See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
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.
Noah: TAG Status Report has been published
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0028.html
<noah> Previously announced HTML last call schedule: 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
<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> 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> 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 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): http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/05-minutes
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/05/05-minutes
<noah> ...pause so group can read minutes from last week...
<jar> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-12#resolution_2
<JeniT> 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> 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> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20110331/
<jar> 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> 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 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> 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> 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
DKA: I have updated the Minimization draft ... not created a dated version
<DKA> 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> 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
<noah> 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> 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access control -- due 2011-05-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525
<noah> 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> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
JAR: I recommend John's write up as a first draft
<noah> PROPOSAL: Close 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
<noah> RESOLVED: Close 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
<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 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> 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
<noah> 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> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480
<noah> DKA: Working on it
<DKA> action-480?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> 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html -- due 2011-04-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html due date now 2011-05-17
Noah: Adjourned