- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:03:51 -0700
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Are available at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/12-minutes.html
and as text below
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
TAG Weekly
12 May 2011
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Jeni_Tennison, Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Yves_Lafon,
Jonathan_Rees, Henry_Thompson, Peter_Linss, Dan_Appelquist
Regrets
Tim_Berners-Lee, Larry_Masinter
Chair
Noah
Scribe
Ashok
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Convene
2. [5]Administrative items
3. [6]ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): IETF Draft on MIME --
Fragment IDs not "grounded" in media type
4. [7]API Minimization
5. [8]Web Application Architecture: Design of APIs for Web
Applications
6. [9]Pending Review Actions
7. [10]Overdue Actions
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
Convene
Noah goes over the agenda
Noah: I am at risk for next week
... Henry, can you scribe on the 26th?
ht: Yes, I can scribe on the 26th.
Administrative items
Noah: TAG Status Report has been published
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0028.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0028.html
<noah> Previously announced HTML last call schedule:
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011AprJun/0035.html
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011AprJun/0035.html
Noah: Msg from Paul Cotton re. HTML5 Last Call. See above
... I would like a longer review period --- 8 weeks
<DKA> I think it sounds like a good plan.
<JeniT> sure
<DKA> +1 to longer period.
<ht> 8 weeks
<ht> Suggest at least one session at f2f to discuss how we approach
HTML 5 Last Call review
<DKA> I do feel it's worth it.
Noah: should we do a serious read-thru ?
ht: I want to review some items
... extensive email thread discussing what it would take for prefix
bindings issue to be reopened
... want to check that
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to say 'yes' as well.
<noah> DKA: Applications, app cache, device capabilities, etc.
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to say will check for a few particular
things. won't read from end to end
DanA: I will review stuff related to Web Applications and device
capabilities ... and, in general, mobile
JAR: I will look at the media type registration stuff
<ht> HST: DOCTYPE legacy, prefix binding, status of existing HTML in
media type registration section
JAR: Asks about reading for the f2f
Noah: Please prepare long items 10 pages or more 10 days or 2 weeks
before f2f
... for shorter documents, 1 week
ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): IETF Draft on MIME -- Fragment IDs not
"grounded" in media type
<noah> ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG
regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due
2011-03-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Jeni Tennison to propose addition to
MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in
media type -- due 2011-05-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
Being tracked under action 509 and 543
<ht> If someone thought they could summarize last week's discussion,
that would help me as I missed most of it. . .
<ht> I was going to review minutes, but they didn't appear
<jar> Their previous issue
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/84
[16] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/84
JAR: I hope my email is being taken as a public comment and they
will respond ... we need to track it
<noah> Minutes from last week, as edited by Larry (may not be
polished yet): [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/05-minutes
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/05-minutes
<noah> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/05-minutes
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/05-minutes
<noah> ...pause so group can read minutes from last week...
<jar>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-12#resolution_2
[19] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-12#resolution_2
<JeniT>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0027.html
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0027.html
<jar> - (Manu) Unfortunately, this practice is not covered by
<jar> - the media type registrations that govern the meaning of
<jar> - fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI
specification
<jar> - [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]).
<jar> the above is text he (the editor) just sent me...
<noah> Used to say "at present covered by".
ht: This is very weak
<jar> The text from Manu above is not official yet (WG approved)
ht: It would not be possible to write media-type registrations that
were consistent with each other and with 3986
<jar> Manu says: "we'll run it by you to make sure it works for you
and the TAG" (before CR)
<noah> JT: Are you saying 3986 prohibits one using fragids in the
way that RDF does?
<noah> HT: Not quite.
<Yves> conneg text about fragid is only in webarch IIRC
Noah: 3986 says "the ids are grounded in the representations that
are rertievable"
... the answer should be consistent for all reprsentations you can
serve up
<noah> HT: Per Web Arch, fragids must be consistent across all
possible connegs
<noah> From 3986:
<noah> "The fragment's format and resolution is therefore
<noah> dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially
retrieved
<noah> representation, even though such a retrieval is only
performed if the
<noah> URI is dereferenced."
<jar> 3986: "Each representation should either define the
<jar> fragment so that it corresponds to the same secondary
resource,
<jar> regardless of how it is represented, or should leave the
fragment
<jar> undefined (i.e., not found)."
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about the conneg advice in WebArch. .
.
<noah> JAR: Treat conneg and base case separately. Getting the base
case right seems a prerequisite to getting conneg right.
JAR: You could add words to the relevant specs to make them
consistent
... conneg is already problem
ht: I worry about what the architects of the original system
intended
<JeniT>
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0027.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0027.html
JeniT: Text could only be added to application/xhtml+xml if
application/xml allowed it
<noah> NM: Am I right that for application/xxx+xml, 3032 bis says
"it's XPointer"?
<noah> JT: Yes, I think so.
jar: They want RDFa to be a mix-in for any media type
<noah> NM: I think Jeni and I are saying that RDFa core seems to
conflict with RFC 3023bis.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask what advice we ever gave Chris about
3023bis and this issue?
<jar> [22]http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20110331/
[22] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20110331/
<jar> [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/
[23] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to remind what we said to 3023 bis editors
Noah: We discussed the 3023 bis situation in London ... our initial
proposal was that they drop IDs as part of generic processing from
the spec
... they came back and said that was not possible
<JeniT>
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0078.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0078.html
Noah: we then asked them to make an exception for RDF+XML
<JeniT> above link is to message to 3023bis editors
Noah: We have a race condition between RDFCore and 3023bis
... What will pass final review when RDFa goes forward
<Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to say that I'm worried about 3023bis
outside RDFa
Noah: Suggest we wait till Tim is available and then send a note
urging consistency between the specs
<noah> NM: I made a specific proposal which was: check whether Tim
thinks this is serious. If so, signal to RDFa Core and 3023bis
editors that we consider any incompatibilities between their final
proposals to be serious, and encourage them to work that out before
RDFa core moves to Candidate Recommendation.
JeniT: 3023bis does not discuss uses of frag-ids in actual practice
ht: It will be hard to get XMLCore to agree with you on that
... strongly held positions about frad-ids and barenames
<Yves> +1 to ht suggestion
Noah: RDFa folks should work with the 3023bis editors
... we consider the incompatibility serious
Discussion about the inconsistencies
Noah: Cannot use barenames and generic processing when you have RDFa
semantics
<noah> NM: I think barenames are the main path case for both of
them. I think the generic folks need it to work with>any< URI that
resolves to an applicaiton/???+xml and with any application
Ashok: Do we have suggestions about how the specs could be
reconciled? I don't see a possible solution.
<ht> First part of what Jeni said is certainly doable: If a fragid
on xml media type is not (syntactically) an XPointer, then it has at
most specific media-type-determined semantics
JAR: There are other frag-id problems
Noah: I don't see a good solution here either
<ht> Second part, if I understood it, is much harder -- to be blunt,
XML was there first, and asking the entire XML community to stop
treating barenames as ID-grounded, is not going to happen
JAR: I suggested that if there is no element according to XPointer
then we resolve by some other means
... did not get any traction
HT: If it is not *syntactically* an XPointer then it can be resolved
by other means
<noah> I'm uncomfortable implying that the referent of a URI depends
on whether the software doing the processing is specialized
<ht> I tried to push this view at the meeting at Google, but Tim
would absolutely not go there
<noah> I>think< that's what Yves is proposing, no?
Yves: RDFa processor is not an XML processor ... in HTML if you get
JavaScript you change semantics of the # tag
<ht> +1 to Yves suggest that we step back
<jar> Yves: Not necessarily a good thing, but it's a fact
<noah> YL: That's a fact, it's what's happening.
Yves: RDF processor will handle frag-ids differently than an XML
processor
<noah> Yes, but my view is: it's happening, it's hugely broken, and
if possible we need to do better
<ht> I note that we don't have a problem with the idea that an XML
or HTML editor which doesn't expand entity references is not broken.
. .
<Yves> how can we minimize the brokenness
<ht> +1 for f2f
<Yves> +1 for f2f
<JeniT> +1 for f2f
Noah: Next steps ... wait till Tim is with us ... f2f?
JAR: Better if we could something about this before the f2f ...
Jeni's msg was great ... we need to admit to the contradiction
Noah: Fix it or live with it?
ht: If we can accept that what comes after the # is client-side and
may be different in different situations
Noah: I think this is a huge step backwards
<noah> NM: I am>very< unhappy with that view of URIs. The fragid is
part of the URI, the URI identifies whatever it identifies,
independent of the software that processes it.
JAR: People are in their own world and care only about their uses
<jar> There is no constituency for "one web" (in the sense of one
URI namespace)
Noah: Could someone prepare for the discussion as the f2f
<noah> ACTION: Jeni with Jonathan to prepare F2F discussion of
fragids including #!, RDFa, 3023bis, etc. Due 2011-05-24 [recorded
in [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action01]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-553 - With Jonathan to prepare F2F
discussion of fragids including #!, RDFa, 3023bis, etc. Due
2011-05-24 [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-05-19].
<noah> ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG
regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due
2011-03-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
<noah> OPEN ACTION-509
<noah> Reopening ACTION-509
<noah> ACTION-509 Due 2011-06-15
<trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting
the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-06-15
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Jeni Tennison to propose addition to
MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in
media type -- due 2011-05-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> doing same, reopening
<noah> ACTION-543 Due 2011-06-15
<trackbot> ACTION-543 Propose addition to MIME/Web draft to discuss
sem-web use of fragids not grounded in media type due date now
2011-06-15
API Minimization
Web Application Architecture: Design of APIs for Web Applications
DKA: I have updated the Minimization draft ... not created a dated
version
<DKA> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html
Latest draft above
DKA: Incorporated Computer Science paper that lays the foundation
... I've reached out to the DAPS group
... continuing to seek feedback and implementation experience
<noah> NM: When should TAG members invest in reviewing this in
detail?
<noah> DKA: Would welcome guidance on where I should invest ... not
the right time for detailed review.
DKA: Need feedback on other experience/papers on the idea.
<noah> NM: Detailed review for F2F?
<noah> DKA: That's my goal.
<noah> ACTION-514?
<trackbot> ACTION-514 -- Daniel Appelquist to draft finding on API
minimization Due: 2011-02-01 -- due 2011-04-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/514
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/514
<noah> ACTION-514 Due 2011-05-17
<trackbot> ACTION-514 Draft finding on API minimization Due:
2011-02-01 due date now 2011-05-17
Pending Review Actions
<noah>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> ACTION-524?
<trackbot> ACTION-524 -- Noah Mendelsohn to close versioning product
-- due 2011-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/524
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/524
<noah> close ACTION-524
<trackbot> ACTION-524 Close versioning product closed
<noah> ACTION-525?
<trackbot> ACTION-525 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check with John before
closing [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
WebApps access control -- due 2011-05-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
<trackbot> [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525
<noah> [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011May/0024.html
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011May/0024.html
<noah> I would expect that this is somehow related to the discussion
about CORS, UMP and XHR2
JAR: I have an ongoing action to alert us when either CORS or UMP
goes to Last Call
<noah> NM: This is all broadly under the banner of security?
JAR: Things are moving along
<noah> JAR: Came up originally because of metadata in URIs
<noah> JAR: Defense against cross-site request forgery.
<noah> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
JAR: I recommend John's write up as a first draft
<noah> PROPOSAL: Close
[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2, take ACTION
to create product page on security, with John Kemp's security draft
as starting point
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
<noah> RESOLVED: Close
[37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2, take ACTION
to create product page on security, with John Kemp's security draft
as starting point
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
<noah> PRODUCT 2?
<noah> ACTION: Noah to formulate product page for TAG work on
security including John Kemp security draft Due: 2011-05-24
[recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action02]
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-554 - Formulate product page for TAG work
on security including John Kemp security draft Due: 2011-05-24 [on
Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-05-19].
<noah> close ACTION-525?
<noah> ACTION-552?
<trackbot> ACTION-552 -- Noah Mendelsohn to create logistics page
for 6-8 June TAG F2F [self-assigned] -- due 2011-05-17 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/552
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/552
<noah> close ACTION-552
<trackbot> ACTION-552 Create logistics page for 6-8 June TAG F2F
[self-assigned] closed
Overdue Actions
<noah>
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owne
r
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
<noah> ACTION-480?
<trackbot> ACTION-480 -- Daniel Appelquist to draft overview
document framing Web applications as opposed to traditional Web of
documents -- due 2011-04-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480
[41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480
<noah> DKA: Working on it
<DKA> action-480?[42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/WebApps.html
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/WebApps.html
<noah> ACTION-480 Due 2011-05-24
<trackbot> ACTION-480 Draft overview document framing Web
applications as opposed to traditional Web of documents due date now
2011-05-24
Noah: Please look at all overdue actions and bump the due date if
necessary
<noah> ACTION-537?
<trackbot> ACTION-537 -- Daniel Appelquist to reach out to Web apps
chair to solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology,
good practice) relating to interaction -- due 2011-04-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537
DKA: No progress
<noah> ACTION-537 Due 2011-05-31
<trackbot> ACTION-537 Reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on
framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating
to interaction due date now 2011-05-31
<noah> ACTION-547?
<trackbot> ACTION-547 -- Daniel Appelquist to ask on www-tag and Web
Apps mailing lists for advice on moving forward with
[44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html -- due
2011-04-21 -- OPEN
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html
<trackbot> [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/547
[45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/547
<noah> ACTION-547 Due 2011-05-17
<trackbot> ACTION-547 Ask on www-tag and Web Apps mailing lists for
advice on moving forward with
[46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html due date now
2011-05-17
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html
Noah: Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeni with Jonathan to prepare F2F discussion of
fragids including #!, RDFa, 3023bis, etc. Due 2011-05-24 [recorded
in [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to formulate product page for TAG work on
security including John Kemp security draft Due: 2011-05-24
[recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action02]
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action01
[48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/5/12-minutes#action02
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [49]scribe.perl version 1.133
([50]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/05/14 19:58:44 $
[49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[50] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
All the best, Ashok
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2011 20:05:19 UTC