- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:22:38 -0400
- To: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Thank you, Peter. One question for those on the call. I've been assigned: ACTION-698 - Schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap, due 2012-05-01 Is there a reason it was delayed until 1 May? Any reason not to schedule this week? Thank you. Noah P.S. I added my name to the list of regrets for last week. On 4/23/2012 1:55 PM, Linss, Peter wrote: > Available online at: > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes.html > > And in pain text below. > > > ----------------- > > W3C > - DRAFT - > TAG > 19 Apr 2012 > > See also: IRC log > Attendees > > Present > Jeni Tennison, Peter Linss, Henry Thompson, Ashok Malhotra, Jonathan Rees, Chris Lilley, Yves Lafon > Regrets > Robin Berjon, Larry Masinter, Tim Berners-Lee > Chair > Henry Thompson > Scribe > Peter Linss > > Contents > > Topics > 3023bis > admin > media type reg draft > Discussion about coordination between W3C and IETF around the Media Fragment URI spec > Summary of Action Items > > <scribe> ScribeNick: plinss > > <scribe> scribe: Peter Linss > > <ht> yves, you coming? > > <ht> chris, are you going to dial in? > > <ChrisL> sure > 3023bis > > CL: started work on a new draft with new editors > ... haven't started the fragment stuff, wanted to check back first > > <ht> It would be good to get even a preliminary Internet Draft of 3023bis out there > > <ht> Ned Freed might otherwise reference 3023 from the media-reg RFC, which may last a long time > > <JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly > > JT: I wanted to point Chris to the text going in to the media type registration draft > ... item 4 > > <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-agenda.html > > CL: that's somewhere between an opt in and inherit from the top > > JT: if something is using +xml then any rules you put in have to be followed by anything that uses that > ... you should be wary of being too strong > > HT: we're going to circumscribe the areas where +xml makes definitive statements > > CL: forcing re-registration is not going to work > > HT: not clear if that's necessary > > YL: forcing registration won't work but imposing a new thing may not be right either > > HT: no precedent for having a discussion about frag ids at the generic level > > CL: the set of registrations to update is pretty large > > YL: We might aim just to get the small number of video types that are likely to be deployed widely to get on board > ... And re-register just a few image types > > CL: /jpg and /gif might be hard. . . > > <ChrisL> although many image formats can be used, in practice jpeg, gif, png and svg > > HT: thanks chris > admin > > <Yves> I note that iana register contains entry for gif and png pointing to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt > > regrets from Robin, Larry, Tim (at WWW2012) > > HT: Noah will have to check with Robin about scribing next week > ... past minutes unavailable > media type reg draft > > <jar> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html > > JT: wanted to get resolution from tag if happy with draft > > <jar> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-05 > > <ChrisL> @yves - png has a separate registration > > <ChrisL> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/image/png > > <JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html > > JT: the initial proposal is about which section should be inserted and which taken out > ... the other email gives final text on section about frag id considerations > ... not incorporated yet > > <Yves> chris, yes, I was just pointing to jpeg and gif here. The other ones (including SVG) have easy to spot registration entries > > HT: that's consistent with what was there already > ... if you don't want generic rules, don't use +xml > ... what isn't here is what tim wanted > ... don't lay claim to more real estate than you need to > > JT: Tim said bare name frag ids should be really reserved > > HT: not sure I agree with that > > JT: these changes seem to be whats acceptable while giving a scope for best practice > > HT: agreed > > JT: guidance about real estate goes into separate document > > YL: in ned's draft there was something about using + suffix > ... should we explain the reason why that's a should and not a must > > <JeniT> "Media types are encouraged to adopt fragment identifier schemes that are used > > <JeniT> with semantically similar media types. In particular, media types that use a > > <JeniT> named structured syntax with a registered "+suffix" MUST follow whatever > > <JeniT> fragment identifier rules are given in the structured syntax suffix > > <JeniT> registration." > > JT: Ned already changed that to a must > > YL: I agree with must follow > ... the should was someplace else > > <Yves> << > > <Yves> Media types that make use of a named structured syntax SHOULD use the > > <Yves> appropriate registered "+suffix" for that structured syntax when they > > <Yves> are registered. > > <Yves> >> > > <Yves> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-05#section-4.2.8 > > YL: maybe we should explain why using +suffix might not be right thing to do > ... if you are using xml but don't want to use generic processing then you should not use +suffix > > JT: I can take that to Ned > > HT: I'd prefer to add a positive statement instead of a negative > ... "as noted below wrt frag ids, using a + suffix syntax obligees you to constraints and processing rules form that spec, if inappropriate, then you should not use suffix" > ... I'll take this forward on apps discuss list myself > > JT: can we resolve that we're happy with this text? > > HT: Re other issues, we agreed to keep our 'official' intervention to the fragid stuff, JT will pass some other points to HST for him to raise as he sees fit > > <ht> .RESOLUTION: The TAG is happy with the proposed text regarding fragment identifiers at the end of Ned Freed's message of 17 April [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html] > > <Yves> +1 > > <JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html > > <ht> .RESOLUTION: The TAG is happy with the proposed text regarding fragment identifiers at the end of Ned Freed's message of 17 April [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html], along with the other changes proposed by Jeni Tennison [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html] as amended by Ned Freed > > RESOLUTION: The TAG is happy with the proposed text regarding fragment identifiers at the end of Ned Freed's message of 17 April [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html], along with the other changes proposed by Jeni Tennison [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html] as amended by Ned Freed > Discussion about coordination between W3C and IETF around the Media Fragment URI spec > > HT: Yves, where does that spec stand? > > <ht> Yves, you there? > > <ht> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/ > > HT: I think we need a wider group for item 6 > > <ht> ACTION to Noah to schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap > > <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to > > <ht> ACTION Noah to schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap, due 2012-05-01 > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-698 - Schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap, due 2012-05-01 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-04-26]. > > YL: Media Fragment spec. as such is not aggressive > > JT: The new media type registration guidelines should make it easier to get it adopted by the types > ... that ought to > > HT: any other business? > ... adjouned > Summary of Action Items > [End of minutes] > > >
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 18:23:07 UTC