- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:35:46 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
now available at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html
and as text below.
ht
-----------------
- DRAFT -
Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
15 Dec 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Yves Lafon, Philippe Le Hegaret (in part), Ashok Malhotra, Larry
Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jeni Tennison, Henry S. Thompson
Regrets
Tim Berners-Lee, Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
Henry S. Thompson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]Minutes of last meeting
3. [7]Administrivia
4. [8]HTML.next
5. [9]F2F Planning
6. [10]ACTION-509, Response to RDFa WG
7. [11]ACTION-631 Microdata referenced from HTML5 spec
8. [12]Pending review actions
9. [13]Overdue actions
* [14]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________________
Convene
NM: There will be a call on 22 December
... Regrets from YL
JT: Regrets
NM: LM, can you scribe?
LM: Yes
Minutes of last meeting
<noah> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/08-minutes
RESOLUTION: Approve the minutes of telcon of 2011-12-08
Administrivia
Local arrangements for upcoming F2F at
[16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0004.html
NM: HST, please arrange for a telephone bridge
HST: Will do
Agenda for f2f is building at
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda
NM: Mark Nottingham will join us for the SPDY discussion
... Mark's time is limited, will have to fit in on Friday morning
LM: Like to involve him on registries as well, as he's been taking the
lead on the HAPPIANA work
NM: Given time constraint, let's start the registries topic earlier, so
we're well prepared to use Mark's time well
... Wrt XML-HTML unification work, chasing with Norm Walsh
HTML.next
NM: This topic was suggested at the Edinburgh f2f, suggesting we should
look at what involvement we might want to have wrt HTML after HTML5
... PLH has joined us, and will do so again at the F2F to help
... References to possibly relevant material in the agenda
<noah> ACTION-637?
<trackbot> ACTION-637 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask PLH to join us in Dec.
to bring us up to speed on HTML.next, and also join in F2F discussion
-- due 2011-12-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/637
<noah> close ACTION-637
<trackbot> ACTION-637 Ask PLH to join us in Dec. to bring us up to
speed on HTML.next, and also join in F2F discussion closed
NM: Most notably, a wiki at [19]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next
PLH: Some background on HTML.next
... Not very far yet
... The HTML WG is focussed on HTML5, given the number of open issues,
some of which are tricky
... So the discussions on .next have not gotten very far so far, most
recently at TPAC
... Modularization of the spec. has been mentioned several times
<Larry> Modularization work might benefit from some planning, even
though it is premature to actually start with the work
PLH: Some new features have been suggested
... Media ?? WG has brought some suggestions for some changes in their
area
... A <data> element has been suggested by Ian Hickson
<Larry> common protocol elements with other protocols as a big theme
<noah> Larry, would you elaborate. Do mean things like HTTP-ish stuff
in the <meta> tag, for example?
NM: There's a sort of process issue about whether the future will be
understood as working on a monolithic HTML6 or whether feature (group)
by feature (group) will be specced through to REC independently
PLH: Yes, but until we see a specific proposal, it's hard to know
if/how this will work
HT: A large architectural issue, which might arise, is whether there is
any expectation within the WG (as opposed to rest of W3C) that they
might want think about differing requirements for Web app delivery
platform vs. browser.
<Larry> I'd characterize what HT said was WebApps vs. HTML WG in W3C
... is that the right boundary in the long term
NM: There's a background issue mentioned sometimes as to whether
security has been well-treated in the current round
... Doug Crockford has weighed in on this
<Larry> JavaScript & API rules
<noah> Doug Crockford on HTML and Security:
[20]http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072
<noah> Title of article is "Discoverer of JSON Recommends Suspension of
HTML5"
NM: [Paraphrasing] This new spec. is chock-full of new features, and
not only have you not done much to address existing issues, you've
significantly expanded the surface area, and hence the risk of
vulnerabilities
<noah> He specifically criticizes the lack of clear resolution to cross
site scripting problems, among others.
<noah> Crockford is quoted as saying: "The XSS problem comes from two
fundamental problems. The first is that the language of the web is
unnecessarily complicated. HTML can be embedded in HTTP, and HTML can
have embedded in it URLs, CSS, and JavaScript. "
<noah> "JavaScript can be embedded in URLs and CSS. Each of these
languages has different encoding, escapement, and commenting
conventions. Statically determining that a piece of text will not
become malicious when inserted into an HTML document is surprisingly
difficult. There is a huge and growing set of techniques by which an
attacker can disguise a payload that can avoid detection. New
techniques are discovered all the time, and usually the attackers find
them
<noah> "The second problem is that all scripts on a page run with the
same authority. "
PLH: But DC has not pointed to any specific vulnerabilities. An EU
study surveyed the spec. from this perspective, and identified some
moderate issues, but nothing that stands out as a major problem:
[21]http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/application-security/web-security/a-
security-analysis-of-next-generation-web-standards A Security Analysis
of Next Generation Web Standards
LM: It's not clear that the kind of security review that is needed can
be done properly
PLH: It's always possible that there are holes, but we're trying hard
not to let that happen
LM: When we discussed HTML issues a while ago, we left some things off
the list because they weren't timely -- should we pull them up again?
NM: I can't easily find that list -- someone needs to take an action to
find the list and prepare a discussion
... so that we don't waste time
LM: I will find the list, if someone else will do the review
NM: I will take an action to find the list and email a link to the
group
<noah> ACTION: Noah to try and find list of review issues relating to
HTML5 from earlier discussions [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-641 - Try and find list of review issues
relating to HTML5 from earlier discussions [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2011-12-22].
NM: After that, I'll wait for specific requests for action wrt
something there.
PLH: That security review covers not just HTML5, but also related
specs.
... It is often, as was the case with CSS, that it's combinations of
specs that create security risks
<Larry> perhaps ability to to security review is a goal for
modularization
PLH: The CSS risk was not CSS alone, but in combination with the DOM
JT: From what you've seen about possible HTML.next features, is there
potential overlap with other WGs?
... Because that's where problems have arisen in the past
PLH: Not that I'm aware of, but only in-so-far as we often don't have
WGs in the areas that have been mentioned
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask if review really covered Doug C.'s
concern
NM: PLH mentioned the existing study, but DC's interview does mention
some specifics
... For example
<noah> Doug Crockford (in article linked above): "HTML can be embedded
in HTTP, and HTML can have embedded in it URLs, CSS, and JavaScript.
JavaScript can be embedded in URLs and CSS. Each of these languages has
different encoding, escapement, and commenting conventions. Statically
determining that a piece of text will not become malicious when
inserted into an HTML document is surprisingly difficult."
NM: Is that the kind of thing which that EU survey looked at? We're
carrying a huge historical overhang which it's hard to untangle, or get
away from
PLH: I don't know whether that issue was covered by the survey
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to talk about modularization guideilnes,
reasons for, requirements for... examples of where modularization
helps, things to avoid... is this something TAG could
<Larry> for example, our recent finding on web applications and URIs
for application state -- could we get that into HTML.next
LM: One of the requirements for modularization is that it makes
security reviews easier.
... That needs to feed in to any discussion of why modularize, and how,
which the TAG might contribute to
<noah> I agree, but I think another way of saying this is: separation
of concerns is a good characteristic of a design. If that's achieved,
then one benefit will be that specs can be reviewed in pieces.
LM: We've recently published a REC on Application State, and are headed
for something on API Minimization
HT: He said, that we've published some things that weren't well timed
to affect last year's work. Things like Storage and API work in the TAG
could be focused on impacting html.next
HT: Those should feed in early to improve the chance of impact
PLH: There is very low interest in the WebApps WG in working on the Web
Storage API
... But it will go forward simply because it is so widely used, even
though there is a widely known bug, in the area of concurrent access to
the API
PLH, AM: The bug is called out in the current spec. draft, in fact
PLH: Momentum is moving toward IndexDB
AM: People have been saying that Web Storage is a very simple API,
IndexDB is more complicated, they don't need that complexity.
PLH: It will get done, but it won't get improved or extended
NM: The TAG has discussed the whole question of client-side storage,
and whether we should gear up to look at this area
... The Web started out pretty stateless, then along came cookies, and
now various forms of client-side persistent data, Web Storage, IndexDB,
etc. . .
... I think the TAG's concern should be at the architectural level,
comparing these mechanisms to a local HTTP caching proxy
... and looking at the question of accessing it via an index rather
than a URI
... We need to find out what people want from these, that they can't
get from a caching proxy
... and maybe feed back to developers
... So even if Web Storage isn't complicated, or likely to be extended,
there may be work for the TAG to do
AM: In our recent discussion, we looked also at the relation of App
Cache to Web Storage
NM: Not sure how much we need to devote to this going forward
... but without more evidence of new ideas, we may have to reconsider
using f2f time
... Thank you Philippe for joining us
F2F Planning
<noah> List of topics:
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda.html#agendaInProgress
NM: Embedded in agenda format, but focus on timeline fixed points, and
Working List of Agenda Items
AM: 11:30 end on Friday?
NM: No, usual goal -- aim for 4 p.m.
... What's up with Privacy?
AM: Not yet connected with DA on this
AM: I have written a short doc't, arguing that although the W3C now has
a Do Not Track WG, there are other problem areas which are worrying
... But it's not clear what W3C can do in these areas
... Perhaps W3C should make a few statements on such things: Net
Neutrality, ???
NM: Maybe this will fit in no problem, will see how the schedule goes
JT: Previous agenda discussion included, wrt Publishing and Agenda on
the Web, there is now probably not going to be a new document, because
we haven't had any legal input
... But we did talk about having a brainstorming session on what kinds
of punchy short outputs we should aim for
... This is a good thing for f2f
HST: +1
AM: +1
... Also need to think about how they should be delivered
NM: Right, I'll plan to do that
... Aiming to wrap the agenda in the coming week, please note
JT: I would like to have a brief slot to bring us up to date on the
Microdata/RDFa situation
NM: 30 minutes?
JT: Yes
NM: 10 minute update, 20 minute discussion
JT: I'm not aware of any specific thing we need to do, but did want to
report
NM: There are several major document promises wrt preparation time
before the f2f
... So the sooner the better
... Please get behind this and push if you're on the hook
ACTION-509, Response to RDFa WG
NM: Are we good to go here?
JT: Yes, given recent agreement to the amended wording, I think we're
ready to go
NM: No objections? None.
<noah> Can we record a resolution pointing to the email with the agreed
text?
JT: I'll go ahead then
<noah> Since this is communication with an outside group
<JeniT> Final email in thread is
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0077.html
RESOLUTION: TAG agrees that Jeni Tennison will send the text in
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0026.html to
the RDFa WG and thereby close ACTION-509
<JeniT> In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with
fragment identifiers that are local to the document containing the
RDFa fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom,
which is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF
serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities
described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the
expressive power of RDFa. The precise meaning of IRIs which include
fragment identifiers when they appear in RDF graphs is given in
Section 7 of [RDF-CONCEPTS]. To ensure that such fragment
identifiers can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations
for markup languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or
indirectly reference this specification (RDFa Core).
ACTION-631 Microdata referenced from HTML5 spec
<noah> ACTION-631?
<trackbot> ACTION-631 -- Jeni Tennison to suggest how is best to deal
with explicit reference to only Microdata (not RDFa) from HTML spec --
due 2011-11-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/631
NM: Near consensus that not much needs to be done
JT: At the moment the HTML5 spec mentions neither Microdata or RDFa
... But that means there's no FYN route from the soon-to-be text/html
media type definition to either of these
<Larry> maybe this belongs in the MIME document
NM: No action on FYN for HTML5, I don't think
HST: I think this needs to be against HTML5 - unconvinced focusing on
mime doc now is the right way to go
JT: I'll take an action
LM: I'd like to help
<Larry> I think we need to address the issue of media type registration
in the compound specifications and media type registration and use....
NM: Due date just ahead of the f2f, so at least we can discuss this
there by expanding the microdata nd RDFa session
JT: It might also make sense to discuss it in the HTML.next session, as
it's larger than just microdata and RDFa
NM: Doesn't really fit with HTML.next -- time frame wrong, for one
thing
JT: It was mostly that I was hoping PLH would be there
NM: OK, I'll expand both the time slot and the topic for what was
called above the Microdata and RDFa reporting session
<noah> ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for
getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5
Due: 2 January 2012 [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-642 - With help from Larry to make plan of
action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA
from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-12-22].
<noah> ACTION-642 Due 2012-01-02
<trackbot> ACTION-642 With help from Larry to make plan of action for
getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5
Due: 2 January 2012 due date now 2012-01-02
NM: So, close ACTION-631?
<noah> close ACTION-631
<trackbot> ACTION-631 Suggest how is best to deal with explicit
reference to only Microdata (not RDFa) from HTML spec closed
<noah> ACTION-614?
<trackbot> ACTION-614 -- Jeni Tennison to report on progress relating
to RDFa and Microdata -- due 2011-12-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/614
<noah> ACTION-614 Due 2012-01-06
<trackbot> ACTION-614 Report on progress relating to RDFa and Microdata
due date now 2012-01-06
Pending review actions
<noah> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> ACTION-528?
<trackbot> ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus on
a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names -- due
2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528
HST: Was planning to discuss minutes of the workshop today, but someone
asked for more time
ACTION-588?
<trackbot> ACTION-588 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Larry to update
mime-web product page Due 2011-08-18 -- due 2011-12-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/588
Overtaken by ACTION-636 (Noah successfully fobs this off on Larry).
Marking PENDING REVIEW.
close ACTION-588
<trackbot> ACTION-588 Work with Larry to update mime-web product page
Due 2011-08-18 closed
ACTION-625?
<trackbot> ACTION-625 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule followup
discussion of [32]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per
agreement in Santa Clara) -- due 2011-12-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625
HST: There is a plan we hatched in Edinburgh, JAR will be letting us
all know about it
<noah> Include ACTION-625 in F2F agendum on URI Definition Discovery --
new work to be available for discussion
<noah> ACTION-639?
<trackbot> ACTION-639 -- Noah Mendelsohn to invite Mark Nottingham to
SPDY/HTTP F2F session -- due 2011-12-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/639
<noah> close ACTION-639
<trackbot> ACTION-639 Invite Mark Nottingham to SPDY/HTTP F2F session
closed
Overdue actions
<noah> ACTION-560?
<trackbot> ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last
call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560
HST: Some progress behind the scenes, but nothing definite to report on
yet
ACTION-560 due 2011-12-20
<trackbot> ACTION-560 Review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 due
date now 2011-12-20
<noah> ACTION-635?
<trackbot> ACTION-635 -- Henry Thompson to update product page for Frag
IDS and Mime types, to include realistic goals and dates -- due
2011-12-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/635
HST: I'll scope a session on this for the f2f, in case it's needed
ACTION-635 due 2011-12-20
<trackbot> ACTION-635 Update product page for Frag IDS and Mime types,
to include realistic goals and dates due date now 2011-12-20
HST: The updated page will not promise anything in time for the f2f
<noah>
[37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
<noah> ACTION-501?
<trackbot> ACTION-501 -- Ashok Malhotra to follow up on whether
GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per site/app
etc [self-assigned] -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501
<noah> ACTION-633?
<trackbot> ACTION-633 -- Ashok Malhotra to drive TAG review of
Geolocation last call Due 2011-12-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/633
NM: It really matters that Product pages really need to tell the truth
about when substantial documents will be forthcoming
AM: I think these are done, I sent email about them, saying the spec.
looked OK to me and no action was required
<noah> NM: Right, we need that especially as input to the
F2F...otherwise we will burn time there editing the product pages to
reflect earlier decision
<Larry> +1
<noah> close ACTION-501
<trackbot> ACTION-501 Follow up on whether GeoLocation finds reasonable
answer on giving permission per site/app etc [self-assigned] closed
<noah> close ACTION-633
<trackbot> ACTION-633 Drive TAG review of Geolocation last call Due
2011-12-06 closed
AM: I've done my half of ACTION-634
<noah> ACTION-634?
<trackbot> ACTION-634 -- Noah Mendelsohn to with help from Noah to
publish
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState-20111130
as a TAG Finding -- due 2011-12-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/634
AM: Waiting on NM for the other half
<Larry> I will bump the dates on my open actions
<noah> ACTION-632?
<trackbot> ACTION-632 -- Ashok Malhotra to frame issues around
client-side storage work Due 2011-12-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632
NM: I do want to talk about this at the f2f, so need it before then
<noah> ACTION-632 Due 2012-01-02
<trackbot> ACTION-632 Frame issues around client-side storage work Due
2011-12-06 due date now 2012-01-02
LM: I have been working on xxx, and would welcome review from everyone
<Larry> i've been making good progress, i'm ready for 1-1 review of the
document i'm working on, but not in a mode where you read something and
give me feedback days later...
NM: Adjourned
<Larry> i posted a couple of "uncool URLs must change" links
<Larry> and HTTP status cats as a new registry
<ht> +1 for HTTP status cats
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for
getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5
Due: 2 January 2012 [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to try and find list of review issues relating to
HTML5 from earlier discussions [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01]
__________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [45]scribe.perl version 1.135
([46]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/12/20 10:55:19 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-agenda.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-tagmem-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item07
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item08
13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#item09
14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#ActionSummary
15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/08-minutes
16. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0004.html
17. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda
18. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/637
19. http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next
20. http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072
21. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/application-security/web-security/a-security-analysis-of-next-generation-web-standards
22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01
23. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda.html#agendaInProgress
24. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0077.html
25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0026.html
26. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/631
27. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02
28. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/614
29. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
30. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528
31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/588
32. http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options
33. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625
34. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/639
35. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560
36. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/635
37. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501
39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/633
40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState-20111130
41. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/634
42. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632
43. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action02
44. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-minutes.html#action01
45. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
46. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 11:36:14 UTC