IRC log of tagmem on 2003-06-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:53:50 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tagmem

18:56:50 [Ian]

zakim, this will be TAG

18:56:50 [Zakim]

ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago

19:00:28 [Ian]

zakim, call Ian-BOS

19:00:28 [Zakim]

ok, Ian; the call is being made

19:00:29 [Zakim]

TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started

19:00:31 [Zakim]

+Ian

19:00:56 [Zakim]

+ +1.514.200.aaaa

19:01:04 [Ian]

zakim, aaaa is Paul

19:01:04 [Zakim]

+Paul; got it

19:02:56 [Zakim]

+DanC

19:02:58 [Zakim]

+??P1

19:03:08 [Ian]

zakim, P1 is Stuart

19:03:08 [Zakim]

sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'P1'

19:03:13 [Ian]

zakim, ??P1 is Stuart

19:03:13 [Zakim]

+Stuart; got it

19:03:15 [Stuart]

Stuart has joined #tagmem

19:03:24 [Zakim]

+Tim_Bray

19:04:06 [Zakim]

-DanC

19:04:19 [Zakim]

+DanC

19:05:01 [Norm]

Norm has joined #tagmem

19:05:28 [Norm]

I'm on my way. Had the carpets cleaned today and I have to get all the cords untangled so I can plug the phone back in

19:05:55 [Stuart]

zakim, who is here?

19:05:55 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Ian, Paul, DanC, Stuart, Tim_Bray

19:05:56 [Zakim]

On IRC I see Norm, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, DanC

19:06:49 [TBray]

TBray has joined #tagmem

19:07:08 [Ian]

Regrets: CL, TBL, RF

19:07:21 [Zakim]

+DOrchard

19:07:33 [Ian]

Roll call: SW, DC, NW, DC, DO, TB, IJ

19:07:50 [Ian]

Chair: SW, Scrib: IJ

19:08:11 [DaveO]

DaveO has joined #tagmem

19:08:18 [Ian]

Resolved: Accept minutes of 16 Jun teleconf

19:08:27 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/16-tag-summary.html

19:09:02 [Ian]

Review of agenda:

19:09:09 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/23-tag.html

19:09:19 [Zakim]

+Norm

19:09:58 [Ian]

Proposed next meeting: 30 June.

19:10:02 [Ian]

Regrets: PC

19:10:25 [Ian]

Resolved to meet next on 30 June.

19:10:30 [Ian]

----

19:10:36 [Ian]

Interactions with the Voice WG

19:11:05 [DaveO]

's the translation into canadian that costs a lot, eh?

19:11:23 [Ian]

SW: Voice WG has some proposed text. I would like to engage them first to iron out some wrinkles, and then bring back text to the TAG.

19:11:26 [TBray]

is this voice browser stuff in the agenda?

19:12:24 [DanC]

point 5 under 1 admin is "Next meeting with Voice WG". I was lost for a bit too, tbray

19:12:45 [Ian]

SW: I hope to talk to Voice WG this week, get some revised text, and continue discussion with TAG on www-tag.

19:12:56 [Ian]

(SW expects to use www-tag)

19:13:37 [Ian]

Action SW: Work with Voice WG on revised text related to contentTypeOverride-24 and bring back to TAG.

19:13:42 [Ian]

----

19:13:52 [Ian]

Summer meeting planning

19:14:17 [Ian]

Summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jun/0080.html

19:14:24 [Ian]

("Summer-y")

19:14:32 [Ian]

SW: Looks like 18/25 August at risk.

19:15:13 [TBray]

possibly we didn't bother to register problems with known holidays

19:16:05 [Ian]

[Some discussion about Labo(u)r Day Monday]

19:16:21 [Ian]

DO: Regrets for Labor Day.

19:16:26 [TBray]

T.Bray will not be on labour day call

19:16:51 [Ian]

DC: I move to cancel all meetings in August.

19:17:16 [TBray]

against canceling August meetings

19:17:17 [Norm]

No

19:17:20 [Ian]

PC: No

19:17:20 [DaveO]

against

19:17:22 [Stuart]

sw against

19:17:37 [Ian]

iJ: I'm for cancelling labor day

19:17:48 [Ian]

-------------

19:18:14 [Ian]

23 June Arch Doc

19:18:20 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030623

19:18:57 [Ian]

Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.

19:19:05 [Ian]

We don't know if that discharges his action.

19:19:32 [Ian]

SW: I don't think that that's the text RF expected to provide.

19:19:38 [Ian]

TB: Nor do I.

19:19:40 [Ian]

DC: Really?

19:20:10 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030623#interaction

19:20:35 [DanC]

it seems hard to confirm whether Roy intends to write more.

19:21:59 [DanC]

the "will describe..." text seems to belong under 4.2. Future Directions for Interactions

19:22:10 [Ian]

TB: If this is all we had, I think it would be ok to drop 4.1/4.2 and move forward.

19:22:25 [Ian]

TB: I.e., I would support going to last call even with this stub.

19:22:57 [Ian]

[Action continued]

19:23:07 [Ian]

Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on content/presentation.

19:23:09 [TBray]

not sure about dropping 4.2, but yes drop 4.1

19:23:13 [Ian]

[Action continued]

19:23:24 [Ian]

Completed action DO 2003/06/02: Update description of issue abstractComponentRefs-37

19:23:42 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0089.html

19:23:52 [Ian]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html

19:25:35 [DanC]

odd that this appears under arch doc in the agenda.

19:25:45 [Ian]

DO: Most updates based on comments from RF.

19:26:01 [TBray]

q+

19:26:28 [Ian]

DO: RF expressed a preference.

19:26:35 [Ian]

DO: I think there's a dependency on opacity issue.

19:26:38 [Stuart]

ack TBray

19:26:59 [Ian]

TB: Procedurally, it seems that we now have enough material to bite down and see what we think. Put this on top of queue at future meeting.

19:27:21 [Ian]

PC: Do any requirements meet needs of WSDL group?

19:27:25 [Ian]

DO: I've not asked them for review.

19:27:45 [Ian]

TB: When we discuss this, they should let us know in advance of our teleconf.

19:28:07 [Ian]

Action DO: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask them for their analysis.

19:28:32 [DanC]

(pls let the minutes have a separate section for this discussion of abstractComponentRefs-37 , not under "arch doc")

19:28:42 [Ian]

Ok.

19:29:16 [Ian]

Not done: # Action SW 2003/06/02: Continue work on and make available a draft finding related to the opacity of URIs.

19:29:34 [Ian]

Not done: Action DO 2003/06/02: Write up a couple of paragraphs on extensibility for section 3.

19:29:54 [Ian]

Not Done: Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of "Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.

19:30:16 [Ian]

7. Action PC 2003/06/16: Send second draft of AC announcement regarding TAG's last call expectations/thoughts and relation to AC meeting feedback.

19:30:24 [Ian]

PC: Not done.

19:31:30 [Ian]

PC: I expect to send DO a redraft.

19:32:21 [Ian]

q?

19:33:32 [Ian]

IJ: Where we on arch doc? Ready to go to TR page?

19:34:11 [Ian]

DC: If it's good enough for IJ and two readers, good enough for me to go to TR page.

19:34:27 [Ian]

TB: I promise to read by Thurs and publish an opinion as to going to TR.

19:34:30 [Ian]

DC: I also commit to reading it.

19:34:52 [Ian]

PC, DO, NW: Sounds good.

19:34:58 [Ian]

NW: I do plan to read the arch doc this week.

19:35:42 [Ian]

DC: I think we don't know where TBL is on this. I think he would not object to publishing.

19:36:28 [Ian]

SW: Therefore, with approval from DC, IJ, and TB on 23 June draft, IJ can request publication as TR document.

19:36:34 [DanC]

so RESOLVED.

19:36:51 [Stuart]

indeed

19:36:59 [Ian]

-----

19:37:32 [Stuart]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0099.html

19:37:38 [Ian]

Client handling of MIME headers

19:37:43 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html

19:37:54 [Ian]

Completed #

19:37:54 [Ian]

Action IJ 2003/06/16: Add to draft finding discussion about servers not guessing header information (e.g., charset).

19:38:30 [DanC]

next is 2) E. R. Harold requested... , no?

19:38:58 [Ian]

3) I think the finding should address issues of "local override"

19:38:58 [Ian]

of headers. Some examples where instructions in content

19:38:58 [Ian]

seem to override headers (if so, why ok? if not, why not?).

19:38:58 [Ian]

- xml:lang

19:38:58 [Ian]

- SCRIPT/type in HTML

19:39:00 [Ian]

- Mixed content

19:39:41 [TBray]

q+

19:40:14 [Ian]

ack TBray

19:40:43 [Ian]

TB: I think that it's ok, once you're inside content, to have extra metadata to help process a particular chunk of the content.

19:41:08 [Ian]

TB: xml:lang would have no interpretation if the whole content were served as text/plain.

19:41:19 [Norm]

Ian: wrt 3.2.4 in the new draft, I had intended the two SHOULD paragraphs to be good practice (or some other sort of) notes

19:41:41 [Ian]

TB: The default toplevel context is that headers are authoritative for the entity as a whole.

19:41:57 [Ian]

IJ: what about xml:lang on the document root?

19:42:15 [Ian]

TB: Won't have meaning unless the media type defines the interpretation.

19:42:53 [Ian]

DC: This is not overriding, this is specializing.

19:43:44 [Ian]

[Discussion of xml:lang; predefined but not required by xml 1.*

19:44:26 [Ian]

4) We should include a comment that the SMIL 1.0 Recommendation

19:44:26 [Ian]

(and possibly others?) does not do the right thing in

19:44:26 [Ian]

this area.

19:44:35 [Ian]

TB, DC: Yes.

19:44:48 [Ian]

Also, in HTML 4.01, META/http-equiv can be used by servers to

19:44:48 [Ian]

generate an HTTP header (see section 7.4.4 [7], subsection

19:44:48 [Ian]

"META and HTTP headers"). This might be a source of confusion

19:44:48 [Ian]

because the META element is supposed to be interpreted

19:44:50 [Ian]

server-side, not client-side.

19:44:52 [Ian]

DC: Yes, deal with that.

19:45:19 [Ian]

[Done]

19:46:29 [Ian]

DC: Let's try to get through this discussion with 0 bytes changes.

19:47:09 [Ian]

- Add note about use of RFC2119 terms.

19:47:09 [Ian]

- Sugested tweaking language around

19:47:09 [Ian]

"engaging in non-authoritative behavior" in section 4.

19:47:12 [Ian]

[Those two done]

19:47:47 [Ian]

TB: Need to talk up security issues that can occur when headers not respected.

19:48:06 [Ian]

PC: Yes, I think we should. This is a compelling argument.

19:48:32 [Ian]

DC: I think there's a CERT Advisory over this...can't remember...

19:49:07 [Ian]

Action TB: Ask www-tag for info about security whole related to contentTypeOverride

19:49:39 [Ian]

From Roy at the 12 May teleconf [8]: Roy cited "efficiency"

19:49:39 [Ian]

as a reason why the architecture makes server headers

19:49:39 [Ian]

authoritative. The draft finding does not make the efficiency

19:49:40 [Ian]

argument and probably should.

19:49:48 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2003/05/12-tag-summary.html#contentTypeOverride-24

19:50:42 [Ian]

DC: If your firewalls say "Keep out all postscript" and this is labeled as "text/plain", and the client peeks in and says "this looks like postscript", then the client has violated firewall rules.

19:51:23 [Ian]

IJ: Efficiency argument is that less costly to examine short string than to look into content.

19:51:39 [Ian]

TB: Notably to fire up an xml parser.

19:52:03 [Ian]

TB: It's substantially more costly to dispatch on metadata than on examination inside content.

19:52:50 [Ian]

PC: There's a trade-off between performance and usability.

19:53:41 [Ian]

TB: Arch args on performance and security are pretty high.

19:54:25 [Ian]

TB: The CERT Advisory looks very good.

19:54:29 [Norm]

URI?

19:54:32 [Norm]

Nevermind

19:56:20 [Ian]

Summarizing: IJ expects to revise finding to take account:

19:56:27 [Ian]

1) Editorial request from E. R. Harold

19:56:33 [Ian]

2) SMIL 1.0 gets it wrong

19:56:42 [Ian]

3) A security scenario

19:56:49 [Ian]

4) Efficiency argument.

19:57:41 [Ian]

Action IJ: Update finding early this week.

19:57:51 [Ian]

Expectation is to finalize next week.

19:58:57 [Ian]

DC: Whoops, let's not finalize before we meet with Voice WG again.

19:59:25 [Ian]

DC: I suggest that we go back to the Voice WG to say we're pretty close on this.

19:59:33 [Ian]

SW: I'll be talking with IJ and the Voice folks on this.

19:59:48 [Ian]

DC: If we invite them to a teleconf, I'd like them to come prepared having read this finding.

20:00:54 [Ian]

------------------

20:01:02 [Ian]

URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST

20:01:19 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030509.html

20:02:05 [Ian]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0067

20:02:57 [Ian]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0066.html

20:03:07 [Ian]

"I think that at this time, Ian's summary is actually more accurate of the

20:03:07 [Ian]

current state of affairs. That is, GET is supported, without RPC vs non-rpc

20:03:07 [Ian]

invoke styles being referenced.

20:03:07 [Ian]

"

20:03:52 [Ian]

DO: There's a difference between RPC generally and the way that SOAP uses the term RPC.

20:04:04 [Ian]

DO: I think we are niggling a bit on the exact overlap.

20:05:03 [Ian]

DO: I need to refresh my memory on this.

20:05:37 [Ian]

Larry Masinter comments

20:05:37 [Ian]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003May/0104.html

20:06:45 [DanC]

"data" would work.

20:06:48 [DanC]

or ftp.

20:07:22 [Ian]

DC: LM is asking us to answer when HTTP is the answer or when any URI would work.

20:07:52 [Ian]

TB: LM's point is well-taken. We should be specific about whether we are talking just about HTTP or a larger class.

20:09:01 [Ian]

IJ: I think a sentence will do.

20:09:31 [Ian]

Action IJ: Incorporate a sentence about scope based on LM comments.

20:09:59 [Ian]

Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn TB apple story into a finding.

20:10:04 [Ian]

IJ: Not done; some of this in arch doc.

20:10:21 [Ian]

---

20:10:22 [Ian]

* How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?

20:10:24 [Ian]

Postponed

20:11:11 [Ian]

From CL: "XMLID will be further revised to incorporate the good feedback from

20:11:11 [Ian]

last week. XML Core want to ensure that their preferred option is

20:11:11 [Ian]

listed in the doc, which I am happy to do, and there is a good chance

20:11:14 [Ian]

we can close that issue and make the draft finding a real finding in

20:11:14 [Ian]

fairly short order.

20:11:14 [Ian]

"

20:11:52 [Ian]

DC: I don't remember where we are on choosing a preferred solution.

20:12:30 [Ian]

----------

20:13:20 [Ian]

Walkthrough of issues list

20:13:33 [Stuart]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html

20:14:10 [Ian]

SW: I'd like to establish whether resolution to an issue is essential to going to last call; and to get a sense of how close we are to closing.

20:14:19 [Ian]

* rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

20:14:19 [Ian]

o Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum (RQ-23).

20:14:34 [Ian]

DC, TB: Not required to complete for last call.

20:14:44 [Ian]

TB: I'm more convinced this is hard and important.

20:15:20 [TBray]

q+

20:15:48 [Ian]

DC: The Arch has grown without this feature and an arch doc can talk about web that precedes this issue.

20:15:54 [Ian]

TB: I agree with DC.

20:16:25 [Ian]

[Support for addressing this issue face-to-face]

20:17:01 [Ian]

DC: Put issues 37 and 38 nearby

20:17:50 [Ian]

whenToUseGet-7

20:18:27 [Ian]

* DO: Monitor WSDL WG. See WSDL Reqs, Req#128

20:18:51 [Ian]

DC: I think issue 7 needs to be closed before last call

20:19:15 [Ian]

WSDL spec currently doesn't hurt or help w.r.t this issue.

20:19:40 [Ian]

PC: DO could remind WSDL working group at last call.

20:19:44 [Ian]

namespaceDocument-8

20:19:52 [Ian]

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/open-summary.html#namespaceDocument-8

20:20:00 [Ian]

TB: You won't leave the room in Vancouver until closed.

20:20:51 [Ian]

PC: Are issues 8 and 35 related?

20:20:55 [Ian]

TB: I can speak to that.

20:21:18 [Ian]

DC: I don't have an expectation that we'll close issue 8 any time soon.

20:22:07 [Ian]

TB summarizing what he thinks necessary to declare victory (1) revised rddl (2) finding citing rddl as one option (3) mapping to RD

20:22:12 [Ian]

s/RD/RDF

20:22:53 [Ian]

PC: I agree with TB's view of history.

20:23:22 [Ian]

PC: Please make required reading the thread that starts with publication of TB's latest version.

20:23:44 [Ian]

TB: Jonathan Borden was agreeing with DC. I would grumble but wouldn't stand in the way.

20:24:37 [Ian]

TB: I think it's good to have a statement about canonical RDF to generate. Someone contributed an xslt script.

20:25:35 [Ian]

# uriMediaType-9

20:25:44 [Ian]

#

20:25:44 [Ian]

* IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft (see email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close this issue?

20:25:47 [Ian]

* Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]

20:26:18 [Ian]

DC: We didn't end up discussing this at last W3C/IETF meeting for a number of reasons.

20:27:36 [Ian]

TB: I don't think this issue stands in the way of the arch doc

20:28:09 [Ian]

httpRange-14

20:28:29 [Ian]

DC: If we're not going to resolve this one, we need to stay clear of it.

20:28:40 [Ian]

[IJ modified doc to address DC's concern]

20:29:07 [Ian]

TB: If RF and TBL don't think we need to resolve this before moving I'm ok to move forward without resolving it.

20:29:22 [Ian]

PC: How do we expect to make progress on this?

20:29:42 [Ian]

TB: This issue is important, but not currently actively affecting the arch doc.

20:30:10 [Ian]

NW: I don't object to leaving it off the agenda of this ftf meeting. But I do not believe we will make substantive progress on this issue except at a face-to-face meeting.

20:30:41 [TBray]

s/TBray/pumpkin/

20:31:03 [Ian]

SW: We'll finish this agenda item next time.

20:31:17 [Ian]

SW: Sounds like we will not discuss httpRange-14 at this upcoming ftf meeting.

20:31:42 [Zakim]

-Tim_Bray

20:31:48 [Zakim]

-Norm

20:31:50 [Zakim]

-DOrchard

20:31:52 [Zakim]

-Stuart

20:31:53 [Zakim]

-Paul

20:31:54 [Ian]

ADJOURNED

20:31:54 [Zakim]

-DanC

20:32:02 [Ian]

zakim, drop Ian-BOS

20:32:02 [Zakim]

sorry, Ian, I do not see a party named 'Ian-BOS'

20:32:05 [Ian]

zakim, drop Ian

20:32:05 [Zakim]

Ian is being disconnected

20:32:06 [Zakim]

TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended

20:32:09 [Ian]

RRSAgent, stop