Convene, review agenda

SKW: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/11-minutes approve?

RESOLUTION: to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/11-minutes

RESOLUTION: to meet again 9 Oct, JAR to scribe

F2F Minutes

JAR: I think I'm done with Tuesday, though I'd like confirmation on a few spots

Noah: I think I'm done with Weds

DanC: I did a pass over Thu... around 85% done

SKW: sounds like we're set to approve ftf minutes next week

Issue abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)

action-170?

<trackbot> ACTION-170 -- Noah Mendelsohn to coordinate response to CURIE last call (with help from Ashok) -- due 2008-09-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/170

SKW: proposed to send as drafted (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0099)

RESOLVED, DanC abstaining

RESOLUTION, with one abstention: NM to ship http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0099 to the XHTML WG as from the TAG

Response to request from Philippe Le Hegaret wrt WS-transfer

SW: Charter has been posted to ac-forum for review
... we can still comment
... Do we want to?

NM: When the technologies were submitted to W3C, the Team comment pointed out some issues
... to do with e.g. re-inventing some layers of existing Web Arch.
... We could endorse the Team comment concern, although this doesn't necessarily have to go in the Charter
... as WebArch issues are always the responsibility of WGs to attend to

SW: The Team comments do point to AWWW and our discussion of EPRs. . .

NM: Still not sure whether pushing this is redundant

DC: Looking at the proposed charter (http://www.w3.org/2008/08/ws/charter)
... I find "The W3C TAG has expressed interest in this area by means of a TAG White Paper authored by Noah Mendelsohn."

<DanC_> it cites http://www.w3.org/2007/01/wos-papers/tag

<noah> It says:

<noah> The W3C recently accepted a WS-related submission titled: Web Services Transfer (WS-Transfer). Although no workgroup activity on WS Transfer is currently planned, the W3C team commented in accepting the submission on several technical issues raised by WS Transfer, and suggested that the TAG should investigate them. The issues mentioned include the overlap in the services provided by WS Transfer and by HTTP, and also the use of EPRs for resource identification

<noah> That's from the whitepaper prepared for the workshop. Most of the whitepaper was not directly about WS Transfer.

SW: Is it in order for the TAG to comment on a call for charter review?

DC: Sure. As to what channel to use. . .TimBL and Yves Lafon, perhaps?

SW: So, do we want to comment?

HT: It is AM and DO who are most likely to care, and they are not here. . ..

SW: No action unless NW, DO or AM bring it back to me

<DanC_> close action-171

<trackbot> ACTION-171 Coordinate response regarding WS-* inquiry from PLH closed

DO: I will write up some concerns, about not making use of WebArch, and I'll try to get to that]

httpRedirections-57

<DanC_> current draft: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02.txt

<DanC_> old: base URI MUST be considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html#"

DC: Doesn't work as evidently anticipated

<DanC_> because 'next' turns into http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/next

DC: So the new draft fixes that

<DanC_> [[3.1. Link Relationships
Relationship values are URIs that identify the type of link. If the relationship is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/", and the value MUST be present in the link relation registry.]]

DC:How does IANA service this? A 200 response would imply this is an information resource
... So I suggested we should get them to do the 303 redirect

JR: I spoke to someone at IETF, and I think they are unaware of the issue and are waiting to hear from us

SW: Will uniform access to metadata work help them?

JR: Perhaps, but that's not the most effective way -- they just need a short message

JR: The person I spoke to is Lisa Dusseault
... She says, on 3 June, "I think IANA just needs to add an alias or move a page, not do 303 handling"
... I think she just didn't understand my perhaps too-brief message

<DanC_> Lisa Dusseault, Open Source Applications Foundation: (http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html )

SW: Does she expect action from you? or the TAG?

JR: I just got involved via discussion on the IETF HTTP WG list. . .

<jar> Lisa Dusseault asks: "Why can't the same URI be both the namespace and the document describing the namespace?"

DC: The task is to convince the IANA web master, via the IESG, that a 303 is required

<jar> That was on June 3

JR: I'm happy to do something here, or DC is already involved. . .

HT: You have the ball, she asked you, try replying to her, if that doesn't work, come back to us for help

<DanC_> again: rel="next" turns into http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/next

TBL: What namespace? We do have that kind of 'pun' between namespace and document

HST, SW: It's not a namespace, it's a relation.

TBL: Right, this is part of our education role, we need to help them on this

TBL: Do we need to write something?

DC: Cool URIs for the SemWeb. . .

<DanC_> primer... well... there's http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-cooluris-20080321/

JR: I think that document is for people who already understand the basics, and need to know how to do it in detail
... whereas the current problem is that they don't yet recognise this as a semweb issue

TBL: Well, I think you can explain that to her, she's got relevant background

<jar> I can take an action to write to Lisa D, cc: www-tag, with cool URIs and webarch as references.

SW: I think there is some tutorial Bob&Alice stuff in the CUftSW document

<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to write to Lisa D of IESG, cc www-tag, to explain about 303, with cool URIs and webarch as references. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Write to Lisa D of IESG, cc www-tag, to explain about 303, with cool URIs and webarch as references. [on Jonathan Rees - due 2008-10-09].

Issue passwordsInTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52)

DO: I've done all the edits, except for the stories which I was asked to add.
... I've done some research, but haven't yet found what I need wrt, for instance, Digest . . .
... Everything is too generic, I'm still looking for some more scenario-level stuff
... Not concluded yet, still working, watch this space

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-080912-080925-diff.html

DO: NW has produced some diffs

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-080602-080912-diff.html

The first has the text TBL proposed

HST: Looks better, I would like "sometimes they are acceptable"

SW: Not really a Best Practice anymore
... A week to review?

HST: Yes please

DO: I still need to find the stories in any case

<timbl> change in the doc though sometimes/though they sometimes

DO: What shall I call the Good Practice notes which aren't anymore. . .

TBL: I think they are Good Practice notes. . .
... Are you worried about them not giving advice?

DO: Yes

<DanC_> the GPN genre is more like "avoid use of clear-text passwords at some, if not all, cost"

SW: GP should be action orientated

<DanC_> GPNs are traditionally imperative

SW: I'm happy with the text
... Just feels awkward to call them GPNs

HST will try to make a suggestion when not scribing. . .

<timbl> He reformulated just the way I did

<timbl> (ht)

TBL: This is a fine GPN, it gives advice by saying "this is dangerous"

DO: Indeed, it reads literally as a "Bad Practice Note"

TBL: They don't have to be in the imperative
... I'm happy as the way it is

SW: It will go on the agenda next week, when we hope DO will have added the Story pointers
... and we can make a decision to publish

TAG@TPAC

SW: Part 1 -- Panel proposed for TP itself, on the utility of WebArch, both the concepts and the AWWW document
... for the W3C's work

TVR: It has now been publicised in the draft agenda

NM: I think we're fine if we frame the discussion
... I think some discussion of AWWW and our findings do useful work for the W3C would be fine
... Do we know anything about the format?

SW: No, no contact with Chris Lilley on that -- anyone want to coordinate

NM: Happy to do that

SW: Offer accepted

NM: I'll give Chris the opportunity to make a suggestion, then respond as necessary

TVR: Panel not just the TAG

NM: Right, some TAG, including TBL, and some skeptics, and some folk in the middle -- that's my assumption, I have no direct knowledge

SW: Who from the TAG

NM: Who's there?

SW: Missing are SW, JR, DO, HST (on the Wednesday)
... That leaves NM, TVR, AM, DC, TBL

NM: I can first ask those 5 if any of them do not want to be on the panel, then pass names to Chris Lilley

SW: Certainly worth feeding our preferences into this

NM: I will act as a conduit

TVR: There's a real risk we spend too much time on the irrelevant bits
... TBL, will you take part, with what hat on?

TBL: Yes, as a TAG member, speaking for myself

NM: Well, you do serve in multiple roles, maybe you could/should step up to the Director role at some point as well
... and take on the role of the "honest broker" on behalf of the Membership

TVR: I disagree, I don't think TBL should take on the role of referee

TBL: I could imagine taking the Director role in an introduction as to why I/Director needed the TAG
... With my TAG hat on I won't necessarily be defending everything we've done
... We all should be willing to go there
... Given our role as the glue in the cracks, there's more than enough work for us -- we could stand to have 3 TAGs
... There's plenty of work for us to do -- maybe they think we're not getting on with it enough

TVR: Not sure what NM's role is, to shape how this goes

SW: What would you like to accomplish?

TVR: We need to shape the agenda, and that depends a lot on who else will be on the panel
... Anyone know?

SW: NM, please report back on that as soon as possible

NM: I understand my job is to be the conduit between Chris Lilley and us on this kind of issue

SW: We could invite him to a call

NM: Maybe -- let me raise everything I've heard here today: what do you have in mind, who do you plan to invite, what do you hope to accomplish, what would be a success
... and I'll feed that back to us, and coordinate a response

SW: Part 2, Meeting with HTML WG at TPAC
... I've heard back from the Team Contact Mike Smith, after discussion with Chris Wilson
... Our 4 topics would make a pretty big dent in their agenda
... They suggested looking at only URLs and conneg
... The most we could ask for is one quarter-day session
... We certainly can't cover all the topics, but this is just the start of a communication process
... So we need to get things on the table on that basis -- I've communicated this back to Mike
... I suggested we put the meeting at the beginning or the end, to minimize disruption
... My inclination is to suggest the session after the break on Thursday morning
... which could then continue over lunch
... I will put that to Mike Smith

<noah> I've been reading the HTML 5 spec, and another thing that bothers me is that there seems to be an awful lot that's presented algorithmically that I think would probably be better done declaratively. For example, even simple value formats like dates tend not to have BNF, but do have long sets of parsing rules that are pretty much computer programs set down in English.

<noah> I'm not sure we should use our TAG time to push that too hard, but I did note it. I'm sure the editors are aware of the tradeoff and made a conscious decision.

<Zakim> Stuart, you wanted to note that TAG engagement may encourage otherwise silent members of the WG

SKW: I'm getting conflicting input on this meeting arrangement
... ok, after hearing various positions, I'll continue to pursue the meeting, and ask to discuss modularity.
... on other TPAC meetings, I'll schedule according to data I get about availability

ADJOURN.