
   supposedly-motivating cases timbl just gave)

   timbl: Anyhow. One way to tackle is to make a new TLD that has
   different rules
   ... You might use it for archivable web pages , under a set of rules
   ... concerning transfer of rights to other entities so that pages
   can continue to stay live

   <masinter> points to [45]http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html and
   previous version

     [45] http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html

     [46] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-05

   timbl: there might be a pot of $ to pay for this
   ... Problem is to design a social system, maybe as a DNS play, or by
   setting up a consortium

   <masinter> points to whitehouse.gov

   timbl: Suggesting that to help make this happen, the TAG could write
   a finding advocating it

   ashok: These would be *unalterable* pages?

   timbl: To be determined

   ashok: Can you then sell something in this archive space?

   timbl: What transfers is responsibility - not any right to change

   jar: It's a contract with the public

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to suggest a workshop

   ht: There are many design points. We could spend time talking about
   ... I wonder is for the TAG to host a workshop before we write a
   finding, to scare up a representation of the interested parties
   ... a new TLD is a problem for existing URIs that are supposed to
   have persistent resolution
   ... but might be worth paying the cost
   ... Another way to go is to talk ICANN into a process around
   existing domains & persistence

   <DanC_> (ah.. that would be better... a way for any domain to get
   permanent status, sorta like 501(c)3 )

   ht: Can we get theorists, library community, other constituencies
   together to talk
   ... How about a workshop?

   <DanC_> +1 workshop

   <masinter> points out talks from previous 1999 workshop on Internet
   Scale naming

   <noah> Wondering whether cost/logistics would work out for workshop
   proposal. If so, seems appealing, but not sure whether we can get

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to note that it's not any more broken that
   it could/should be. New domains are not going to get companies to
   keep their product manuals online or stop the

   danc: Tim's examples didn't motivate a TLD for me...
   ... Giving more visible to best practices is a good idea though
   ... There's a running business that does endowed web publication

   ht: I haven't found any reference to DNS insurance

   danc: There are journals like PLoS that charge authors because they
   agree to host the content in perpetuity
   ... you pay once, it's there forever

   noah: (pokes fun at this)

   <ht> [47]http://www.arkhold.org/

     [47] http://www.arkhold.org/

   danc: The White House doesn't have the URI persistence ethic

   <masinter> points to "This American Life" story about a cyrogenics
   firm which promised perpetual freezing:

     [48] http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1239

   masinter: Points to 1999 workshop "problems URIs don't solve"

   <masinter> points to [49]http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf


     [49] http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

   masinter: Organizations split. They merge. They go out of business.
   Sub-sites move. Countries disappear.
   ... In perpetuity has to be around content, not just names
   ... People will look to organizations like archive.org for long-term
   resolvable names

   <timbl> ./me quickly runs a script to change all the links in all
   his HTML to point to an internet archive version of the URL just in

   masinter: Getting a guarantee is not the same thing as getting a
   credible guarantee

   <masinter> points to [50]http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html and
   previous version

     [50] http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html


     [51] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-05

   lm: would like advice on how to progress with these two projects
   ... duri = dated URI, guarantees persistent reference, but
   resolution may be tricky

   <timbl> I wonder whether "that described by" is one word in Latin

   lm: still puzzled about this approach

   danc: Use cases?

   lm: tdb: has an optional date... actually two of them, when the
   resource was read, and when it was interpreted

   danc: I've never seen a situation where the complexity of duri: is

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say that the TLD with persistent
   assignment seems very appealing, restricting the owner's ability to
   alter the pages doesn't. Seems best approached as an

   danc: The URI scheme space is high price real estate, so better to
   do as an RDF property for those who are happy to use RDF

   noah: Something was said about locking down the content, Tim

   timbl: source code repository with version control

   <masinter> 1999 workshop:

     [52] http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/

   noah: What about perpetual ownership of name - should be orthogonal
   to an obligation to preserve
   ... Preservation of content should be more granular

   ashok: Who will host all this stuff? Not a private company, which
   can go away.

   timbl: A consortium of libraries.

   ht: Replication is the only assurance of permanence
   ... This is a huge design space.

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask what is the incentive for someone
   to use duri and if not sufficient incentive, and not all using them,
   wouldn't we still have the problems described by

   johnk: This is a social problem. Not sure we can solve this. All of
   the institutions and agreements go away.
   ... Not sure this is web architecture

   timbl: We need to kick it from the technical into the social

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention transparency

   <masinter> points to [53]http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Home

     [53] http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Home

   johnk: There's no technical solution here

   <DanC_> yes, lockss is great work in this space

   <noah> Heads up: before Dan goes, I want to remind everyone that we
   should switch to generic resources within 5+ mins

   ht: Footnote: The motivation for things like tdb: and wpn: was
   transparency, so that you can tell by looking at a URI that it named
   a non-information-resource (not sure i still believe that)
   ... One component is a board of trustees with the power to wind it
   all up (e.g. if there were no web, at some future time)

   <masinter> points to
   [54]http://larry.masinter.net/0603-archiving.pdf for long-term
   archiving also (and see references)

     [54] http://larry.masinter.net/0603-archiving.pdf

   ht: The digital curation people worry about: Where do the resources
   come from to carry resources forward (e.g. archaic disks)

   timbl: lots of ways for accessibility to fail

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to push back: why should IBM get "ibm.com"
   in perpetuity without giving back to the commons/community a
   persistence promise (e.g. re content of homepage) and to

   ht: Aim for June?

   <noah> suggest phrasing, "perhaps in June"

   <DanC_> ACTION Henry to look into a workshop on persistence...
   perhaps the June 2010 timeframe

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-351 - Look into a workshop on
   persistence... perhaps the June 2010 timeframe [on Henry S. Thompson
   - due 2009-12-16].

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask who gets "att.com" when AT&T is
   broken up into baby bells, lucent, etc.

   lm: recommends references in the long term archiving paper (see

   <DanC_> ... esp the references

   <noah> NM: To be clear, I think persistence of name assignment
   should be attacked (mostly) separately from encouraging providers of
   content to provide that content in perpetuity and/or to make it

   <DanC_> action-312?

   <trackbot> ACTION-312 -- Jonathan Rees to find a path thru the specs
   that I think contradicts Dan's reading of webarch -- due 2009-12-01

   <trackbot> [55]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/312

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/312


     [56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0061.html

   JAR:The email I sent on Monday was sort of "camouflaged"

   JAR: In a sense, some people are trying to say, 'I can prove I need

   JAR: I was trying to set that down more rigorously.

   JAR: I want to relate it to the formalism I've been building.

   <DanC_> close action-312

   <trackbot> ACTION-312 Find a path thru the specs that I think
   contradicts Dan's reading of webarch closed

   <DanC_> action-121 due 15 Mar 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-121 HT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK
   RFC due date now 15 Mar 2010

   <DanC_> action-121 due 2 Mar 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-121 HT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK
   RFC due date now 2 Mar 2010

   <DanC_> action-33 due 20 Dec

   <trackbot> ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to
   Dec 2008 F2F discussion due date now 20 Dec

ISSUE-53 (genericResources-53): Generic resources


     [57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0069.html

   masinter: I drafted replacement text
   ... "how to use conneg" explanation for HTTPbis




   danc: Don't see any text about how the representations relate to one

   <noah> BTW, the "problems" with the tag-weekly.html version of the
   agenda seem to be due to slow response by W3C servers. The
   tag-weekly.html version now appears to match the dated version.


     [59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0077.html

   masinter: sentence about server's purposes needs to be added.
   re-open action

   danc: This is what the speaks_for slide in the presentation is
   about... if representations contradict, it's incoherent
   ... How about striking "for its purposes"

   lm: "for the purposes of this communication"

   <DanC_> +1


   noah: (making another point about attribution)
   ... determining, for the purposes of this communication, which

   <noah> Note that the supplier of representations (or choices) has
   the responsibility of determining, for purposes of this
   communication, which representations might be considered to be the

   <noah> I don't like "considered to be the same".

   <DanC_> how about: considered to give the same information

   noah: The spec already says entity corresponds to resource
   ... Two representations each have the responsibility to correspond
   ... so nothing else needs to be said.

   <masinter> change "might be considered 'the same'" to "might be
   considered to represent the same information'

   DanC: That's the bug we're trying to fix.

   <noah> Not convinced.

   noah: Saying "corresponds to" is enough

   <masinter> the proposed text in

   .html uses "represent"


   johnk: You're saying two things. Do we want to make the second
   statement, that the conneg reps have to sufficiently resemble one
   another (or something similar)?

   <noah> There is already an obligation that each representation
   correspond. It will tend to be the case that multiple
   representations of a (an immutable) resource will tend to have
   interpretations that are in some ways similar, perhaps extremely
   similar, but the archicture should not rule out, e.g. a B&W gif and
   a color jpeg of very different resolution.

   lm: Different ways to represent "the same information" (quoting lm's
   email 763)
   ... I infelicitously said "same representations" when I should have
   said "represent the same information"

   noah: There are enough weasel words
   ... good that we're talking about representing the same information

   <noah> I.e. to make me happy

   lm: And the server has responsibility.

   <DanC_> action-231?

   <trackbot> ACTION-231 -- Larry Masinter to draft replacement for
   \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec -- due 2009-11-18 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [61]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/231

     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/231

   <DanC_> action-231 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\"
   stuff in HTTP spec due date now next week

   (consensus around give or represent the same information)



Web Application Architecture (ACTION-306 etc)

   noah: Let's see if we can get organized for a more comprehensive
   approach, or find a whole that's greater than the sum of the parts
   ... The TOC is broader in the topic coverage than it might be
   ... maybe look at the form of our products in this area

   ashok: From what we spoke about yesterday, it seemed there were many
   differences between various people think about web apps
   ... I thought: web app = you are working with several communicating
   ... but maybe some people thought it was an app running on a server
   [with sessions]

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to project the web app product next to the
   outline, and to suggest (a) invited presentations or other
   get-togethers and (b) looking at relevant wikipedia pages

   ashok: In the first case, authorization etc are big issues. In 2nd
   case, security issues go away

   danc: I was looking at PhoneGap and Native Client [see previous
   ... Inviting any of those folks to talk to us would be a good thing
   ... Let's look at wikipedia pages related to security, web apps,
   widgets, etc
   ... The idea is to inform the developer community; a lot of people
   end up at wikipedia
   ... Maybe contributing to wp might be a way to help
   ... (brainstorming)

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask for / suggest criteria etc

   JAR: I agree with Ashok's comment about Web applications, and
   assumed we were talking about the distributed case.

   JAR: I assumed it involved The Common Man in the Street (TCMITS).

   JAR: Regarding the TOC, it was a brain dump, first developed by the
   group together, and then refined by me. What I'm missing are
   criteria. Some sort of structure or philosophy that would guide us.

   <noahm> NM muses: maybe the criteria include: 1) architectural
   issues you would not get right based on what's been set out for the
   Web of documents and 2) clarifying points of confusion Goal: show
   that it's, in the end, one consistent, scalable architecture
   integrating documents and apps.

   JAR: Consider, e.g., why a specific programming language wasn't
   chosen for the Web. It was deemed desirable to have competition
   there. Maybe there's a winner now (Javascript.) Anyway, what do we
   want to make the same, and what different?

   noah: We don't talk about how you use oracle, that's an
   implementation detail

   <DanC_> (I dunno how conscious it was that javascript happened when
   it happened... there was talk of active content back in 1990. tcl
   and such. not to mention display postscript.)

   <johnk> well, and you have XSLT with XML and CSS too I guess

   noah: Things like cross-origin security, how to use URIs right -
   those things are in scope
   ... What happens inside server is not in scope
   ... typed possible criteria into IRC (above)
   ... clarify confusion around e.g. AJAX, or say how to apply old
   story in new situations
   ... to what extent is google maps one application, vs. a very large
   number of maps? ... more than just a document

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to respond to ashok

   timbl: Even though mapping software allows you to display many
   overlays, this is always done in code. But with calendars - you can
   control calendar view, how they're stacked / displayed - that's
   richer than what you can do with maps

   <DanC_> (hmm... I wonder if KML is sufficient.)

   <noahm> I think that talking about proper use of URIs when you're
   composing layers might be interesting

   <DanC_> (... to get maps to work, like calendars, in various

   <noahm> Ah, when Tim says music, he's thinking more iTunes than

   <noahm> [62]http://www.sibelius.com/home/index_flash.html

     [62] http://www.sibelius.com/home/index_flash.html

   timbl: Music: iTunes maybe - other applications - multidimensional
   access / view. Key point is you're looking at more than one document
   at a time

   timbl: When you pull in the data you have to be clever. E.g. you're
   looking for photos tagged x. Client would do a query to get the
   photos of interest

   <DanC_> (it's really a drag that the Zakim queue isn't a UI feature,
   e.g. integrated with the list of names in the channel. So many times
   I'm this close >< to writing an ajax-based front end to


   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to say that it was part of web arch in

   johnk: Want to push back on jar's idea that webarch didn't address
   programming / application layer
   ... For last TAG meeting I tried to draw a parallel between local
   web browser vs. javascript ... original web arch did deal with

   timbl: For example, you could have faceted browsing using forms
   ... javascript model just moves data/code onto the client

   johnk: Phone's IP address isn't public, but a server [once it knows
   address] can call back to the phone to perform actions
   ... would like to address that applications are distributed in some
   way [holds up piece of paper]

   johnk: Here are some models. 1. server & client, server assembles a
   widget, client GETs widget, does a software install
   ... interesting thing is 2 trust decisions. 1. Install? 2. Run?
   ... side case: What is difference between this and native client, or
   ... again you have 2 trust decisions, except that (maybe) app is
   given more power

   ashok: Model: app stays on server ---

   johnk: I'm not done. Case 2. For example, in iGoogle (?), Google
   says all this content is sanctioned by Google
   ... Client does a GET, trust decision is: Install + run? (as one
   ... ashok: How different from widget case?
   ... Both in one step.

   noah: (something about cookies vs. user ids)
   ... Reserve the word "install" for ...

   johnk: Case 3: Site A has a document, with content that calls out to
   site B (Fedex and airline)
   ... Fedex has document that calls out to airline
   ... (2nd example) Amazon is in control, compiles the content
   ... Cross-site case. there are trust decisions in both directions

   danc: Line from amazon to fedex - ?

   johnk: Not saying this is deployed in a reasonable way, just

   Case 4: Client accesses both Amazon and Fedex

   scribe: the client does the mashup

   danc: e.g. tabulator
   ... We're trying to get a feel for case 4

   timbl: Tabulator is a browser extension

   danc: What's a good example?

   timbl: If you look up me, it pulls up information from wikipedia

   danc: No, where the *user* chose both sites?

   timbl: What people have we seen?

   danc: The interesting difference is that in case 4, the user chooses
   the sources to be combined. It's not one server referring the user
   to another.

   timbl: Consider two people on twitter, each with a bunch of tweets.

   <DanC_> (might have been nice if tim had drawn a separate thingy
   rather than erasing 4. oh well.)

   timbl: Storage of the data is separate from the...
   ... Suppose tweets are to be readable by my friends
   ... when someone pulls in tweets, it's because they're in the group
   ... tabulator code is completely trusted by C. Runs with user's

   <DanC_> (hmm... this speaks_for exercise might be an interesting way
   to look closely at OpenID phishing risks... and to explore my
   intuition that OAuth is sorta kerberos-shaped)

   johnk: The user has to decide to download the twitter app, and ...?

   timbl: No, it's in the cloud

   (scribe not quite getting it)

   timbl: Separate decisions about where to store their data, vs.
   [something about the app]

   johnk: (End of 4 cases as diagrammed on piece of paper and then on
   the whiteboard)
   Photo of what John wrote on the white board

   [63](timbl takes photo)

     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/WhiteboardDec9.jpg

   johnk: web server provider / consumer issues coming out of SOAP work

   ashok: There are several trust decisions... made by the *user*

   johnk: brainstorming...
   ... The site is also making some decisions for you

   <DanC_> . ACTION: John integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose
   document about ways to distribute applications

   ashok: In case 2, where igoogle pulls in stuff for you, there's the
   question of state

   johnk: Yes, in all 4 cases

   <DanC_> ACTION: John integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose
   document about ways to distribute applications [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-352 - Integrate whiteboard drawings into a
   prose document about ways to distribute applications [on John Kemp -
   due 2009-12-16].

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to ask about use of core mechanisms like
   URIs in the Tim use case

   noah: Tim's use case was about making maps much better. You go out
   and say 'tell me about this area'

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to look at the list of install-time
   capabilities/permissions in the W3C widgets spec and to note
   [65]http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#feature seems to have no

     [65] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#feature

   (timbl recessing himself)

   danc: List of install capabilities in widget spec - seems dangerous
   to standardize this
   ... "This is xxx and it wants to look at your contacts list"

   (timbl back)

   danc: Can't find an actual starter list of particular permissions /
   capabilities - seems good to not standardize, but seems bad because
   not tested
   ... Lets you sprinkle open dust on your distributed system

   noah: We're no worse off. Let the market deal with it

   johnk: Symbian has a specific list of caps that the OS gives you

   <DanC_> I'm fairly satisfied with using URI space as a marketplace
   of features, if it works out that way

   masinter: Issue of versioning APIs, registries comes up repeatedly
   ... the problem becomes much worse regarding what might be available
   on the device

   <DanC_> but yeah... if everybody pretends to support
   hundred-pound-gorrila.com/featurex , then that sucks

   masinter: "are you a Symbian phone"? is the wrong question. "do you
   support geolocation?"

   noah: If you have an ordinary web page, it asks, can I call the
   geoloc API?
   ... or, in the install process, the question gets asked at install
   ... phonegap either does or doesn't give you a good answer

   danc: The premise of the w3c widget spec is that you could have a
   w3c widget store
   ... The 100-pound gorilla phenomenon is still a risk
   ... ... little guys will be disenfranchised

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to ask about use of core mechanisms like
   URIs in the Tim use case

   lm: If you want to name it with the name of the implementation, it's
   hard to extend, or you run into trademark problems

   danc: It's in CR (widget packaging & config)

   noah: If they want to write a great iphone app this is a dumb way to
   do it

   lm: The failure hasn't happened because the 2 years haven't passed
   (you name a capability by the implementation, and there's no
   extensibility story, then within 2 years you'll have kludges)

   jar: +1 to LM

   <noahm> I'm not convinced we're seeing that problem is happening.

   danc: The spec says, URIs go here

   <noahm> I'm sympathetic to watching for this trouble happening; I'm
   unenthusiastic about getting the TAG all geared up about this until
   we see trouble brewing.

   danc: The install time ritual says, this app wants to look at x, y,

   <johnk> +1 to Noah

   danc: The spec only says put URIs here
   ... Maybe there will be a marketplace... but maybe the gorilla gets
   in there, and everyone else has to pretend to be the gorilla

   noah: It's not the user-agent string case

   danc: No, not interestingly different

   <noahm> I'm not convinced it's underspecified.

   lm: If there's part of a spec that's underspecified, and that part
   need specifications for interoperability, we (TAG) could say so

   <johnk> I think the basis for the widget spec is exactly _for_

   timbl: Expecting that probably , there will be the equivalent of a
   mime type registry

   <noahm> I think there will be much more diversity here than for mime

   timbl: current frame, focal length, lots of profiles to talk
   about... w3c may get involved

   noah: The tough thing is there's lots of innovation going on...
   would have been bad for standardization to rule out multitouch
   ... the fact that it's a URI is good

   <DanC_> (given that the players in this space seem to be acting in
   good faith, I'm ok to accept the 100-pound-gorrilla name-mangling
   risk; I'm OK to hope for a healthy market)

   lm: I don't want a solution, I just want to ask the question: What
   is the migration path e.g. from one pointer to two?

   danc: Maybe people will come to W3C to get a URI?

   lm: We'd like to see, if they have a solution, let's get it
   documented better. If not, let's work on one.

   <DanC_> Larry, if you want an action, you can pretty much always
   assign yourself one. or you can nominate somebody.

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to ask about use of core mechanisms like
   URIs in the Tim use case and to talk about innovation vs.
   standardizatoin in this space and to ask about use of core

   lm: Not sure I want to engage widget folks again

   noah: The maps could be more sophisticated... (that's what Tim was
   saying...) telling a story about naming and identity is important.
   Is there agreement on when to mint a URI, how much client/server
   AJAX flexibility is, who knows what the URIs are. Very interesting
   area to work.
   ... TAG story: identity, interaction, formats

   danc: Identity per noah is a big story

   (scribe hears "semantics" when noah says "identity")

   noah: Portals ...

   <DanC_> DanC: it's interesting to me in that it includes/subsumes
   the concern I have about "proposal to make ajax crawlable". If
   success can be less than the whole thing, I'm all for it.

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that for that class of application
   (map, iTune, document mgt, iPhoto, calendar, timelines, etc) there
   typically are *not* URIs for the total view.

   <noahm> Are not and should not be, or are not but there should be?

   timbl: Noah asked, do people make up URIs for the views?
   ... Not in general.
   ... If so, the URIs get big.
   ... Tabulator students took a sparql query to encode a view.
   ... When URIs get too big, they invent a data format.

   (jar promises to be brief)

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to talk about the US civil war and to talk
   about sparql-over-GET + tinyurl

   JAR: In nearly every part of this discussion, I see us dancing
   around, meaning, inference, and contracts.

   JAR: Want to encourage people to look at OWL, which is the W3C
   technology in the inference space (and it's very nice)

   DC: there's a consortium of URL shortening companies

   noah: I said, identification is something we could profitably work

   jar: 'Identification' is meaningless without meaning / inference

   (discussion of agenda)

   jar: re OWL, e.g. a specification induces a class of conforming
   entities. that's DL. one of many possible applications.

   <noahm> . ACTION: Noah to do just a bit of work framing some issues
   around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged maps use
   case) Due 20 January 2009

   johnk: Approach of starting with 3 pillars of webarch is good

   <noahm> ACTION: Noah to do just a bit of work framing some issues
   around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged maps use
   case) Due 20 January 2009 [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-353 - Do just a bit of work framing some
   issues around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged
   maps use case) Due 20 January 2009 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due

   jar: spec / interface naming /v ersioning is one good focus,
   security is another

   danc: Minions, please check client side storage design and look for
   architectural issues

   ashok: web databases?

   danc: yes

   <DanC_> . ACTION ashok 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

   <DanC_> ACTION ashok 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

   <trackbot> Created 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 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2009-12-16].

   johnk: I could try to map AWWW section on interaction to parts of
   webapps TOC that seem related

   noah: Interesting, but how about look at interaction story in webapp
   & findings, and ask: could I tell the Ajax story?

   johnk: Yes, I was trying to be more specific, but that's the idea

   <noahm> . ACTION john to explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications

   <noahm> ACTION john to explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
   due: 2 Feb 2010

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-355 - Explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
   due: 2 Feb 2010 [on John Kemp - due 2009-12-16].

   <noahm> ACTION-355 = john to explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications

   <noahm> ACTION-355: john to explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications

   <trackbot> ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
   due: 2 Feb 2010 notes added

   <DanC_> action-355 due 2 feb 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and
   associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
   due: 2 Feb 2010 due date now 2 feb 2010

   lm: Do we have an exit strategy for ISSUE-50?
   ... The goal of Henry's action is to close the issue, right?

   all: yes

   Adjourned until 0900 2009-12-10

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to revise

   based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f
   2009-12-09 discussion [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: John integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose
   document about ways to distribute applications [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: jonathan to research 303 caching change in HTTPbis
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to research reasons why browser providers
   (e.g. Mozilla) aren't willing to meet requests (e.g. from purl) to
   switch address bar URL following successful redirect [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to do just a bit of work framing some issues
   around identification for Ajax apps (remembering the merged maps use
   case) Due 20 January 2009 [recorded in

     [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [73]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([74]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/01/05 17:42:53 $

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

     [74] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


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

                     W3C TAG Meeting in Cambridge

10 Dec 2009


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc


          NM, TBL, JK, AM, LMM, JAR, DC, HT, Philippe



          masinter, DC


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]HTML 5 review: ISSUE-54: Default Prefix Declaration
         2. [6]HTML 5 review: HTML WG status update
         3. [7]HTML 5 review: issue-54: review of Microsoft's
            namespaces in HTML 5 proposal
         4. [8]HTML 5 review: Authoring guide/language spec
         5. [9]Admin: scribe duties, agenda review
         6. [10]Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-62
            (UniformAccessToMetadata-62): Uniform Access to Metadata
         7. [11](xmlFunctions-34 / ISSUE-34): XML Transformation and
            composability (e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption)
         8. [12]HTML versioning change proposal
         9. [13]HTML media type and pre-HTML 5 content
        10. [14]Widget URI Scheme
        11. [15]Closing remarks, thanks to the host
        12. [16]Postscript: bulk action review
     * [17]Summary of Action Items

   <masinter> Date: 10 Dec 2009

   <masinter> scribenick: masinter

HTML 5 review: ISSUE-54: Default Prefix Declaration

   ht: this idea is not mine -- been floating around, never been
   written down, so I thought it was time to do so. I don't take credit
   for idea, but take blame for details.
   ... published in W3C blog.

   <ht> [18]Default Prefix Declaration Henry S. Thompson 18 Nov 2009

     [18] http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html

   ht: criticism we've heard about namespaces are: syntactic complexity
   and API complexity issue. This proposal basically addresses the
   syntactic complexity, belief is that API can be handled later.

   TAG participates in a W3C staff meeting about the Default Prefix
   Declaration idea

   <masinter_> [19]#xmlnames minutes

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/xmlnames-minutes.html

   Note: minutes of the phone discussion held at this point were
   recorded by Carine Bournez and are available at:

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/xmlnames-minutes.html

   ht: slide 5 out of 7 already, just want to show example
   ... A "dpd" file gives default prefixes. One way to to give a link
   with rel="dpd" or for XML using a processing instruction. Or
   applications could ship in with a default DPD, or there could be
   media-type defaults.
   ... establish a priority order.
   ... In general, people are happy with using prefixing for avoiding
   collisions, but don't like namespace declarations, let's fix that.

   tbl: We should investigate this sort of thing, going down this path
   is a good idea. I'm keen on getting them linked on the MIME type,
   why not do things at the MIME-type level.
   ... One technical issue ...

   <scribe> scribenick: masinter

   <scribe> scribe: masinter

   Joint meeting ends; TAG meeting resumes.

   danc: neither of these proposals address interesting use cases
   ... I can see two use cases: Person wants to write SVG without
   gobbledygook in top of document. <svg> is simpler than <svg:svg>.
   ... This doesn't seem to be on the road to decentralized

   noah: you can change the link element or the linked DPD

   danc: then you're back to gobbledygook at the top of the document
   ... I'm looking for use cases & cost benefit

   timbl draws bar graph of document types. Most documents are HTML,
   but ther are SVG, MathML, FBML and lots of others. (draws zipf
   distribution, with HTML at the head, and "lots of others" as the
   long tail)

   (FBML is face book markup language)

   (discussion about cost and benefits for various use cases)

   <johnk> I would like to see it be possible to have XHTML + XML
   namespaces then served as text/html be processed correctly

   timbl: the issue is "in here" (pointing to HTML + popular other
   markups, SVG, etc.) but not minor
   ... languages that aren't used widely

   danc: which are the interesting use cases? allowing svg namespace
   without declaration doesn't help deploy SVG, they still have to
   learn how to draw circles

   noah: two communities invent <video> tag with conflicting meaning.
   To me the use case is "do you care about pollution"

   (discussion about use cases and transition path)

   danc: I'm trying to find some place where it's cost effective for

   timbl: so you're saying there's nothing in the middle?

   danc: svg and mathml are in the language. html5 does nothing
   interesting with rdfa.
   ... I'm still listening for the interesting use case.

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to noodle a bit on wild innovations
   evolving to the left of Tim's graph

   noah: example: notes that [w3c_home] was originally an extension to
   html. Although very sympathetic to need to support decentralized
   extensibility, it's important mosaic:img to ask how an extension
   originally spelled would eventually become part of the core HTML
   spec and spelled [w3c_home] . That's the challenge to mechansisms
   like namespaces that interests me most.

   henry's proposal just gets rid of the

     [21] http://ncsa.uiuc.edu/tags

   <DanC_> no, it replaces it by <link ... ncsa>

   scribe: points out that "mosaic:img" would have been stuck with the

   timbl: we would have added img as an alternative to mosaic:img

   ht: yes, there are some bumps in the road, if we go this way. But if
   that's the only thing in the way, i think we can live with this.

   <DanC_> (I'm trying to find the details of the <link> syntax ; I
   don't see it in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html ,

     [22] http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html

   danc: when i think of this, i think of <canvas> which is more
   ... as much as I hate x-, the most successful example is the vendor
   prefix (e.g. moz-) in css.

   noah: that works for css, but the rules are different for css, won't
   work for paragraph names

   <DanC_> but yes, the cascade is critical to the transition from
   moz-smellovision to smellovision

   ht: two observations, different from dan. I don't agree, I think the
   current situation with SVG and MathML isnt' good enough. It has to
   define every possible transition. It specifies in detail where you
   can or can't put MathML and SVG elements.
   ... The fact that the SVG working group has been bullied into
   submission isn't good enough for me.
   ... They were pushed back to the current state of play. It isn't
   good enough for me.

   <DanC_> I think the SVG WG was convinced that this is simpler for

   <noahm> I would like to wrapup, get to next steps, and break

   ht: It is interesting to say that the RDFa group is happy, because I
   don't think there is any place in HTML5 wrt the HTML serialization
   for namespace declarations, because the DOM isn't going to be what
   they want.
   ... I've recorded my disagreement

   danc: the rdfa use case involves scripting

   noah: what are next steps

   <scribe> ACTION: noah to work to schedule followup meeting on
   xmlnames next week [recorded in

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Work to schedule followup meeting on
   xmlnames next week [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-17].

   ht: reminds himself to work to figure out how this interacts with
   XML documents

   <DanC_> (do you remember the action #, larry? care to suggest a new
   due date?)

   <ht> ACTION: Henry to elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments
   from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly
   wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation, due 2010-01-08
   recorded in [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - Elaborate the DPD proposal to
   address comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of
   2009-12-10, particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt
   motivation, due 2010-01-08 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-17].


   <trackbot> ACTION-337 -- Larry Masinter to frame the F2F agenda and
   preparation on metadata formats/representations -- due 2009-12-08 --

   <trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/337

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/337

   <ht> trackbot, action-337 due 2010-01-08

   <trackbot> ACTION-337 frame the F2F agenda and preparation on
   metadata formats/representations due date now 2010-01-08

   (group on break)


HTML 5 review: HTML WG status update

   Philippe joins

   <plh> [26]http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html

     [26] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html

   plh: not coverage between issues and change proposals

   noah: would help to add issue names to table
   ... failure mode is that people don't notice

   plh: issue 7 was closed. chairs are willing to reopen if there is no
   new information

   <DanC_> HTML WG issue 7 was video codecs

   <DanC_> (referring to issues by number only is an anti-pattern)

HTML 5 review: issue-54: review of Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5


   <trackbot> ACTION-327 -- Henry S. Thompson to review Microsoft's
   namespaces in HTML 5 proposal -- due 2009-11-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327

   looking at Microsoft namespace proposal

   <noahm> We note that HTML issue 41 appears to be open

   <DanC_> HTML WG issue 41 is open, with no dead-man-switch yet issued

   <noahm> [28]Microsoft's Namespaces Proposal (TAG ACTION-327) Henry
   S. Thompson 19 Nov 2009

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0039.html

   HT: Microsoft's proposal imports a subset of XML namespace syntax
   into the HTML serialization. Core proposal is a duel of what we
   talked about earlier: allow xmlns:foo, and within that scope foo:xxx
   uses the namespace

   timbl: identical to xmlns, with regard to prefixed names

   ht: then it goes on to suggest a number of possible extensions

   <DanC_> (I wonder if everybody here is aware of the way HTML
   interacts with XPath in the case of unprefixed element names...
   maybe I'll q+)

   ht: the addition of default namespace declarations
   ... I'm just telling you what it says
   ... then there is an additional proposal, to treat unbound prefixes
   as if they were identity-declared
   ... namespace spec says you "shouldn't" use relative URIs

   (discussion of whether xmlns:udp="udp" is an error, a relative URL)

   timbl: local namespace declarations are useful in (context missed)

   ht: interesting idea, don't think it is going to fly

   timbl: maybe want #udp, not udp

   (speculation about what is deployed inside microsoft)

   ht: "3. to define short namespace names for commonly-used namespaces

   (timbl bangs head on wall)

   plh: discussion on HTML was that this proposal would break
   (something), and Microsoft needs to revise

   ht: I think it is sound but doesn't address the two issues that
   other WG members had raised, (a) syntactic complexity and (b) API

   noah: do we have a sense of where this is going?

   (speculation about what might happen in the HTML working group)

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to reply to DanC

   <noahm> ac2 next

   danc: thanks for gathering all he facts. I think this is as good as
   it gets, though, disagree with conclusion. Henry's isn't simpler and
   Microsoft's is more like current namespaces.

   timbl: use this for svg?

   ht: orthogonal point -- stipulating that one of these proposals is
   adopted, opens the possibility but not necessity of revisiting the
   current embedding of SVG and MathML

   timbl: and the <a> tag, that's done by context?

   ht: yes

   timbl: should the TAG endorse the microsoft proposal?

   <DanC_> +1 TAG endorsedd

   jar: (put on the spot)

   noah: would like to see something happen, but insofar as doing this
   by saying TAG isn't happy with Henry or Liam's proposal, not ready
   to do that

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to discuss tim's proposal

   jar: here's how to convince me -- hard for me to keep this in my
   head... how about requirements?

   timbl: I need the Microsoft one anyway for the long tail

   ht: that's just not true. There's a place in HT for ideosyncratic

   (danc at board making matrix of requirements vs proposals)

   noah: (floating idea for TAG position about endorsing MS vs. others)

   columns: DPD (ht), mangled xmlns (MS), Unobtrusive Namespaces

   rows: long tail, static scoping, ie, webkit, opera, mozilla

   static scoping means: changing some other document doesn't change
   what foo:bar would mean

   discussion of what the rows IE, Webkit, Opera, Mozilla mean

   jar: wondering if there's a null hypothesis? Maybe there's a 'status
   quo' column?

   adding 4th column, "Standing WG"

   adding rows for SVG, MathML, RDFa authoring communities

   adding examples of "Long Tail", FBML, SL = Second Life vs.

   ht: PLH, what do you think about this?

   timbl: Were a browser manufacturer to change their attitude and
   implement application/xhtml+xml, would that make a difference?

   noah: expected question to be 'does then the TAG care about this',
   and I think they do, because e.g., service provider doesn't allow
   people to set MIME type
   ... even if 1st class support for application/xhtml+xml

   ht: as long as the columns are full of "maybe this or maybe that",
   it isn't helpful to push people to make their minds up

   (chart only partly filled out... longtail check, check, check, x

   scribe: x check x check

   IE has only ? under MS proposal
   Photo of the white board

   [29]whiteboard photo

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/Whiteboard.jpg

   danc: queue slot was to solicit people to write a blog entry

   jar: there's enough in the chart to take us from Tim's original
   proposal that we endorse the MS proposal, but I think this takes us
   a step further. We could say "we like the MS proposal insofar as it
   does X, Y and Z"

   noah: (will drain queue, and see where we are)

   <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to point out that reusing exstig xmlns
   syntax has great advantages

   <DanC_> yeah, timbl, I meant to make a row for that; neglected to

   timbl: Reusing existing syntax, not inventing new stuff. Inventing
   new stuff is a hurdle. If it's a good thing to do. Just being able
   to say: for a given MIME type, have a default namespace.

   danc: that's the state of the art

   timbl: XML tools don't have an easy way of taking that into account
   ... This would be a relief in other cases

   <DanC_> (ah yes, tim; in particular, authors have to put the
   xmlns="...xhtml" for XML tool interop.)

   ht: i've just added 3 new rows to the table: reuses existing syntax.
   X for all but MS
   ... ... simplifies the syntax and simplifies the DOM

   timbl: I asked "Is the DOM the same?" and you said "Yes"

   ht: the HTML community *wants* the DOM to be simplified
   ... currently standing HTML tick on "Simplifies the DOM" is x for
   everything except for standing HTML5
   ... 'simplify the syntax' is all check except for MS

   <DanC_> (still no takers on blogging this table? sigh. oh well.)

   <DanC_> action-357: try to include the requirements table

   <trackbot> ACTION-357 Elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments
   from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly
   wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation, due 2010-01-08
   notes added

HTML 5 review: Authoring guide/language spec

   <plh> [30]HTML 5: The Markup Language

     [30] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

   <ht> There are 3 docs: Hixie's, Mike Smith's and Lachlan Hunt's

   (looking for normative language reference spec)

   <ht> [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/

     [31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/

   [32]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ has a different date

     [32] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

   <DanC_> (editor of html-author is lachlan, I think; he's carrying 0
   actions. [33]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/users/40364 )

     [33] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/users/40364

   plh: the group doesn't want to have a document that is normative,
   since this would create a high risk of conflicts between the

   ht: I think we lost the argument to split the spec into a language
   spec. and a behaviour spec.

   noah: point of clarification? Is this document going to progress

   plh: for the moment, it doesn't officially exist [i.e. hasn't been
   published as a WD]
   ... if the working group decided to do that, it would likely be

   <DanC> [34]CfC: Close ISSUE-59 normative-language-reference (ends
   2009-12-17) Maciej Stachowiak 08 Dec 2009


   noah: would like he TAG to assess this. I skimmed this: far better
   than my worst fears, considerably worse than what I would hope for

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to talk about hixie's spec

   <ht> what is URI for "authoring view" of Hixie's draft?

   <noahm> [35]email from Ian Hickson


   <noahm> I have now made the three versions available:










   ht: this doesn't come close to what I want
   ... there is no grammar. I want a grammar.

   noah: I don't elevate the lack of a grammar to... (absolutely

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about DOM API call being
   documented by normative algorithms

   <noahm> FWIW, my criterion for success is not "does it use formal
   grammars", though I think they

   <noahm> they're >very< valuable. My criterion is: does it crisply
   and reasonably unambiguously set out: which texts are legal html5,
   and as declaratively as possible, set out the "meaning" of every
   possible document (e.g. the occurrance of a <table> element signals
   that your document has in it a table), etc.

   <DanC_> (lightbulb... ACL2 was hard for me to get used to as a
   formal system because it expects you to write things as programs...
   just like "normative algortithms". Perhaps transcribing these
   algorithms to ACL2 would be a way to think about them formally)

   LMM reminds us of the point he's made before, that there are things
   stated algorithmically (e.g. interpretation of image width/height)
   that should be done more declaratively.

   <masinter_> the point was: what are the invariants that a reasonable
   programmer or generator of programs can assume? Many of these are
   embedded deeply within algorithms presented for implementors, that
   cannot be inferred or extracted by any textual processing, because
   it's not written down anywhere.

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to note two targets: (a) more traditional
   language spec (b) guide for authors. We seem to have missed HT's
   interest in (b). html-author is dated March 2009 and

   <jar> (danc, ACL2 is for proofs. Larry says he's missing the

   <DanC_> (ACL2 does plenty of stuff with theorems; I don't understand
   your point)

   ht: I was interested in the document, because I thought it was
   actively being worked on. But to be clear, i'm not interested in an
   authoring spec, I'm interested in a language spec.

   <noahm> I am interested in the style=author one as a best
   approximation to a language spec, because it's the only one we're
   likely to get that's normative.

   <noahm> I do regret that it's advertised as an authoring spec,
   because I agree that a language spec is the higher priority.

   <noahm> Still, it may do the job, and my question is: does it, and
   if not, would some tuning get it there.

   <DanC_> (I think mutliple normative specs is _good_ for QA, but when
   I gave that opinion in the HTML WG, it was clear hardly anybody else
   in the WG agrees.)

   <DanC_> (e.g. having the OWL language spec and the test suite both
   normative; if they conflict, there's a bug, and I'm not prepared to
   say, in advance, where the bug is.)

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to say the issue is how to evaluate the spec
   (speaks to openness of web). having 2nd spec that tracks is one way,
   modularizing the spec is a 2nd way, having a

   jar: this may be obvious: there's some objective to be able to
   approach the spec. This thing is just too big for that. There are
   multiple for making this tractable.
   ... you want to know what the spec does what it's supposed to do,
   and having it be so big is a problem. My message is to keep your eye
   on the ball.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to explain why I find

   le=author unhelpful


   ht: i would like to use the last part to ask PLH his view.

   <Zakim> noahm, you wanted to say why I find

   le=author helpful


   noahm: I do find it helpful, but the question is whether it is (or
   will be) good enough. I think it would be worthwhile for us to take
   what was offered and read it with some care... if the answers are in
   some ways promising, that would be good.

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about getting away from the
   need for always-on updates to HTML

   <noahm> Some was lost in scribing what I said above, so let me

   <noahm> I think the style=author draft, which I've skimmed but not
   read in full detail, is valuable in several ways, but especially
   because it is being offered as normative, and well synced with the
   other variants of the spec.

   <noahm> I therefore (as a WG member, and perhaps also as chair)
   would find it a good thing for other TAG members to take a careful
   look. I expect you'll find that it's a very significant compromise
   in terms of how declarative it is, how terse, but perhaps on balance
   a good enough base for meeting the need for a language

   LMM reiterates applicability statement idea raised earlier. 2 docs,
   one with undated references, another (the a.s.) with dated
   references "the way things are in 2010"

   LMM: the goal is to avoid the need to publish new specs too

   danc: authoring spec engaged me to some degree, but didn't find it
   compelling to spend more time on it

   noah: is there something you could say?

   <jar> does it matter whether it engages anyone? the OWL WG basically
   said no, the non-normative docs can be engaging

   <noahm> DC: Well, hello world is in section 8. Oops, nope, I guess I
   fixed that.

   danc: the 'hello world' example *was* in section 8. Previously, it
   was hard to tell whether there was something that was a constraint
   on documents vs. a constraint on implementation
   ... that seems to have gotten better.

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to respond re reading the author view

   <ht> Beware that if you follow TOC links from

   le=author you _lose_ the parameter, and have to re-enter it by hand


   jk: who are we helping with respect to getting a grammar? Who cares?
   ... Hixie has done something toward satisfying a goal, we don't know
   if it is close to satisfying our goal
   ... maybe this is our chance of getting a spec that's normative

   <noahm> I heard Dan say "I'm not convinced the style=author draft
   will meet the needs of the design community (though some of the
   shortcomings may be inherent in the complexity of HTML 5). FWIW I
   (Noah) find that to be just the sort of feedback I hope to give.

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask who are we trying to help here?

   <DanC_> I'm not prepared to give feedback on behalf of the design
   community, Noah; look at my web pages; they're design jokes, at
   best. I've encouraged the design community to comment for
   themselves, and had mixed success.

   jar: I think it is a threat, if you have standards that are hard to
   understand, that's a threat to openness

   <ht> HST absolutely agrees with PLH -- W3C writes specs for

   <ht> .. but implementors need language specs, not algorithms

   plh: with the working group, who are we writing the spec for? For
   the implementors? The users can buy books. The implementors

   danc: there are lots of examples for users in the spec, though, not
   just for implementors.

   plh: given the resources, though, most of them spend their time

   <noahm> I strongly disagree. Books are very helpful, but not
   normative. There are architectural, and thus practical, benefits to
   having a rigorous, precise specification for a language, a spec
   that's not unnecessarily tangled with specs for other things.

   <DanC_> (I think it's a _huge_ mistake to say "the book writers will
   satisfy the users". It's incredibly important to validate the design
   by trying to explain it to users. If you can't explain it, you
   should think again about the design. I think quite a few of the HTML
   WG members agree with this view.)

   plh: there's a RELAXNG schema

   ht: it has no authority

   plh: The WG might adopt it as a WD

   hst: That would be great

   LMM: I want to support implementors of things other than browsers.
   Transformers, editors, etc.

   <ht> masinter +1

   LMM: HTML for ATOM, HTML for email

   plh: the chairs would like to move HTML5 to last call soon. pick
   your battles. Look at the long list of issues the WG already has,
   are there any that don't have a change proposal, consider making a
   proposal for those.

   noahm: would like to get someone on TAG to review the table (and
   maybe things that have fallen off the table), would like to use that
   to help prioritize

   danc: I already did this before and did it again last night
   ... there is one I suggest we increase in priority: 'resource' vs

   <DanC_> ACTION Noah schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs
   'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...' [note follow-up
   discussion in www-archive]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Schedule discussion of 'usage of
   'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...'
   [note follow-up discussion in www-archive] [on Noah Mendelsohn - due

   (review of HTML open issues was only against 'things to be closed

   <ht> DanC, I agree that user needs must be addressed by the
   _designs_ which WGs produce, but that that is _not_ the leading
   priority for the specs which communicate those designs

   noah: we did have this discussion of authoring. Would be helpful
   to... (?)
   ... proposal: (review of Maciej message of 08 Dec 2009 15:55:20) We
   do not have a uniform opinion of how much this meets needs, but we
   think this is ... positive.

   <DanC_> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG
   issue-59 in

   l , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide


   ht: message proposes closes this issue. We should say: don't do
   this, we're not happy.

   <DanC_> I gather ht doesn't find my proposal appealing

   ht: wants the TAG to ask for a language spec

   lm: I want the HTML working group to agree that they will review the
   resulting document and come to consensus about its adequacy, not
   just to do so as a political move to meet someone else's pro-forma

   ht: Maciej's message proposes to adopt it as a non-normative WG

   (discussion of whether the doc supports RelaxNG grammar)

   <DanC_> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG
   issue-59 in

   l , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide,
   provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide


   <ht> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG
   issue-59 in

   l , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide,
   provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide,
   which will be published as a Working Draft and taken forward


   noahm: and maintained as the HTML language evolves?

   (wordsmithing of response)

   <ht> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG
   issue-59 in

   l , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide,
   provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide,
   which will be published as a Working Draft and maintained


   <ht> PROPOSED: to endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG
   issue-59 in

   l , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide,
   provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide,
   which will be published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call


   <plh> I suggest s/to Last Call/through Last Call/


   <ht> s/taken to last call/taken through Last Call/

   RESOLUTION: endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in

   l , i.e. the class=author view and the informative reference guide,
   provided the relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide,
   which will be published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call


   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG
   recorded in [48]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc]

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Communicate TAG resolution to HTML
   WG [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-17].

   <DanC_> close ACTION-292

   <trackbot> ACTION-292 Alert group to review HTML Authoring Drafts
   [trivial] [self-assigned] closed


   <DanC_> scribe: DC

   <DanC_> scribenick: DanC_

Admin: scribe duties, agenda review

   close action-330

   <trackbot> ACTION-330 Prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
   Noah etc. closed

   <scribe> ACTION: John to clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec [recorded in

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec [on
   John Kemp - due 2009-12-17].

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to clean up TAG ftf minutes 9 Dec [recorded
   in [50]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Clean up TAG ftf minutes 9 Dec [on
   Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-17].

   <noah> Raman, we are starting, and we are dialed in

   <scribe> ACTION: Dan to clean up TAG ftf minutes 10 Dec, and either
   wrap up the 3 days or get Noah to do it [recorded in

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-362 - Clean up TAG ftf minutes 10 Dec, and
   either wrap up the 3 days or get Noah to do it [on Dan Connolly -
   due 2009-12-17].

   NM reviews agenda...

   <ht> John, <link id="xf" rel="prefix" is already allowed !

   <raman> something is different in the room, audio is awful, lots of

   echo? bummer.

   HT: I do have something re references... though I'm OK if that goes
   to a telcon

   NM: accepts the agenda request; commits Revision: 1.31

   raman? audio better?

   <noah> Raman, I have moved the mic, and will dial again if
   necessary. Was good this morning. Can't hear you at all.

Metadata Architecture: ISSUE-62 (UniformAccessToMetadata-62): Uniform
Access to Metadata


   <trackbot> ACTION-281 -- Ashok Malhotra to keep an eye on progress
   of link header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62)
   -- due 2009-11-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [52]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/281

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/281

   AM: we're tracking 4 drafts... linking, well-known, host-meta,
   XRDD... I think one got updated since I sent mail...

   <noah> Raman, please ping us in IRC when we have your attention
   again. Thank you.

   AM: I saw comments from Tim and Dan... the authors have seen those

   DC: I had a concern about the registration and Mark Nottingham fixed

   AM: these are 3 mechanisms for attaching metadata
   ... are these enough? do we need more?
   ... and JAR said something about an iTunes-like mechanism...

   JAR: well... maybe the issue name should be changed... it suggests
   there will be a limited number of ways to access metadata...
   ... these 3 mechanisms are about 1st-party metadata. in the
   [academic] metadata world, that's the least valuable, but in other
   cases, it's useful, especially if it's all you've got
   ... so something like "uniform access to 1st party metadata"; this
   isn't metadata in general

   NM: this is metadata that the 1st party helps you find

   JAR: that link itself is metadata

   LMM: if you include the pre-production and production workflow,
   [oops; I lost the train of thought]... photo metadata...
   ... the camera is the 1st party...
   ... the person who takes the photo and edits it is the 2nd party...
   and the next person in the workflow is 3rd, copyright guy is 4th
   party... or there's a lot of 3rd parties

   jar: I agree... I may need to adjust my terminology

   DanC: from the perspective of the link-header draft, all those are,
   in aggregate, the 1st party

   LMM: no, if you look in the photo, you can see the audit trail

   DanC: ah.

   LMM: and it goes on from there... flickr taggers, commenters, etc.

   JK: doesn't that means that the metadata inside the data?

   (I think the way I scribed JK makes the referent of "that"

   LMM: it helps in the production workflow...
   ... but flickr tags and comments, probably not

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about goals

   TBL: in the adobe tools, can you set the trail of custody?
   [something like that]

   LMM: in varying degrees, yes

   TBL: when adobe tools get content from the web, can they recover the

   LMM: I don't know

   TBL: the metadat trust is [scribe falls behind]

   [discussion between TBL and LMM exceeds scribe bandwidth]

   LMM: in the Seybold community, I learned the industry uses a variety
   of mechanisms to send images around... often not compressed...

   <jar> I want to know what problem we're working on now.

   TBL: I'm interested in "this is/was [53]http://...." .

     [53] http://.../

   LMM: the workflow uses guiids rather than locations; these things
   move around too much

   <masinter> the locations weren't normative

   <masinter> I guess the point is that first-party metadata is often
   embedded, and that the Link header is better thought of as
   "third-party metadata" where the third-party is the publishing web

   danc: Host-meta, powder, EARL - I would only want to write that
   software once (see mail Dan sent to www-tag)
   ... and I have a concern about not using .well-known unless it's
   merited in ways that Roy emphasized

   JAR: [who]'s concerns increases my desire to change the name of the
   issue... "server provided metadata"?

   <DanC> (I'm happy for the issue shepherd to change the issue name
   whenever they see fit; I trust them to consult the TAG as

   <timbl_> Maybe we should be charging $10M for an entry in
   "well-known" to express the cost to the community of each one,
   clients having to check different places.

   <masinter> was talking about entire workflow from camera which takes
   photo and adds GPS data through editing the photo by cropping and
   color correcting to putting it into a web page and publishing the
   page, to commenting on the image in Flickr. Whether metadata is
   associated with the photo by embedding, linking, or some kind of
   third-party metadata site may depend.

   <masinter> issue-62?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Uniform Access to Metadata -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [54]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62

   <noah> Note that we just changed the name of the issue:


   <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Uniform Access to Server-provided Metadata --

   <trackbot> [55]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62

   AM: do we need another issue for the rest?

   JAR: we have the broader issue; issue-63

   <masinter> issue-63?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Metadata Architecture for the Web -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [56]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63

     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to suggest "server provided links" or
   "server provided metadata"

   <jar> These RFCs are going to be final soon. Very narrow window to
   have influence.

   AM: again, do we need more mechanism? or fewer?

   DanC: I'd like to see fewer

   JAR: these specs are nearing deployment

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask questions from chair

   DanC: do you have any critical concerns? are you happy with the
   specs, JAR?

   JAR: yes, I'm happy

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that there are lots of other
   requirements and to diminish the importance of IETF proposed

   LMM: are the applicability of these draft narrow enough that other
   cases are ruled out? [?]
   ... I don't think publication of these as Proposed Standard will get
   in the way if something else is more appropriate

   JAR: well, it'll compete
   ... well, doesn't compete with mechanisms for other sources of

   <jar> it will compete in the very narrow in which it applies. won't
   compete with ways of getting metadata *from other sources*

   LMM: my remaining concern is: when more than one of these mechanisms
   provides info, what about priority?

   JAR: thie "Web Linking" explicitly says "this is not authoritative;
   apps have to come up with their own trust model"

   LMM: it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of intent. e.g. if I
   write copyright in both the Link header and in the content and
   they're different, which do I mean? both?

   TBL: that's a bug
   ... i.e. the web site is buggy [not the link header spec]

   <jar> there's no such thing as overriding a copyright statement

   LMM: I don't like the "then it's a bug and we don't say which"; I
   prefer priorities

   TBL: priorities allow people to write incorrect things that get
   obscured due to priorieites; then they get surfaced when the
   document moves

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to ask about use cases that are market

   <timbl_> A language should ays "if you write this, then it means

   <jar> the resource and the server are distinct principals with
   different interests. metadata is statements of fact. thus
   disagreements are inherent and unresolvable outside of a trust model

   <timbl_> Not "it means this unless it is overridden...".

   <masinter> points to
   [57]http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf for
   dealing with conflicting embedded metadata

     [57] http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf

   DC: The specs may well come out, but it would be interesting to
   remind ourselves what the market drivers are for the specs we're
   discussing here.
   ... Anyone know what the drivers are, e.g., for host meta?

   AM: It says it's for where the host controls.

   DC: But who's going to make money?

   Falling behind scribing johnk....

   JK: I think the market-driving use case is URI templates ...
   ... e.g. "if you want to look up a person whose profile is on my
   site, here's the URI template to plug the username into". and having
   lots of users leads to advertising revenue.
   ... e.g. google, yahoo, etc.

   <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to say, well it would be better if they
   were all RDF of course. Are we goingto do nothing about that?

   <masinter> from [58]http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/specs/

     [58] http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/specs/

   TBL: this XRD format seems to overlap significantly with RDF... how
   much RDF is there out there?
   ... a lot.
   ... and we're pushing linked data...
   ... linking host meta into the linked data world seems helpful

   <noah> The XRD thing is already deployed, right?

   JAR: use GRDDL?

   TBL: but I can't use an RDF serializer to write XRD

   JAR: XRD is very simple

   TBL: I can't write arbitrary RDF into XRD

   JAR: aside from bnodes and literals, you can; i.e. arbitrary uri

   JK: ... web finger ...

   (If I were going to push on something, I'd push RDFa rather than

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to note that Link header was originally
   specifically about representations that could not contain <link>

   JK: using <link> for formats that can't express links is like
   [something larry was talking about]

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk to the MWG document dealing
   with conflicting metadata

   <masinter> points to
   [59]http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf for
   dealing with conflicting embedded metadata

     [59] http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf

   NM: This reinforces Tim's point. If the use case in mind is where
   there's no possible duplication, then duplication with conflict
   should be an error, not resolved with priority.

   LMM: even when the metadata is embedded, you can have multiple kinds
   of metadata... this points to the practical issue of...
   ... what if you have EXIF, [something else], and conflicts, and how
   to manage...
   ... so I think the "conflicting metadata is a bug; we're not telling
   what to do" doesn't suffice...
   ... I suggest to say that it's not an error... providing an override
   mechanism is important

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to answer larry regarding priority between
   sources (i will just say what i already entered in irc)

   JAR: metadata is typically a statement of fact. [LMM: no]. sometimes
   the server is right; sometimes the resource is right; each consumer
   has to decide who to believe

   <johnk> In response to the question "is XRD deployed" I mentioned
   WebFinger (see
   [60]http://hueniverse.com/2009/09/implementing-webfinger/) which I
   believe may already be deployed

     [60] http://hueniverse.com/2009/09/implementing-webfinger/)

   <masinter> I don't want to say "who is right and who is wrong". I
   just am asking that the Link header be expanded to alow the server
   to be clear about whether the intent of the server is to override,
   supplant, or replace embedded metadata.

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to disagree: metadata is always an
   issue of opinion, not a theory of fact

   JAR: It's a putative fact

   AM: when I asked whether this is the right number of mechanism I got
   sort of a yes from LMM and JAR and a No from Dan... elaborate?

   <johnk> JK: regarding the Link header, I mentioned that the original
   use-case (IIRC!) was specifically for cases where an HTTP
   entity-body could not contain "links" (for example, text/plain)

   <noah> LM: I'm not looking to settle who's right, I'm looking for
   priority mechanisms.

   DanC: I think Host-Meta overlaps with existing mechanisms: POWDER.
   so we've got more mechanisms than I'd like to see. [don't mean to be
   emphatic about which of POWDER or Host-Meta shold survive]

   <noah> Interesting Dan, I thought some of what you wanted was an RDF
   answer (or maybe I'm channeling Tim through you)

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to speak to expressiveness of override

   <jar> "The server believes this information to be more trustworthy
   than what the resource says." or "The server that what the resource
   says is more likely to be right than what it says."

   DC: The client can have all sorts of policies, but it's less
   expressive if you don't let the sender express a preference.

   TBL: architecturally, the HTTP header overrides the content... but
   in practical cases, people want their content to override the server
   config too.

   <timbl_> TBL: architecturall,y, the HTTP Srever is in a position to
   override anything, as it is on control -- it could munge the ougoing
   file and chenge the metaa -- . The provdier of hte fil eonly has
   delegated control. But hen tthere are so many case of broken server
   implementatuions. where th person writing the file. knows bett
   ertthan te person who confiugured the apache.

   JAR: I'd say mnot and Eran would say: it's the responsibility of
   what's pointed to by Link: to have this override mechanism.

   NM: we can always come back to this...

   JAR: no; there's a market window...

   DC: does anybody know timing of large deployments?

   JK: I think webfinger is deployed at scale, using [Host-Meta?]

   HT: uniform access has come back into this... harks back to XRI and
   ... the energy currently is going into how to provide metadata that
   addresses the uniform access problem...
   ... the good news is that although there are what might look like 3
   competing proposals, actually they play nice together
   ... and there's a story about how
   ... that's what I heard.

   DC: As team contact, I feel that doing nothing isn't good.
   ... I think we need to connect with the Sem Web coordination group.

   <Ashok> [61]Webfinger

     [61] http://code.google.com/p/webfinger/

   <noah> DC: What I have in mind is along the lines of going to coord
   group and say: Hey, this is about to happen without RDF, Linked
   Data. Problem?
   . ACTION: Jonathan inform SemWeb CG about market developments around
   webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship to RDFa
   and linked data

   <scribe> ACTION: Jonathan inform SemWeb CG about market developments
   around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship
   to RDFa and linked data [recorded in

     [62] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-363 - Inform SemWeb CG about market
   developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate
   relationship to RDFa and linked data [on Jonathan Rees - due

   <timbl_> [63]http://www.w3.org/host-meta

     [63] http://www.w3.org/host-meta

   <jar> Last call ended for .well-known and Link:

   <masinter> the TAG could ask the editor (Mark) to note open issues:
   use of RDF vs. other metadata representations, and whether Link:
   overrides, supplants, or defaults embedded metadata.

   <masinter> the discussion has been useful, even if we don't act

   close action-281

   <trackbot> ACTION-281 Keep an eye on progress of link header draft,
   report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) closed

   <noah> Supposedly now until 3:15, but we're struggling to

   close action-336

   <trackbot> ACTION-336 Prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f closed

   <noah> WE ARE ON BREAK UNTIL 15:20 US EST

   <masinter> (back from break)

(xmlFunctions-34 / ISSUE-34): XML Transformation and composability
(e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption)

   DanC: HT notified us of a default processing model draft in the
   XProc WG

   <ht> [64]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html

     [64] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html

   DanC: any processing model that does Xinclude shouldn't be "_the_
   default_" ...
   ... previously, HT seemed sympathetic

   <noah> (some metadiscussion on whether editors of this are obligated
   to listen to input before formal drafts available. Editor warns that
   lack of sleep will lead to forgetfulness anyway.)

   DanC: I think the way to make it clear that this is not _the_
   default processing model is to include another one...
   ... the trivial one: just use the bytes you got

   DC: Earlier, I said "Default Processing Model" isn't the right
   title. Henry, you seemed sympathetic. Are you still.

   HT: Um, loses some value.
   ... Lots of people should point to this.

   DC: So you do want to be THE model.

   HT: Yes.
   ... With XInclude we can get rid of much of the need for DTDs.

   DC: The getting rid of DTDs part appeals to me. Tim, do you feel
   that justifies making XInclude the default?

   <masinter> shouldn't
   [65]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml make
   normative reference to this?

     [65] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml

   TBL: what does the xml:id bit do?

   HT: affects the DOM; e.g. GetElementById

   TBL: does xinclude happen after xml:id?

   HT: no; the details are in XProc

   ***** HT wants to remember that this could be clarified

   TBL: I'm surprised to not see something recursive

   HT: XInclude is recursive; unlike GRDDL, which doesn't say whether
   xinclude happens 1st, xinclude does say

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask what happens if the document looks
   like this: <xml version='1.0'?><EncryptedData>...</EncryptedData>

   JK: what if the data is encripted?

   HT: well... you lose... we tried to get encryption/signature into
   the design, but... they require a key...
   ... and we don't want to come anywhere close to encourage packaging
   a document with a key

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask whether this belongs with the
   application/xml media type & reregistration of it

   LMM: how about binding it to the XML media type?

   HT: not retrospectively

   LMM: but how about when people make new XML media types, they should
   be referred to this processing model


     [66] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml

   <noah> NM As I recall, schema looked at this a long time, asking "do
   you want to validate pre or post inclusion. The answer was a clear
   "both", that's as a good reason to use the infoset.

   <ht> [67]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html

     [67] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html

   TBL: what "the customer", me, asked for, is what "corresponds to"
   the input, in the HTTP sense

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask whether this is clear on what to do
   if external resources don't resolve. Can you use this in a
   non-network environment?

   <timbl_> In the sense, if you send me an XML document, whot I can
   hold you to haveing said

   NM: meanwhile, HT has an action to lay out the design space


   <trackbot> ACTION-113 -- Henry S. Thompson to 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 2010-01-01 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [68]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/113

     [68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/113

   <masinter> e.g., the XML Media Types RFC could require, at a
   minimum, that registration of XML media types MUST clearly identify
   what processing model they use, and whether they use this one.

   <DanC> (w.r.t. wrapping up, I'm content to consider action-239 done
   and come back when we see progress on action-113, provided it comes
   before LC on this spec)

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to answer Tim

   <timbl_> The meaning of an xinclude include emeplemnt is t its
   included contents.

   HT: yes, it's a reasonable exercise to answer "what is the author
   held to?"
   ... and the value increases if there's only one answer
   ... that's why there's no answer in the case you gave [oops; what
   case was that? I didn't scribe it]
   ... this only takes one step down a complicated [... more]

   <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to explain as patiently as he can that
   the interesting thing i snot to tell people how they shoul dprocess
   it. in fact the idea of a processing model is (of

   <DanC> (I encourage jar, lmm, and noah to q- and wait for telcon
   time, unless there's nothing else on today's agenda that you care

   TBL: [...missed] which is the decrypted material...
   ... and in the case of XSLT is the output
   ... so in fact you have to go to the spec for each element to get
   what the author is held to

   <jar> TBL was talking about the recursive / compositional processing

   <jar> I think he's saying this spec isn't ambitious (inferential?)

   HT: LMM, yes, I take on board the concern about the connection
   between the XML media types spec and this spec
   ... though I'm concerned about the timelines

   close action-239

   <trackbot> ACTION-239 alert chair when updates to description of
   xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or if none made) closed

HTML versioning change proposal




   LMM: you can see the suggested syntax at the bottom

   DC: hmm... DOCTYPE... despite my advice?

   LMM: I looked and couldn't find any downside

   DC: quirks mode?

   LMM: no, quirks mode is triggered only in the case of known DTD
   ... a goal is to make a change that needs no changes from browsers

   NM: what's the motivation/goal for the change?

   LMM: cf the change proposal, incl "The html version string is
   allowed primarily because it may be useful for content management
   systems and other development workflows as a kind of metadata to
   indicate which specification was being consulted when the HTML
   content was being prepared.


   HT notes another procedural request from maciej

   HT: this looks good to me.
   ... yes, we should look into the XML requirement for a system
   ... ah... yes... there are no XML syntaxes with only public id

   (train of thought started with something NM said, which I forgot)

   DC: that's why I advise a version attribute

   <johnk> Jonathan how about:

     [70] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-02

   <jar> johnk, that's amazing, thanks

   LMM: I wanted to follow the existing tradition of using <!DOCTYPE >

   DC: but it suggests there's a DTD, while there isn't one

   HT: well, a DTD with all "ANY" content models could be slotted in.

   LMM: in some ways I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but
   ... I don't like to see the HTML WG close issues just because noone
   was willing to take flack for making a proposal

   <ht> Actually, forget ANY -- if it goes that way, I would
   expect/recommend that an effectively empty external subset should be
   provided at the given SYSID, i.e one consisting entirely of a

   LMM: and I think it's important for those who want to express a
   version id to be able to
   ... I encourage TAG members to review and contribute directly to

   some discussion of public-html mailing list logistics and

HTML media type and pre-HTML 5 content


   <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 2009-11-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [71]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/334

     [71] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/334

   <DanC> [72]Backward-compatibility of text/html media type
   (ACTION-334) Henry S. Thompson 02 Dec 2009

     [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0013.html

   HT: so that collects all relevant materials I know of

   <DanC> what's "suspended animation"? wild... they use tracker:closed

   <DanC> [73]ISSUE-53 mediatypereg Need to update media type

     [73] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53

   "State: CLOSED Product: HTML5 Spec - PR Blockers"

   HT: so... should we try to get something to happen before Last Call?
   I thought there was an interaction with the language design, but on
   close examination, I didn't find one.

   <masinter> this is a useful as a Rationale for the change proposal

   <noah> ac2 n6ah

   <noah> DC: I don't agree with the obvious fix. I think the HTML 5
   spec describes HTML 2 better than HTML 2 spec does.

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask for volunteer to write a change

   LMM: I think a change proposal would be good... e.g. there are
   documents that prompt quirks mode that's implemented, but the
   current HTML 5 spec rules it out. [roughly]

   <masinter> suggest MIME registration point to history section inside
   HTML5 document and/or previous MIME registration
   . ACTION DanC: ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change proposal
   re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and today's

   <scribe> ACTION: DanC to ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change
   proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and
   today's discussion [recorded in

     [74] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created 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 [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-17].

   <ht> It occurs to me that a change which said "this registration
   augments [the existing registration] rather than replacing it

   LMM: a change proposal might fix some other parts of the media type
   registration... e.g. change controller

   close action-334

   <trackbot> ACTION-334 Start an email thread regarding the treatment
   of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5

Widget URI Scheme




   LMM: there's a TAG issue about registering URI schemes [really?]; I
   think we should encourage registering permanent URI schemes rather
   than provisional ones... but leaving that aside...

   <johnk> [76]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20090618/

     [76] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20090618/


     [77] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/#authority

   <timbl_> [78]http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-uri/#authority

     [78] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-uri/#authority

   LMM: consider "A producer may include an authority component in
   URIs. If present, the authority component is said to be opaque,
   meaning that the authority component has a syntax as defined by
   [RFC3987] but that the authority component is devoid of semantics. "
   ... this seems not well-defined
   ... earlier in the design discussion, this was used for cross-widget
   references , but due to security concerns, I think, they made it

   JAR: how about using it to distinguish widgets?

   JK: but these are only used for reference within a widget
   ... widget URIs are used in a "manifest" contained within a widget
   package, and then used to point to other files within the widget

   <masinter> [79]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395

     [79] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395

   <masinter> guidelines and registration procedures for new uri

   TBL: this does seem undefined

   JAR: could be "reserved for future use"

   <masinter> For schemes that function as locators, it is important
   that the

   <masinter> mechanism of resource location be clearly defined. This
   might mean

   <masinter> different things depending on the nature of the URI

   <masinter> The URI registration process is described in the
   terminology of [$1\47].

   <masinter> The registration process is an optional mailing list
   review, followed

   <masinter> by "Expert Review". The registration request should note
   the desired

   <masinter> status. The Designated Expert will evaluate the request
   against the

   <masinter> criteria of the requested status. In the case of a

   <masinter> registration request, the Designated Expert may:

   <masinter> I am not the expert.

   <masinter> I hope that W3C staff will establish a process where "The
   template may also be submitted in some other form (as part of
   another document or as a stand-alone document), but the contents
   will be treated as an "IETF Contribution" under the guidelines of
   RFC 3978 [$1\47]."

Closing remarks, thanks to the host

   RESOLUTION: to thank Amy for hosting arrangements. with applause

   AM: This was a very successful ftf.

   JK: yeah; good meeting; the action item stuff in the agenda worked;
   the Zakim tracking not so well.

   NM: yeah.

   TBL: yeah... good meeting... JAR's "speaks_for" stuff was a
   ... the persistent domain stuff... not clearly within the TAG's
   scope, but if not us, who?

   JAR: yeah... Creative Commons will sure help... but who else is in a
   position to connect the IETF with the library community?

   <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask whether the crucial question is
   whether individual components of a widget will be "on the Web"

   <jar> who else other than the TAG, that is

   <jar> and CC

   <jar> (not a rhetorical question by the way)

   NM: yeah... good meeting... noteable technical highlights
   ... and as to how we work as a group, this feels like we're starting
   to hit stride.

   <masinter> feedback: i'm very happy that the ratio of technical /
   non-technical & administrative has been the highest in my experience
   on the TAG. I think we're making much better progress toward
   producing things of lasting value, drive toward architecture
   documents, etc. Want to make sure we also focus on "last mile",
   i.e., once we've worked an issue, that we do the final work toward
   publishing it, rather than letting it languish in the "nearly

   <masinter> done" state.

   <Zakim> DanC_, you wanted to speak to the persistent domain tactics

   <timbl_> Strong argument there John the the Web for an agent must
   not xclude things which are local to it .. much of my most important
   web i s local to my laptop. So local files are things on my web and
   so I suppose are chrome: and widget:things .. not a showstopper

   DC: yeah... not clear that persistent domains is a TAG thing, but
   it's a W3C thing, and if we can catalyze a workshop, that makes
   ... and several of the topics that came up in the meeting kept me
   thinking into the evening

   next meeting looks like 17 Dec

   JAR: [scribe too sleepy...] I'm starting to feel more in sync with
   the group


Postscript: bulk action review

   Dan and Noah cleaned up some action states


   <trackbot> ACTION-213 -- Noah Mendelsohn to prepare 17 Dec weekly
   teleconference agenda -- due 2009-12-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [80]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213

     [80] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213

   close action-277

   <trackbot> ACTION-277 Ensure patent policy issue is resolved with
   Art closed

   close action-306

   <trackbot> ACTION-306 Work with Raman, LM, JK to update Web
   APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG
   meetings closed


   close action-328

   <trackbot> ACTION-328 Convey to the EXIWG the resolution "We thank
   the EXI WG for registering the conetnt encoding and encourage them
   in their endeavours.". closed

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Dan to clean up TAG ftf minutes 10 Dec, and either
   wrap up the 3 days or get Noah to do it [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: DanC to ask HTML WG team contacts to make a change
   proposal re issue-53 mediatypereg informed by HT's analysis and
   today's discussion [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to clean up TAG ftf minutes 9 Dec [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to elaborate the DPD proposal to address
   comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10,
   particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation, due
   2010-01-08 recorded in [84]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: John to clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan inform SemWeb CG about market developments
   around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship
   to RDFa and linked data [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG
   recorded in [87]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: noah to work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames
   next week recorded in [88]http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc]

     [81] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [82] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [83] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [84] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [85] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [86] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [87] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

     [88] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [89]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([90]CVS log)
    $Date: 2010/01/05 17:43:14 $

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

     [90] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 17:56:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:32 UTC