IRC log of tagmem on 2002-05-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:47:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:47:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:47:54 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to: TAG:
18:48:04 [Ian]
zakim, this is TAG
18:48:05 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'TAG'
18:48:08 [Ian]
zakim, this is tag
18:48:09 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
18:48:20 [Ian]
zakim, this is TAG_weekly
18:48:21 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'TAG_weekly'
18:48:51 [Norm]
zakim, list conferences
18:48:52 [Zakim]
I see SW_CG()1:00PM
18:49:03 [Norm]
Uh oh
18:49:51 [Ian]
zakim, this is tag
18:49:52 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
18:50:09 [Ian]
zakim, this is probably tag
18:50:10 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'probably tag'
18:50:24 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
18:50:25 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I don't know what conference this is
18:50:30 [Ian]
zakim, this is tag
18:50:31 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
18:51:04 [Norm]
Ian: something's wrong with Zakims list of conferences: maybe because he thinks we still meet at 10:30?
18:51:18 [Ian]
zakim, this conference is tag
18:51:19 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
18:51:26 [Ian]
zakim, this conference will be tag
18:51:27 [Zakim]
ok, Ian
18:51:37 [Ian]
18:51:43 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
18:51:44 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I don't know what conference this is
18:51:51 [Ian]
Doh. I oughta...
18:52:14 [Norm]
18:52:25 [Norm]
yeah, it will be, but ... when?
18:54:26 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:54:32 [Zakim]
18:54:35 [Ian]
zakim, this is TAG_Weekly
18:54:36 [Zakim]
ok, Ian
18:54:41 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
18:54:42 [Zakim]
I see Ian
18:55:50 [Ian]
Web site not responding?
18:56:06 [Zakim]
18:56:59 [Zakim]
18:57:06 [Ian]
zakim, ??P3 is Norm
18:57:07 [Zakim]
+Norm; got it
18:58:13 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
18:58:29 [Stuart]
Just Dialing
18:58:44 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:00:44 [Zakim]
19:00:55 [Ian]
zakim, ??P5 is Roy
19:00:56 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:00:56 [Zakim]
19:01:05 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:01:06 [Zakim]
I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray
19:01:25 [Zakim]
19:01:28 [Ian]
Regrets: Paul, David, Chris.
19:01:37 [Ian]
Zakim, ??P7 is Stuart
19:01:38 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:01:42 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:01:43 [Zakim]
I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray, Stuart
19:01:55 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:01:58 [Ian]
zakim, Chris is not here.
19:01:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Chris is not here.', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help
19:02:09 [TBray]
TBray has left #tagmem
19:02:09 [Ian]
zakim, Chris sent regrets
19:02:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Chris sent regrets', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help
19:03:11 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:03:22 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
19:03:22 [TBray]
19:05:26 [skw]
skw has joined #tagmem
19:06:13 [Stuart]
zakim who is here
19:06:18 [DanC]
Zakim, who's here?
19:06:19 [Zakim]
I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray, Stuart
19:06:47 [Ian]
Dan, are you calling?
19:06:58 [timmit]
Let's start when DanC has joined.
19:07:02 [timmit]
19:07:46 [Zakim]
19:08:01 [Ian]
19:08:05 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:08:06 [Zakim]
I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray, Stuart, DanC
19:08:14 [timmit]
19:08:18 [timmit]
19:08:21 [Ian]
1. Accept previous minutes?
19:09:08 [DanC]
19:09:14 [DanC]
$Revision: 1.17 $ of $Date: 2002/05/09 19:20:58 $ by $Author: connolly $
19:09:41 [Ian]
Minutes from 22 April, 5 May accepted.
19:10:09 [Ian]
19:10:16 [Ian]
Comments on agenda?
19:10:26 [Ian]
SW: Switch 6/5
19:10:35 [Ian]
19:10:50 [DanC]
pointer to 22Apr minutes?
19:11:12 [DanC]
was that supposed to be 29Apr?
19:11:17 [Ian]
Sorry 29 April.
19:11:24 [Ian]
19:11:34 [Ian]
Comments on TAG@AC meeting / WWW 2002?
19:11:40 [DanC]
is there anything written about the TAG session at WWW2002.
19:11:47 [DanC]
19:11:55 [Ian]
TBL: AC meeting was fairly flat as they go.
19:12:09 [Ian]
TBL: Majority of comments at TAG session were about w3c process.
19:12:19 [Ian]
SW: I didn't hear any bad feedback from the AC.
19:13:02 [Ian]
DC: Perhaps comments from AC meeting on "dependencies" will re-stimulate DO.
19:13:04 [Ian]
19:13:14 [Ian]
Review of action items.
19:14:15 [Ian]
IJ: Integrate/combine one-page summaries. Done?
19:14:38 [Ian]
TBL: I don't think this is done; IJ has not integrated text from DO (3), CL (4).
19:15:06 [Ian]
TBL: So not integrated yet.
19:15:22 [Ian]
Deadline for this action item: 27 May.
19:15:35 [Ian]
TBL: Take question of HTTP Query to W3C/IETF liaison (issue whenToUseGet-7)
19:15:57 [DanC]
I propose to withdraw timbl's QUERY action. ( I thought we already did withdraw it)
19:16:33 [Ian]
TBL: I propose we withdraw for lack of energy and are focusing on other things.
19:16:40 [Ian]
19:16:58 [Ian]
TBL: Draft comments on RDF+HTML for namespace documents.
19:17:05 [Ian]
IJ: TBL wrote something.
19:17:52 [Ian]
19:18:19 [Ian]
19:18:28 [Ian]
TBL: Take uriMediaType-9 finding to IETF and IANA.
19:19:01 [Ian]
DC: As a rule, we do grass roots; I think this is an exception.
19:19:25 [Ian]
DC: TBL, I suggested contacting Don Eastlake, Larry Masinter.
19:20:49 [Ian]
TBL: I will do this, and cc www-tag.
19:21:09 [Ian]
TBL: Negotiate more of IJ time for arch doc
19:22:19 [Ian]
TBL: I've mentioned to Steve Bratt, regarding time exchange with AB.
19:22:27 [DanC]
Stuart, pls remind folks that the responses to action item review are: "done", "please continue", and "please withdraw". Discusstion that doesn't start with one of those is out of order.
19:23:07 [Ian]
Leave open IJ time.
19:23:15 [Ian]
CL: Add concern regarding non-western characters to the POST scenario (issue whenToUseGet-7)
19:23:17 [Ian]
Not done.
19:23:24 [Ian]
DC: Write up limitations in draft finding for whenToUseGet-7 about limitations in SOAP
19:23:37 [Ian]
DC: I claim victory in whenToUseGet-7.
19:24:36 [Ian]
DO/DC/CL: Polish up DO's .1-level draft and find out what's going on with XForms
19:24:45 [Ian]
TB: That's partially done.
19:24:56 [Ian]
SW: I think DO talking to XForms people at AC meeting.
19:25:07 [Ian]
[The proper list of people for this action is TB/DO/CL]
19:25:15 [Ian]
DC: Add pointer to PROPfind in section on limitations/problems in whenToUseGet-7 finding
19:25:19 [Ian]
DC: Done.
19:25:25 [Ian]
DC: Publish whenToUseGet-7 finding
19:25:31 [Ian]
DC: Not done since missing piece from CL.
19:25:36 [Ian]
DC: Point out in whenToUseGet-7 that WSDL and SOAP primer should take this into account.
19:25:37 [Ian]
19:25:47 [Ian]
DC: Send a message to the XML Protocol WG comments list to point to resolution regarding GET and SOAP 1.2
19:25:48 [Ian]
19:25:55 [Ian]
TB: Start discussion on www-tag about nature of namespace documents @@exact topic of action unclear@@.
19:27:04 [Ian]
TB: See
19:27:31 [Ian]
19:27:38 [Ian]
DC: Edit minutes of 5 May teleconf, make public
19:27:39 [Ian]
19:28:15 [Ian]
On my qname/namespace email, one conclusion is that people didn't respond so maybe not important.
19:28:23 [DanC]
Bray: not a lot of response; maybe that's an answer in itself, to the question of "how important is this?"
19:28:28 [Ian]
SW: I will encourage Brian McBridge to pipe up on the thread.
19:28:52 [Ian]
NW: I have an action to review Charmod document. [Put back in action item list. CL does too...]
19:28:54 [Ian]
19:28:56 [DanC]
Norm, Stu, "we all" have not accepted any actions. Actions are assigned to individuals.
19:29:02 [DanC]
19:29:03 [Stuart]
19:29:06 [Ian]
Proposed issue from Steve Zilles
19:29:22 [Ian]
19:29:43 [Ian]
NW: Have single set of semantic properties among css, xslt, svg, ...
19:30:23 [Ian]
NW: SZ noticed recently that CSS WG has decided to rename some properties first named by the XSL WG. SZ argues that renaming properties is a bad idea.
19:30:35 [Ian]
TB: What would the TAG do here?
19:30:49 [Ian]
TB: E.g., one-page finding that W3C should do what it takes to get consistency?
19:31:05 [Ian]
NW: Yes, important that there be a single, unified consistent set, not slight differences among vocabularies.
19:31:19 [Ian]
NW: SZ wants a process in place for ensuring that this is done.
19:31:30 [Ian]
TB: I am in favor of this finding: "They must..."
19:31:47 [DanC]
any volunteers to own it?
19:32:10 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept this is as issue formattingProperties-19.
19:32:10 [Norm]
19:32:21 [Ian]
Assigned to: NW.
19:32:32 [Ian]
NW: I'll see if CL wants to own jointly.
19:32:53 [Ian]
Action NW: Write a draft finding for this issue.
19:33:13 [Ian]
19:33:18 [Ian]
Some issue prioritization:
19:34:32 [Ian]
SW: We have a time constraint on charmodReview-17
19:34:52 [Norm]
what do you doubt, DanC?
19:35:01 [Ian]
SW: I'll put a slot for charmod on next week's agenda.
19:35:19 [DanC]
I doubt we'll reach a TAG position on charmod by then.
19:35:55 [Ian]
TB: For formattingProperties-19, the real question is why didn't CSS WG reuse name? Anything substantial there? If not, we can probably handle this with no work.
19:36:07 [DanC]
19:36:11 [Ian]
TB: So NW and CL should find out right away why CSS WG proceded as they did.
19:36:24 [Ian]
19:36:26 [Ian]
Technical Agenda
19:36:44 [Ian]
19:36:51 [Ian]
1. Media Type Finding and feedback (TAG only, aim to conclude)(~10min)
19:36:55 [Ian]
19:38:20 [Ian]
19:38:45 [Ian]
TB: I agreed with SW's comments by and large. Ensure proper capitalization of should/must in last para.
19:39:27 [Ian]
SW: Presumably also bad for things other than just response headers.
19:39:35 [Ian]
RF: Say "message body" and "message headers".
19:39:53 [DanC]
"* The Unicode encoding of a response body (XML document) is inconsistent with the value of the charset parameter in the response headers."
19:39:58 [DanC]
19:40:00 [Ian]
TB: Please number sections of findings.
19:40:03 [DanC]
i.e. request or response
19:40:12 [Ian]
"* The Unicode encoding of a response body (XML document) is inconsistent with the value of the charset parameter in the response headers. See SVG diagram for determining character encoding."
19:40:24 [Ian]
s/response body/message body/
19:40:41 [Ian]
TB: Last para - capitalize, and cite RFC 2119
19:42:25 [Ian]
Action IJ: One editorial pass. Send to www-tag. Allow one week. If no substantive comments, then considered done.
19:42:57 [Roy]
Is it possible to have cvs commit summary (diff) sent to tag?
19:43:06 [Ian]
There seems to be consensus that we can use this process for findings in general: send out for comments.
19:44:00 [Stuart]
19:44:02 [Stuart]
19:44:58 [Ian]
19:45:05 [Ian]
# New Draft Finding on qnameAsId-18 any immediate feedback for Norm?
19:45:10 [Ian]
19:45:23 [DanC]
sorry, I am reading for the 1st time
19:45:36 [DanC]
is this thing on? I suspect I'm disconnected from IRC
19:45:51 [Ian]
Hi DanC
19:46:52 [Ian]
IJ: Please clarify antecedent of "this usage" in section 3.
19:47:07 [Ian]
TBL: The finding makes an observation but doesn't say what to do.
19:47:28 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:47:38 [Ian]
NW: There are some recommendations (section 4)...
19:47:41 [TBray]
Hey, mozilla chat can now do port 6665! Thanks Dan
19:48:28 [Ian]
NW: I will make some more concise arch recommendations.
19:50:11 [Ian]
NW: I will add some specific recommendations at the end.
19:51:11 [Ian]
DC: I think the finding reflects our initial sense to warn people about problems and consequences.
19:51:13 [Ian]
19:51:14 [Ian]
Arch document.
19:51:16 [TBray]
Norm... you can take "perhaps" out of the ref to XSLT
19:51:33 [Norm]
19:51:52 [timmit]
Ian: I took soem of TimBL's text and tried to integretae it
19:52:09 [timmit]
Didn't get very far ... the result is not consistent.
19:52:32 [timmit]
dan and I were talking about good bahviour stuff .. maybe there is too mcuh for this ocument.
19:52:35 [timmit]
at this phase.
19:52:54 [timmit]
(Good style)
19:53:14 [timmit]
Currently this has special markup and so can be hidden from view.
19:53:21 [DanC] $Date: 2002/05/17 22:04:59 $
19:54:03 [timmit]
Given TimB's comments I pared it down. Given YimBL's I added some.
19:54:04 [DanC]
point of order: what was our homework? no agenda message was sent to www-tag, so it's not clear what version we're expected to have read
19:54:12 [Ian]
TB: I'm having trouble seeing this as the web arch document.
19:54:20 [Ian]
Yes, agenda message was sent to www-tag:
19:54:33 [timmit]
(note homework is in the agenda on the web, danc)
19:54:37 [Ian]
TB, RF: Not confortable with this document.
19:55:08 [Ian]
Email to tag on 20 may agenda:
19:55:18 [Ian]
TB: Perhaps ref doc and tutorial need to be developed in paralle.
19:55:20 [timmit]
19:55:23 [Ian]
19:55:50 [Stuart]
19:56:51 [Stuart]
19:57:04 [timmit]
TimBL: If this is to eb a tutorial, then there may have to be several, for diferent audeinces. (SW developers, WG members, students of CS, ...)
19:57:35 [Ian]
IJ: I am not sure that crisp expression will speak to intended audience.
19:57:48 [Ian]
TBL: There are lots of different audiences. You'll probably end up with different audiences for each (section).
19:58:10 [Ian]
TBL: I agree with everyone. People have said that the DesignIssues are problematic because of spelling, lack of examples, etc.
19:58:14 [DanC]
[I prefer www-tag. let's not not *ever* say to www-tag "we already discussed that in, and ..."]
19:58:36 [Norm]
19:58:38 [Ian]
TBL: I think it's a good idea to keep this marked up so that the normative parts are very crisp.
19:58:48 [Stuart]
19:58:51 [Norm]
19:59:01 [Ian]
ack Timmit
19:59:22 [Ian]
NW: I have my reservations about having a single document serve both purposes.
20:00:12 [Ian]
TB: I've never been happy with existence of sections 3/4.
20:00:26 [Ian]
TB: Maybe that's a signal of problem with arch document.
20:00:29 [DanC]
hmm... do we run the risk that none of the TAG member are going to read the "fluff"?
20:01:00 [TBray]
I deny implying that the extra verbiage is "fluff" - just not sure some of it goes in this doc
20:01:11 [DanC]
ah. good that Norm will read the fluff.
20:01:11 [Ian]
RF: I'd be happier with two documents: one tutorial, one reference manual.
20:01:21 [DanC]
("fluff" was introduced into the conversation by Ian, btw)
20:01:23 [Ian]
TBL: Crispness is important.
20:01:53 [Ian]
TBL: There was a more fundamental problem I had reading this - hadn't gotten our terms right.
20:02:20 [Ian]
TBL: Need to be cautious about use of terms like "resource".
20:02:22 [TBray]
what TimBL said
20:02:36 [Stuart]
20:03:09 [Ian]
TBL: I think it's important to highlight that "documents" are an important subset of things we can refer to with URIs.
20:03:27 [Stuart]
20:03:30 [Ian]
...I changed resource->document where I thought applied to documents but not all resources.
20:04:27 [DanC]
Ian, please include $Author$ along with $Date$
20:04:46 [timmit]
20:04:59 [timmit]
is my edited version of
20:06:30 [DanC]
We call the things we share on the Web "resources". <-- scare-quotes are too informal. use <dfn>
20:06:38 [DanC]
with an anchor.
20:07:07 [Ian]
TBL: We don't represent telnet ports using data formats, even though telnet ports can be Web resources.
20:07:10 [Ian]
DC: I don't agree.
20:07:50 [Ian]
This may be issue httpRange-14
20:07:51 [Ian]
20:08:12 [Ian]
DC: You can use an HTTP proxy to get an HTML representation of a telnet port.
20:08:23 [Ian]
DC: You can use an HTTP proxy to proxy any URI.
20:08:29 [Ian]
RF: The representation could be a flash file....
20:08:53 [Ian]
TBL: I don't believe that a telnet port is a document that can be represented. The telnet port "doesn't have a meaning."
20:09:33 [Ian]
TB: I sent a lengthy email an hour ago to that may help here.
20:09:40 [Ian]
SW: I think we need a glossary.
20:09:59 [Stuart]
20:10:03 [Ian]
20:10:14 [DanC]
... to argue AGAINST definitions out of context.
20:10:15 [Ian]
TBL: Things in <strong> likely headed for glossary.
20:10:38 [Ian]
IJ/DC: Don't define out of context; link back from glossary to context.
20:10:43 [timmit]
Ian: agree.
20:11:20 [Ian]
TB: XMLSpec has tools to highlight term definition/term reference.
20:11:34 [Ian]
NW: Style sheets could be made to generate glossary...
20:11:37 [Stuart]
20:14:15 [Ian]
IJ: Three things to do:
20:14:16 [Ian]
- Read email comments
20:14:21 [Ian]
- Talk to RF/TBL on Friday at MIT
20:14:42 [Ian]
- Split into more crisp arch piece and more tutorial-like piece.
20:15:47 [DanC]
Stuart, rather than asking "are we done with ...", which noone can answer, I suggest either (a) "so, on to 1. URIEquivalence-15, unless anyone has more" or (b) any more on the architecture document?
20:16:12 [TBray]
20:17:06 [Ian]
20:17:18 [Ian]
When to use Get update
20:17:30 [Ian]
20:17:47 [Ian]
DC: People sent comments (LM, SW, TB).
20:17:52 [Ian]
Draft findings:
20:17:57 [Ian]
20:18:18 [Ian]
TBL: Mention security issue in this document.
20:18:29 [Ian]
TBL: Heading like "security considerations"
20:18:53 [Ian]
TB: I think that all the things that need to be here are here. I think I agree with LM that GET-with-BODY is not essential but not harmful.
20:20:00 [Ian]
DC: It may take me a long time to work a "must" into the finding.
20:20:51 [Ian]
TB: In email example, "The latter design performed an unsafe operation (list subscription) in response to a request with a safe method (following the link from the mail message with GET). "
20:20:57 [Ian]
TB: It doesn't say "Don't do this!"
20:21:29 [Ian]
TB: So it needs a "must not" and a security heads-up.
20:21:58 [timmit]
Beware that if you use GET for things with side-effects your system may be subject to malicious attack. For example, a malicous web page publisher outside a firewall may provide a link to something which would cause someone inside the firewall unwittingly to activate a function on another system within the firewall.
20:23:16 [Ian]
SW: "All important resources should be identifiable by URI." This stands alone.
20:23:32 [Ian]
SW: The "in particular" part is operational.
20:23:41 [Ian]
TB: I liked SW's 1-2-3 list.
20:23:58 [Ian]
TBL: This goes to show that you can make something crisp and people won't understand it.
20:24:37 [Ian]
DC: At the ftf meeting, I thought that whether 2 or 3 points was editorial.
20:24:48 [Ian]
TBL: Why is "using GET" subordinate?
20:25:46 [Ian]
DC: The arch principle is that following links is safe.
20:25:50 [TBray]
SW's input at
20:25:57 [Ian]
DC: Propfind follows the SW principle, but it's broken.
20:26:12 [Ian]
SW: I offered two variants of the third one "following links" is loose.
20:26:33 [Ian]
SW: I"ve offered -
20:27:08 [Ian]
"users and user agents dereferencing a URI with safe access methods do not incur..."
20:27:21 [Ian]
TBL: In HTTP, dereferencing is only "GET".
20:27:38 [DanC]
yes, I suppose s/following links/dereferencing URIs/ is an improvement
20:27:39 [Ian]
TBL: That's true of every URI scheme that supports dereferencing to get a document.
20:28:16 [Ian]
DC: You don't incur an obligation by following a link. You can incur an obligation in other ways.
20:28:36 [Ian]
TBL: Maybe the order of DC's sentence can be inverted.
20:29:02 [DanC]
2nded: Ian to do the rest.
20:29:23 [Ian]
Action: IJ incorporate editorial input from this call and on the list. Beautify the finding. Send to www-tag with 1-week heads-up.
20:29:27 [Ian]
20:29:28 [Zakim]
20:29:29 [Zakim]
20:29:30 [Zakim]
20:29:30 [Zakim]
20:29:33 [Ian]
Next meeting: one week from today.
20:29:34 [Ian]
20:29:41 [Zakim]
20:30:06 [Stuart]
Ian, I'll give you a call tomorrow
20:30:38 [Ian]
20:30:43 [Stuart]
20:30:48 [Stuart]
Stuart has left #tagmem
20:31:36 [timmit]
ACTION IAN put security mention in, clean up, send to www-tag
20:31:58 [Zakim]
20:32:00 [Zakim]
20:32:00 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
20:35:26 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop