- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:31:51 -0500
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Draft minutes of the 8-10 February 2011 TAG F2F meeting are now available
at [1-3] and in text-only form below. The minutes are also linked from the
agenda at [4]. Please revise or send suggestions for changes ASAP, and we
will consider approving them on the call this Thursday. Thank you.
Noah
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-minutes
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/09-minutes
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes
[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
=========================================================
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
W3C TAG F2F Feb 8-10, 2011
Tuesday 08 Feb 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Noah Mendelsohn, Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees, Henry Thompson,
Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Appelquist, John Kemp, Larry Masinter,
Ashok Malhotra
Regrets
Yves Lafon
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
Jonathan Rees, Dan Appelquist
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Design of APIs for Web Applications
2. [6]Web Applications: Security
3. [7]scalabilityOfURIAccess-58: Scalability of URI Access to
Resources
4. [8]Web Applications: Client-side state
5. [9]the IETF presentation...
6. [10]Admin
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<jar> scribe: Jonathan Rees
<jar> scribenick: jar
Not convened yet, awaiting arrivals
Convened
intros
jar: (intro)
ht: (intro) sgml, xml , more recently status of uris in webarch
dka: (intro) mobile web, privacy, social web
timbl: (intro) DIG, privacy, policy, semweb UI
ashok: (intro) standards, oasis, etc, rdb to rdf
plinss: (intro) css, gecko, print as 1st-class citizen on web
... pre-css: object based editor on nextstep, design model. Digital
Style Websuite
noah: agenda review
... norm w is planning to spend all of wed. with us
<ht> Noah, is this the number you used: email: LMM@acm.org
(personal) masinter@adobe.com (company)
<ht> tel: +1 408 536-3024
noah: (re priorities session on thu) we had identified 3 areas,
larry has created a 4th area of core technologies (mime, sniffing,
etc)
... please think about tradeoffs
Design of APIs for Web Applications
<DKA> DAP privacy requirements:
[12]http://www.w3.org/TR/dap-privacy-reqs/#privacy-notice
[12] http://www.w3.org/TR/dap-privacy-reqs/#privacy-notice
dka: Looking at DAP group's document on requirements
... javascript apis that access things containing sensitive
information - just about anyting
... camera, address book, calendar, orientation, velocity
(pointing at table 'how each element is covered' with notice,
consent, minimization, etc. rows)
dka: what might the tag do to help promote privacy [control] on web?
... set of small, targeted docs that build on work of others (DAP,
UCB, others)?
... look at existing docs, amplifying, put in specific web contexts.
e.g. (for instance) Hannis (sp?) doc is general, DAP specific to
DAP, connect them.
projecting the API minimization note [URI in agenda]
dka: come up with several examples of this idea in action
... want to sidestep Ashok's issue - about the Abelson et al. paper
pointing out that user dialogs are silly, since they can't assess
consequences
Ashok: Abelson et al suggests to consider legal accountability as
alternative
dka: Vodafone privacy counsel said (at workshop) things are coming
together on that front
... Minimization is not about this.
timbl: Need global change in ethos regarding data use, independent
of how they got it
... All these [tactics] need to be in the list
dka: Looking for technical [tactics] that TAG might be able to say
something about.
... image metadata capturing privacy intent?
... If you keep asking people about this, good results are unlikely
timbl: What if you say: I want my friends to see my pictures. would
be nice if software kept track of how/why friend got them, as
reminder
dka: Problem - technical jargon in dialog boxes ('GPS coordinates'
...)
noah: You're saying the apps should be able to say: I don't need
more info than xxx.
... What about malicious apps.
dka: Remember this philosophical approach. We tend to get
distracted. Need to find particular points to focus on.
... [Solve one problem at a time.]
noah: ... But my experience is that most of the problems have to do
with attackers
... and exploiters
dka: Problem comes with attacker exploiting well-intended app. What
to do to well-intended to make it less vulnerable to exploitation
... We need to be clear that even if you do [any particular thing],
you won't have a privacy solution
noah: Problem is interacting with untrusted services that I need to
use.
dka: The aggregate amount of info open to abuse is lower if you
minimize. So several docs to chip away at specific things, not to
provide comprehensive solution
<ht> [13]http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/
[13] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/
<ht> is what JR is talking about
<ht> LM and JK join the meeting at this point
jar: security is just one way to support privacy... and need to do
lots to get security. least privilege just one.
ht: Dan's answer did address Noah's point. By specifying an approach
that the platforms subscribe, you bound the damage that the bad guys
can do. If they have less info, they can do less.
... You can reduce the bandwidth of any particular API call. This
raises the barrier.
dka: If the app only needs city location, but has to request fine
grained location, ... is the right question being asked [or user,
developer, app...?]
noah: Document needs an intro that sets expectations
masinter: Framing = it's warfare, we're minimizing the attack
surface
<ht> There is a HF/UI design/human engineering issue here which
won't go away, but micro-capabilities do create a real opportunity
to reduce your exposure, much as they make me tear my hair out as an
implementor
masinter: To say there's a way around a defense, is not an argument
against the defense
<noah> I also wanted to make the point that: dealing with access
control (or legal means) that will prevent malicious apps from
getting info they shouldn't have is crucial -- even if none of the
solutions we have now have been shown to work very well (e.g.
because users say "yes" to everything)
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to support DKA wrt NM's use case and to give
the Mark Logic API parallel
ht: I use two different xml database systems... the 'open' one has
unix style object protection - file x RW
... the commercial one has about 60-70 capabilities. almost 1-1 on
API calls, file x cap
... bigger effort to manage for both users and developers.
... you get high degree of control. Compare minimization. You have
to get informed consent, but if it's granular enough you get
questions that are specific enough to make sense
dka: Resistance to normative requirements for UI design, esp. re
privacy
... The minimization approach doesn't impose specific UI
requirements. This might enable creative UI design
johnk: There's always a useability tradeoff in security. E.g.
facebook has tons of knobs
... but underneath there's a simple set of access control privs
... e.g. app needs to do something special to get email address
... This is a usability issue, a tradeoff
dka: Re minimization, the approach stands, since it says nothing
about the user interaction. [API and UI needn't slavishly
correspond]
<Zakim> johnk, you wanted to mention the FB API model
noah: Proposal?
<noah> I'm asking: what do you propose we do that will have real,
useful impact for the community?
dka: Useful output might be: Umbrella document. Privacy and webarch.
Subdocuments, e.g. minimization.
scribes - Tue JR / DA, Wed AM / ?, Th HT / ?
masinter: Big discussion on privacy in larger community. Our
schedule should coordinate with external events
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about participating in larger
discussion
masinter: What does API minimization have to do with HTTP?
jar (under breath): there are HTTP APIs
<masinter> my point is that if we're trying to decide what to do
with some work that was focused in one group to generalize the
principle in a way that it applies to all W3C work and not just to
the work of one committee
noah: DKA, can we get together and make a straw-man product
proposal?
masinter: E.g. can be a problem sending info in Accept: headers when
it's not needed in order for server to do its job
... Trying to suggest how to expand this from a DAP point to a TAG
point
timbl: (masinter, you missed the beginning of the session)
(break)
Web Applications: Security
[14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html
jk: I was asked to frame section 7 of the webarch report on apps
... Wanted to echo [style of] Larry's MIME writeup
... If you start with browser/server/protocol, and trace history of
the three with a security focus...
... start with just getting a doc.
... then more support in http. history in doc is well known but
worth reviewing
... NN2 introduced cookies, and cookies needed origin
<masinter> [15]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin
[15] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin
jk: Related to lost of security issues. State in protocol. Origin
and document not linked securely.
... Why should you trust the DNS?
timbl: It assumes there's a social connection between - and -. There
was a trust model, it just wasn't cryptographically secure
jk: These are layered protocols, that makes security harder. eg.
DNSsec isn't bound to higher protocols
ht: scripts??
jk: Dynamically loaded scripts not subject to SOP
noah: XML and JSON is good example - the weaker language was subject
to tighter security controls - dumb
ht: script with a source tag predates JSON. it was never subject to
SOP ??
<masinter> [16]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie
timbl: Suddenly all these APIs have this extra parameter, the
calling function ...
<timbl> the function to be called by the injkected script tag
jk: Cookies were easiest way to do session indicator. shopping carts
and so on.
... AJAX was other driver
... XHR does use SOP, but using JSONP you can circumvent it
... apps send cookies from one place to another
... Trying to abstract away, to find security issues as opposed to
implementation bugs. What issues are architectural in these examples
... One is, when doc contains multiple parts, contributed from
different security domains
noah: (When did we stop using the term 'representation'?)
jk: If you don't mediate the interaction, e.g. using sandbox, bad
things happen.
... e.g. runaway cpu time
... Silent redirects. Malicious site forwards, cookies sent to 2nd
site -> clickjacking
... Authentication based on Referer: (i.e. referrer) header
... Servers depend on client to do the right thing, in particular
proper origin processing
... Specs are difficult read, so there can be broken user agents.
... My advice: Server should not trust user agents. What are
circumstances in which you can server can align with user
timbl: We need to preserve the role of the user-agent as the agent
of the (human) user.
johnk: Yes, but we need to be a bit more nuanced. There shouldn't be
inordinate trust in a class of agents. One should only need to trust
an agent to a certain degree.
noah: Users don't understand UAs well enough to be able to
discriminate..
<masinter> somehow I want to bring in
[17]http://www.schneier.com/book-sandl.html'
[17] http://www.schneier.com/book-sandl.html'
timbl: That doesn't diminish the responsibility of UAs
... One of the the things the TAG does is to ascribe blame
johnk: Who's responsible for a clickjacking attack? Software was
behaving per spec
masinter: Users are presented choices that they don't understand
johnk: Not much you can do about that -
masinter: don't require users to make decisions that they don't
understand. design principle.
... optimize a match between what user wants and what happens.
doesn't matter whether choices are simple or complex
pl: You said simplicity might be better - maybe so at user level,
not nec. across the system
<masinter> complex choices are less likely to be understood, but
simple choices might be a problem
(scribe notes that henry suggested just the opposite. see above)
jk: Cache poisoning might mean no link between IP and domain name...
in fact no way to guarantee domain name ownership
<masinter> want to talk about TAG work in context with
[18]http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/
[18] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/
<masinter> Oct 2010 Submit 'HTTP Application Security Problem
Statement and Requirements' as initial WG item. -- don't see that
document
jk: ssl... data not encrypted on hotspot
timbl: Firefox 'get me out of here'
jk: When you run web content, the content starts being rendered
immediately - there is no install step. It just starts running
ht: I've been manually virus checking every downloaded app. Can't do
this with pages
masinter: some antivirus sw modifies the HTTP stack
noah: Also you lose the ability to make sticky decisions. Nextbus is
an example of non-installed app but that you come back to repeatedly
... you keep getting asked for permssion to use location. annoying
timbl: But most browsers do this well ?
jk: Lack of tie-in between host naming and where you access the doc
(where published)
... who is responsible for the content of the document?
Nonrepudiation.
timbl: You can sign the document until you're blue in the face ...
noah: Doc is written by an expert, would be helpful if some of the
examples were spelled out in more detail
masinter: Security WG calls for a [...] document. Is what we're
doing related to their work item?
... They have a bunch of specific documents, but nothing at this
level
jk: Their docs are very narrow
masinter: No, look at their charter
Oct 2010 Submit 'HTTP Application Security Problem Statement and
Requirements' as initial WG item.
masinter: Isn't this what we're doing?
jk: The issue of mime sniffing. It became a good idea for the
browser to ignore media type... problem is guessing user intent
(slight aside)
jk: So what would be desirable properties of security webarch?
(reviewing doc)
noah: please clarify use of 'web agent'
... 'tie' isn't evocative - what constitutes success? what system
properties are we after?
timbl: E.g. maybe avoid separation of authentication and
authorization
jk: App layer with signed piece of content, same key should be used
in both levels of protocol stack (or at least related)
timbl: WebID people have expereienced this need - converting keys
between apps / layers - PGP to log in using ssh etc.
ht: I'm having to use Kerberos - very inconvenient - when I ssh from
laptop home I need a kerberos principal... way too much work... [so
unification cuts both ways?]
timbl: but kerberos isn't public-key
... The thing about connecting the two parts together is valuable
jk: WebID is a case where it can't be done. User generates a cert,
puts it in foaf file. Impossible to tie foaf description of me with
me the person.
masinter: can show 1 person wrote 2 things
noah: Same issue as in PGP - you have to be careful when first
picking up the key
jk: what's the purpose of encrypting the assertion (in webid)?...
... 3rd bullet in properties section: We should be able to do what
the original web design wanted us to do
timbl: But doesn't CORS do this for us?
jar: Controversial.
<masinter> W3C TAG should be a participant in overall work on web
security, including other work in IETF and W3C
<noah> ACTION-417?
<masinter> action-417?
<trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
<masinter> ACTION-417?
<trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
masinter: There's ongoing work. We should review it regularly and be
seen as a participant. The way to do that is to publish a note, and
announce, repeat. But be clear that we're not trying to take the
lead.
noah: But the action was to frame a section of our document...
<masinter> The W3C chapter on security on the web could identify
that there are some issues and point at other groups that are
working on the problems
<masinter> W3C TAG should have input on W3C activities decisions,
and this should be a W3C activity, on "security and privacy"
ashok: Let's close 417, start another one to write a note. If that
becomes bigger/better, fine.
masinter: In general the TAG should be more involved in setting up
W3C activities.
timbl: So far it's just been a series of workshops, not an activity
ashok: Privacy at w3 is morphing
masinter: Would like to see a note out before Prague meeting (end of
March)
<noah> noah: any objection to a proposal to close ACTION-417, and
have John publish what he's got, slightly cleaned up, as a note with
no formal status, but at a stable URI. Noah will help.
<noah> Larry will help too, and would like this done in time for
IETF in Prague.
<noah> PROPOSAL: close ACTION-417, and have John publish what he's
got, slightly cleaned up, as a note with no formal status, but at a
stable URI. Noah will help.
<noah> No objections.
<noah> close ACTION-417
<trackbot> ACTION-417 Frame section 7, security closed
<noah> action John to publish
[21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - John
<noah> action Larry (as trackbot proxy for John) who will publish
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-515 - (as trackbot proxy for John) who
will publish
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07 [on Larry
Masinter - due 2011-02-15].
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html
<noah> ACTION: Noah to talk with Thomas Roessler about organizing
W3C architecture work on security [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-516 - Talk with Thomas Roessler about
organizing W3C architecture work on security [on Noah Mendelsohn -
due 2011-02-15].
<DKA> Scribe: Dan
<DKA> ScribeNick: DKA
[roll call]
Noah: Ted is joining us.
scalabilityOfURIAccess-58: Scalability of URI Access to Resources
Noah: [background] there are certain resources w3c publishes on its
website - e.g. dtds...
... certain organizations were [fetching] these resources a lot.
<ted> [25]summary Yves wrote of actions taken by W3C
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0016.html
Noah: practical question: what can be done? Architectural question:
what can be fixed in the architecture?
<ted> [26]article on DTD traffic
[26]
http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic
Noah: one angle proposed is : what would be the role of a catalog?
You could tell people that certain resources won't change or won't
change any time soon so they could build [their products] not to
fetch these resources.
... Anything else from Ted?
Ted: We've employed some different techniques - for certain patterns
we've given http 503 after reaching a threashold. At peaks, we see
half a billion a day. Starts to become a problem. Sometimes this has
resulted in blocking organizations.
... if it's an organization that is a member then we pursue through
the AC rep...
... this doesn't scale well.
... there are several big libraries - eg. msxml - they've put a fix
in which has led to a sharp decline.
... Norm Walsh came up with a URI resolver in Java that would
implement a caching catalog solution but this never made its way
into Sun JDK.
... Sun has been bought by Oracle so now we are talking to Oracle
engineers and they have been responsive. Trying to see if we can get
something into next JDK.
... We had a fast response from Python.
Noah: Do you ask these people to implement caching or a catalog?
Ted: We suggest either. I like the caching catalog solution [from
Norm].
... we educate, we block, we have a high-volume proxy front-end that
distinguishes traffic...
... when we explain to people that this is not good architecture -
receiving the same thing over the network 100000's times a day -
they agree.
... we probably should be in the business of packaging and promoting
the catalog. Henry has done some work on this.
... the idea we came up with - find the most popular ones based on
traffic and we routinely package these up, have RSS feeds to alert
to catalog changes, talk to Oracle, Microsoft, Python, etc... get
some of the bigger customers out there to adopt the catalog.
... meta-topic (that the TAG is concerned with) is the scalability
of URIs in general. There is a lack of directives to do rate
limiting, to set boundaries, how to scale URIs... Could be useful in
dealing with DDOS attacks.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about RSS feeds fro updates to
things with distant expiry dates.
<masinter> who's here?
Tim: We don't have real push technology available (apart from Email)
but supposing we make a package [a catalog] and we send them out.
Then an erratum comes in for something that has a 12 month expiry
date. Do we need a revocation mechanism?
Henry: I think there's an 80/20 point. Speaking as a user, I'm
grateful for the shift from the 503s to the tarpitting.
... the delay of 30 seconds helps people to remind people to get the
catalog.
... so that's a step forward. In response to Tim: the HTML DTDs are
close to 80% of the problem, and they are legacy, they are not
changing. If there were turn-key solutions for the tools that
legitimately need those DTDs to validate - that made it easy for SAs
to install the catalog that would cause the tools to find them, then
I don't think there's an expiry problem.
Tim: We have to consider the new and the old separately.
<scribe> ... new systems could be designed differently. The total
load on the server from the HTML dtd will go down over time.
Tim: My proposal - the old is finite damage, in the future we can
issue different systems. This connects to an alternative to catalogs
- promote a version of http that is much more robust, which could
help Ted and could also help with other situations where someone has
been disconnected from the net (e.g. the recent situation in Egyot).
The new http version could use a number of different algorithms
(e.g. P2P) to find the resource you are after.
... so that the chance of finding a copy locally (of a DTD) would be
quite high.
... after the Egypt situation, there's been a lot of interest in
this.
... I'd love to have the TAG push that forward.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to mention HTTP automatically morphing to
P2P when under stress
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about what's required vs. what's
desirable
Noah: I think the role for the TAG is to talk about the problem that
is not specific to particular resources like the html dtd. In
previous times I've come across this problem, the response from some
has been "well you should be running a proxy" - is that correct? And
in some cases it is actually cheaper to make multiple http
requests...
... so: we could clarify the responsibilities that people have to
cache or to not cache.
... should we change the normative specs?
... [some will push bacl]
... for long term - we could break open this protocol http version
2.
Ted: Looking over the rfc-2616, the language is "should" around
caching of http.
... it's optional and treated as such.
... lighter-weight implementations tend to be very barebones.
... I think promoting catalogs is the way to go - and we should work
to get major libraries to include it, ship it, and have it enabled
by default.
... I think the focus for the TAG should be in the meta problem. How
to make URIs and web sites scale.
... Sites do get overwhelmed. There is no way to let consumers of
this data know what is acceptable behaviour besides sending back a
503.
<masinter> should also note that HTML itself has gotten rid of DTDs.
But isn't main problem giving out "http:" URIs in the first place?
Ted: we see lots of sites experiencing similar problems.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to speak up for the user
Noah: I read it as a MAY in rfc-2616
<noah> From RFC-2616 section 13.2.1:
<noah> The primary mechanism for avoiding
<noah> requests is for an origin server to provide an explicit
expiration
<noah> time in the future, indicating that a response MAY be used to
satisfy
<noah> subsequent requests.
<noah> So, it's a MAY not a SHOULD.
Henry: I'm concerned about the message we're sending to students
"you should produce valid html, valid XML, etc..." and yet when they
try to validate their documents they have to wait 30 seconds.
... because the web page has the public identifier.
Tim: Why does the validator not cache it?
Henry: Because the number of validators out there is quite large,
and the free ones (while they support catalogs) but they don't
distribute the catalog of DTS as part of their install.
<ted> [libxml from the beginning shipped w a catalog]
<masinter> valid HTML no longer has a doctype
[27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
[27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
Tim: That can be fixed relatively easily - the DTDs can be wired
into the code for things that aren't going to change any more.
Henry: The crucial people you need to convince are the open source
implementers.
Noah: in many cases, when you dig into what needs to be fixed, it is
not straightforward to change all the implementations...
Henry: I am more worried about the people [students] who are the
future of the Web. The people who use off-the-shelf free validator
tools and get burned.
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to give strawman: specs were wrong, so
asking people to run a proxy is really only to compensate for our
failures
Noah: should we undertake any work to help ted and/or ongoing work.
Larry: I think it was a serious design mistake to put a URL in a
document that you didn't want anyone to retrieve and not tell them
that.
... all of these proxies are compensating for someone else's
mistake.
... I'm worried it was a mistake in more than one way. The
presumption was that if I send you a message with a pointer to a DTD
there is some expectation that you'll get the same DTD that I meant
you to get. But the lifetime of the message can be longer than the
lifetime of the DTD.
<Zakim> johnk, you wanted to note that waiting 30 seconds should be
to encourage alternate behaviour
Larry: We should think of the architectural design flaw here and
make sure we don't do this again.
<masinter> "there are no cool URLs, everything changes eventually"
John: Pragmatically, tarpitting requests that are overwhelming your
server seems like the right way to deal with it [counterpoint to
Henry's statement]. They should learn that they are doing something
wrong.
<masinter> "the URL is already broken"
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask: is it a mistake?
John: I'm worried we're going to overthink this, when education plus
pragmatic tarpitting could be the right response.
Noah: My inclination is close to John's. This is a big distributed
file system. [The system should cope with this.]
<timbl> We have to design for the scale free web an we should be
able to have specific designs tailored to make the extreme case of
the most popular document/DTD/etc work, but we should not let that
blind us to the general needs o fthe long tail.
Noah: what's implicit in what John is saying - these things are
there to be dereferenced, in principle, you can look at these DTDs
whenever you need to. The burden should be on the infrastructure to
gracefully degrade and provide fair service. Tarpitting is a fine,
proposed recommendation of best practice here.
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to long tail
Tim: There are lots of DTD-like things out there. We need to be able
to copy with various different scaling. We could provide some
specific tailored response for these w3c issues. There may be
similar things with some libraries...
Noah: Let's say there 100,000 ontologies, getting a lot of traffic.
Let's say if I work my way through 100,000 ontologies in a loop.
Should I also be tarpitted?
Tim: No.
... I won't want to mess up the fact that in general you should be
able to dereference a dtd if you want to.
Jonathan: I'd like to hear more from Tim about the economics.
[Analogy:] there's a popular library book. A library buys a copy.
There's a lot of demand for i so you have to get in line to get it.
For physical goods there is an infrastructure to support this.
... Publishers can take care of it.
Tim: For the case of harry potter, the book industry operates
differently, because it's a different scale of usage.
Jonathan: Transaction costs [on the web] are so much lower.
Inexpensive social expectations.
<masinter> One downside of using URIs for things other than href@a
and img@src is that these scale issues arise. This has been an
architectural principle, to use html: URIs for things that you don't
really intend to be referenced. it's not the only downside
<noah> I guess I just disagree that they should not be derefenced
Jonathan: it's a question of economics in relation to social
expectations. ... who pays for what.
<noah> On the contrary, we've said that when you make things like
namespaces, we want you to use tcp-scheme URIs precisely so that you
CAN dereference them.
<noah> Larry, these DTD references are like img src -- each of the
references is from an HTML document.
Larry: there has been an architectural principle for using URIs
other than for HREFs and IMG SRC .. that architectural encouragement
has some downsides. One of which is a scaling issue. You expect an
IMG SRC to get as many retrievals as the document. And HREF to get
as many requests as people clicking on it. So you can scale
appropriately. DTDs, namespaces, ontologoes don't follow that model.
... The mismatch has led to a couple of problems.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to disagree with Larry
Larry: let's acknowledge the problem.
Noah: [disagreeing on the different scaling model between DTDs and
IMG SRC...]
Ted: To Tim's point: a software engineer comes up with a brand new
ontology, puts it on his web site, it becomes popular - he will have
the same headaches and hassles as we do.
Noah: If apache came pre-configured to handle the load would you be
happy?
Ted: Yes, for example, if apache told search engines "I'm busy right
now please come back later" then that would be good. You can't
express in http your pain threshold.
Tim: TCP works really well because you stuff in as much as you can.
It was designed at 300 baud times and it works at 300 gigabit times.
... You want to have negotiated quality of service.
<masinter> speaking of Van Jacobson,
[28]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to say that the problem was the W3C
published a STANDARD that pointed to a http URI rather than
something more permanent and to
Larry: Van Jacobson - has an interesting project on content-centric
networks that we might want to look into.
[debate on whether DTDs are intended to be retrieved or not]
Noah: Next steps...
<noah> ACTION-390?
<trackbot> ACTION-390 -- Daniel Appelquist to review ISSUE-58 and
suggest next steps -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390
Dan: I don't have an answer...
<ted> ted: the # (2-3?) of connection limit per ip gets in the way
of user experiences as well, making CDN more popular. as
administrator i would like to improve a user's browser experience
(faster load time) and allow in some cases more concurrent
connections
Noah: The simple answer is to [keep this on the back burner]. I need
a proposal on what we should do and who does it.
<ted> ted: i also want to encourage search engines to crawl me and
do so efficiently when convenient for me
Noah: I think we need a short finding on what people's
responsibilities are regarding caching.
Henry: I will reach out to [authors of XML parsers].
<ted> s/ted: i also/[i also
Tim: We should write what we want clients to do.
<masinter> wonder if Henry could write up what he's asking and what
they say or do?
Henry: A good idea is - what Ted mentioned - an adaptive caching
mechanism.
Noah: We could talk about turing the MAY in rfc-2616 to a SHOULD.
Larry: I am against that. I think it's the wrong place.
Noah: When you have a piece of software that is in a position to
detect repeated requests, you should cache.
<ted> [if caching was less optional and more widely deployed on net
popular resources would scale better and performance would be
better]
John: [supporting tarpitting]
... I think it should be cached in the open source code level...
<masinter> (a) I don't think we can quickly come to a conclusion,
but (b) Henry has agreed to ask tool authors to do something, (c)
think we could endorse what Henry asks if the tool authors are
willing to go along with it
<johnk> Norm has written about this;
[30]http://nwalsh.com/docs/articles/xml2003/
[30] http://nwalsh.com/docs/articles/xml2003/
[discussion of caching catalog and whether or not it's a catalog]
<masinter> for example, "clear my cache" for privacy reasons might
not clear the catalog
Henry: the OASIS catalog is just a string-to-string matcher,
matching HTTP URIs to loca disk copies.
Larry: for privacy reasons you might want to say "clear my cache"
but that wouldn't clear my catalog.
Noah: What's implicit in john's proposal: separation of concerns.
Tim: I hope you wouldn't expect clients to spot that tcp connection
is going slowly...
<masinter> there are several places to intercept this problem. The
first is the choice of the URI scheme for DTD or namespace or
ontology. Second is choice of server and server infrastructure for
serving, when the URI scheme is "http". Third is design of client
software, fourth is operation of client.
Noah: the server is creating a network that is robust against
traffic access pattern. Different clients will make different
choices. A client might not need to change anything [in the case of
e.g. tarpitting]. [if you are not time sensitive]
Larry: Henry - I would like you to document what you tell [the
implementors] and report back what they say.
Dan: on the p2p topic - should we be doing something here?
Henry: I don't know enough the next gen internet...
Tim: I don't think that internet2 is reinventing http.
<ted> [p2p has too much overhead (startup time to connect to peers)
imho to be worthwhile for small resources. yves makes that point as
well in his email]
Noah: This seems like an area where if we succeed it will take a
third of our bandwidth. Rather than inviting people from the p2p
community, we should either back off and do small things OR get one
or 2 people on the tag to do a survey of what's out there and report
back at the next f2f.
... but we need people who want to put time into that.
Henry: over the next 2-3 years we better start thinking about how
much of webarch is going to survive [with the next gen internet].
The interface between the tcp/ip layer and the http layer has
thus-far been very clean. There's no guarantee that will be true
10-15 years from now. The TAG needs to start thinking about how we
(the We
... web) is going to survive.
... [clarifying] as the future becomes clearer, we need to start
tracking it ...
<Zakim> ted, you wanted to put that on rec
Noah: I want to focus this on next steps.
<ted> ted: ^^ comment on merits of caching. in practice as we've
heard from noah the costs of maintaining caching proxies too high
compared to bandwidth.
<ted> ted: glad to hear larry's comment. get library developers to
implement what ht suggests. i heard ht (and others) liked norm's
caching catalog. would oracle implement it in jdk?
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to suggest Henry write that up
test
Ted: [ speaking in support of the caching catalog approach ]
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to remind people that just because there is
a next-gen or internet2 activity doesn't mean that will be the
future of the internet. :)
<noah> NM: Ted, anything hi priorty you want the TAG to do?
<noah> TG: Day by day, we're getting by. The catalog work would be
helpful. What seems really useful is for the TAG to tackle the
meta-issue.
<noah> TG: Directives are potentially useful; peer-to-peer seems
most applicable for large things.
<noah> NM: Large or high volume?
<noah> TG: P2P startup times are typically significant, so large
resources.
<ted> [and p2p could be intersting failover for http]
<noah> NM: Floor is open for volunteers
<noah> ACTION: Larry to help us figure out whether to say anything
about scalability of access at IETF panel [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-517 - Help us figure out whether to say
anything about scalability of access at IETF panel [on Larry
Masinter - due 2011-02-15].
<ht> trackbot, status?
<ht> ACTION: Henry S. to report back on efforts to get undertakings
from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs
configured into their tools [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
<trackbot> Created ACTION-518 - S. to report back on efforts to get
undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned
catalogs configured into their tools [on Henry S. Thompson - due
2011-02-15].
<noah> . ACTION Peter to frame architectural opportunities relating
to scalability of resource access
<ht> trackbot, action-518 due 2011-07-15
<trackbot> ACTION-518 S. to report back on efforts to get
undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned
catalogs configured into their tools due date now 2011-07-15
<noah> ACTION Peter to frame architectural opportunities relating to
scalability of resource access Due: 2011-03-15
<trackbot> Created ACTION-519 - Frame architectural opportunities
relating to scalability of resource access Due: 2011-03-15 [on Peter
Linss - due 2011-02-15].
<noah> close ACTION-390
<trackbot> ACTION-390 Review ISSUE-58 and suggest next steps closed
Web Applications: Client-side state
<noah> ACTION-514 Due 2011-03-01
<trackbot> ACTION-514 Draft finding on API minimization Due:
2011-02-01 due date now 2011-03-01
<noah> (that should have been fixed this morning)
[33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html
Noah: I think this draft needs to make a few key points...
Ashok: there is at the end a section on recommendations...
... sections 4, 5 and 6 are the heart of it.
Noah: Can it be abstracted into a one or 2 sentence best practice?
[ looking through section 4 and picking out BP statements ]
<noah> I'm seeing as potential recommendations:
<noah> As the state of the resource and the display changes, the
fragment identifier can be changed to keep track of the state.
<masinter> I think the wording would be better if recast a bit
<noah> ...and...
<noah> if the URI is sent to someone else the fragment identifier
can be used to recreate the state.
<masinter> "the application can be designed so that the fragment
identifier 'identifies' the state"
<noah> NM: What about "?" vs. "#
Ashok: I have added one paragraph - in the google maps case which I
think talks about that.
<noah> AM: I added a para about that.
<masinter> "the application can be designed so that the fragment
identifier identifies or encodes the relevant transferable parts of
the state"
Jonathan: Isn't this a special case of "use URIs to name things"?
There are things that happen when you click or do a manipulation in
your UI. You can name that action with a URI (a hyperlink) or you
can not name it with a URI. If you use a URI then you have a control
you can move out of the page.
Ashok: Yes.
Larry: the application can be designed so that the fragment
identifier identifies or encodes the relevant transferable parts of
the state
Ashok: Yes.
Larry: in the case of a map application with a lot of state, then
you want the app to be designed so that the URI contains the [part
of the state that you want to be transferred to another client]
<Ashok> Larry: You can design the app so that the frag ig identifies
or encodes the state you want uniformly erferenced
Larry: the part that you want to have uniformly referenced.
Noah: let's suspend disbelief and assume that google maps used hash
signs. The question is: state of what? [demonstrates using google
maps]
Ashok: What [gmaps
Noah: there are a lot of http interactions under the covers...
... let's be careful about what is the transferable part of the
resource...
... originally, [in the case of gmaps] an http request was made for
the generic [34]http://maps.google.com document.
... scrolling through this map feels like scrolling through an http
document.
... the question I want to raise: for this class of apps, you
emphasise that there is a virtual document that is the map...
[34] http://maps.google.com/
Ashok: [points to text in:
[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html#Inter
actionState]
... we can work on this wording...
[35]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html#InteractionState
Tim: When you're looking at the map... It's interesting that you
don't use the hash as you drive around... They do not use the hash,
but they could...
Ashok: the question mark tells you what to bring from the server.
the has would not tell you that.
Tim: they both would...
Ashok: I disagree it could be done with the hash.
Tim: What comes back on the response is a piece of javascript. The
javascript then starts pulling in all the tiles.
Ashok: if the only thing that comes back is javascript on the first
get... [then it could be hash...]
Noah: I think one of the attractions of this - is you don't have to
do the distribution in the same way in all cases. If I use the hash
sign and I us it in an email reader, the typical email client
[wouldn't handle it correctly].
... [disables javascript and reloads the map from google maps; it
works]
... You couldn't do that with the hash sign.
Ashok: Your first access gets you the app plus some javascript...
Noah: where does the word representation apply. In the case of
gmaps, is it a representation when it is generated with javascript,
client side?
Tim: yes, it's a representation.
... lots and lots of web pages are filled in with javascript.
Noah: Ok - it would be good to tell that story. Many web pages do
this. There may be other ajax apps where you get different behavior.
Ashok: I'll ask TV if he can tell us what goes on under the covers
[of google maps].
<johnk> example 3 talks about client URI generation -
[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
Tim: History manipulation - to be able to change the behavior of the
back button and change what's in the location bar - is in firefox 4.
Ashok: [talking through section 6]
... Do these or don't these violate specs and what do / should we
do?
... frag ids for html and xml... many media types don't define usage
of frag ids..
Larry: But we are specifically talking about http and html...
Ashok: [last paragraph] - "active content"
Larry: When you talk about URIs do you mean URIs in general, or just
http URIs...?
... [you need to be specific.]
Tim: I think we should make feel bad about using hash in this way.
We should change the specs.
Larry: We should fix the specs to match.
Henry: I'm happier with doing this if we can say "because it's not
incompatible" with the speced story.
Larry: originally content was static. Fragment ids were pointers to
static pointers. Now content is active...
Henry: the interpretation of stuff after the hash should be client
side...
[broad agreement]
Larry: it would be great if URIs worked [interoperated] between
google maps and yahoo maps...
Henry: Historically the spec told you that all you needed to know
was the media type of the response, now it's more tightly coupled.
<Ashok> The page tells you what the fragId is used for
Tim: what's interesting about the maps space - it would be great if
the user has independent control over what happens when you get a
GEO URI... what service you want to use...
John: Lat and Long have meaning in the real world. You also have the
position on a map, which is different from the real space. The third
part is the panning and zooming.
Tim: all you need is the lat - lon.
... the user [should] just see lat, long.
<ht> There has been a real change in where the responsibility for
determining the meaning of the post-# strings lies
<ht> Per the existing specs, it's global, and lies in the media type
registration
<ht> Per the practice under discussion, it lies with the [transitive
closure of] the representation retrieved for the pre-# URI
<ht> This is parallel to where the code comes from the _implements_
the semantics: for the existing spec. story, it's in the UA from the
beginning, because it's known at UA-creation time, because it comes
from the media type spec.
<ht> whereas for the new usage, it's in the retrieved representation
itself
John: I think this goes back to the coupling issue.
Ashok: [back to the document] Section 7 - I didn't do anything with
it - Yves says take it out...
Noah: It feels like we haven't nailed the good practices and
recommendation. There are some interesting bits here. I'd like to
see them in support of some news [some concrete recommendations].
Then we could see what other groups we need to coordinate with.
[back up to section 4]
<noah> Noah: Not happy with the word "operate" in section 4.
[discussion on the wording]
<noah> Noah: I think it's more like: the JavaScript uses the
fragment identifier as well as other information to render the
representation(?) of the resource.
<noah> Noah: I think it's more like: the JavaScript uses the
fragment identifier as well as other information to render and
support interaction with the representation(?) of the resource.
<noah> Noah: On "As the state of the resource and the display
changes, the fragment identifier can be changed to keep track of the
state." Yes, but we need to get clear on pros and cons of ? vs. #
Dan: do you need to assume programmatic access to the
history/address bar?
<noah> TBL: The key point on # vs ? is that when you update the
address bar, the page >will< reload. In the case of #, well, the
right document is already loaded. In the case of ?, the tendency
would be to reload the page.
<noah> TBL: Right, and when the GET happens, you lose state.
Noah: This finding has been slowly evolving. Need to hear from the
TAG : we need to focus on it, get it to where people are happy and
move ahead.
+1 on its usefulness.
Jonathan: I am not worked up about it. My focus tends to be on what
does the stuff mean, independent on the protocols.
... I can't figure out who it would help or who would pay attention.
Henry: The thing that caused me to wake up: the two people who have
the most invested in the history saying "yes we should change the
spec." [Larry and Tim] So the way we should change this spec is to
have a set of guidelines and suggestions on what specs should
change, how they should change and why it's OK.
Larry: the media type registration needs to say (for active content)
when and how those parameters are passed to the active content. We
are extending something originally designed for passive content to
change for active content.
Henry: So this should be a story about how we think about media type
registration in the space [active content] that we are now living
in.
Larry: ..make the frag identifiers useful for the potion of the
state that you are interested in [uniformly referencing].
... We could start with the current document as a note and use that
as a basis to add something to the mime-web document and maybe
another document.
Noah: the document either has to cut the advice out, or it needs to
give advice in close to the style that we've done in findings. "Good
practice: xxx , explanation"...
... or describe use cases.
... Ashok I think that work needs to be done before publishing it as
a note.
Larry: I'm OK with it. The context is a discovery...
Dan: I think that sounds like the right approach - reformatting /
expanding some of the recommendations and publishing it as a note.
John: I think it makes sense to document things we'd like to see
happen.
... highlighting that kind of usage is good. But I worry that it's
getting a bit wooly.
... I told Raman when I reviewed this document that he could pull
out 2 things - the same things referenced in section 4 of the
current document.
Ashok: I think we can make this [section 4] better.
... If people think that after that we can publish this as a note,
great. Following that, if you want something smaller - one page,
about spec recommendations, then we can pull that out.
Noah: that could be as simple as giving someone an action...
<masinter> action-508?
<trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report
regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due:
2011-01-03 -- due 2011-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
<masinter> action-500?
<trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG
participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15
-- OPEN
<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
<noah> Leave ACTION-481 as is
<noah> ACTION-508?
<trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report
regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due:
2011-01-03 -- due 2011-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
<noah> LM: Ashok's document should be a stable reference.
<noah> ACTION-508 Due 2011-02-22
<trackbot> ACTION-508 Draft proposed bug report regarding
interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due: 2011-01-03 due
date now 2011-02-22
<masinter> action-508 should say that the problem is that #XXXX are
parameters to acdtive content
the IETF presentation...
Larry: What is the boundary between "the web" and the "rest of the
Internet"?
ISSUE-500?
<trackbot> ISSUE-500 does not exist
<masinter> issue-500?
<trackbot> ISSUE-500 does not exist
<masinter> action-500?
<trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG
participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15
-- OPEN
<trackbot> [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
<Yves> [re: Ashok's document on fragments, I'll send further
comments/help working on it]
[debate on what is implied by the quote from the IAB]
<Ashok> Thanks, Yves!
Noah: The TAG has decided to say yes to participating on the IETF
panel in Prague.
Admin
Noah: Once again, welcome to Peter.
... Minutes of the 20th - approved?
Minutes of the 20th are approved.
Noah: Note that TPAC is happening November in Santa Clara.
... we would normally meet sometime in may timeframe. there is an ac
meeting in bilbao, spain in may.
... so - open to suggestions.
... we could meet in Cambridge again...
Tim: 11-12-13 of May in London...?
Noah: Doesn't work for me.
... Who else is going to the ac meeting?
... 9-11 in the UK?
Larry: Week of the 9th I am completely booked.
Noah: Week after the AC?
[week of the 23rd]
[not good for Tim]
Noah: Week of June 6?
... 7-8-9 of June?
Tim: Yes could do it - would have to be in Cambridge.
Noah: Formal proposal - 7-9 June in cambridge Mass for next TAG f2f
meeting.
+1
Noah: Should we talk about September?
Henry: I would be happy to host.
+1 to edinburgh in September.
<noah> ACTION: Settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15 F2F Due
2011-05-31 [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[41] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Settle
<noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet at MIT 7-9 June
<noah> ACTION: Noah to settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15
F2F Due 2011-05-31 [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
[42] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05
<trackbot> Created ACTION-520 - Settle London vs. Edinburgh for
Sept. 13-15 F2F Due 2011-05-31 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2011-02-15].
<noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet in the UK 13-15 Sept, either
Edinburgh or London, TBD see ACTION-520
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry S. to report back on efforts to get undertakings
from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs
configured into their tools [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to help us figure out whether to say anything
about scalability of access at IETF panel [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15
F2F Due 2011-05-31 [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to talk with Thomas Roessler about organizing W3C
architecture work on security [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15 F2F Due
2011-05-31 [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[43] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
[44] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
[45] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05
[46] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
[47] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [48]scribe.perl version 1.135
([49]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/21 19:02:35 $
[48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
=========================================================
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
W3C TAG F2F Feb 8-10, 2011
Wedmesdau 09 Feb 2011
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Noah Mendelsohn, Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees, Henry Thompson,
Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Appelquist, John Kemp, Larry Masinter,
Ashok Malhotra, Norm Walsh
Regrets
Yves Lafon
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribes
Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Dan Appelquist
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review
2. [5]HTML-XML-Divergence-67: HTML / XML Unification
3. [6]HTML Prefixes, Namespaces and Extensibility
4. [7]XML HTML task force
5. [8]Metadata Architecture
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html)
6. [9]Persistence of references
7. [10]tag meeting in June
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<Ashok> scribenick: Ashok
Agenda review
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
<DKA> First draft of "product" page for privacy drafts:
[12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PrivacyFriendlyWeb.html
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PrivacyFriendlyWeb.html
HTML-XML-Divergence-67: HTML / XML Unification
<ht> [13]http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml
[13] http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml
<ht> [14]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
[14] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
<johnk>
[15]http://appliedlife.blogspot.com/2009/08/markup-languages-family-
tree.html - I did this when I was reading the HTML5 spec last year
[15]
http://appliedlife.blogspot.com/2009/08/markup-languages-family-tree.html
Noah: Norm is chairing the XML/HTML unification taskforce
... Issue-120 on HTML is on distributed extensibility
... there is also an issue on RDFa prefixes
Norm: We consituted the taskforce with a mixture of XML and HTML
folks
<noah> Norm's blog entry on the state of play in the HTML/XML
Unification subgroup:
[16]http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml
[16] http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml
Norm: strted to figure out what the problem was ... didn't get very
far
... then started on usecases
<ht> [17]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
[17] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
<noah> Use cases wiki: [18]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
[18] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
Norm: We can discuss the usecases
LM: They are usecase categories
... you say XML Toolcahin but there are many flavors of Toolchains
with different requirements
... I don't see roundtripping
Norm: Roundtripping was something we talked about but did not make
it as a usecase
LM: Some may not think some of these use cases are important ...
relating them to successful use may be very helpful
ht: Kai Scheppe from Deutsche Telekom AG talked about how XHTML had
been very helpful
... discusses another commercial usecase
<masinter> i think our feedback that going down to get more concrete
examples that would increase credibility
ht: Such commercial usecases would be useful
<masinter> HTML is not good for data scraping....
ht: Many colleagues scrape data and waste lots of time with HTML ...
XHTML is much better for them
LM: (discusses use case details) -- for example analysis and
extraction, looking for keywords, summarization
Noah: Norm, could you talk about the mindset of the group and where
it is going
<masinter> different detailed use cases have different
requirements...e.g., "scraping" might have performance requirements,
while those of "processing" care about fidelity
<masinter> round-tripping has even higher requirement for fidelity
beyond import + export
Noah: Says group members ready to leave
... if we refine usecases that may convince some people to stay and
work on the issue
LM: We need to solicit additional requirements from more real (esp
commercial) users
Norm: Roundtripping may be a new usecase
LM: usecase is starting with HTML, doing some XML processing abd
then enitting HTML
Tim: The common DOM does not work because you don't add new TBody
elements
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about scripts
LM: Using an XML Toolcahin to produce HTML -- new usecase
<noah> TBL: If the task force just nourishes and maintains the
concept of polyglot, that would be very userful
Norm: The HTML folks were quick to reject the Polyglot spec as too
brittle ... too strict about angle brackets etc.
<noah> Norm: Polyglot is perceived as fragile for the same reasons
as any XML, I.e. too strict about perfect syntax
<masinter> (note "race to the bottom" from ht)
<noah> Noah: I don't buy that, because I think the #1 use case for
polyglot is for people who are using XML tool chains or are happy to
produce "perfect" syntax, but whose users require content served
text/html...
<noah> ...so, they want a spec that tells them just what they can
and can't put into that perfect syntax and have it work right when
served text/html
ht: Argument is that producing polyglot is hard, so once someone
starts using a single language everyone goes to that -- race to the
bottom
<masinter> "I think "use XML toolchain to produce HTML" is the most
common use case in the industry, and that polyglot is likely the
most appropriate direction for them
LM: Task force might recommend changes to HTML spec, e.g., options
for API to the DOM ... e.g. not failing in some way
... or include some guidance about what not to use
ht: That's the polyglot document
LM: No, it can have unbalanced brackets but does not use some
features
Norm: I think there is a single DOM
<noah> New use case wiki page (very rough):
[19]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08
[19] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08
<masinter> document.write is a leading example
Tim: For many people the DOM is an API ... supports the same methds
Noah: XML and HTML processors working on the DOM
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to talk about race to the top
ht: There is html in conversation and the html out conversation
Tim: It is easy to produce polyglot documents ... avoids
document.write
... run it thru tidy ... if you produce polyglot you gaet 2 sets of
people using it ... html folks and xml folks
... so there will be a 'race to the top'
Noah: Sympathetic to polyglot
<masinter> polyglot is useful for use cases that weren't in the set
of use cases written up
Noah: useful for simple cases ... what about using external
libraries, etc.
... these may use document.write
... so does Polyglot apply in these cases
<masinter> "document.write" isn't the entire set of things that are
"HTML specific DOM operations", but it's a good poster child for it
Norm: The vast majority of Web docs are using string concatenetaion
and they don't want to run tidy
LM: People may be discounting Polyglot because they are not looking
at right usecases
Noah: Added usecase 8
<masinter> the task force should be looking at creating a document
that is acceptable to the W3C and web community... their local
agreement is ok
Noah: Should we invest in improving the Polyglot document
Norm: I thought the Polyglot document went as far as it could
LM: There is a large community of people with toolchain who needs to
satisfied
Norm: The taskforce will produce a report and that will be reviewed
... I was unable to persuade people to make technical changes
Noah: Talks about the taskforce and peoples motivations
<masinter> A good faith participation in a task force would be to
agree on a problem statement for the task force.
larry: What is the task?
Norm: It proved to be difficult to state the problem
... so people moved on to usecases
LM: Now that you have usecase are you going to try and define the
prooblem again
Noah: The tone of the taskforce has been constructive
LM: My experience is that when you are at loggerheads, bring in more
people
... bring in people who need the solution
Noah: Will the real users come to the taskforce and explain their
usecases?
LM: Document in the report where there is not consensus and why
Norm: Usecase number 4 is most bizzare
<masinter> the XML -> (XML/HTML polyglot ) -> XML or HTML tool chain
<masinter> and the use case of "scraping" as a kind of consuming
Noah: Some folks claim no changes are needed ... HTML is the answer
and XML is not helpful
Norm: I think taskforce has gone as well as it could
... no usecase has convinced the HTML folks that they need to change
Peter: What changes are you thinking of
<noah> NW: Even the script hack can be useful.
<noah> TBL: What's the script hack?
<noah> NW: <script type="application/xml"> plus a shim that finds
that stuff in the DOM and parses the XML
<noah> NW: The XQuery folks are actually doing this.
<noah> NW: On good days, you can almost imagine this is acceptable.
<noah> [20]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04
[20] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04
Noah: For running XQuery in the browser
LM: The thing that will cause change is serious users
Norm: Now that many browsers ship with XHTML support you can just
use XHTML
Noah: People have different perspectives ... worried about different
users
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to make the XSLT-in-the-browser poiint
ht: I'm concerned that people say that the XML to HTML problem is
the same as anything to HTML
<masinter> xml & xslt use case is important
ht: so why do we have XSLT in the browser
... Use script tag to put not HTML stuff in HTML
<masinter> XML as constituted part
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask about FBML
ht: what is the real substantive value of XML as how data gets on
the web
Tim: Asks about FBML ... adds tags to HTML
JohnK: Facebook says they are deprecating it in favor of CSS,
Javascript
<johnk> FBXML:
[21]http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/fbml/
[21] http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/fbml/
Tim: Talk about lack of modularity in CSS
<masinter> many IETF specs use XML for interchange, and need
presentation... would like to make sure those use cases are
represented
Dan: Activity streams and other social network speca are XML-based
<masinter> XML + XSLT might be more important than XHTML?
Norm: XML has failed only in the client otherwise very useful and
widely used
... some pressure to move to JSON
<DKA> Ostatus specification I mentioned:
[22]http://ostatus.org/sites/default/files/ostatus-1.0-draft-2-speci
fication.html
[22]
http://ostatus.org/sites/default/files/ostatus-1.0-draft-2-specification.html
<DKA> To be brought in as an input into
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/
<masinter> (1) task force should agree to "change proposals" to HTML
spec that encompass the proposed solutions as "best practice",
perhaps by making reference to task force report.
<DKA> Leveraging (XML) activity streams spec:
[24]http://activitystrea.ms/
[24] http://activitystrea.ms/
<masinter> (2) question about XML + XSLT vs. XHTML in priority
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to answer Henry
Noah: I don't think XSL will come and go because of the taskforce
... many apps would break
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that perspective, "best
practice" recommendations are important
<noah> Noah: to be clearer, what I said is that XSLT won't go away
in the browsers for the right reasons, I.e., it would break lots of
existing deployed software if it were removed.
<noah> Noah: maybe or maybe not there would be enough future value
to motivate keeping it if there weren't such compatibilty issues,
but I believe it will stay if only for compatibility, at least for
awhile. Just my opinion..
LM: You will come up with best practices. These should be pointed to
by the HTML spec
Norm: Do you think there is stuff in HTML spec that contradicts what
the taskforce says? That would be interesting.
... and much tougher area
LM: Perhaps your charter should be: look at usecases and recommend
best practices
Norm: I think I can get the taskforce to agree to that
<timbl> (Suppose you parse XML to a JS object not a dom .. how close
is XML to JSON anyway? you have to decide whether element contents
are going to be null or a string or list (mixed content)) Certainly
the problem of mapping to RDF is a common problem, and a common
mapping language would probably work.)
<ht> The XMLHttpRequest CR draft
[25]http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#document-response-entity-bo
dy does still 'privilege' XML, as parsed per the XML specs
[25] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#document-response-entity-body
Break for 20 minutes
HTML Prefixes, Namespaces and Extensibility
Noah: Describes background of issue -- decentralized extensibility
in HTML
... they held a survey for WG membership but TAG also sent a note
<noah> HTML WG held a survey, TAG input at
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0033.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0033.html
<noah> HTML WG Chairs' decision:
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0085.htm
l
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0085.html
Noah: They decided to do nothing
The note says they looked for evidence that decentralized
extensibility was important and did not find enough
scribe: they will look at new evidence
<noah> The main decentralized extensibility issue is
[28]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41
[28] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41
<noah> There is also
[29]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120 on prefixing,
especially for RDFa
[29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
scribe: they say use RDFa without prefix mechanism
Noah: Back to issue 41
Working thru mail from HTML WG re. the decision
Noah: We discussed all the proposals and decided to back the "like
SVG" proposal
ht: It is a qualified version of the Microsoft proposal
Tim: Re. Uncontested Observations. We did not argue for removal of
existing extensibility points
... existing extensibility points have serious architectural
limitations
... <object> is horrible ... would not use this to add a new form of
bold
LM: Users do often understand relation between prefixes and
namespaces ... some may find this confusing
Dan: Maybe we should pick our battles with HTML WG
... put on our energies into the taskforce
JohnK: Not useful to go thru the email point by point
... we want ability to add attributes with prefixes without any
approval
Tim: Some people argue that if you add a namespace that is bad
... they don't have a model of special user communities of browser
users
JohnK: Asks whether architectural arguments are not self-evident
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about process
Could we just list these arguments
LM: I see no point in TAG responding to HTML WG at this point
... we can advise the Director how to respond to the appeal
... better to let the HTML document get to Last Call
<johnk> johnk's specific potential architectural issues "What we
mean when we say distributed extensibility
<johnk> arguments for:
<johnk> * that it should be possible for anyone to define their own
markup
<johnk> extensions (and the syntactic/semantic "meaning" of said
extensions)
<johnk> without permission from anyone else
<johnk> * that we should encourage these extensions to be publicly
(not
<johnk> "proprietarily") available without the permission of the
HTML WG
<johnk> counter-argument: encourages proprietary extensions to HTML?
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about possible response
LM: It is in their charter "encouraged to find extensibility
mechanisms"
<masinter> "he HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to
permit independently developed vocabularies such as
Internationalization Tag Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into
HTML documents. Whether this occurs through the extensibility
mechanism of XML, whether it is also allowed in the classic HTML
serialization, and whether it uses the DTD and Schema modularization
techniques, is for the HTML WG to determine."
Noah: Worth looking at how much decentralized extensinility in the
spec
<noah>
[30]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requireme
nts
[30] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requirements
Noah: I think it allows decentralized extensibility
... what it does not have is a mechanism to avaid name collisions
... I believe that if I come up with a new element I cannot put it
in a namespace
but it can write a doc about the element and I can use it and it
will appear in the DOM
scribe: I can use Javascript on this DOM node
Noah: So, you do have distributed extensibility .... what you don't
have a mechanism for preventing collisions
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to support the pick our fights proposition
Noah: So, if we can agree on that we can criticize that
<masinter> and also [31]http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp125
[31] http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp125
ht: I agree with Dan and Larry in saying that there is no point in
pursuing the opportunity for pushback that is in this note
<noah> Noah: you also are, and I can see the arguments on both sides
of this, losing the ability to "follow your nose" to find the
pertinent specs when some random document is encountered, and that
document uses applicable specs. You can't in general find the specs
from the document.
<noah> Noah: with namespaces, whatever their other problems, you
can.
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about
[32]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs-05
[32] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs-05
LM: We could respond to IETF document on extensibility ... brings in
a broader perspective
<noah> Hmm, Larry says HTML is a protocol "sort of". Well, yes sort
of, but I'm more familiar with the "protocols & formats
formulation". HTML is more a format, and I don't think the
versioning considerations for formats are in general the same as for
protocols.
LM: we could look at their arguments and see if they apply to HTML
... some new evidence to bear on the process
... Another related document
Procedures and Processes for Protocols Extensibility Mecahnisms
Noah: Looks like 4775 is recomending Registries
Discussion about registries
scribe: and whether they help ot hinder distributed extensibility
<noah> From: [33]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4775
[33] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4775
<noah> " An extension is often likely to make use of additional
values added
<noah> to an existing IANA registry (in many cases, simply by adding
a new
<noah> "TLV" (type-length-value) field). It is essential that such
new
<noah> values are properly registered by the applicable procedures,"
<masinter> the power struggle is part of it "who has control"
<masinter> but the power struggle is confounded by the technical
issues
Discussion of how extensibility really works
LM: HTML decision narrow ... there were no acceptable proposals
Tim: We are trying to provide a solution for the little guy ... URLs
are easy to mint
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to do a logistics & time check
<masinter> action-120?
<trackbot> ACTION-120 -- Dan Connolly to review of "Usage Patterns
For Client-Side URL parameters" , preferably this week -- due
2008-03-20 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/120
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/120
Tim: create little community of browser users
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention the Accessibility parallel
<masinter> issue-120?
<trackbot> ISSUE-120 does not exist
ht: Since HTML WG have resolved Issue 41 this can wait
... you can send mail asking if we can wait on 120
LUNCH
<ht> In terms of thinking about advising the Director as we come up
to a Process milestone at which objections wrt DistrExtens may be on
the agenda, Tim's point about standing up for the little guy
reminded me of a possible parallel with I18N and Accessibility --
Director's Review is the point at which unrepresented consituencies
are considered
<ht> Candidate small languages for use in distr. exten. : XForms,
XMP, FBML (Facebook Markup Language, now deprecated), CML (Chemical
Markup Language), [Music?]
<Norm> There is a music markup language, Michael Kay brought it up
as an example
<ht> I think the plugin support is already there
<masinter> scribe: masinter
<scribe> scribenick: masinter
XML HTML task force
ht: What is goal of his activity?
noah: goal is to help this task force be successful
norm: want to go through use case in more detail
... if there are specific use cases that aren't satisfied,
especially interesting
showing [35]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_01
[35] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_01
ht: how many such parsers are there?
norm: I believe there are 2 or 3. Henri in Java, Sam in Ruby,
someone else....
ht: when I looked a few months ago, there was no tool that did what
I needed, which were 'error recovery'
... this "Solution" is at least misleading. "Truth in advertising"
larry: Henry said he found NONE. If there is NONE, it might mean
that it is impossible. A solution that requires something
'impossible' isn't a solution.
noah: if parsers are needed, then ones that are needed will get
built.
johnk: there isn't enough need from stand-alone parsers, such as
they are extractable from browsers.
tim: I rewrote problem statement, and edited it into the
"Discussion" tag
(looking at [36]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_01)
[36] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_01)
<johnk> johnk: it hasn't yet been determined that there is enough
need for a standalone HTML5 parser such that there is a clear need
to separate it from other software (such as browser)
tim: I took out some of the derogatory comments that were garbage
("race to the top" vs. "race to the bottom")
... I would like a ringing endorsement of polyglot to come out of
this task force.
norm: that isn't polyglot... the mapping of HTML into XML because
there is an XML document that has the same DOM as the HTML
tim: the requirement to accept polylot on the priority
larry: there are really at least three very sub-categories here
(HTML -> XMLO tool chain)
... (1) extract, analyze (2) round-trip (3) ...
norm: Use case 2: (looking at
[37]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_02)
[37] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_02)
tim: you need to put something in the examples to make it clear that
this is not "XHTML" but XML in general, e.g., docbook
norm: not sure that this is a real use case, not a lot of enthusiasm
for this
(looking at [38]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_03
now)
[38] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_03
larry: in #2, separate 'browser' from 'non-browser'
Examples are things like documentation
larry: copy/paste and clipboard thing is a separate use case
tim: I'm impressed that copy/paste from web to email works
... table from web page into mail message and it works
norm: I expect the techniques that it will let that work
... oxygen does a whole bunch of work to make that work
tim: thinking about the RDF case... you get a piece of HTML in the
middle of RDF so that works
... if you do any form of escaping, in general there is no
expectation that if you put some escaped CDATA in the XML that it
has any meaning, and no expectation... this happens in RSS
norm: of the two, the escaped text is far less effective
... I noticed in the Twitter API that the identity of the submitter
is escaped HTML
tim: Microsoft's odata ("almost linked data") when you get a feed
it's an RSSFeed
ht: ((missed example))
<Norm> In Atom, HTML markup is sometimes escaped and sometimes not,
using a type attribute to distinguish between them.
<ht> Is it expected that this will work: <object
type="application/xml" data="data:,<hello
xml:lang='en'>world</hello>" /> ?
noah: couldn't introduce a new tag other than 'script'
henry: in polyglot, need CDATA in script, if you need polyglot and
use <> in script
or use data:application/xml,<hello ....
now looking at [39]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04
[39] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04
(discussion of XML5 document)
norm: XML community could take this up....
noah: discussion of robustness principle
... you should have the same burden to be conservative in what you
said
dana: observation: people use string concatenation to produce HTML
because to do otherwise wouldn't be satisfactory for performance
reason... that's the implicit reason, and they are prone to error
tim: related use case: jQuery. jQuery allows you to parse .navigate
+ something that looks like xquery (it isn't xquery but looks like
it, or css selectors) + insert things (looks like HTML), there is no
reason that it actually could use implicit tags on close tags, they
could do all kinds of things, the critical thing is to get the code
to all fit on one line or one page
... in cases where people are stuffing strings in... for things that
stuff in little bits of syntax (Turtle example), in those cases, it
is a nice situation where xml tools could ive people an ability in
their scripting
(have been looking at
[40]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_05)
[40] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_05)
now looking at [41]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_06
[41] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_06
"dead use case", a lot like use case 1
no one was prepared to stand up to do this
larry: separation between situations where things render, vs. things
are auxiliary data
[42]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_07
[42] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_07
noah: what some subgroups don't like is "stop on first error"
... this goes on to the describe relative state of play in the
various code
... the document pretty much just says "documents that are not well
formed" are just not well-formed. so the relevant mappings aren't
there. That "shortcoming" could be rectified
... all of that is to be determined
larry: this is a kind of social engineering through spec writing
that is difficult to accomplish without consensus on the goal and
agreement to abide by it. Social engineering is to get senders to be
conservative in what they send by having some conservative receivers
that they are likely to test against.
noah: perception that the technology has died, and dthat the social
engineering has had a negative impact on the success
larry: have to get agreement to do social engineering in the first
place, and that the goal of having conservative senders is an
important goal
noah: is it really doing the fixup you want or not?
... have the specs enable you to turn off when you want to
... how often or with how much noise or smoke would be a debate
you'd have to have
... main application was for exchanging mission critical data, which
would be an error
ht: in the first two years, the idea that we were building XML for
machine-to-machine communication was not on the forefront. It was
about getting information in front of humans, and the 'error
handling' was there was because the arms race of forgiving viewers
was harmful
... the motivation was to end the "arms race" of fixup by saying "no
one will do fixup"
... that's opposite of what we're doing now, which is to say
"everyone will do the same kind of fixup"
noah: could go to the community to see if there are some XML fixups
that would be useful
ashok: ask the user, flag it, how aggressive a fixup, mash HTML5
fixup
peter: I have no problem with relaxing some of the rules of XML, but
I wouldn't like to go all the way of tag fixup, such as happens in
HTML. Leave XHTML being an XML application with all of the XML
rules.
... all you're doing is allowing people to write bad XML
noah: will more people use this if we do this?
tim: too much of a pain typing the quotes around the attributes...
some of those things where there is absoluetely no ambiguity,
perhaps we could relax the rules.
noah: we should go only as far as possible to get widespread
adoption, vs. abandonment.
larry: 7 isn't really a use case, it's a proposed solution looking
for use cases. my claim is that the proposal doesn't actually seem
to solve any known problem
looking at about [43]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08
[43] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08
norm: this wasn't there earlier, should have been, because task
force talked about it. "Right" answer is that XML tools should grow
an HTML output method
(Larry points out again that 'round trip' is more than 'consume and
produce' because round trip may have more requirements for
preservation )
<DKA> Scribe: Dan
<DKA> ScribeNick: DKA
Norm: You're not likely to be cdata in script elements.
... it doesn't work if you use script elements...
Henry: A normal xml serializer would never use cdata sections...
... In all the use that many of us make of xmlspec dtd - you must
use output-mode=html - because this produces <p></p> when you have
empty paragraphs. Because if you produce <p/> this [messes up most
browsers.]
<scribe> Scribe: masinter
<scribe> ScribeNick: masinter
noah: Norm, have you gotten useful feedback from us?
norm: I got useful feedback. I'll go back into the minutes, lots of
cases for making use cases more detailed. No one has said I've gone
off in all the wrong direction....
... the trajectory the task force is going to land, I have no idea
what to do next....
<noah> LM: I think our role here is to figure out what the TAG
should do given where the taskforce stands.
<noah> LM: I think part of our role is to help those who have a
stake in XML to be more easily heard in this process. A lot don't
feel they've been heard. These use cases are the vehicle.
<noah> LM: I can see that doing more can be frustrating, but I
believe that someone has to do a lot more.
<noah> NW: I'm not at all unwilling to do more work, I do keep
asking >what< you want me to do.
<noah> LM: I would ask Roy... (discussion tails off)
<noah> LM: Roy has an XML toolchain, and his review might be
interesting.
<noah> NW: I'll break out the use cases and try to figure good
candidates to provide feedback on each.
<noah> NM: You could somewhat publicly ask people for review.
<noah> NW: Prefer to do it after the report's a bit cleaner -- I
don't want to be responsible for people misunderstanding the wiki in
its current form
(discussion of process)
dka: in spirit of providing feedback, worth saying "kudos for doing
this", amazing you've managed to make the progress you have
<noah> DKA: Major kudos to Norm for doing what is in many ways a
thankless job. There's a lot of good progress here. I support
publishing as a TAG note or something like that, once baked.
dka: Not only a browser group, to consider 'what changes should be
considered for XML as well', we need to really believe that, to
think about how this stuff could be put into place
norm: James did microXML and John Cowan has picked this up and is
producing this group. Liam did agree to put something in XML Core
that they may would add something into their charter revision about
this.
... XML5 is an attempt to say how XML as it exists might work
better, while MicroXML might be 'how to make XML smaller'; things
like "namespaces aren't special"
... maybe James was thinking there might be some movement from the
HTML side.
noah: how relevant will this be practically?
norm: microXML might be interesting, would like to know more what
problems it solves
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say something more about templating
ht: in terms of looking for concrete use cases, the phrase
"templating" does describe some tooling that I've observed ...
(XForms is a partial example of this), a successive refinement
approach to producing web pages.
... there are some architecures out there that work that way... it's
a mixture of HTML and proprietary markup, that push it through (not
a pipeline, an interate-to-fixed-point processing step) until it
gets to the point where there is nothing left but XHTML....
there is a requirement that HTML5 make it not any harder to produce
(polyglot) HTML output that way than it is today
there are a lot of systems that now support IE6....
ht: maybe it is already the case that polyglot HTML5 is not harder
than producing XHTML 1.1 polyglot
<ht> One example of this is the Factonomy (www.factonomy.com)
Framework
<jar> on break now.
<jar> [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html
Metadata Architecture
([45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html)
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html)
issue-63?
<trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Metadata Architecture for the Web -- open
<trackbot> [46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63
action-282?
<trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on
metadata architecture. -- due 2011-04-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
jar: slide 6.... not getting consensus
... RDFa, tooling might be different, all the deployed stuff will be
called into question
... slide 7 interoperability issue: same name used for two different
things
... another example, 'wants'
ht: facebooks 'likes'... one person likes the page, one person likes
the screwdriver
jar: creative commons 'licenses' is clearly a problem, 'likes' or
'wants' are less
... slide 9.... new uri scheme, foaf...
... slide 9 second line shows 6 alternatives for notation
<ht> (Discussion about RDF about="" and the status of Same Document
Reference)
<ht> [48]http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4
[48] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4
<noah> Hmm, from
[49]http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4
[49] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4
<noah> "When a same-document reference is dereferenced for a
retrieval action, the target of that reference is defined to be
within the same entity (representation, document, or message) as the
reference; therefore, a dereference should not result in a new
retrieval action. "
<noah> That doesn't quite say: "The null reference identifies the
same resource as the URI used to retrieve the document." Sort of an
odd construction. Why? Does this matter?
JAR: I think the best way to get consensus around this is to take it
to REC track.... is this a task force thing? is it an objective?
<ht> Because not all s-d-rs are null references
tim: this broke out on the linked open data list
<noah> I'm not hung up on the null part, I'm hung up on the "target
is defined to be within"
<noah> That doesn't say what the URI(s) identify.
<ht> Right -- the 'within' is there because the target of "#foo" is
not the target of the base URI
<noah> Yes, but it doesn't mention the resource, it mentions the
representation, which is very odd.
tim: linked open data list has many people who have joined recently.
Looking at that, there was some real pain expressed ... when you are
producing linked data for a bunch of abstract things, it's a pain to
have to do 303 all the time, and using hash wasn't satisfactory
... two things to do, "Hash is beautiful", or "add a 208"
<noah> Why don't usually say that a URI identifies something within
the representation, except in very unusual edge cases.
<ht> Yes, that reference/resource distinction is not well-respected
here
jar: the TAG should engage on the linked open data list, or invite
them to discuss it on the TAG list
<Norm> Hashes are problematic if the number of items in the document
is very large.
<noah> (We do in particular cases where the media type spec says it
does.)
<ht> Let's look at HTTP-bis
<noah> But if it's not well respected, then what does the above
mean?
<noah> More to the point, does it matter that we straighten this out
in the context of the discussion that JAR is leading?
<ht> No
<ht> I don't think
<noah> Hmm. OK.
jar: is the tag willing to engage in good faith process intended to
get editor's draft
<ht> This is the answer, noah: "When a same-document reference is
dereferenced for a retrieval action"
<ht> retrieval actions _are_ about representations
ashok: there are other stakeholders
... I would like "those guys" part of the discussion
noah: I think Jonathan means "Recommendation"
<ht> I agree that "is within" is bad -- it should have used wording
that said "is related to in the same way that a full use of the
baseURI plus #... if any is related"
<noah> JAR: right Noah, I'm proposing a formal W3C Recommendation
produced using the full W3C process
noah: we had agreed to push this forward as a Rec, and then dropped
the ball?
(scribe uncertain what the topic is)
ht: we have precedent for issuing documents on the rec track. We
should do that with the content Jonathan is presenting to us.
tim: question is, are there alternatives for solving the problem?
jar: there are three alternatives: engage on LOD, do an
architectural rec, form a new working group
<noah> ACTION: Noah to figure out where we stand with
[50]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
track recorded in [51]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc]
[50] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/
[51] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-521 - Figure out where we stand with
[52]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
track [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-16].
[52] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/
<noah> ACTION-521 Due 2011-03-01
<trackbot> ACTION-521 Figure out where we stand with
[53]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
track due date now 2011-03-01
[53] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/
<noah> HT: We should do an architectural rec.
larry: if the topic is as broad as JAR's presentation, i would favor
a new working group
<noah> LM: What about a new working
tim: the TAG could do a focused 'nut' of the core element of
httpRange-14
noah: the right thing to do would be to set off on the road of doing
that in the tag
... if this worth the effort at all, set off down the road to engage
the right community, have to watch IP issues
... that's the place where they or we would go on
ashok: should this be a separate mailing list?
noah: at some point we should put out an announcement, hey we're
working on this
<noah> Noah: Jonathan, are you willing to actually play the
leadership role in taking this down a REC track.
<noah> JAR: Yes, if the group is willing to provide reviews, or at
least stay out of the way.
JAR is showing draft which might become a rec
larry: I would be more comfortably with a working group with a
charter around metadata architecture, partly because i know people i
would like to get to participate, who would not follow a www-tag
discussion
tim: (re jar slide 15) WebArch covers this
jar: someone else holding Nadia responsible for someone else using
Dirk's URI referentially
... slide 16, (why these questions are useless)
... slide 17: segue to persistence
<noah> ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW
discussions -- due 2011-01-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [54]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
[54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
<noah> ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW
discussions -- due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [55]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
[55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
<noah> ACTION-201 Due 2011-03-07
<trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date
now 2011-03-07
Persistence of references
<noah> ACTION-478?
<trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a first draft of a
finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree
from Oct. F2F Due: 2010-01-31 -- due 2011-01-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [56]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
[56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
<noah> [57]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/20-minutes#item01
[57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/20-minutes#item01
jar: if you take the problem as a reference to a document, that
reliably refers to some document, and you want it to work 100 years
into the future....
... ... and you want that computational agent to be able to resolve
it
ht: ... and the tree was an analysis of the failures?
jar: several functions: publisher producing the document; one who
assigns identifier; one who archives the document for a long time;
one who looks up a reference
... the 19th century view is that the description is written out in
natural language (publisher, title, author, date), but "not machine
friendly"
... if they're actionable, then someone can track these down
ht: the reliability of the citeseer parser for database is 70%
... datapoint... that's just correctly identifying what the parts
are
<timbl> ... just parsing a reference
jar: Hybrid approach... is the hybrid approach good enough?
<Ashok> LM: dont like the term 'human-friendly' here
larry: (2) Hybrid is between (1) and all the rest
LM: "Not a URI" means a structured reference
... note there was early IETF work on "URC" which was
attribute/value pairs for identiying
jar: if you write a URI, you have to have some faith that the scheme
registrations are reliable
larry: date + URI (not embedded in a duri)
jar: (going through steps)
... "update all web clients" is a miracle
tim: you could install plugins in your client
lm: "not actionable" is "not actionable today"
tim: people will provide ways of resolving
ht: i own a couple of the domain names necessary for 'info' to be
dereferenced
larry: note there were urn resolution protocols
jar: lsid was another example, it was never maintained
larry: xmp.iid and xmp.did in
[58]http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/Dynami
cMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19
[58]
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/DynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19
jar: whether the http: scheme as specified is suitable for this
purpose
... in the case where persistence matters, you can trust the domain
owner
topic?
larry points to [59]http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf
[59] http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf
<noah> Jonathan is discussing:
[60]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/intervention.html
[60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/intervention.html
jar: was on the phone two weeks ago with Dan Connolly on "ownership"
larry: Jefferson's Moose book has an interesting history about top
level domain ownership
... see [61]http://jeffersonsmoose.org/
[61] http://jeffersonsmoose.org/
noah: (discussion about security, DNS cache poisoning, etc.)
larry: you've identified several different roles, and each node in
the tree needs to be evaluated around impact to those roles... may
need to also add 'bad guys' and other players
<ht> Re the earlier aside about info:, when I explored this and its
proposed (partial?) resolution mechanism, I discovered a) a
dependence on certain sub-domains of the info TLD and b) the fact
that several of these were either un-'owned' or in non-appropriate
hands. Since then I have 'owned' lccn.info and oclcnum.info, having
unsuccessfully tried to get Stu Weibel to take them on
<ht> My registration of them expires again in a few months. . .
jar: what matters is the person who writes a URI, and the person who
wants to read the document, and everything else is infrastructure
larry: archivist is necessary and sufficient.... that is, if there
are no archives, having long-term identifiers aren't very useful; if
there is an archive, then whatever they are doing can be used for
long-term identifier
ht: this might turn into a requirement for infrastructure
jar: hypothesis: it would make a difference to make the DNS root
manager to admit that some part of the DNS space had some kind of
persistence characteristic, or contractually held to
tim: one way to abandon DNS is to set up an alternative root
jar: then you have to convince the entire world to use that
alternate root. There is no communication between Alice and Bob to
indicate that they use that alternative root, unless you use another
URI scheme
tim: if it's just insurance, you could make a file, and distributed
by bittorrent...
jar: what if ICANN agrees that '.arc' is agreed to be (something)
... what else do i need to add to this story for the next draft
ht: I need to take the old document to see if the risks it
identifies and the goals are all covered here
jar: there are lots of ways of bailing out of this?
ht: information sicence communities have different attitudes to doi
tim: what's interesting, what you want is security in the long term,
having more than one solution in parallel is interesting
jar: i imagine some kind of metadata lo
[62]http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/Dynami
cMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19
[62]
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/DynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19
<ht> LM: Put a GUID in the document, and let search be the retrieval
mechanism
<ht> JAR: Vulnerable to spoofing
<ht> HST: Use a checksum
<ht> LM: Right, use MD5 as the GUID
<ht> HST: What does the URI look like
lm: every administrative system ends
jar: the binomial system has had, in 250 years, only 10 disputes
(discussion of conflicts over defining documents for species)
noah: (banking systems -- there's a method of correcting anything
that is wrong)
jar: my point is that there are systems that are relatively free of
authority, that are outside of any system of authority
<ht> I note that the pblm with using a checksum is that it violates
a fundamental principle of archiving, which is to keep your content
usable by rolling it forward
<ht> In the old days, that meant from paper to microfilm to
microfiche
<ht> now it means electronic format evolution
<noah> ACTION-478?
<trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a first draft of a
finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree
from Oct. F2F Due: 2010-01-31 -- due 2011-01-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [63]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
[63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
<jar> masinter said " I don't think a system can be simultaneously
X, Y, and scalable"
lm: administrative, scalable, and stable
... the bigger it is, the more likely it is it will fail sooner
<noah> ACTION-478?
<trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a second draft of
a finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree
from Oct. F2F Due: 2010-01-31 -- due 2011-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [64]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
[64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
<jar> masinter, you have just restated zooko's triangle
[65]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko's_triangle
[65] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko's_triangle
<lm> jar, no, zooko's triangle is 'secure, memorable, global' and
that's a different set of things
<lm> jar, mine is: "requires administration" and "scalable" => "not
reliable"
<jar> bitcoin might show a way to escape it (I'm told... need to
research this)
<noah> ACTION-478 Due 2011-03-22
<trackbot> ACTION-478 Prepare a second draft of a finding on
persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from Oct.
F2F Due: 2010-01-31 due date now 2011-03-22
<noah> ACTION-477?
<trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry S. Thompson to organize meeting on
persistence of domains -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [66]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
[66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
<noah> HT: Leave it, still working on it.
tag meeting in June
<noah> RESOLUTION: The June F2F will be in Cambridge 6-8 June 2011
adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to figure out where we stand with
[67]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
track recorded in [68]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc]
[67] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/
[68] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [69]scribe.perl version 1.135
([70]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/21 19:02:46 $
[69] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[70] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
=========================================================
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
W3C TAG F2F Feb 8-10, 2011
Thursday 10 Feb 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Dan Appelquist, Tim Berners-Lee, John Kemp, Peter Linss,
Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jonathan
Rees, Henry S. Thompson
Regrets
Yves Lafon
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribes
Henry S. Thompson (morning), Tim Berners-Lee (afternoon),
Noah Mendelsohn (fallback)
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Review of Agenda
2. [6]TAG Priorities for 2011
3. [7]Client-side Storage
4. [8]Review of TAG activity
5. [9]IETF Meeting in Prague
6. [10]Issue Tracking
7. [11]assembling the minutes
8. [12]Pending review actions
9. [13]EXI
* [14]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Review of Agenda
NM: [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
... Action item review is just checking that we've got the right
things on the schedule in the near term
... Open issue review is quite different, intended to check that we
haven't let things fall between the cracks, or that we are carrying
things we don't need to
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
TAG Priorities for 2011
NM: [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#priorities
... Good for us to review each year where our effort is going, and
how we are going to get it done
... and be sure we have a shared notion of our priorities
... I'd like to get more than one person on the hook for at least
some tasks, to share the work back and forth in some way
... Looking back, we set ourselves some priorities:
Tracking/influencing the HTML work -- hard situation, but we did a
number of things here and I think we did what we set out to do
... We also committed to a Web App Arch effort, since two years, but
I don't feel that we've made as much progress here as I'd hoped --
we need to look hard at this to see whether we should modify or even
drop our goal
... Third goal was Metadata, an umbrella for many SemWeb issues
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#priorities
JR, LM: No, Metadata is much narrower than that, it is about
documents only
TBL: +1 to keeping Metadata narrowly focused
NM: We've also done good work, largely due to LM's efforts, on a
number of core web infrastructure issues, including IRIs and media
types
LM: I'm actually concerned how little progress on IRIs lately
NM: On the organizational front, we're trying to structure the
management of our work via Tracker Products
For example,
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
NM: Tracker has Issues, Actions and Products
... Actions can be associated with Issues or Products
... See the [18]Guide to TAG Process
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html
NM: Please note that there are two 'Product' pages, one under
2001/tag/products and one under Tracker
NM: Tracker is just not flexible enough to be able to connect issues
and products
[Discussion about mechanism, not minuted]
NM: Intent is to have a small number of Products
NM: Need properties for a product: Goals, success criteria,
deliverables with dates, schedules, TAG members assigned, related
issues.
<timbl> We could do it in RDF if we had a RDF export from Tracker of
course
NM: API Minimization is our first example:
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
... Goals and Success criteria are the core of these
... Made concrete by deliverables
... Example ACTION: ACTION-514
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
LM: I think maybe we need two categories of Products
... 1) Specific documents or other outputs;
... 2) Things which are more like some of our Issues, e.g. Track the
HTML work
NM: Yes, but can we just try your case (1) for now
TBL: Mechanisms are your business as chair, the focus is on the
content, that's where our energy should go
... But, having said that, my inner hacker has already built an
ontology for issue/product/... management for the Tabulator
... I could do more hacking and give you everything you want
... In practice lets go ahead as you propose
... But in the background, maybe you and I should try to do
something better
Tutti: Crack on
NM: Regardless of mechanism, do we agree to focus our effort
management on setting goals and success criteria, with dated
deliverables
<jar> It would be nice if (1) product name could be changed (2)
products can be classified somehow (active, complete, etc) (3) notes
could be added to product pages
LM: We do other things -- coordination with the IETF
<masinter> want to track the larger theme of W3C/IETF coordination
at architectural level
LM: This is a larger theme
NM: For me that's an Issue, about how to coordinate with other
bodies
LM: It's not a management issue, it's a technical issue -- what is
the relationship of Web Arch to Internet Arch
... What's critical for a Product is Success criteria
... And I think we can identify and evaluate progress for this
effort, so it can be a Product
TBL: Wrt Success criteria, include documentation of important
properties of the system which need to be preserved
NM: Other things can have ways to identify and evaluate progress, I
want to keep Products for things with deliverables
<timbl> [20]http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wf/flow#Task <-- the
high-level concept of task
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wf/flow#Task
DKA: With respect to TAG priorities, there's also the W3C 2011
Priorities and Milestones document
... [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011#Summary
[21] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011#Summary
NM: This reminds me that there are two ways to come at our planning:
internally-driven and externally-driven
DKA: In particular, are we missing anything from Jeff Jaffe's list?
NM: So take a tentative pass at what we are already spending time on
... and then see if there's anything we're missing
... at which point we will know if we're over-committed
LM: It's great to see a W3C priority list of technical topics
... I'd like to respond to it
... So this is higher priority for me than reviewing our current /
past efforts
HST: The chair is asking for help in getting to that, by first
clarifying the status of our existing commitments
NM: Here's another Product: HTML/XML Unification
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/???
<masinter> I think the "big theme" here is: architectural coherence
of the W3C protocol and format work. And that XML / HTML is a lead
element, because so much of W3C work is based on XML and yet HTML
consistency with it is at issue and that the TAG could look at
whatever the "task force" produces in this context. The goal should
not be "Unification" but "coherence" and "support for workflows and
use cases" and there are various sub-products, around IRIs and URI
schemes....
<noah> ACTION: Noah to build Tracker product page for HTML/XML
Unification [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-522 - Build Tracker product page for
HTML/XML Unification [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].
LM: The big theme here is architectural coherence between W3C RECs
... I wouldn't want to track this as Unification, because that's not
the goal even for XML vs. HTML
... I don't think that goal stands up
NM: I hear you as observing that there's a higher theme that this
specific Product fits into
... and I think we can do that, we can have Themes
... The name comes from the history -- is the key point the
abstraction of a higher level
LM: Either this fits in one of the high-level things the JJ laid
out, or something else
... in this case, something else, which is a particular TAG
responsibility
NM: I hear this, and will try to find a way to organize our thinking
at this level
LM: Pass for now
HST: [proposed minor agenda restructuring]
Client-side Storage
[24]ISSUE-60: Web Application State Management
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60
AM: speaks to
[25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/ClientSideStorage.pdf
... I need guidance on how to take this forward
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/ClientSideStorage.pdf
<masinter> This underlying architectural issue relates to "Powerful
Web Apps", "Data and Service Integration" and "Web of Trust": web
applications are more powerful if different applications can share.
But they have to do it in a secure way that also maintains user
privacy.
AM: The fundamental issue is how to manage the inevitable intrusion
of the Privacy/Security issue into any discussion of client-side
storage:
... 1) Ignore it, and just do the storage thing;
... 2) Try to do the integration.
AM: The answer is different depending on whether we see the
deliverable here as stand-alone, or as part of a larger document
where Security is being taken care of
TBL: The document talks mostly about cookies, but there are a large
number of new technologies, e.g. sqllib, which are at least as
important going forward
<masinter> Security sections could move to
[26]https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters based on
[27]http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p11.pdf
[26] https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters
[27] http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p11.pdf
TBL: And as you talk about privacy in that context, it becomes a
question about what 'agent' (software, site, person) can get access
to what
AM: You're going beyond data
TBL: No, just data raises these issues, say I have an RDF store on
my phone, and an app written by an airline is running in a container
from a third party and wants access to that data. . .
... At worst we end up all having to have our own copies of all the
privacy-implicated software, to ensure our data doesn't get away
TBL: So this discussion has to be forward-looking to address not
just what's here now, but what's coming soon
<masinter> "In 2011, W3C expects to charter a Web Application
Security Working Group for work on specific technologies to enable
more robust and secure Web Applications." from
[28]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011 under "Privacy and Security"
[28] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011
JAR: Normal engineering practice should be followed, to look first
at the requirements, without jumping too soon to the technology
(e.g. cookies)
... You started out with "need....", which are requirements, and
then jump to security -- but that's a requirement too
... It's like building a LISP interpreter, if you leave memory
management to the end, you end up with a buggy implementation
AM: Right, so you're saying add security as a requirement, early
JAR: Only then do you look at solutions
... and try to match requirements to aspects of solutions
LM: There is a commitment at W3C level to charter a Privacy and
Security WG
<noah> Actually, the slide just said privacy, and I think that's
what I heard him ask about. That's why I got confused when we kept
talking about security.
LM: And that group is a candidate recipient for this work
AM: I thought it was a Privacy IG that was on the way
... and that's not quite the same
LM: W3C has committed to chartering a Web Applications Security WG
... In JJ's document
<noah> From: [29]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011
[29] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011
<noah> In 2011, W3C expects to charter a Web Application Security
Working Group for work on specific technologies to enable more
robust and secure Web Applications.
<noah> (public document)
AM: So, yes, when that happens, feeding in to it makes sense
NM: On the separate vs. together point (storage vs.
Privacy&Security)
... indeed per JAR sometimes it's dangerous to factor
... but not sure that's true here
... Suppose you did just focus on storage, w/o talking about P&S
<masinter> "Client side state" doesn't really have anything to say
unless there is some 'memory' or 'communication' of client side
state
NM: What would the Product page look like if you did that (thought
experiment)?
... If you can't even do that, we've learned something
... And if you can, then we can look at the P&S factoring question
as such
... Thinking about the Product page should be really helpful
AM: I want to come back to the "one large document" question
JAR: That's not what I said. . .
NM: If we want to do a large document, it's a long way out
... So even if we are aiming for a merged form, the work has to go
ahead as if it were going to stand on its own
LM: Different perspective -- we're not designing an implementation
-- there are already a number of design patterns for Client-side
state, and they differ
LM: they have different relevant properties to the requirements
... Here are seven different design patterns; here are their
properties, here's why some address requirement X, Y, Z better/worse
than others
<masinter> "seven" plus or minus four
NM: Assuming this is a separate document, what are the top three
questions it will answer for the community?
AM: Give me three weeks
NM: OK, let's suspend judgement on the long-term future of this work
until we see your response
<masinter> are there books or papers on web application design, that
cover client side storage, use of cookies, local storage, etc?
AM: We asked the WebApps guys who are writing these specs, where are
your use cases?
... And they didn't have much of a concrete reply
<noah> ACTION: Ashok (with help from Noah) build good product page
for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered
on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02]
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-523 - (with help from Noah) build good
product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions
to be answered on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [on Ashok
Malhotra - due 2011-02-17].
[Break until 1045]
[resume from break]
Review of TAG activity
NM: I've been reviewing the open actions, to try to abstract what
the set of Products are in principle
... So that we can create the ones that are missing
... Quick scan of the Tracker Products:
2001/tag/group/track/products
... Agreed that we are not currently working on the Versioning
Product
<noah> ACTION: Noah close versioning product [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03
<trackbot> Created ACTION-524 - Close versioning product [on Noah
Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].
LM: Some of that work is going forward under other headings, e.g.
the mime info work
NM: What is this WebApp Access Control product?
JR: Ask JK
<noah> ACTION: Noah to check with John before closing
[32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access
control [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04
<trackbot> Created ACTION-525 - Check with John before closing
[34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access
control [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
<noah> ACTION: Noah to do first draft product stuff for MIME and
related core web mechanisms [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05]
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05
<trackbot> Created ACTION-526 - Do first draft product stuff for
MIME and related core web mechanisms [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2011-02-17].
NM: We have a total of 45 open actions
LM: I want to push [36]Action 519 to be even bigger, on the relation
of standards to operational requirements
... Big ISPs come to IETF, not to W3C, so this is important with
respect to our presentation to the IAB
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/519
<noah> ACTION: Noah to make sure we make progress on [37]ACTION-519
and [38]ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF meeting,
talk to be ready by mid-March [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06]
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/519
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/517
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06
<trackbot> Created ACTION-527 - Make sure we make progress on
ACTION-519 and ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF
meeting, talk to be ready by mid-March [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2011-02-17].
NM: Diving in to [40]Action-521, do we want to press forward with
taking Disposition of Names in a Namespace to REC: 4 not sure, 2
against, 1 to push it to Core, 0 to do it
... Remind NM to propose next steps and/or discussion on this
... Relieved not to find too many "Oops, we've let this slip"
responses or "Oops, there's a big iceberg under here"
... Open for discussion, let's propose edits to the list of Products
... Additions or deletions
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/521
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say Products don't exhaust our work
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to take apart 'important'
LM: Change HTML 5 review to Open Web Platform Architecture
... At the TPAC plenary, the MS rep proposed a number of
HTML5-related arch. issues
... and I've gotten a list from Julian Reschke
<masinter> and from several other people
HST: Is Persistence a Product
NM: Should we be doing that -- think about where this stands?
LM: I don't think it is one of the top priorities aligns with the
guidance we're getting
<masinter> I'm looking at [41]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011
[41] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011
TBL: We are responsible for long-term issues, which no-one else will
worry about
NM: I read JJ's list as a "be sure to cover this", not "and nothing
else"
HST: We owe it to the people who raised the persistence question to
work on it, and I think addressing why people don't trust 'http:'
URIs is a fundamental arch. question.
NM: Goals and success criteria
HT: We have two draft documents in different stages: 1) my somewhat
stale but valuable Dirk and Nadia design a naming scheme and 2)
Jonathan's checklist document
... I think each of those speak to a different community, and
suggest different deliverables directed at different goals.
<masinter> the reason why I'm reluctant to put this is a priority is
that I'm afraid i have some real disagreements about the nature of
the problem and the directions to address them.
HT: Potential goal #1: address the architectural origins of the
vulnerability of Web names.
... Potential goal #2: identify best practices for the use of Web
names in contexts where some form of persistence is goal.
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to create and get consensus on a product page
and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01
[recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07]
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07
<trackbot> Created ACTION-528 - Create and get consensus on a
product page and tracker product page for persistence of names Due:
2011-03-01 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2011-02-17].
<timbl> due date: 3011-01-01 -- test that the action URI still works
ACTION-528 Due 2011-03-01
<trackbot> ACTION-528 Create and get consensus on a product page and
tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01 due
date now 2011-03-01
<masinter> "persistence" requires both technical and social
institutions to coordinate. We should look at successful social
institutions and those in trouble.
<masinter>
[43]http://www.archive.org/post/337580/internet-archive-needs-your-h
elp
[43] http://www.archive.org/post/337580/internet-archive-needs-your-help
DKA: Offline web: widgets, app cache, cf. JJ's Web Apps and mobile
devices bullet
DKA: There is a workshop being organized by Matt Womer in this area
NM: This overlaps with Client-side state
DKA: This is about packaging
... not (just) storage
NM: Should we discuss making this a product?
... OK, will do
<noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule telcon discussion of a potential TAG
product relating to offline applications and packaged Web [recorded
in [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08]
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08
<trackbot> Created ACTION-529 - Schedule telcon discussion of a
potential TAG product relating to offline applications and packaged
Web [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].
NM: All of mobile?
DKA: No, mobile and the offline web -- packaging the web
<Ashok> Interacts with Client-Side Storage
JAR: Saying something is important is not very useful, unless
someone is signed up for it
... Maybe we should do a gap analysis: a matrix where we have
supply-side -- what would each member be inclined to do, left to
themselves, vs. demand-side: what have JJ and/or our community asked
us to do
... and we look for the blank spaces
... And we don't yet have enough information yet to actually build
that matrix
NM: That's a goal for us, yes
<masinter> alignment between W3C working groups, and with IETF and
with previous specs and .... is after all what TAG was originally
chartered for
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about 'underlying architecture'
as possibly a higher TAG priority than Jeff's list, which applies to
W3C as a whole
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about a goal in which social
institutions are changed in order to achieve persistence.
IETF Meeting in Prague
<noah> Henry and Larry will be there.
AM: Talk or panel.
LM: See [45]ACTION-500. There is a panel, with representation from
lots of the IETF community. Panel description is copied in the
action.
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
LM: Not yet determined between Henry and me who will actually be on
the panel.
ACTION-500?
<trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG
participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15
-- OPEN
<trackbot> [46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500
AM: You probably only get 15 minutes?
LM: At most, could be 10.
... We should use this mainly to "show the flag", indicate where
major points of interest are, etc.
... They've written what they think the issue is for them.
HT: It's in some sense better we don't have a longer slot, which
would lead to us reading our laundry list.
... The appropriate question we need to think of here today is, what
do we want to project about the TAG itself?
LM: We are in the process of establishing our priorities based on
what the community needs from us. Some people at the IETF meeting
are likely to be, unfortunately, not W3C members.
NM: Um, our TAG community is the Web and Internet community, not
just the W3C.
LM: Oops, you're right, that's what I meant.
NM: We listen to everyone, on www-tag, by inviting people to join
meetings and calls, etc.
HT: The IETF is appealingly a crypto-anarchist commune with a long
history.
... They are phenomenally successful.
... Larry and I should probably send email to www-tag asking for
input, then get telcon time.
LM: Henry, hows about you draft a talk for review, with my help?
HT: I'll produce say, 5 slides, for review on call in two weeks.
<masinter> what is the tag, what the tag works on, what things are
we thinking about in W3C, what things are we thinking about in the
TAG in particular
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to draft slides for IETF meeting, with help
from Larry Due 2011-02-22 [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09]
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09
<trackbot> Created ACTION-530 - Draft slides for IETF meeting, with
help from Larry Due 2011-02-22 [on Henry S. Thompson - due
2011-02-17].
NM: Suspended for lunch
Philippe Le Hégaret joins the meeting
Discussion of action items
NM: Larry asked me to add a link to RFC5226 to the agenda.
<noah> [48]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226
[48] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226
<noah>
[49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0004.html
[49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0004.html
DQA: I note IE9 has Geolocation.
<masinter> there was another link
[50]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs
[50] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs
Larry:re [51]ACTION-511
[51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511
LM: we have had a lot of discussion of registries
... perhaps as reaction to IANA, feeling that registries were
... a bottleneck in the system, that we should use URIs to be
decentralized.
LM: Still, there are protocols, protocol and language elements where
we don't use URIs.
... But, if it isn't a URI, then how do you find out what it means?
<plh> --> [52]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/ XPointer
Registry
[52] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/
LM: Does IANA still manage it? But IANA is unresponsive and
cumbersome? Should we use a wiki page, [HTML WG suggestion]?
... I was trying to frame the issue with MIME type registries.
<plh> --> [53]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Spec
[53] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
LM: Many issues are around what the mime type means when it evolves,
having to do with versioning.
... There are technical and social issues. Power: who controls the
registry? Who controls what properties things should have
registered?
... People disagree on the contents of the registry
... I pointed to [54]RFC2434, now [55]RFC5226 .
[54] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434
[55] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226
LM: I also saw a good IANA document in progress on extensibility
from the point of view of protocol design, in which registries are
one way.
<masinter> [56]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs
[56] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs
PLH: I pasted in various links, including to the XPointer registry.
... This registry is hosted by W3C.
HT: The XPointer spec didn't have unqualified names, but people
complained that getting URIs in to bind every name was ridiculous.
Please let us defined some short names which we can own, and we did,
and so we have a URI-based registry mechanism.
<plh> [57]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/range
[57] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/range
HT: the way you tell what short names mean or are available is you
concatenate with a URI.
PLH: This was very lightweight, lightweight review process too.
... We demand a link to a spec but no other review.
HT: Just a way of mapping short names into URI space on a first
come, first served basis.
LM: What does CSS do with vendor prefixes?
Peter: Nothing formal -- we have recently started keeping a list.
NM: Is it just a convention?
<timbl> ... You register just the -moz- not the -moz-* names.
PL: No, more than that. The spec requires a syntactic convention for
use of anything that is either not in the spec, or not advanced to a
certain point in the spec development.
TBL: Do you standardize thinks like -*-roundedcorner?
PL: No, just -*-
TBL: As a CSS user, having many different names was a pain for
Rounded Corners.
Peter: That was necessary as the different vendors did it
differently.
Larry: We were having registries, so we are not really following out
URI architecture. Can IANA be fixed? Is the problem IANA?
... People say the problem is not IANA but tracking what IANA is up
to.
<plh> -->
[58]http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027 HTML
ISSUE 27
[58] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027
TBL: For example, the text/n3 mime type is still pending
... after years
Larry: if you look at the docs establishing how IANA works, they
don't determine the process ... that is established for each
registry anew. I refined the URI scheme registry process, there is
still unhappiness with it.
LM: I would hate for W3C to reinvent this wheel and rediscover all
the problems
PLH: This is related to infamous HTML WG Issue 27 (see link above)
... (all HTML WG issues are infamous)
PLH: One proposal is to have a registry at W3C
<masinter> proposal W3C run rel:
[59]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW
3C
[59] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW3C
PLH: Mark Nottingham has done work on a IANA registry. Ian Hickson
tested it and declared that it was not working.
... there is a counter-proposal which just uses a wiki page.
... This was escalated to the WG as issue 27.
<masinter> [60]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
[60] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
<noah> [61]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
[61] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
<noah> ISSUE 27: @rel value ownership, registry consideration
Larry: We should discuss whether and why and how W3C runs registries
-- it should not be decided just by a local WG, as it is a long term
commitment, and much more than the design of a technical spec.
PLH: Without requirements, you can't
PLH: It took years to get image/svg+xml took years to get
registered.
... Even though it was in use for years.
<plh> -->
[62]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg08
275.html Approval of image/svg+xml Media Type
[62]
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg08275.html
Larry: People brought this up as a poster child of why it didn't
work ... but they didn't in fact respond to IANA's comments about
what was missing from the application
<masinter> there's also been a long recent discussion about +json
and +zip; and +xml is an issue
TBL: We had a story with text/n3+rdf type where we used the W3C/IETF
liaison meeting to track. Per that discussion we removed the +rdf.
... They said we would have to produce a stable document, which we
did some years ago, so for me text/n3 is another poster child for
the problems.
<plh> --> [63]http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/ N3
[63] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/
TBL: The confusion is compounded because there are people out there
using the now deprecated +rdf form, but there's nothing to point to
saying, "here's what you should do".
<masinter> Maybe W3C should have an IANA shepherd who knows how to
work IANA and helps people through the process, that would be better
than running W3C registry..
<plh> for n3, I'm probably the bottleneck
TBL: There's also no tracker for the application review process for
mime types. You can't tell where things are in the process, what the
problems are, or even that there is a registration pending.
... So, one suggestion is that we should not only run a registry at
W3C, but that we should run a tracker.
LM: You could run a tracker for IANA
... The IETF tools team has built tools for many groups, and perhaps
has just not gotten to IANA
LM: The IETF tools team has been building tools for IANA but not
that one yet.
PLH: The technical issues we have to resolve, and they can take
years
... The charset attribute, and then content-encoding, the
discussions exhausted the energy of the applicants.
Larry: My experience has been very positive: you tell the truth you
get approval. With text/html Dan Connolly and I updated it... I also
did application/pdf.
... I was involved with gopher's mime types
... What can take years has been miscommunication.
<plh> -->
[64]http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00981.html MIME
Type Review Request: image/svg+xml November 2004
[64] http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00981.html
TBL: I sympathize with the requirements they have for, e.g. MIME
registry, but I've found that the HTML experience of having two
specs (I.e. the HTML spec plus the media type registration), was not
good. We've now fixed that by ensuring that the spec shall pass
muster as a registration document, and IANA will please accept that.
... That now is the case, which is good.
... Therefore, my view is that the right path for SVG would have
been that all the stuff like charset should have been caught and
fixed as part of the W3C CR process reviews.
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to mention journals e.g. PLoS One
JAR: This is not happening in a vacuum -- there have been registries
before IANA
... It isn't just who runs it, it is what properties it has:
... What criteria of acceptance, professionalism of management, what
tracking technology,... the publication of a scholarly journal is an
analogous process, [foo???] example.
LM: We use registries for extensibility, where the spec points to a
given specific registry, an the standard defined the criteria for
the registry, so that the standard will still work. If someone tries
to register a term which violated the design, then it is rejected.
<masinter> maybe this is an important criteria for registries --
that the protocol design shouldn't rely on the registrar review to
maintain invariants
Tim: Example -- HTTP headers always, per [65]RFC822, have a comma
-as an equivalent to a new header line - the cookie header spec in
error used it differently and it was not caught.
[65] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822
Larry: The spec puts an onus on the good people running the registry
to make sure that good things happen.
LM: In some cases in the past, the spec did not tightly bound what
extensions could do, and we relied on the registrar to enforce good
practice.
TBL:Hmm. I'm sure Larry is right about the history, but it seems
preferable to me that the spec should say what extension points can
do, and the the registrar merely enforce that
<masinter> [66]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Spec
[66] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
PLH: We have a media type registry at W3C
PLH: Since M Duerst left w3t, I have been maintaining the big table
at the bottom
... This table has been there for 8 years
... The old way of registering a media type is to just write an RFC,
but a few years ago, with Martin's help, IETF allows other
organization's specs to be used in the IANA registration.
<plh> -->
[67]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#RegStatus
Status of Internet Media type registrations
[67] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#RegStatus
TBL: Is N3 in the table?
PHL: No, my fault. Kick me.
TBL: Will do.
PLH: I accept total responsibility for making sure that it is
... Many of these media types are here but not in the IANA registry.
Larry: How many of these have been requested?
PLH: If you look at the "Plans" column.
TBL: I suggest that the states be defined in an ontology
PLH: "Need IETF types review" means that W3C has yet to ask for that
review.
[discussion of W3C process]
PLH: We have those steps to help working groups go through those
processes.
... We can end up with things which just hang there
HT: What is the problem we are trying to fix now?
PLH: The problem with SVG was getting is registered in 2010 after
asking in 2004, with it being used in between.
PLH: For me the problem is that we requested an SVG media type in
2004, that only got formal approval in 2010, and it was used without
registration for 6 years.
HT: OK, stipulate a problem with that registry, the TAG issue
appears to be about registries in general.
HT: Sounds like a bug in that registry -- lets suggest that they
implement a tracker. That could be fixed. Automating the registry
wouldn't necessarily help that. The XPointer scheme registry has a
rule that the URI works and tells you the status the moment you have
requested registration, but that's a management decision, not a
technical one.
Larry: It would be nice to give IANA a heads up before the request
-- an intent to register. You could post that they intend to
register it.
Tim: propose that the IANA system should surface all the info in
PLH's table
<masinter> [68]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
[68] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
<masinter> but if OASIS and ISO and other organizations want to
register values, shouldn't they also be visible to W3C members?
Larry: There is a place for lightweight registries, e.g. MIME types,
that many organizations can contribute to.
... W3C should try to fix IANA before running around it.
... We should volunteer to help them, and find a good way to
integrate the web architecture of the registry with the Internet
Architecture people.
... With specific technical details, for example there are issues
about the MIME types conflicting with the sniffing documents.
Noah: Do we want any more work on this?
Larry: PLH is on the front line, who is being asked to run
registries. As the TAG we can help out with arch issues.
PLH: The immediate issue is [69]issue 27, which is related to rel=""
[69] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
NM: To clarify, I was asking whether we needed to schedule or track
work that's beyond what we're already doing
PLH: The next step is if there are counter-proposals in the HTML WG.
PLH: Potentially, the TAG might have a position to offer to the HTML
WG
TBL: I'm not sure I'm hearing anyone around the table complain about
anything.
JAR: There are RFCs which point to the IANA registries.
<masinter> [70]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
[70] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
JAR: We don't want two registries.
TBL: Right, not two registries, and we want a good relationship with
IANA. We do need something that will produce RDF.
JAR: Um, that can be a tarpit. I've already tried to convince IETF
on that.
<jar> well, not on exactly that, but on something closely related
having to do with link relations and 200 status
TBL: There are, e.g. ontologies that list each of the HTML headers.
People are producing ontologies that are 1:1 with the IANA
registries. What's crucial is to deal in URIs that you can
dereference to find out what you've got.
... IANA spent a long time working in plain text not HTML, a long
time using ftp vs. http, they've slowly moved. I fear we might be
talking a long time to make the move on conneg that returns RDF.
<masinter> I think people ascribe to "IANA" things that are really
within their own control
<plh> -->
[71]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW
3C#Positive_Effects Effects of a registry at W3C
[71]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW3C#Positive_Effects
<masinter> there's no reason why W3C can't run a service for doing
something with IANA registered terms, for example, by adding to the
registry a set of "registered value retrieval services"
TBL: Meanwhile, there are cases where you want to pick up
information etc. about a new media type dynamically, while browsing.
NM: Trust issues aside, you could even dynamically pick up handlers,
e.g. to render a new image type.
TBL: Indeed, a very interesting rathole, but not now.
<timbl> The relationship between a MIME type and a typical file
extension is important for security -- you must not store a file in
a file system so that it looks as though it has a different MIME
type, as that is a security hole.
ACTION-511?
<trackbot> ACTION-511 -- Larry Masinter to send email framing TAG
work on registries -- due 2011-01-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [72]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511
[72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511
PLH: Henry Sivonen suggests a very lightweight system for rel
values, similar to the XPointer registry.
Larry: I think i hear enough technical and architectural issues and
I am thinking of writing a finding about it.
<noah> ACTION: Larry to write draft document on architectural good
practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19 [recorded in
[73]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10]
[73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10
<trackbot> Created ACTION-531 - Write draft document on
architectural good practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19
[on Larry Masinter - due 2011-02-17].
----------------------------------------------
Issue Tracking
NM: What does "open" mean of an issue?
... For those we are not working on actively , we should categorize
them.
... We should close the ones which have been overtaken by events.
NM: re [74]Issue-7
[74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/7
<noah> ISSUE-7: (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
a body?)
<trackbot> ISSUE-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
a body?) notes added
Is this still relevant?
Larry PING attributes ping a server to show you took a link
Larry: It might be in the WHATWG spec still.
... but not in the W3C spec.
... This battle has been fought.
LM: We should worry about the W3C spec.
NM: Disagree, at least in principal. If any organization is
promoting widespread use of something we consider inappropriate,
that's potentially of concern to the TAG.
TBL: Yes, but we have to pick our battles.
HT: What about the original XForms issue.
HT: Is XForms actually using GET? Many of those who use it use POST
not GET, and that is how XForms architecture is designed to work.
... I didn't realize there is a tension there.
<masinter> I defined MIME type multipart/form-data in
[75]http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2388.html
[75] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2388.html
HT: But XForms uses POST just in order to have an XML body.
Larry: Lets close this without prejudice.
TBL: Let's close it without prejudice
NM: Fine with me
<timbl> TrackBot, Close ISSUE-7
<trackbot> ISSUE-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
a body?) closed
RESOLUTION: We will (re)close ISSUE-7, without prejudice with
respect to HTML ping being good/bad
close ISSUE-7
<trackbot> ISSUE-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
a body?) closed
<ht> It appears that @ping has been removed from HTML5[W3C], remains
in HTML[WHATWG], but is not receiving much (any?) implementation
[76]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0136.htm
l
[76] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0136.html
<ht> This is from HTML WG issue 1
[77]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1
[77] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1
----------------------------------------------
[78]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20
[78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20
ISSUE-20: What should specifications say about error handling?
<trackbot> ISSUE-20 What should specifications say about error
handling? notes added
HT: If this is being pursued it would be in the XML HTML TF
<noah> Last status change was: connecting with "HTML 5 review"
product a la [79]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda
[79] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda
HT: Propose this has been overtaken by events.
HT: I think this is overtaken or subsumed with respect to/HTML.
LM: Those are specific instances, but there's a broader concern
here.
Larry: Those are specific instances -- we have though a general
question of conservative/liberal, error handling etc. here.
... Like, if you dictate what happens exactly with every error, are
they still errors?
HT: On a scale of 1..10, that concern is for me a 2
... in terms of its importance to the TAG.
<noah> [80]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Dec/0044
[80] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Dec/0044
Noah: Look at the history. We closed in in 2003 - Chris L in 2003 --
the TAG closed it in 2003
... In 2008, on Dec 9, we re-opened it specifically about HTML5 Tag
Soup.
... So HT's comment does indeed carry the day.
Tim: Suggest open, work happening in XML HTML task force.
<masinter> mark it as "PENDING REVIEW"?
<noah> Added note to ISSUE-20: Reviewed status of this at 10 Feb
2011 (8-10 Feb) F2F. Decided to leave this open for now, pending
better understanding of where the XML/HTML Unification Task force is
going with related issues.
----------
Noah: What about [81]Issue-24
[81] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24
Larry: Lets leave it open
Noah: [82]Issue-25 Deep Linking -- any actions
[82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25
DKA: I made a very sketchy draft I made -- needs discussion
Noah: Stays open, you have an action for it.
<DKA> [83]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/rightToLink.html
[83] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/rightToLink.html
JAR: [84]Issue-31 was re-opened for UMP.
[84] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31
Noah: [85]Issue-31 stays open. [86]Action-344 now is associated with
it
[85] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31
[86] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/344
<masinter> issue-31?
<trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Should metadata (e.g., versioning
information) be encoded in URIs? -- open
<trackbot> [87]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31
[87] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31
<DKA> [88]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-WICD-20070718/
[88] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-WICD-20070718/
Noah: We close this as no objections heard
<masinter> issue-33?
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Composability for user interface-oriented XML
namespaces -- open
<trackbot> [89]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/33
[89] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/33
<noah> RESOLUTION: Closing ISSUE-33 because CDF is gone, and any
concerns about SVG, MathML, etc. in HTML are being tracked
elsewhere.
<noah> close ISSUE-33
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 Composability for user interface-oriented XML
namespaces closed
------------
<masinter> issue-34?
<trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- XML Transformation and composability (e.g.,
XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) -- open
<trackbot> [90]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34
[90] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34
Issue-37?
<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Definition of abstract components with
namespace names and frag ids -- open
<trackbot> [91]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/37
[91] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/37
<masinter> issue-39?
<trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- Meaning of URIs in RDF documents -- open
<trackbot> [92]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/39
[92] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/39
<noah> "The community needs:
<noah> A concise statement of the above architectural elements from
different specs in one place, written in terms which the ontology
community will understand, with pointers to the relevant
specifications."
JAR: I wondered about opening an Issue for Harry Halpin's concerns.
The problem with doing # or 303.
timbl: Let's not re-define issues under the same number, that's
fraud :-)
<noah> ACTION: Jonathan to propose changes to status of issue-39 &
issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H. Halpin's
concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 [recorded in
[93]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11]
[93] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11
<trackbot> Created ACTION-532 - Propose changes to status of
issue-39 & issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H.
Halpin's concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 [on Jonathan
Rees - due 2011-02-17].
assembling the minutes
<noah> Day 1: Dan
<noah> Day 2: Larry
<noah> Day 3: Henry
[BREAK]
Noah: Now going through action items
<noah>
[94]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner
[94] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner
Noah: Now going through action items
Action-505?
<trackbot> ACTION-505 -- Daniel Appelquist to start a document with
respect to issue-25 -- due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [95]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505
[95] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505
DKA: Do we need a TAG finding here?
Noah: Take us to the point where we are ready for discussion.
DKA: I need someone to help me on this
JAR: We could talk.
<noah> At Feb 2011 F2F, Jonathan agrees to give Dan a bit of help.
Next goal is for them to take us to the point where we are ready for
telcon discussion.
<noah> ACTION-505 Due 2011-03-01
<trackbot> ACTION-505 Start a document with respect to issue-25 due
date now 2011-03-01
Action-507?
<trackbot> ACTION-507 -- Daniel Appelquist to with Noah to suggest
next steps for TAG on privacy -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [96]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/507
[96] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/507
DKA: We didn't come up with a product page for the over-arching
product on privacy.
Noah: The product page is to define work the TAG will do.
action continues.
<noah> ACTION-460 Due 2011-03-08
<trackbot> ACTION-460 Coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on
privacy policy due date now 2011-03-08
<noah> ACTION-480 Due 2011-03-01
<trackbot> ACTION-480 Draft overview document framing Web
applications as opposed to traditional Web of documents Due:
2010-11-01 due date now 2011-03-01
<noah> ACTION-116?
<trackbot> ACTION-116 -- Tim Berners-Lee to align the tabulator
internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules
[97]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
either as needed. -- due 2011-02-11 -- OPEN
[97] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules
<trackbot> [98]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116
[98] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116
JAR: Tim took this on himself, up to him whether to proceed
TBL: OK, maybe this is overtaken by events
Agreed on Feb 10 2011 at F2F Jonathan will move this to become an
AWWSW action
close ACTION-116
<trackbot> ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with
the vocabulary in the rules
[99]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
either as needed. closed
[99] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules
ACTION-510?
<trackbot> ACTION-510 -- Tim Berners-Lee to write a note conveying
the TAG's concerns re: the microdata -> RDF URI mappings in the
HTML5 microdata draft Due: 2011-01-20 -- due 2011-01-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [100]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/510
[100] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/510
ACTION-510 Due 2011-03-09
<trackbot> ACTION-510 Write a note conveying the TAG's concerns re:
the microdata -> RDF URI mappings in the HTML5 microdata draft Due:
2011-01-20 due date now 2011-03-09
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 2011-02-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [101]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
[101] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
ACTION-504?
<trackbot> ACTION-504 -- John Kemp to make sure ACTION-355 links all
significant writings including use cases. -- due 2011-01-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [102]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/504
[102] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/504
note that 504 is linked to 355
JK: Unclear whether anyone is interested.
NM: We could do a product page. Could be one with resource assigned
and dates, or could be a partial product page, with blanks for
assigned resource and dates
JK: Originally, the idea was to fill out a piece that is called out
as missing in AWWW, I.e. to cover non-HTTP interactions.
... I think that was Noah's original suggestion
JAR: At least, let's not let this get lost
<timbl>
[103]http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/getting-started.ht
ml
[103] http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/getting-started.html
close ACTION-504
<trackbot> ACTION-504 Make sure ACTION-355 links all significant
writings including use cases. closed
ACTION-416?
<trackbot> ACTION-416 -- John Kemp to work on diagrams in "From
Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material -- due
2011-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [104]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/416
[104] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/416
JK: That's in Ashok's Web App document. I've made no recent
progress.
... What to do whether you will work on future Web applications
document. Ashok now has control of the pertinent document.
NM: Ashok, do you have an action associated with that.
<johnk> [105]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/WebApps.html
[105] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/WebApps.html
<johnk> ACTION-417?
<trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
due 2011-01-25 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> [106]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
[106] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
[107]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480
[107] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480
close ACTION-416
<trackbot> ACTION-416 Work on diagrams in "From Server-side to
client-side" section of webapps material closed
ACTION-508?
<trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report
regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due:
2011-01-03 -- due 2011-02-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [108]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
[108] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
LM: Discussed Tues.
ACTION-531?
<trackbot> ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to write draft document on
architectural good practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19 --
due 2011-02-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [109]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531
[109] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531
ACTION-515?
<trackbot> ACTION-515 -- Larry Masinter to (as trackbot proxy for
John) who will publish
[110]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07 -- due
2011-02-15 -- OPEN
[110] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html
<trackbot> [111]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/515
[111] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/515
ACTION-525?
<trackbot> ACTION-525 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check with John before
closing [112]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
WebApps access control -- due 2011-02-17 -- OPEN
[112] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
<trackbot> [113]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525
[113] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525
ACTION-529?
<trackbot> ACTION-529 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon
discussion of a potential TAG product relating to offline
applications and packaged Web -- due 2011-02-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [114]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/529
[114] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/529
close ACTION-513
<trackbot> ACTION-513 Do F2F agenda closed
ACTION-501?
<trackbot> ACTION-501 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up on whether
GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per
site/app etc [self-assigned] -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [115]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501
[115] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501
ACTION-379?
<trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML
language reference has been published -- due 2011-02-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [116]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379
[116] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379
ACTION-379 Due 2011-03-09
<trackbot> ACTION-379 Check whether HTML language reference has been
published due date now 2011-03-09
<masinter> why isn't this document listed in
[117]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
[117] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
ACTION-344?
<trackbot> ACTION-344 -- Jonathan Rees to alert TAG chair when CORS
and/or UMP goes to LC to trigger security review -- due 2011-02-15
-- OPEN
<trackbot> [118]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/344
[118] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/344
Leave for now, moving ahead.
ACTION-532?
<trackbot> ACTION-532 -- Jonathan Rees to propose changes to status
of issue-39 & issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H.
Halpin's concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 -- due
2011-02-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [119]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/532
[119] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/532
ACTION-381?
<trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian
with [120]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2011-02-11 --
OPEN
[120] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
<trackbot> [121]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381
[121] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381
ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG
regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due
2011-01-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [122]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
[122] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
JAR: I've been working with Manu Sporny
ACTION-509 Due 2011-03-15
<trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting
the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-03-15
ACTION-509 Due 2011-02-15
<trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting
the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-02-15
ACTION-477?
<trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry S. Thompson to organize meeting on
persistence of domains -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [123]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
[123] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
ACTION-33?
<trackbot> ACTION-33 -- Henry S. Thompson to revise naming
challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion -- due
2011-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [124]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33
[124] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33
ACTION-33 Due 2011-03-08
<trackbot> ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to
Dec 2008 F2F discussion due date now 2011-03-08
ACTION-440?
<trackbot> ACTION-440 -- Henry S. Thompson to ask Hixie what is
meant in this [section 9.2] by "retrieving an external entity" and
could some clarification be added. -- due 2011-02-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [125]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440
[125] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440
ACTION-440 Due 2011-02-22
<trackbot> ACTION-440 Ask Hixie what is meant in this [section 9.2]
by "retrieving an external entity" and could some clarification be
added. due date now 2011-02-22
ACTION-23?
<trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Henry S. Thompson to track progress of #int
bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG
-- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [126]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23
[126] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23
HT: Reviewed state of this, saw something on the XML Schema mailing
list implying done, but found closed in error.
... The bit we care about still hasn't been, I'm still monitoring.
ACTION-23 Due 2011-05-01
<trackbot> ACTION-23 track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML
Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG due date now
2011-05-01
Pending review actions
ACTION-421?
<trackbot> ACTION-421 -- Henry S. Thompson to frame the discussion
of EXI deployment at a future meeting -- due 2011-01-21 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [127]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/421
[127] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/421
HT: I was asked to find out the deal on deployment.
... Sent a note to the list and got an answer from John Schneider.
Please schedule discussion.
ACTION-511?
<trackbot> ACTION-511 -- Larry Masinter to send email framing TAG
work on registries -- due 2011-01-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [128]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511
[128] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511
LM: I took another ACTION-531, close ACTION-511
close ACTION-511
<trackbot> ACTION-511 Send email framing TAG work on registries
closed
ACTION-512?
<trackbot> ACTION-512 -- Noah Mendelsohn to do F2F local
arrangements -- due 2011-01-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [129]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/512
[129] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/512
close ACTION-512
<trackbot> ACTION-512 Do F2F local arrangements closed
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule TAG discussion of !# (check with
Yves) [self-assigned] [recorded in
[130]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12]
[130] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12
<trackbot> Created ACTION-533 - Schedule TAG discussion of !# (check
with Yves) [self-assigned] [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].
EXI
HT: There are 2 implementations linked from [131]the WG home page, 1
proprietary, 1 open source. Three implementations are reported in
the [132]implementation report, but not identified.
[131] http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/#implementations
[132] http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/implementation-report/
We are adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ashok (with help from Noah) build good product page
for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered
on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in
[133]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to create and get consensus on a product page
and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01
[recorded in
[134]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to draft slides for IETF meeting, with help from
Larry Due 2011-02-22 [recorded in
[135]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to propose changes to status of issue-39 &
issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H. Halpin's
concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 [recorded in
[136]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to write draft document on architectural good
practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19 [recorded in
[137]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah close versioning product [recorded in
[138]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to build Tracker product page for HTML/XML
Unification [recorded in
[139]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to check with John before closing
[140]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps
access control [recorded in
[141]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to do first draft product stuff for MIME and
related core web mechanisms [recorded in
[142]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to make sure we make progress on ACTION-519 and
ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF meeting, talk to
be ready by mid-March [recorded in
[143]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule TAG discussion of !# (check with
Yves) [self-assigned] [recorded in
[144]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule telcon discussion of a potential TAG
product relating to offline applications and packaged Web [recorded
in [145]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08]
[133] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02
[134] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07
[135] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09
[136] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11
[137] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10
[138] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03
[139] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01
[140] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
[141] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04
[142] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05
[143] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06
[144] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12
[145] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [146]scribe.perl version 1.135
([147]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/21 19:02:12 $
[146] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[147] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 19:32:27 UTC