- From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:39:45 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
The draft minutes of yesterday's teleconference are available at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/18-minutes.html and below.
Regards,
- John
- DRAFT -
TAG Teleconference 18th November 2010
18 Nov 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/18-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Noah Mendlesohn, Henry Thompson, Ashok Malhotra, Jonathan
Rees, Larry Masinter, Yves Lafon, John Kemp
Regrets
Dan Appelquist
Chair
Noah
Scribe
John Kemp, Jonathan Rees
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administration
2. [6]"deep linking"
3. [7]Minutes approval
4. [8]Generic processing of fragment IDs
5. [9]IRIs related to RDF/XML et al
6. [10]Redirecting to a secondary resource
7. [11]Interaction in Web Arch
8. [12]Security
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<johnk> Scribe: John Kemp
<johnk> ScribeNick: johnk
Administration
NM: next call will be in two weeks
HT: regrets for next call
"deep linking"
JAR: goal is to figure out what the TAG should say regarding policy
around deep linking
NM: Will setup a call with Thinh (from Science Commons) for next
call
Minutes approval
NM: F2f minutes?
... Will wait one more week for approval
... Lyon minutes?
... I found them satisfactory
<jar> monday IRC log = [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-tagmem-irc
[14] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-tagmem-irc
<jar> says scribe: DKA
NM: one admin item from those minutes
... "Noah to send a note to www-tag and chairs mailing list to drive
awareness of the mine [sic] document and solicit feedback?" was a
potential action, but has not been actually assigned
LM: I will check apps-discuss list to see if there has been
discussion
... the action may no longer be timely
NM: there is not yet any action
Generic processing of fragment IDs
ACTION-476?
<trackbot> ACTION-476 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a short note to
3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... -- due
2010-10-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476
NM: What should we say to the RFC3023 editors?
JAR: I composed an email
... if the message I composed is OK, I'm happy to send the email
<noah> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html
<ht> [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0059.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0059.html
NM: any objections to sending this email (0070)?
JAR: I can send the email
<noah> RESOLVED: Jonathan to send text of
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html to
3023bis editors on behalf of TAG
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html
NM: do you recommend we put any follow up on the RFDa issue?
<noah> . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben
Adida regarding fragid processing for RDFa
<Larry> In Jonathan's message to 3023bis editors, of the two
choices, I prefer #1 over #2... but I'm willing to live with #2,
even though it makes me uneasy.... (anything grandfathered once is
likely to happen again)
AM: what will we do if RDFa decides not to do anything there?
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to respond to ashok
JAR: would like to make the specs consistent
<jar> . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben
Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa
HT: I agree but this is not related to 3023bis
<noah> Draft action is fine with me.
JAR: it does - argues in favour of choice #1 (as noted by Larry)
<noah> HT: The media type for rdfa example is not an XML media type
HT: RDFa specs are not related to XML media types
<noah> Really? Not application/xhtml+xm;
<noah> Really? Not application/xhtml+xml
<noah> HT: Never mind.
HT: the RDFa issue is separate from the feedback we agreed to send
NM: agreed
<jar> ACTION: jar to report back on discussions with Ben Adida
regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-502 - Report back on discussions with Ben
Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [on Jonathan Rees - due
2010-11-25].
close ACTION-476
<noah> close ACTION-476
<trackbot> ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors
reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed
<trackbot> ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors
reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed
<Larry> action-487?
<trackbot> ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of
IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487
IRIs related to RDF/XML et al
ACTION-487?
<trackbot> ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of
IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487
JAR: what are we doing about versioned specifications?
<noah> Jonathan's email:
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0135.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0135.html
<noah> OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs
<noah> JAR: OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs
JAR: OWL cites a particular version of the IRI specification, which
puts them at risk for that spec changing between versions
<Larry> I'm confused why OWL doesn't cite LEIRI instead
<Larry> OWL should cite LEIRI, which will update when IRI updates
HT: it would do no harm if you suggest to OWL that they ought to say
"or its successors"
<jar> "or its successors"
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's a tradeoff
JAR: That's what RDF says... and OWL should be compatible with RDF
NM: would rather not re-open the question about how specs should be
future-proofed
... when you buy into some particular version at least you know "it
works"
<Larry> I thought 'future-proofing' was covered at one point by the
QA activity
NM: if you say "or successors" you take a gamble
... I don't feel informed enough to tell OWL what to do here exactly
LM: why don't they reference LEIRI?
... this effort was exactly to create a citeable reference
<noah> Henry, do you know why a group might be reluctant to
reference LEIRI? Should RDF reference it?
LM: I don't, generally, like the "or successors" rule for specs.
outside of the organization creating the spec
<Larry> I don't see what the problem is with referencing a specific
version of IRI, though
NM: you propose to close this action, Jonathan?
JAR: yes
LM: potential impact: probably not much?
JAR: yes, but I don't know for sure, but would like OWL to make that
judgement
<noah> NM: JAR, you suggest we close this, without at this point
scheduling any followup?
LM: it's an assessment, not a judgement
<noah> JAR: yes.
<Larry> it is part of the charter of the IRI group not to make
changes that mess up other things
JAR: there is potential for a future IOP problem if nothing is done,
but seems unlikely
<jar> ahh...
<jar> that's helpful
NM: seems the right thing to do is to close the action with no
followup at this point
<noah> close ACTION-487
<trackbot> ACTION-487 Assess potential impact of IRI draft on
RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle closed
Redirecting to a secondary resource
<noah> ACTION-492?
<trackbot> ACTION-492 -- Jonathan Rees to review Larry's health
warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or
fix -- due 2010-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492
<Larry> note: [24]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters: * The IRI
specification(s) must (continue to) be suitable
[24] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters:
<Larry> for normative reference with Web and XML standards from W3C
<Larry> specifications. The group should coordinate with the W3C
working
<Larry> groups on HTML5, XML Core, and Internationalization, as well
<noah> ACTION-491?
<trackbot> ACTION-491 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon attempt
to formulate health warning on secondary resource redirection noting
Larry proposal in 21 Oct 2010 F2F record -- due 2010-11-09 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/491
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/491
<Larry> as with IETF HTTPBIS WG to ensure acceptability.
NM: I believe you agreed, Jonathan
JAR: yes
NM: what do we want our health warning to be?
<noah> Larry's proposal:
[26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/21-minutes#item06\
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/21-minutes#item06
NM: shall we look at Larry's proposal?
<noah> masinter: If you do conneg, don't do it where fragids mean
different things
<noah> From Oct. 21 record.
<jar> ? "LM: You can do this [have 2 fragids], but something might
break."
<Larry>
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html
ACTION-492?
<trackbot> ACTION-492 -- Jonathan Rees to review Larry's health
warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or
fix -- due 2010-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492
<noah> JAR email:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html
NM: Can you quote what you agreed with JAR?
<noah> masinter: (4) You can have one fragment id, but not two.
<noah> masinter: You can do this, but something might break.
<noah> masinter (reworded by jar): If you deploy a 30x Location:
C#D, then be
<noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be
inconvenienced
<noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules).
<Larry> yes: it's If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be aware
that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced (since
there are no fragment combination rules).
<noah> Larry agrees with:
<noah> If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be
<noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be
inconvenienced
<noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules).
JAR: "you can do this, but something might break"
<noah> RESOLVED: The TAG endorses the health warning "If you deploy
a 30x Location: C#D, then be
<noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be
inconvenienced
<noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules)."
NM: should we send this to anyone?
HT: Yves: pay attention ;)
<Larry> yves should take an action?
NM: I will send this to www-tag
<Larry> +1
. action noah to send a note to www-tag noting this resolution
<noah> . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag & chairs health
warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010
<Yves> + ietf-http-wg@w3.org
<noah> . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org &
chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved
on 18 Nov 2010
<noah> ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org &
chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved
on 18 Nov 2010 [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
[30] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-503 - Publicize to www-tag
ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs health warning on secondary resourc
redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2010-11-25].
<jar> lm: this should go to http wg
NM: I propose we close 491, 492
<noah> close ACTION-491
<trackbot> ACTION-491 Schedule telcon attempt to formulate health
warning on secondary resource redirection noting Larry proposal in
21 Oct 2010 F2F record closed
NM: any objections?
<noah> close ACTION-492
<trackbot> ACTION-492 Review Larry's health warning on redirection
to secondary resources and either agree or fix closed
(none heard)
ACTION-355?
<trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
Interaction in Web Arch
<noah> ACTION-355?
<trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
<jar> NM: John, let us know where this stands
<jar> scribenick: jar
<johnk>
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
JK: Question: Impact of webapps on interaction section of AWWW
... A few things to note: client-side state and URIs (TVR), updating
state without user action, client provision of web resources (e.g.
GPS),
... the word 'user-agent' appears a lot often synonymously with
'browser', & this isn't appropriate
... things look different when the 'user-agent' is something
exposing user's resources to servers
lm: Terminology is a problem. user-agent != agent != user interface
NM: ok, hang on, can we think about end states for the project,
goals. if not put on hold maybe.
LM: What are our options for 'end states'?
<Larry> can we start annotating webarch with issues & notes, for
example?
<Larry> can we publish it as a note, or as a blog post?
NM: Update AWWW, maybe new chapter(s)
<Larry> is there something lighter weight we can do to annotate AWWW
without updating it?
<Larry> or can we make AWWW more into a wiki?
LM: We might explore option of something lightweight
... Get it out, maybe as a note? So it doesn't disappear?
... AWWW update vs. nothing seems like a false dichotomy
NM: I want someone to say that they own this, to take it in *any*
direction.
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to comment on what kind of product
NM: What if we get comments that we have to follow up on. Who's
going to guide this process.
<noah>
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
<noah> JK: I wrote down list of use cases.
AM: Beyond this [4 June email], are there other things you're
working on?
NM: Pls link action-355 to any subsequent related writings...
JK: (searching)
<noah> ACTION: John to make sure ACTION-355 links all significant
writings including use cases. [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
[35] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-504 - Make sure ACTION-355 links all
significant writings including use cases. [on John Kemp - due
2010-11-25].
JK: Would like to publicize use case work. TAG blog entry [or note]
might be good, but mindful of your (Noah's) concern about followup.
... There are needed changes to interaction model; this is
important. But looking for guidance.
<johnk>
[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
<johnk> these are the interaction examples I sent
LM: how to deal with webapps in webarch - i'm inclined to think an
AWWW update is the way to go. If a new edition is too hard, maybe
publish a description of how it *would* be updated
JK: I started out that way, but AWWW goes into a lot of detail
around HTTP, and a lot of the relevant interactions will happen
outside of HTTP. So maybe decrease level of HTTP detail, so we can
see patterns better
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to note preference for updating AWWW vs
writing a new AWW section
<Larry> WebSockets isn't HTTP
NM: A lot of this is HTTP... or stretched HTTP...
JK: It's a question of putting HTTP in perspective
NM: Possible historical presentation
JK: I tried that, & tried updating AWWW. It didn't work very well.
NM: Any manner of moving ahead is fine, pick one
JK: Comments on use cases, when I send them, would help me
<noah> close ACTION-493
<trackbot> ACTION-493 Schedule discussion of interim work on
ACTION-355 Due: 2010-11-09 closed
<noah> I'm asking whether we should reopen ACTION-355
<johnk> yes, reopen it, if not closed
<johnk> ACTION-355?
<trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
<johnk> yes, it's still open
<johnk> yes, available but will have to dial back in
<johnk> yes, my call dropped
Security
<noah> ACTION-417?
<trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
due 2010-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
<johnk> I did send this URL out prior to last F2F
<noah> See: [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/www-security.html
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/www-security.html
(reading docs linked from agenda)
JK: What are the architectural issues involved in security? as
opposed to details.
... quick intro [cf. www-security linked above]
... Maybe form could be a section in the webapps work as discussed
at f2f
LM: given upcoming TAG elections, maybe we could actively recruit in
areas where we need expertise
<Larry> we're saying what the areas of important work are, and lay
out the work we've done on it
(discussion of TAG's needs regarding work in progress and how to
fill them)
LM: Raise awareness of work in progress via blog
NM: Table of contents for web apps work is pretty long
LM: Web apps, HTML5, security overlap significantly
<Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask what I should do next - happy to do
another round on this topic too
<Larry> they overlap completely
JK: AWWW has no discussion of security - totally ignored - that's a
flaw
... I suggest framing a section on security in web arch. Willing to
do another round
... Thing to do is develop use cases. Would like to recommend
practices that work (re security)
... Cookies and SOP are central, controversial
NM: How to build a site that's not vulnerable?
JK: Yes, CSRF tokens, which can be put in content or in URI...
... detailing issues about client/server trust is important, but
could run into controversy
ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jar to report back on discussions with Ben Adida
regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: John to make sure ACTION-355 links all significant
writings including use cases. [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org &
chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved
on 18 Nov 2010 [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
[40] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
[41] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
[42] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.135
([44]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/11/19 12:33:48 $
[43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 12:40:21 UTC