IRC log of tagmem on 2006-11-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:53:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:53:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-tagmem-irc
17:54:23 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: TAG 7 Nov: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Nov/0040.html
17:54:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:54:38 [Norm]
zakim, this will be tag
17:54:38 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see TAG_Weekly()12:30PM scheduled to start 24 minutes ago
17:55:13 [Norm]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group
17:55:13 [Norm]
Date: 7 Nov 2006
17:55:13 [Norm]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Nov/0040.html
17:55:13 [Norm]
Chair: Vincent
17:55:14 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
17:55:16 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
17:57:29 [raman]
raman has joined #tagmem
17:58:48 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has now started
17:58:55 [Zakim]
+Raman
17:59:13 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
17:59:23 [Zakim]
+Norm
17:59:43 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
17:59:43 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:00:20 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Administrative
18:00:20 [Zakim]
agendum 1 added
18:00:45 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Backplane meeting
18:00:45 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Issue metadataInURI-31
18:00:45 [Zakim]
agendum 2 added
18:00:46 [Zakim]
agendum 3 added
18:00:50 [Vincent]
Vincent has joined #tagmem
18:00:58 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Issue genericResources-53
18:00:58 [Zakim]
agendum 4 added
18:00:59 [Zakim]
+Ed_Rice
18:01:08 [Norm]
zakim agenda+ Issue tagSoupIntegration-54
18:01:18 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Any other business?
18:01:18 [Zakim]
agendum 5 added
18:01:19 [EdR]
EdR has joined #tagmem
18:01:24 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:01:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Raman, noah, Norm, Ed_Rice
18:04:02 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
18:04:34 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:04:34 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:04:35 [Zakim]
+Ht
18:06:17 [Vincent]
Sorry, I have troubles with my phone. I'll join shortly
18:06:21 [noah]
New draft of metadataInURI posted a few minutes ago. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Nov/0042.html
18:06:46 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: TAG 7 Nov 2006: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/11/07-agenda.html
18:07:51 [Norm]
Regrets: Dan, Dave
18:08:35 [ht]
Regrets Tim, I think
18:08:48 [Norm]
Regrets: Dan, Dave, Tim
18:11:53 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/backplane/
18:13:37 [Norm]
Chair: Ed
18:14:01 [vincent]
vincent has joined #tagmem
18:14:10 [Norm]
Present: TV, Noah, Norm, Ed, Henry
18:14:14 [Norm]
Approve minutes
18:14:20 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-tagmem-minutes.html
18:14:21 [Norm]
Accepted
18:14:32 [Norm]
Next meeting: 14 Nov 2006
18:14:38 [Norm]
Any regrets? None heard.
18:14:38 [noah]
I will be here on the 14th, but probably not the 21st
18:14:48 [Norm]
Accept this agenda?
18:14:50 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/11/07-agenda.html
18:15:05 [Norm]
Accepted.
18:15:11 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
18:15:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Administrative" taken up [from Norm]
18:15:15 [Norm]
zakim, take up item 2
18:15:15 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Backplane meeting" taken up [from Norm]
18:15:39 [Norm]
Henry: Hypertext CG have issued a note and called a meeting.
18:15:47 [Norm]
...I'm going with my TAG hat on because it's nearby.
18:16:18 [Zakim]
+Laurent
18:16:24 [Norm]
Henry's submission: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/backplane/
18:16:59 [Norm]
Henry: User Agent becomes the platform and the backplane becomes "the operating system" so we better design one.
18:17:03 [vincent]
Zakim, Laurent is Vincent
18:17:03 [Zakim]
+Vincent; got it
18:17:39 [Norm]
TV: That's an interesting summary, but in the hope of not killing the work before it starts, let's not call it an OS.
18:17:59 [Norm]
...The analogy is correct, but a real OS does a lot of stuff with hardware and managing APIs and things that aren't applicable here.
18:18:12 [Norm]
...If you throw in the OS word, it'll just raise controversy.
18:18:24 [Norm]
Henry: Fair enough.
18:18:55 [Norm]
TV: I'm also saying this because at the web app. workshop of a couple of years ago there was already disagreement about the OS-nature of the work.
18:19:18 [Norm]
...What this is talking about and what OSes of 2006 actually do is quite different.
18:19:52 [Norm]
...I haven't been involved in this work for about 6 months, but what we observed was that a lot of web applications are relying on a core set of services and they're reinventing them over and over.
18:20:34 [Norm]
...In some sense, if you look at SMIL, Voice, the visual web, SVG, etc., essentially everyone is doing the same thing: having some data, accessing it some how, and rendering it somehow for the user.
18:20:46 [Norm]
...The backplane thought was that some of this could be factored out so that it could be common.
18:21:21 [Norm]
...So the backplane is talking about what services are available, but don't call it an OS.
18:21:38 [Norm]
Henry: Point taken; I'll remove the word, but leave the question it provokes.
18:21:58 [ht]
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/backplane/
18:22:05 [Norm]
Henry: Let's consider the document.
18:22:13 [ht]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2006Nov/att-0002/backplane_thoughts.html
18:22:47 [Norm]
Ed: It's a shame Tim and Dan aren't here because this seems to be a different view of the web.
18:23:46 [Norm]
Noah: I had understood a lot of Tim's concerns (about web services) to have been about use of URIs and HTTP; the backplane is more about HTML.
18:24:45 [Norm]
Henry: Compositionality is not highly emphasized here. You could start from the notion of compositionality: XML as nested domains. The other is to start from action: from events.
18:24:55 [noah]
Actually, I don't know the backplane well enough to say it's "more" about HTML, but I heard Ed say a lot about HTML, and I certainly think HTML is more pertinent to the backplane discussion than it has been to our Web Services discussion.
18:25:23 [Norm]
...The backplane is focusing on events. You [Ed] might well be right that an alternative that Tim and I might like better is to focus on the hierarchical structure of documents and their islands of semantic import in namespaces.
18:25:27 [Norm]
...The CDF feeds into this, of course.
18:26:18 [Norm]
Noah: I had assumed that the two were viewed as two sides of the same coin.
18:27:01 [Norm]
...I would have thought that if you believe in this at all, success is having the two (eventing and compositionality) come out together.
18:27:36 [Norm]
...In passing, I note, that composability may also be relevant to the tagSoup discussion.
18:27:37 [ht]
Ah, I was forgetting Tim's preferred hook for this, namely self-describing
18:27:54 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:27:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Raman, noah, Norm, Ed_Rice, Ht, Vincent
18:28:28 [Norm]
Noah: The self-describing web tends to be viewed recursively.
18:29:09 [Norm]
Henry: At the moment, you basically have to read whole documents. Although you can do it asynchronously, all you can do is build a tree with them.
18:29:22 [Norm]
...That's just not what you want to do all the time. I'd like to see a place to say that.
18:29:28 [Norm]
TV: These are two ends of a spectrum.
18:29:49 [Norm]
...You start at the root, you recurse through, following your nose and all the right things happen.
18:29:54 [Norm]
...That's one end.
18:30:15 [Norm]
...The middle of the continuum is where you have not only the hierarchy, but you also have interaction. There are changes in the read/event/print loop.
18:30:40 [Norm]
...And at the other end of the spectrum, you have today's HTML pages with AJAX. Because there's no abstraction, every programmer basically redevelops the read/event/print loop.
18:31:20 [Norm]
...The part of the app that you keep rewriting that you should only have to write once is that aspect where you listen to events and bind your event handlers. Responding to events, you do your post and copy the returned bits into the DOM.
18:31:43 [Norm]
...There's no architecture behind what we're doing now, so everyone reinvents the interaction paradigm.
18:32:11 [Norm]
...In the world were you do everything with your bare hands, you can do all of it.
18:32:53 [Norm]
Henry: That connects up with something else that occurred to me: one of the odd things about the AJAX/Web2.0 world we're in today is the print part of the loop; you have to set properties on outerHTML to get something to the reader.
18:33:16 [Norm]
TV: It's odd here, but it's also odd in every other architecture we've had. In most UIs, you put some value somewhere and it just shows up in all the right places.
18:33:55 [Norm]
TV: Today, if you do an AJAX request to get a number back, and you want to put it on the page in two places, you have to do it all with your bare hands.
18:35:01 [Norm]
TV: If you take something reasonably complex, like Google Calendar, you find that the user agent side is a mess of frames and iframes and things. The server side is actually a well behaved, reasonable model.
18:35:18 [Norm]
...What flows back and forth is actually an Atom stream that's fully coherent.
18:35:55 [Norm]
...Those are the two extremes and you actually see everything in between as well.
18:36:20 [Norm]
...So there's interest in making some of the user-facing code simpler and more reusable.
18:37:06 [Norm]
Henry: Bullet points:
18:37:20 [Norm]
...Push vs. pull
18:37:25 [Norm]
...Pipelines (a la XProc)
18:38:18 [Norm]
TV: The goal isn't to eliminate the need for writing JavaScript, that'll just start a religious war
18:38:28 [Norm]
s/war/argument/
18:38:48 [Norm]
...Rather: I think you should say that the things that are simple, that everyone knows how to do, you shouldn't have to write a lot of custom script for
18:39:29 [Norm]
Noah: I think what JS gives people is the ability to change the platform without reinstalling the client.
18:39:53 [Norm]
...When something becomes stable enough, it's useful to talk about having it turn up in the platform.
18:40:25 [Norm]
...But there are different ways to build function libraries. You can do it with JavaScript that's imperative, or you can do it with JavaScript that quietly interprets other declarative code.
18:41:16 [ht]
... and then you can have a declarative platform, at a higher level
18:41:46 [ht]
... But I also agree that you have to be able to do the e.g. Google-maps innovation by writing large amounts of imperative code
18:42:06 [ht]
ER: AJAX is getting pervasive already
18:42:22 [Norm]
Noah: Suppose someone has a drag-and-drop library. They need a fairly sophisticated platform to even explore that space.
18:42:22 [ht]
NM: But it's not baked into the browser yet
18:42:51 [Norm]
...The interesting question is, does the code that goes with that library have an interpretive model, or is it interpreting something more declarative.
18:43:09 [Norm]
...Then when the library moves into the platform, you lose all the imperative stuff and you get all the "least power" benefits.
18:43:59 [Norm]
Henry: That's precisely why I made the pipeline observation, because if what you want to do is a sequence of operations (XSLT, validation, XInclude, etc.) then you should be able to describe that and get the benefits that you just mentioned because all of those functionalities are already in the platform.
18:44:16 [Norm]
...Not that that applies to drag-and-drop; that's an interesting alternative example.
18:44:30 [Norm]
...We were just making the same point, I think.
18:44:53 [Norm]
Noah: Ah, now I see. I think you should turn the slide around, as you just did.
18:45:19 [Norm]
...Then pipelines as an example in the domain where it applies make sense, though I'm not sure that's in the 80/20.
18:46:01 [Norm]
Henry: The third point: Making events the common currency does seem to beg the same questions as blackboard systems in AI and they always fail.
18:46:04 [Norm]
s/systems/architectures/
18:46:10 [Norm]
TV: They fail because of a scaling issue.
18:46:26 [DaveO_TAG]
DaveO_TAG has joined #tagmem
18:46:38 [Norm]
TV: The question to ask is, to what level of scalability does scalabilyt matter in an architecture that you put together for web applications.
18:47:24 [ht]
The kind of scalability I'm talking about is the n(n-1) problem that arises as we combine n components
18:47:37 [Norm]
TV: I think if you try to get an architecture that scales too far, it will fail for the simple cases that are the current focus
18:47:41 [ht]
not data-scalability
18:48:23 [Norm]
Henry: That's not the direction I was worried about, I was worried about the fact that such architectures assume that there will be some universal language that all systems will be able to interpret.
18:48:52 [Norm]
...The common language problem seems like it *is likely to arise* in the blackplane architecture being described.
18:49:22 [Norm]
TV: I agree the problem might arise, but if you keep it for pure data and data interchange and some level of eventing where the events are just for changing and rendering data...
18:49:40 [Norm]
Henry: That's not what's going to happen and you know it; people are going to start designing events to have one part of the application communicate with another.
18:50:10 [Norm]
TV: I agree, if events are the exclusive means of communication, there will be a problem
18:50:42 [Norm]
Henry: next point: What about extensibility and versioning?
18:50:42 [Norm]
...There isn't any mention of this.
18:51:12 [Norm]
TV: You could essentially be seen as saying, "don't do this because of all these problems"
18:51:39 [Norm]
...I think it behooves us as the TAG to say if you can't do this because of all these problems, what can you do?
18:52:04 [Norm]
Henry: I think you're right. This reads as criticism and it needs to be changed in tone so that it makes clear some issues that do need to be squarely in view.
18:52:20 [Norm]
Ed: But we don't want them to do these things in isolation right?
18:52:26 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, but I don't think we've solved any of these.
18:52:38 [Norm]
...They seem to be perilously close to getting into "DLL hell"
18:53:06 [Norm]
...Modularity is good in principle, but it has the problem of managing your modules.
18:53:24 [Norm]
TV: The APIs that web apps build on are so shallow that they seem to be managing to avoid the DLL hell problem.
18:53:45 [Norm]
...As long as you use shallow, type-sensitive data APIs, you don't end up with a very deep versioning problem.
18:54:06 [Norm]
...Because you're binding to a very shallow API, the changes you have to make are relatively managable.
18:54:46 [Norm]
Noah: The reason you get really bad DLL hell on an OS is because a broad range of things you do tend to use the same shared libraries. On the web, for a variety of reasons, you don't get so much common code.
18:55:21 [Norm]
...Typically, if I go to one particular Google map mashup today and then another five minutes later, they don't communicate with each other so the problems are less severe.
18:55:35 [Norm]
...As things like the live clipboard arise, I think there may be a data format hell.
18:55:45 [Norm]
TV: I think the data format hell is a real possibility.
18:56:16 [Norm]
...If you compare Windows and Unix, the Unix answer to DLLs was to have a common API and communicate by shipping data around.
18:56:57 [Norm]
TV: The way mashups work today is much closer in spirit to the socket-based data linkage of Unix.
18:57:44 [Norm]
Henry: And the final thing was: What can I bookmark? What constitutes a resource in this world?
18:58:03 [Norm]
...What you see on your screen is a long way from the URI that you typed.
18:58:41 [Norm]
TV: I think it may be a mistake for the TAG to assume that it can say the same things with this modern technology that it could say with older mechanisms like URIs for HTTP
18:59:16 [Norm]
Noah: If you look at what Google Maps does, it's a short step from what is provided now to something that provides URIs for each of the steps.
19:00:09 [Norm]
TV: More importantly, is the URI mechanism that we have today rich enough to express everything we need to express. I don't think so.
19:00:24 [Norm]
Noah: But then the question is about what the contract is between the client and the server.
19:01:03 [Norm]
...I don't think that you're given the client permission to construct parts of the URI that come before the sharp sign.
19:01:03 [Norm]
s/given/giving/
19:02:18 [Norm]
Noah: It's not clear to me that client side construction of URIs is limited.
19:02:18 [Norm]
Scribe realizes those two sentences are in conflict; attributes that to scribal error.
19:02:19 [Norm]
Henry: I'm not going to send this in as representing the TAGs opinion, but I will take all of it and factor it into what I send to the workshop tomorrow morning.
19:02:34 [Norm]
Chair: Vincent
19:02:48 [Norm]
zakim, next agenudm
19:02:48 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'next agenudm', Norm
19:02:51 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
19:02:51 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Administrative" taken up [from Norm]
19:02:56 [Norm]
zakim, take up item 3
19:02:56 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Issue metadataInURI-31" taken up [from Norm]
19:03:17 [noah]
email announcing new version: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Nov/0042.html
19:03:20 [Norm]
Vincent: Can you summarize?
19:03:20 [Norm]
Noah: Certainly.
19:03:34 [noah]
Latest draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20061107.html
19:03:47 [noah]
Main change in section 2.8: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20061107.html#confusingmalicious
19:03:56 [Norm]
Noah: We discussed the finding at the f2f
19:04:16 [Norm]
...I think it's fair to say that with the exception of major concerns about Section 2.8, the other changes were straightforward.
19:04:34 [Norm]
...I have completely rewritten 2.8.
19:05:06 [Norm]
...I started with a URI that ended ".jpeg" and served an executable media type. Reactions were mostly negative.
19:05:41 [Norm]
...What I took away was that the concerns were: 1. generally users are confused, in a broad sense, about expectations on the web and extensions in URIs;
19:06:08 [Norm]
...2. when you actually try to save a file, what happens and when is it appropriate to look at the extension in the URI
19:06:16 [Norm]
...and 3. something about when people attempt to use this maliciously.
19:06:29 [Norm]
Vincent: Probably next week; I just wanted an update.
19:07:16 [Norm]
...Any questions?
19:07:32 [Norm]
Ed: Basically, I think this addresses the concerns that I had. I still have some discomfort, but I'm fine with it as it stands.
19:08:07 [Norm]
Noah: Did I cover what the TAG wanted at the f2f?
19:08:07 [Norm]
Ed: I think so.
19:08:26 [Norm]
Noah: Good, because as I went over the minutes, I had some confusion.
19:09:11 [Norm]
...To clarify: I realized after I left Vancouver that part of the story was a link around an image and not about a "naked" image tag.
19:09:46 [Norm]
Ed: You say maliciousness is not acceptable, but there's nothing here that's going to prevent that.
19:10:17 [Norm]
Noah: If you look at my examples, I used to have a jpeg-that-wasn't-a-jpeg, but now all the names and media-types basically line up.
19:11:23 [Norm]
Ed: The examples I've seen in the real world are: a thumbnail that you click on to open the image but the link is really to an executable. It opens an image (to render the image), but also may do something malicious.
19:12:14 [Norm]
Noah: I thought people wanted the "click to save" example, but if the "click and execute" example was what was intended, you should let me know.
19:13:12 [DaveO_TAG]
On the issue of MetadataInURI, the topic has come up on REST-discuss.
19:13:14 [Norm]
Vincent: I'll make sure Dan looks; hopefully next week we can approve it.
19:13:20 [DaveO_TAG]
Roy expressed some reservations about the doc
19:14:08 [Norm]
Noah: There's been a stream of public comments that are mostly negative, but I hope this draft addresses those concerns.
19:14:38 [Norm]
s/are mostly negative/have included some criticism/
19:14:53 [Norm]
Vincent: Noah's action is completed.
19:14:58 [DaveO_TAG]
He said "Er, not since it was completely rewritten -- I haven't even reviewed it."
19:15:05 [noah]
Actually, I'd say we have a mix of positive and negative comments, and I am optimistic that the draft addresses at least some of the concerns. I need to doublecheck which other concerns I may have missed.
19:15:11 [DaveO_TAG]
"The first sentence, for example, is problematic."
19:15:18 [Norm]
zakim, take up item 4
19:15:18 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Issue genericResources-53" taken up [from Norm]
19:16:06 [Norm]
Vincent: I think we're done, but Ian had some minor comments.
19:16:06 [Norm]
TV: My view is that they're editorial and we shouldn't open the issue again.
19:16:43 [Norm]
TV: Anyone on the team can fix them, but as editor, I'm not willing to go through the cycle again.
19:17:08 [noah]
I have logs of comments on metadata in URI from Roy on March 28. DaveO: do you have something newer from him?
19:17:26 [Norm]
Vincent: I'll take a look and see if I can get them addressed
19:17:35 [Norm]
Zakim, take up item 5
19:17:35 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Any other business?" taken up [from Norm]
19:17:40 [Norm]
zakim, take up item 4
19:17:40 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Issue genericResources-53" taken up [from Norm]
19:17:49 [noah]
If it's on REST-discuss, we need to get him to send to www-tag (and it's getting late)
19:17:55 [Norm]
Topic: Issue tagSoupIntegration-54
19:17:58 [Norm]
Vincent: What's next?
19:19:02 [Norm]
Norm: Does it make sense to see how the backplane workshop falls out? That seems related to me, but maybe it's not.
19:19:18 [Norm]
Vincent: Should we consider attempting to draft a finding on this issue?
19:20:09 [Norm]
Noah: I think we should agree not to do a finding until there's more discussion.
19:21:00 [Norm]
Vincent: You're right, it's certainly too early to draft something, but having someone committed to edit a putative finding might be a good thing.
19:21:03 [Norm]
...But maybe it's too early for that too.
19:21:17 [Norm]
TV: I don't think the backplane meeting will shed much light on this issue.
19:22:10 [Norm]
Henry: I think the backplane folks are likely to say "Yeah, if you solve those problems it'll make what we're doing more valuable". But they aren't going to address those problems.
19:22:45 [Norm]
Vincent: Ok, let's see what happens in the next few days or weeks.
19:23:02 [Norm]
zakim, take up item 5
19:23:02 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Any other business?" taken up [from Norm]
19:23:26 [DaveO_TAG]
Roy said something on REST-Discuss
19:23:28 [DaveO_TAG]
at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/6708
19:23:41 [Norm]
Vincent: Ok. Teleconference next week.
19:24:04 [Zakim]
-Ht
19:24:36 [Norm]
Adjourned.
19:24:57 [Zakim]
-Ed_Rice
19:24:58 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:24:58 [Zakim]
-Raman
19:24:59 [Zakim]
-noah
19:24:59 [Zakim]
-Vincent
19:25:00 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()12:30PM has ended
19:25:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were Raman, Norm, noah, Ed_Rice, Ht, Vincent
19:25:27 [Norm]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
19:25:29 [Norm]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
19:25:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-tagmem-minutes.html Norm
19:35:29 [Norm]
$ cvs update -d -P
19:35:29 [Norm]
Authentication response too long: 1735419693
19:35:35 [Norm]
Any clues, ht? vincent?
19:50:53 [Norm]
Nevermind
19:50:55 [Norm]
zakim, bye
19:50:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
19:51:04 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
19:51:04 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items