IRC log of tagmem on 2002-04-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:03:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
14:04:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
14:04:33 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: TAG agenda:
14:09:12 [connolly]
connolly has joined #tagmem
14:17:26 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
14:22:39 [DanC]
AAAAAAARGH! net problems.
14:23:47 [DanC]
my ssh tunnel seems hosed.
14:26:59 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
14:27:06 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
14:29:39 [DanC]
Zakim, this is tag
14:29:41 [Zakim]
ok, DanC
14:30:29 [Zakim]
14:30:34 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
14:31:18 [Zakim]
14:33:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.604.873.aaaa
14:33:52 [Ian]
zakim, aaaa is TimBray
14:33:53 [Zakim]
+TimBray; got it
14:34:22 [Ian]
Missing so far: Chris, David, TimBL
14:34:51 [Zakim]
14:35:00 [Zakim]
14:35:14 [Zakim]
14:35:26 [Ian]
PC: I will need to leave at some point during this meeting.
14:36:24 [Zakim]
14:36:39 [Dave]
Dave has joined #tagmem
14:40:05 [Norm]
Oh, the agenda will only help a little, Dan, but thanks
14:40:16 [Zakim]
14:41:27 [Ian]
SW to Chair.
14:41:43 [Ian]
14:41:46 [Ian]
Minutes of previous meeting.
14:41:50 [Ian]
SW: Accepted
14:41:55 [Dave]
fine progress stu..
14:42:02 [Ian]
Agenda additions: None.
14:42:09 [Ian]
Action item review:
14:42:11 [Dave]
racing through the agenda...
14:42:16 [Zakim]
14:42:35 [Ian]
agenda+ Meetings without TimBL
14:43:05 [Ian]
DO: Write text about "Web as information space", to be integrated by IJ
14:43:26 [tim-home]
tim-home has joined #tagmem
14:43:52 [Ian]
DO: Some stuff is controversial.
14:43:55 [Ian]
IJ: then please continue
14:44:08 [Ian]
Action IJ: Integrate/combine one-page summaries.
14:44:30 [Ian]
IJ: Very slow progress on this.
14:44:56 [Ian]
agenda+ One-page summary
14:45:43 [Ian]
Action TBL: Write draft on when URI variants are considered equivalent
14:45:45 [Ian]
Done, see www-tag
14:45:51 [DanC]
14:46:01 [DanC]
$Id: Axioms.html,v 1.25 2002/04/08 18:05:07 timbl Exp $
14:46:10 [Ian]
Actino TBL: draft comments on RDF+HTML for namespace documents.
14:46:22 [Ian]
TBL: there is a thread on this in www-tag. Would be good to capture this material.
14:46:34 [Ian]
TBL: I started drafting something, discussion continued on www-tag.
14:46:49 [DanC]
sounds like "some progress; continued"
14:47:01 [DanC]
Stuart, pls move along
14:47:26 [Ian]
Action DC: Write up summary of resolution for whenToUseGet-7 by showing support for RFC2616 section 9.1.1.
14:47:32 [Ian]
14:47:43 [DanC]
my action: done:
14:48:18 [Dave]
14:48:20 [Ian]
RF: Write up discussion of RFC3205 based on www-tag input.
14:48:22 [tim-home] is attempt to draft a resolution about HTML and RDF, but outstanding issue of fragid meaning is still left in discussion on ww-tag
14:48:37 [Ian]
RF - pending.
14:48:47 [Ian]
Action IJ: Create a separate page with links to TAG (accepted) findings. Done
14:48:59 [Ian]
Action SW: Amend uriMediaType-9 finding according to approved text.
14:49:07 [Ian]
14:49:11 [DanC] $Date: 2002/04/12 18:12:54 $
14:49:16 [Ian]
Action TBL: Take uriMediaType-9 finding to IETF.
14:49:23 [Ian]
SW: Note that IANA is mentioned prominently.
14:49:29 [Ian]
...should take to their attention as well.
14:50:00 [Ian]
TBL: I've brought up the IETF topic to Philipp Hoschka; next IETF teleconf not for another three months.
14:50:11 [Ian]
...maybe we should have an architectural get-together with the IETF>
14:50:31 [Ian]
DC: Mail relevant parties (e.g., D. Eastlake).
14:50:44 [Dave]
14:50:46 [Ian]
TBL: Yes: IESG, W3C-IETF list, ...
14:50:58 [Ian]
SW: What about Larry Masinter?
14:51:18 [DanC]
I'd suggest , Eastlake as next step for TimBL's action.
14:51:21 [Ian]
TBL: LM asked for discussion to be carried out on "xml in ietf list"
14:51:31 [Ian]
TBL, TB: That's problematic.
14:51:40 [DanC]
er... there's supposed to be a URI CG in W3C sometime soon, btw. (oops)
14:52:07 [Ian]
TBL: I will respond to LM about this; we'd like this discussion on www-tag since we don't have anyone to follow it on IETF list.
14:52:14 [Roy]
what is a CG?
14:52:16 [DanC]
"about this" <- about which?
14:52:34 [Ian]
About moving discussion to IETF list.
14:52:39 [Ian]
14:52:41 [DanC]
CG = coordination group. in the case of URI, a group to say "who should do that? ok; I'll do it."
14:52:44 [Ian]
www-tag mailing list policy
14:52:58 [Ian]
TB: Post agenda to www-tag and ask people to focus on these issues. Let's try that for a while.
14:53:19 [Ian]
SW: Also, we should prioritize issues.
14:53:45 [Ian]
(see SW email to tag list)
14:54:06 [Ian]
TBL: TOC of arch doc was to be clustering.
14:54:14 [Ian]
DC: Sounds like SW's clustering and the TOC line up.
14:55:18 [DanC]
pls put some issue names/numbers in the subject line when you send agendas to www-tag
14:55:32 [tim-tag]
14:55:35 [Ian]
DO: I'm not sure that this will prevent loquacious people from saying what they want to say.
14:55:59 [Ian]
TBL: I think we should do what TB said, but also respect www-tag as a place where people raise issues.
14:56:28 [Ian]
...I hear SW saying "let's spend more time on dispensing with issues" but let's not close ears to new ones.
14:56:43 [DanC]
"loquacious"? did DO really use that word? what does it mean?
14:56:57 [Ian]
TBL: I hear SW proposing more organized stacking of agenda items.
14:57:15 [Ian]
PC: One reason we're getting flooded with mail is that we're doing technical design.
14:57:26 [Ian]
(e.g., on the nature of a namespace document)
14:57:52 [Ian]
...after enough pointers from people, I thought that this was starting to feel like a technical working group.
14:58:10 [Ian]
...but I think that writing principles has a higher priority.
14:58:27 [Ian]
...we might ask w3c to assign job of implementing to appropriate WGs.
14:58:52 [Stuart]
14:58:53 [Ian]
DC: I am of two minds on this: On the one hand, I don't know that we need to cross all the t's, but if we don't, people will keep asking us for it.
14:59:30 [Ian]
TBL: We have gotten a few principles along the way, even in discussing nature of namespace docs.
14:59:40 [Ian]
PC: I don't think we have as much agreement as TBL things.
14:59:44 [Ian]
NW, DO: I agree with PC.
14:59:54 [Ian]
TB: I'm surprised, I thought we were converging on this.
15:00:10 [DanC]
if we're not agreed (that you should put *something* there, at the end of a namespace pointer), I'm willing to spend whatever time it takes to get agreement.
15:00:38 [Ian]
PC: I would prefer if TAG stayed at requirements level rather than design level.
15:02:12 [Dave]
My requirement is that the xhtml must be human-writable
15:02:24 [Ian]
PC: I agree that many of us agree that there could be a namespace doc at end of namespace, some votes are conditional on the nature of the document.
15:02:26 [Dave]
15:02:37 [Ian]
PC: I'm suggseting that the TAG doesn't need necessarily to resolve that.
15:03:14 [Ian]
TB: I think that at our level of operation, distinction between arch and design goes away. I don't believe in the model where we do principles and hand off design to others.
15:03:56 [Ian]
DO: I am sensitive to PC's point - if we act as a WG, we will get less done on principles. But I agree that in this case (namespace docs) my final view depends on syntax.
15:04:36 [Ian]
DO: I'm not decided on whether we should do this work.
15:04:41 [Zakim]
15:05:13 [Ian]
DO: This issue of the namespace is helping us figure out our process.
15:05:18 [Ian]
15:05:21 [tim-tag]
15:05:22 [Ian]
ack Dave
15:05:36 [Zakim]
15:05:55 [Ian]
zakim, ??P43 is Paul
15:05:56 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
15:05:59 [Ian]
15:06:06 [Ian]
DC: I wrote something on when to use get
15:06:23 [Ian]
15:06:39 [Ian]
Back to issue (briefly) of how to organize meetings when TBL not here.
15:06:46 [Ian]
TB: I nominate SW as backup chair.
15:07:13 [Dave]
15:07:15 [Ian]
SW: If I'm here, I'm willing to Chair.
15:07:20 [Norm]
15:07:37 [DanC]
DRAFT Findings on Safe Methods
15:07:54 [Ian]
[Back to tech]
15:09:16 [Ian]
DC reads first couple of paragraphs.
15:09:23 [Ian]
DC: How close to agreement on first couple of paragraphs?
15:09:29 [Ian]
"A very important principle when designing Web applications is:
15:09:30 [Ian]
* safe methods (GET/HEAD) should be used for safe operations: read, query, view, ask, lookup
15:09:30 [Ian]
* safe methods must not be used for unsafe operations: write, update, modify, tell, buy, agree
15:09:30 [Ian]
15:09:42 [Ian]
DO: I have a concern about the word "should" instead of "may" in first bullet.
15:10:05 [Ian] does this relate to Web services world and the use of POST with SOAP messages.
15:10:09 [Ian]
DC: Don't do that is my answer.
15:10:21 [Stuart]
15:10:43 [Ian]
DO: In the Web services world, it's a well-documented "fact" that most uses of SOAP messages are through POST. E.g., classic get stock quote is done through POST.
15:10:55 [Ian]
...POST is used to navigate shared something space.
15:11:16 [DanC]
the use of POST for "get stock quote" is wrong.
15:11:26 [Ian]
RF: Yes, it's wrong.
15:11:41 [Ian]
TB: People have been using POST for years due to large lists of arguments. But you can't bookmark as a result.
15:11:53 [Ian]
...when you can do it with GET, you should do so, and that adds to the utility of it.
15:12:03 [Ian]
...utility of Web services would be increased by use of GET.
15:12:19 [Ian]
ack Tim-tag
15:12:54 [Ian]
TBL: I propose we ask DO to take this message back to the Web services community: tools creating services need to help designer make choice that end up with proper implementation.
15:13:06 [Ian]
DO: I don't agree that the way that Web services work is the wrong way to do it.
15:13:10 [Ian]
15:13:13 [Ian]
15:13:47 [Ian]
PC to TBL: One of the problems with this sort of design is that it presupposes that you know what kind of message you will be sending.
15:13:56 [Ian] SOAP 1.2, one doesn't know about the messages.
15:14:10 [Ian]
TBL: We're talking about changing the situation, not just observing the current state of the spec and software.
15:14:32 [Ian]
PC: Are specs factored correctly for one to be able to carry out this chore.
15:15:00 [Stuart]
15:15:00 [Ian]
TBL: If WSDL does not capture whether there's a safe method, that's a bug.
15:15:02 [Dave]
15:15:21 [Roy]
15:15:26 [Ian]
PC: SOAP 1.2 has been written without knowing that WSDL exists.
15:15:35 [Ian]
TBL: Then it needs to go into SOAP and possibly other things.
15:15:42 [Ian]
PC: What does HTTP binding use today in SOAP?
15:15:44 [Ian]
15:15:47 [DanC]
hmm... how would it go into the SOAP 1.2 spec?
15:16:09 [Dave]
DanC, the SOAP HTTP binding in part 2 uses POST
15:16:20 [Ian]
IJ: What are DO's objections to using GET in the Web services context?
15:16:43 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
15:16:52 [Stuart]
15:16:54 [Ian]
DO: I do not believe that the way that Web services groups are moving forward is incorrect.
15:17:08 [Ian]
DO: ...I'm not prepared to go to them and say that what they are doing is wrong.
15:17:22 [DanC]
DaveO, pls answer Ian's question: what's wrong with the principle that "* safe methods (GET/HEAD) should be used for safe operations: read, query, view, ask, lookup"?
15:17:36 [Ian]
DO: I don't think that idempotency has come up in web services activity. The way to move forward is to have a mtg with the web services arch wg.
15:18:03 [Ian]
DO: I'm suggesting that this is a bigger issue than DC's one line.
15:18:11 [Ian]
DC: But in what way do you disagree?
15:18:29 [Ian]
DO: It gets into the shared information space. If you're dealing with the shared information space, you care whether the info is idempotent or not.
15:18:42 [Ian]
...when you are doing things from a service perspective, or shared processing space, that feature becomes less important.
15:18:52 [tim-tag]
15:19:05 [Ian]
DO: ...I would argue that from a web services developer perspective, it's unduly complicated.
15:19:06 [Ian]
ack Ian
15:19:07 [Ian]
ack Dave
15:19:08 [Dave]
15:19:43 [Ian]
RF: The way that web services is designed, there is no generic interface. So there is no concern about safe or unsafe methods. In general they don't have methods in the web services space.
15:20:04 [Ian]
RF: SOAP should not be tunneled over HTTP.
15:20:09 [TBray]
15:21:26 [Ian]
RF: The point is that web services space doesn't deal with methods at all at this point because when you're operating via a web service, both sides know the semnatics of the service, or they don't interoperate at all. Whether GET/HEAD/POST is only relevant for the HTTP transfer mechanism (for tunneling of web services) and this is not HTTP-compliant to begin with and should not be done.
15:21:36 [Ian]
RF: So this is a non-issue whether you take this to Web services groups or not.
15:21:42 [Ian]
15:21:46 [Ian]
ack Roy
15:22:17 [Ian]
TBL: When there is an object that is a service that is in HTTP space, POST is there to submit things to it. To submit an operation to is it reasonable.
15:22:24 [Ian]
..there is a loss when the operation is just a read of the space.
15:22:33 [Ian]
...I see this loss all the time when I interact with my bank.
15:22:49 [Ian]
...I can't use the back button since the browser keeps warning me that I"m resubmitting the post.
15:22:54 [Ian]'s more work on the bank server as well.
15:23:09 [Ian]'s inefficient from everyone's point of view (user, network, server).
15:23:23 [Ian]
..that mistake is being transferred into web services.
15:23:32 [Ian]
...web services are still young; the effect on the web has not been seen.
15:23:48 [Dave]
15:24:16 [Ian]
TBL; ..I disagree with RF that you should never submit information to a service with POST. But I think we need to encourage web services to split information into safe and unsafe bits.
15:24:43 [Ian]
TBL: I think we should go to the Web services community and get a change.
15:24:55 [Ian]
RF: I don't think we disagree, TBL.
15:25:19 [Ian]
TBL: The web services people can keep the web services model, but the bindings should be safe when they can be.
15:25:25 [Ian]
...use the underlying/existing caches, etc.
15:25:38 [Ian]
TB: RF said that you shouldn't run SOAP over HTTP. Well, they're going to.
15:25:50 [Ian]
RF: Intermediaries will break when it happens.
15:26:00 [Ian]
TB: So it's appropriate for us to make architectural assertions about this.
15:26:07 [Stuart]
ack tim-tag
15:26:11 [Ian]
TB: I agree with TBL that there's a right way and wrong way to do this.
15:26:15 [Ian]
TB: I think that:
15:26:19 [Stuart]
ack tbray
15:26:27 [Ian]
TB: 1) It's appropriate to say you should use GET.
15:26:42 [Ian]
TB: 2) It's also appropriate for wsa people to consider this.
15:27:27 [Ian]
TB: I look forward to a future where one can put a URI to a web service in a web page. If GET is never used, we may not have this much more interesting web.
15:27:47 [Ian]
TB: So I support "Should use get" and work with Web services community to take advantage of what web offers.
15:28:01 [Ian]
DO: I could live with "GET should be used for browser-centric sort of things."
15:28:03 [tim-tag]
15:28:11 [Ian]
DO: I take issue with "GET should be used in all areas".
15:28:14 [Ian]
ack Dave
15:28:16 [DanC]
Norm, "brower centric" is beside the point.
15:28:20 [DanC]
15:28:43 [TBray]
My point 3: Web Services people may feel they don't have an issue here because it's all machine-to-machine, and the "client" program will know what's going on.
15:29:08 [Ian]
TBL to DO: Would you be willing to lead a charge in the web services community to set up the job about what would need to be changed, and who would need to be involved, to introduce the idea of binding SOAP to GET.
15:29:34 [TBray]
But I disagree - in a future with a much more programmable brower, I think it would be interesting and good to have a pointer from a human-readable web page to a web service.
15:29:41 [Ian]
DO: I disagree with the position, but will be happy to organize a liaison.
15:29:42 [TBray]
And in that mode, GET is definitely the way to go.
15:30:02 [Ian]
PC: One way to execute what TBL would like is to have the TAG review the SOAP 1.2 spec.
15:30:07 [Ian]
(last call imminent?)
15:30:42 [Ian]
TB: What's current status of SOAP 1.0?
15:30:53 [Stuart]
15:30:56 [Ian]
DO: We're a couple of weeks from going to last call.
15:31:12 [Ian]
PC: Yes, a couple of weeks from last call.
15:31:13 [Ian]
15:31:17 [Ian]
ack Tim-tag
15:31:20 [DanC]
I can see how to put this into the WSDL spec, but not so much the SOAP spec.
15:32:04 [Ian]
SW: I have been wrestling internally with these issues. I can see the merit of GETs for safe operations.
15:32:25 [Ian]
SW: I can see that when you are uncertain, POST may not be a bad choice. [SW acks thinking on the fly here...]
15:32:50 [Ian]
SW: There has been a tension since creation of WG between SOAP having character of thing it's bound to, or thing with character of its own.
15:33:02 [Ian]
SW: I've been wrestling with tunneling issues.
15:33:19 [Ian]
SW: I can see a view that "SOAP is just a content format [that you can use with HTTP]"
15:33:27 [Ian]
15:33:33 [Ian]
ack Stuart
15:33:48 [Stuart]
15:34:00 [Ian]
RF: We should tease out the principles in the findings. What TBL wants is an indication of the semantics of the action visible to all participants before the action is made.
15:34:28 [tim-tag]
15:34:30 [Ian]
RF: A client may need to know whether an operation is safe in order to execute the action. Same with proxy.
15:34:45 [Ian]
RF: That's independent of HTTP (or HTTP method used).
15:34:58 [Ian]
TBL: I want to push back on the idea that HTTP GET only applies to browsers.
15:35:07 [Ian]
TBL: applies even more to an agent.
15:35:19 [Ian]
TBL: When a piece of software will click on a link, will be done without the user's oversight.
15:36:02 [Ian]
TBL: The way that web services is working (services between different companies across trust boundaries) is different from rpc; you want to keep a record of transactions.
15:36:17 [Zakim]
15:36:29 [Ian]
TBL: I think that this principle applies absolutely to clients acting on a user's behalf.
15:37:05 [Ian]
TB: I think we should send a message to web services that we have a concern here.
15:37:05 [DanC]
where to go next: I suggest actions be assigned to anybody who disagrees with "* safe methods (GET/HEAD) should be used for safe operations: read, query, view, ask, lookup"
15:38:00 [Ian]
DC: I heard a majority in favor of "should/must not". I suggest that whoever disagrees has the ball to follow up.
15:38:46 [Ian]
TB: I suggest to post DC's finding to www-tag with "should/must not".
15:39:06 [DanC]
why spell-check it? wouldn't that give the impression that it's more done than it is?
15:40:11 [Ian]
SW: I think we should wait a week, and get some more discussion, before trying to get consensus around this.
15:40:19 [Ian]
DC: Then I shouldn't say to www-tag that "most people agree with this"?
15:41:48 [Ian]
TBL: Let the meeting record show that we do not have consensus on DC's proposal.
15:42:02 [Ian]
15:42:30 [Ian]
15:42:51 [Ian]
Postponed: * IETF best practices draft requiring URNs for XML namespaces in IETF documents. Action to take?
15:43:12 [Ian]
15:43:30 [Ian]
Postponed: 1. Discuss issue of scope of TAG/W3C/Web Architecture (@@see TB Action below@@).
15:43:31 [Ian]
15:43:34 [Ian]
1. Discussion of integration of 5 one-page summaries:
15:43:38 [Ian]
15:44:05 [Ian]
TBL: Plese do homework on postponed items.
15:44:19 [Ian]
Action IJ: Ensure that TAG has links to these items.
15:44:34 [Ian]
TB on IJ style: Good but too much of it.
15:44:43 [Ian]
15:44:52 [DanC]
btw... last week's record had my whenToUseGet action due today, 15 Apr; I did it by 15Apr, but it didn't seem to be in time. I'd suggest actions be due weds or maybe Thu
15:44:53 [Ian]
TB: There's a sweet spot in-between.
15:45:37 [DanC]
Bray, I don't think Ian has written anything newer than what you've seend.
15:45:52 [DanC]
(er... I haven't seen anything newer, that is)
15:46:20 [Ian]
IJ: Expect fuzziness at first, then some will be pared away.
15:46:33 [Ian]
TB: Each word carries serious normative weight. Keep the verbiage down.
15:46:43 [Norm]
15:48:24 [Ian]
15:48:29 [Ian]
ack Tim-tag
15:48:45 [Ian]
NW: I think that TB's point is well-taken. Words will be scrutinized.
15:49:46 [DanC]
re appendix: pls no. pls let's find whatever balance is the right balance
15:50:09 [Ian]
IJ: By the way, I support TB's point as well. Working towards it.
15:50:37 [Ian]
TBL: The doc consists of the four areas of web arch with a prepending introduction.
15:51:01 [Ian]
No worries, NW!
15:51:01 [Ian]
15:51:18 [TBray]
I think something like what Ian's written needs to be written... I'm just not sure this is the right place for it.
15:51:25 [Norm]
15:51:41 [DanC]
draft on whenToUseGet is now sent to www-tag
15:52:24 [Ian]
RF: I think that this doc will ultimately have different outline than four chapters we have now. I'm happy to start this way.
15:52:51 [Ian]
IJ: But I'm writing the intro based on these chapters...
15:53:54 [Ian]
TBL: I thought that 3 wasn't about summarizing REST. But more about how the protocols implement the information space. Role of chapter 4 is to talk about the services as such.
15:54:00 [DanC]
er... the chapters 1-4 are completely empty in $Date: 2002/04/01 14:33:41 $
15:54:11 [TBray]
Sorry... gotta run.
15:54:28 [Ian]
RF: I thought 3 would describe the application state of portraying the hypertext view of the world.
15:54:31 [Ian]
DC: I agree.
15:54:34 [Zakim]
15:54:51 [Ian]
RF: I have a hard time speaking to the four chapters.
15:55:02 [Ian]
RF: I'm not entirely sure that docs come second.
15:55:13 [Ian]
RF: I'm sure that we'll talk about properties we want out of a web arch. That's not there now.
15:55:32 [Ian]
RF, DC: Put the stuff in and see what happens.
15:55:48 [Ian]
DC: Anything less than words we agree to won't get us what we want.
15:56:00 [Stuart]
15:56:22 [Ian]
TBL: I don't think that section 3 as elaborated will fulfill the role I have in mind.
15:56:28 [Ian]
RF: I agree with TBL. It doesn't fit.
15:56:56 [Norm]
15:59:33 [Ian]
[IJ, RF, TBL will try to meet to get direction on Ch. 3]
16:00:43 [Ian]
16:00:54 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [Zakim]
16:00:57 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop