IRC log of tagmem on 2008-10-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:56:01 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:56:01 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-tagmem-irc
16:56:07 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #tagmem
16:56:16 [Stuart]: zakim, this will be tag
16:56:16 [Zakim]: ok, Stuart; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
16:56:37 [Stuart]: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/09-agenda
16:56:46 [Stuart]: Chair: Stuart Williams
16:57:07 [Norm]: Norm has joined #tagmem
16:57:20 [Stuart]: Regrets: Tim Berners-Lee, Noah Mendelsohn
16:57:35 [Stuart]: Scribe: Jonathan Rees
16:57:42 [Stuart]: Meeting: TAG Weekly
17:00:30 [Zakim]: TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
17:00:37 [Zakim]: +??P1
17:00:46 [Stuart]: zakim, ?? is me
17:00:46 [Zakim]: +Stuart; got it
17:00:48 [ht]: zakim, please call ht-781
17:00:49 [Zakim]: ok, ht; the call is being made
17:00:51 [Zakim]: -Stuart
17:00:53 [Zakim]: +Stuart
17:00:55 [Zakim]: +Ht
17:00:57 [Zakim]: +Norm
17:01:41 [ht]: zakim, mute me
17:01:41 [Zakim]: Ht should now be muted
17:02:02 [DanC]: DanC has joined #tagmem
17:02:07 [Ashok]: Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:02:19 [Zakim]: +DanC
17:03:03 [Zakim]: +Raman
17:03:10 [Stuart]: zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:10 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Stuart, Ht (muted), Norm, DanC, Raman
17:03:17 [raman]: raman has joined #tagmem
17:04:19 [Zakim]: +Ashok_Malhotra
17:05:15 [Zakim]: + +1.604.709.aaaa
17:05:34 [DanC]: Zakim, aaaa is DaveO
17:05:34 [Zakim]: +DaveO; got it
17:05:48 [DaveO]: DaveO has joined #tagmem
17:06:02 [DaveO]: DaveO has left #tagmem
17:06:43 [Norm]: Norm has joined #tagmem
17:06:59 [Norm]: scribenick: norm
17:07:02 [Stuart]: scribe: Norm Walsh
17:07:40 [Norm]: Topic: Convene
17:07:46 [Norm]: Regrets: Tim, Noah
17:07:53 [Norm]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:07:53 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Stuart, Ht (muted), Norm, DanC, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, DaveO
17:08:06 [Norm]: Present: Stuart, Henry, Norm, Dan, Raman, Ashok, Dave
17:08:13 [Norm]: Agenda accepted.
17:08:23 [Norm]: Stuart: Propose we accept the minutes from last week's meeting
17:08:27 [Norm]: Accepted.
17:08:39 [Norm]: Next meeting: 16 Oct
17:09:05 [Norm]: For next week, regrets from Norm, Tim, Ashok
17:09:23 [Norm]: Dave agrees to scribe 16 Oct
17:09:24 [DaveO]: DaveO has joined #tagmem
17:09:33 [Norm]: Topic: F2f Minutes
17:09:44 [Norm]: Stuart: Thanks to all for bringing them together.
17:09:57 [Norm]: Stuart: Propose we accept those as a record of our f2f meeting in October
17:10:15 [Norm]: No objections, no abstentions.
17:10:15 [Ashok]: http://cgi.w3.org/member-bin/irc/irc.cgi
17:10:18 [Norm]: Accepted.
17:10:34 [Norm]: Stuart: We should announce them, I'll do that.
17:10:47 [Norm]: Topic: Responding to Content Transformation Guidelines
17:10:56 [Norm]: Stuart: Norm was to review this and see if it was something we needed to take a look at.
17:11:07 [dorchard]: dorchard has joined #tagmem
17:11:22 [dorchard]: Ah, and now via cgi
17:11:24 [Norm]: Norm: Dan moved it to be due next week, I'll endeavor to review it before then
17:11:34 [Norm]: Topic: Passwords in the clear ISSUE-52
17:11:40 [Norm]: Stuart: Dave, can you bring us up to date?
17:11:56 [DanC]: I find TAG Finding passwordsInTheClear-52, October 08 2008
17:11:56 [DaveO]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52
17:12:18 [Norm]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20080925
17:12:36 [DanC]: this works for me: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52
17:12:38 [DaveO]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20081008.html
17:13:10 [Norm]: Dave: I made two major changes. The first in section 2.
17:13:35 [Norm]: Changed the good practice to read "Clear text passwords are a serious security risk. Transmit passwords in the clear only in interactions that do not need to be secure and do not lead to the new vulnerabilities in other interactions."
17:13:44 [Norm]: s/Changed/Dave: Changed/
17:14:06 [Norm]: Dave: I added two sentences to the following paragraph to warn against reusing passwords that are sent in the clear.
17:14:27 [Norm]: Dave: The other thing I did was in 2.1.1
17:14:34 [Zakim]: +Jonathan_Rees
17:14:52 [jar]: jar has joined #tagmem
17:15:19 [Norm]: Dave: I added a reference to the background on digetst authentication and salted hashes.
17:15:25 [Norm]: s/digetst/digest/
17:16:12 [Stuart]: q?
17:16:15 [Norm]: Stuart: Are there any TAG members who have re-read it recently and have comments?
17:16:21 [Norm]: Dan: Mostly I've been looking at the first good practice note.
17:16:31 [Norm]: Dan: But I've got no comments.
17:16:50 [Norm]: Ashok: Stuart, there were a couple of emails about this. One said that you should never transmit passwords in the clear.
17:17:40 [Norm]: Dan: None of the messages suggest improvements; you can't please everyone.
17:17:43 [ht]: q+ ht to say "do it"
17:17:48 [ht]: ack ht
17:17:49 [Stuart]: ack ht
17:17:50 [Zakim]: ht, you wanted to say "do it"
17:18:16 [Norm]: Henry: I think the GPNs now read in a good, escalating sequence. I find the second one slightly awkward after the comma, but I can live with it. I think we should take this forward.
17:18:39 [Norm]: Raman: I think it's time we published it. We aren't going to get any new insights from this. Mostly we've been wordsmithing.
17:18:41 [Norm]: Ashok: I agree.
17:18:45 [Norm]: Jonathan: So do I
17:18:50 [Norm]: Norm: I'm happy with it.
17:19:19 [Norm]: Dave: So we're going to publish this as an approved finding?
17:19:21 [Norm]: Henry: Yes
17:19:53 [Norm]: Dave: I've fixed the small editorial issues.
17:19:58 [Norm]: s/fixed/already fixed/
17:20:09 [DanC]: 1.26 Wed Oct 8 21:15:45 2008 UTC
17:20:20 [Norm]: Henry: It's not valid HTML.
17:20:54 [DanC]: (I'd rather not use so much screenspace for previous versions.)
17:21:13 [Norm]: (Yes, the last three or so would be fine by me)
17:21:33 [Norm]: Stuart: I propose that the TAG publishes as an approved finding, with some latitude to the editor to make the HTML valid and clean up the boilerplate.
17:21:45 [Norm]: s/publishes as an/publishes this as an/
17:21:48 [Norm]: Dave: I second.
17:21:49 [DanC]: (pls get any changes confirmed by another set of eyeballs from 1.26 on)
17:21:53 [Norm]: Stuart: Objections?
17:21:55 [Norm]: Stuart: None.
17:22:09 [ht]: There are also broken links -- see http://validator.w3.org/checklink?url=http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20081008
17:22:15 [Norm]: Stuart: Abstentions?
17:22:19 [Norm]: Stuart: None.
17:22:31 [Norm]: RESOLVED: We will publish this as an approved finding.
17:23:21 [Norm]: Topic: Issue binaryXML-30
17:23:42 [Norm]: Stuart: Henry has finished ACTION-93, which leaves us with 176 and 177 on Noah and Stuart.
17:23:53 [Norm]: s/Noah/Noah, Dave,/
17:24:07 [Norm]: Stuart: There are more WDs out there, do we need to discuss them?
17:24:16 [Norm]: Henry: There's been no reply to my message of last Thursday, I'll ping them again.
17:24:30 [Norm]: Stuart: No one has substantive discussion for this week? We can move on then.
17:24:38 [Norm]: Topic: TAG @ TPAC
17:25:12 [Norm]: Stuart: Meeting with other WGs. I followed up with the HTML WG chair. I also saw on the TAG mailing list, Raman forwarded some extract of an HTML WG minutes that suggest that there may be some misunderstanding there.
17:25:17 [Norm]: Stuart: I'm wondering if we need to clarify.
17:26:02 [Norm]: Raman: I think that would be useful. I think we should keep it focussed on making the spec more managable.
17:26:25 [Norm]: Henry: With respect, I think we need to cover both topics. We don't have to argue to get the other one in there because their initial response was to say taht we should look at the URI issue.
17:26:40 [Norm]: Raman: The demarkation issue is different, I meant more about modularization wrt other W3C specs, namespaces, etc.
17:26:48 [Norm]: ...I don't want that to fall into the namespaces discussion and get lost.
17:27:17 [Norm]: Stuart: I think they just don't know what we meant by "modularization of the spec".
17:27:24 [Norm]: Henry: I think we should clarify that.
17:27:55 [Norm]: Stuart: So I should send some clarifaction to Mike and Chris saying that we've observed their minutes and make it clear what our concerns are.
17:28:13 [Norm]: Stuart: With respect to the plenary day panel session, you all know just as much as I do from the email.
17:28:40 [Norm]: ...I think, at least from Noah's email, there was at least a tentative suggestion that TAG participation in that panel would amount to maybe Tim plus two other tag members.
17:28:57 [Norm]: ...Noah indicated a willingness to participate, though he wanted the TAG to make the choice.
17:29:23 [Norm]: Stuart: Do we have an guidance that we'd like to give Chris and Noah about the session itself and also who would staff the panel with?
17:29:41 [Norm]: Norm: Who all is going?
17:30:08 [Norm]: Stuart: Regrets from Stuart, Jonathan, Henry, and Dave for Wednesday.
17:30:47 [Norm]: Stuart: Stuart, Jonathan, and Dave will be absent the whole week.
17:30:54 [Norm]: Norm: I'm certainly willing to.
17:31:10 [Norm]: Stuart: Raman, Dan, Norm, Noah are going to be there.
17:31:19 [Norm]: Dan: I'm willing, but I don't think my perspective is different from Tim's.
17:31:36 [Norm]: Raman: I don't feel enough ownership of the WebArch document, so I'd rather not participate.
17:31:40 [ht]: q+ to nominate Noah and Norm
17:31:53 [Stuart]: ack ht
17:31:53 [Zakim]: ht, you wanted to nominate Noah and Norm
17:32:04 [Norm]: Henry: It's clear how this is going: let's have Tim, Noah, and Norm
17:32:18 [Norm]: Stuart: Proposal: Tim, Noah, and Norm to participate in the panel
17:32:24 [Norm]: Raman: I think that's a good idea.
17:32:24 [raman]: raman has joined #tagmem
17:32:51 [Norm]: Accepted.
17:33:21 [Norm]: Ashok: Before we move on...
17:33:36 [Norm]: ...We've gotten lots of mail about what meetings we're supposed to participate in. What are they?
17:33:47 [Norm]: Stuart: There are only two, you might have seen more mail, but there are only two at the moment.
17:33:59 [Norm]: Stuart: Meeting with the Web Applications WG from 2-3p on Monday
17:34:14 [Norm]: ...And a meeting with the HTML WG between the morning break and lunchtime on Thursday.
17:34:41 [Norm]: ...There was a standing invitation from the WAI WG, but they weren't specifically saying they have things they want to talk about.
17:34:53 [Stuart]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
17:35:05 [Norm]: Topic: Action item review
17:35:14 [Norm]: Stuart: There are a bunch of overdue items, let's see if we can each clean them up.
17:35:41 [Norm]: Stuart: Either update the dates, request to have it withdrawn, or note that it has been finished but that the action remains incorrectly open.
17:35:47 [Stuart]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/
17:35:58 [jar]: I pushed ACTION-178 way out... it's going to take some work. I hope to get to it much sooner than the given date
17:36:44 [DanC]: action-152?
17:36:44 [trackbot]: ACTION-152 -- Jonathan Rees to review overlap between the HCLSI URI note and HT's w.r.t. contribution to TAG finding on UrnsAndRegistries -- due 2008-05-27 -- OPEN
17:36:44 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/152
17:37:01 [DanC]: close action-152
17:37:01 [trackbot]: ACTION-152 Review overlap between the HCLSI URI note and HT's w.r.t. contribution to TAG finding on UrnsAndRegistries closed
17:37:07 [Norm]: Henry: Jonathan is helping out, but I'm happy to have that one closed.
17:37:13 [Norm]: action-142?
17:37:13 [trackbot]: ACTION-142 -- Norman Walsh to review Raman's draft of webApplicationState-60 -- due 2008-06-04 -- OPEN
17:37:13 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/142
17:38:05 [Norm]: Norm: Ok, I guess that one still stands.
17:38:13 [Norm]: action-146?
17:38:13 [trackbot]: ACTION-146 -- Norman Walsh to review 2008-05-13 versioning draft -- due 2008-05-26 -- OPEN
17:38:13 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/146
17:38:39 [Norm]: close action-146
17:38:39 [trackbot]: ACTION-146 Review 2008-05-13 versioning draft closed
17:39:27 [DanC]: action-175?
17:39:27 [trackbot]: ACTION-175 -- Stuart Williams to collect input from TimBL and others and revise issue description -- due 2008-09-30 -- OPEN
17:39:27 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/175
17:39:45 [Norm]: Stuart: We have an email thread and I meant to confirm with the TAG that they're happy with the change.
17:40:03 [Norm]: ...I got a looks good to me response from Drummond Reese which would basically end it.
17:40:48 [jar]: Pushed ACTION-181 out 2 weeks... need to find out what I need from Dave O (sources, use case, etc.)
17:41:23 [jar]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/184 is relevant and truly overdue.
17:42:30 [DanC]: (Dave, you have 6 actions related to XMLVersioning-41 ; wanna guestimate due dates?)
17:43:02 [DanC]: action-133?
17:43:03 [trackbot]: ACTION-133 -- David Orchard to ask raman what he thinks should be done wrt css versioning -- due 2008-04-17 -- OPEN
17:43:03 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/133
17:43:09 [DanC]: close action-133
17:43:09 [trackbot]: ACTION-133 Ask raman what he thinks should be done wrt css versioning closed
17:43:37 [DanC]: close action-159
17:43:37 [trackbot]: ACTION-159 Update compatibility strategies document in response to f2f discussion closed
17:44:15 [DanC]: action-182 due 23 Oct 2008
17:44:16 [trackbot]: ACTION-182 Provide example for jar to work into the formalism due date now 23 Oct 2008
17:44:42 [DanC]: DO: NVDL is now out of scope
17:44:44 [DanC]: close action-16
17:44:44 [trackbot]: ACTION-16 Incorporate the NVDL text into the findings. closed
17:45:27 [DanC]: action-165 due 30 Oct 2008
17:45:27 [trackbot]: ACTION-165 Formulate erratum text on versioning for the web architecture document due date now 30 Oct 2008
17:46:51 [Norm]: The TAG discussed and rearranged a variety of open actions
17:48:30 [Norm]: Topic: Any other business?
17:48:30 [Stuart]: q?
17:48:38 [Norm]: Dave: There's some web services work I'd like to discuss.
17:48:52 [Norm]: Raman: I think we're short changing ourselves if we wait to hear about the panel.
17:49:54 [Norm]: Raman: The browser and HTML groups are questioning a lot of that document. Chris is trying to face this issue head on.
17:50:36 [Norm]: ...I think Chris is trying to get that out in the open and to note that it isn't cast in stone, we should be able to keep it relevant.
17:51:05 [Norm]: Raman: Let me play the cynics roll. If I say the WebArch document is irrelevant, which parts would you defend?
17:51:14 [Stuart]: q?
17:51:55 [Norm]: ...We need to go in with a good idea of what we think is still true and which parts we think we'd bend on.
17:52:13 [Norm]: Dan: I gave a talk recently about interaction and the Google web cache.
17:52:38 [Norm]: Raman: Don't use GET when you are sending data that's going to change. I think that's pretty solid, but then you get to the edges.
17:53:03 [Norm]: Raman: In some sense, if there are six people on the panel, let's say that there are two sides, though I don't like to think of it in those terms.
17:53:21 [Norm]: ...I don't think an hour long panel will change the minds of one side or the other. It's a means of getting everyone understand what the issues are.
17:53:28 [timbl]: timbl has joined #tagmem
17:54:11 [Norm]: Raman: What are the clear foundations, what may have been missunderstood, and what is just wrong.
17:54:17 [Norm]: Norm: Good suggestions.
17:54:53 [Norm]: Dan: The things that have been questions are error handling, versioning, mime types/content sniffing, namespaces
17:55:48 [Norm]: Dan: We've acknowledged that we have more or different things to say about versioning.
17:56:39 [Norm]: ...I'd like to have better error handling, I'd like to be able to have a mode that shows me errors.
17:56:58 [Norm]: ...But probably when you're browsing someone elses site...but I dunno, it's still risky.
17:57:36 [DanC]: (text in the REC is "Agents that recover from error by making a choice without the user's consent are not acting on the user's behalf." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#error-handling )
17:57:38 [Norm]: Raman: Error handling has two layers: error hadnling in the face of any implementation breaking any spec whatever, then there's error recovery wrt HTML/tagsoup.
17:58:03 [Norm]: ...The third piece which always gets folded in is, if you have a spec, it always happens that there are gaps. There's error recovery in terms of how do you come out of that.
17:58:13 [Norm]: ...Then there's error recovery in the face of someone blatently violating a spec.
17:58:46 [Norm]: In the last case, I think there should be a mode to show errors because otherwise, bad money will drive out good.
17:59:12 [Norm]: Raman: Further down in the spec, the stuff about following your nose to understand documents, doesn't really work so I think we'd get lots of pushback on that.
17:59:37 [Norm]: ...I can show you an example of how broken this is by pointing to the top level RSS feed at the BBC.
18:00:06 [raman]: on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/ see rss link:
18:00:15 [raman]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/i/index.xml
18:01:04 [raman]: classic example of an attempt sematnic web technology --- rdf:seq is empty
18:01:34 [Norm]: Stuart: Identify with URIs is germain to Dave's question about web services.
18:01:46 [Norm]: Raman: I don't think web services is going to come up on the panel.
18:03:28 [Norm]: Dan: Most of the arguments about follow-your-nose are that you don't need it to get your job done, but this isn't getting anyone's job done.
18:04:46 [Norm]: Raman: What I'm saying is that folks who see this say look at all this crud that didn't work, what works are visible hypertext links, so that's all we need.
18:04:59 [timbl]: timbl has joined #tagmem
18:06:43 [Norm]: Apparently it's a distinction between pages served to UK readers and readers in the rest of the world.
18:06:59 [Norm]: Raman: It's really bad advertising for this technology, it's about 4k that doesn't say anything.
18:07:54 [Norm]: ...Some of these things are important and we should try to get the audience to leave with that impression.
18:07:55 [Stuart]: q?
18:09:16 [Norm]: Raman: So how are we going to decide which things are in which buckets?
18:09:43 [Norm]: ACTION: Norm to review the GPNs and try to put them in the buckets on an email thread.
18:09:43 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - Norm
18:09:53 [Norm]: ACTION: Norman to review the GPNs and try to put them in the buckets on an email thread.
18:09:53 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-185 - Review the GPNs and try to put them in the buckets on an email thread. [on Norman Walsh - due 2008-10-16].
18:10:59 [raman]: need to leave
18:11:05 [Norm]: Stuart: We have a few minutes left, Dave you posted a weblog page.
18:11:13 [Zakim]: -Raman
18:11:21 [Norm]: Dave: Right, I think we needed to say something about the charters.
18:11:47 [Norm]: ...So how well do the web services specs, both those proposed and written, integrate into the WebArch
18:12:02 [Norm]: ...I think we've failed to integrate the web services architecture into Web Architecture.
18:12:20 [Norm]: ...So if they're not part of the web architecture, and the TAG is about web architecture, then how is the TAG relevant to them?
18:12:35 [Norm]: ...The results are pretty stark.
18:13:07 [Norm]: ...It seems to me that the TAG could say that it's fine work but that the TAG does not anticipate that it will be reviewing any of it because it's not about web architecture. We're not going to review or endorse it.
18:13:09 [Stuart]: q?
18:14:10 [Stuart]: q?
18:14:24 [Norm]: Ashok: Dave, what are you recommending? Are you recommending that we object to the working group?
18:14:26 [Norm]: Dave: That's not what I said.
18:15:03 [Norm]: ...If you've got work coming out of W3C that's got nothing to do with web architecture, then the TAG should recuse itself.
18:15:29 [Norm]: Ashok: That sounds disengenuous. The TAG is the technical architecture group, how can opt out?
18:15:51 [Norm]: Dave: The core part of that work isn't part of the web architecture. The membership can do it if it wants, but they should know that it's not.
18:16:21 [Norm]: Dan: Ashok asked how and the answer is probably something in the charter and possibly in the SOTD that says "this doesn't follow web architecture and we don't expect it to".
18:16:25 [Norm]: Dan: Yes.
18:16:34 [Norm]: Ashok: I don't.
18:17:36 [Norm]: Norm: I think it's a really good idea, if it's a separate architecture, we should be willing to say that we're not going to review it.
18:17:51 [Norm]: Stuart: I think that it needs to be made as a proposal for a position that the TAG should take and see if teh TAG will adopt that position.
18:18:06 [Zakim]: -Norm
18:18:09 [jar]: scribenick: jar
18:18:18 [Stuart]: zakim, who is here?
18:18:18 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Stuart, Ht, DanC, Ashok_Malhotra, DaveO, Jonathan_Rees
18:18:20 [Zakim]: On IRC I see timbl, raman, jar, dorchard, Norm, Ashok, DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, noah_away, ht, trackbot
18:18:37 [jar]: Adjourned.
18:18:37 [Zakim]: -Ashok_Malhotra
18:18:39 [Zakim]: -DaveO
18:18:47 [Zakim]: -Stuart
18:18:51 [Zakim]: -Jonathan_Rees
18:19:30 [Zakim]: -DanC
18:19:31 [jar]: "Norm:will construct the HTML minutes, jar"
18:20:37 [jar]: rrsagent, pointer
18:20:37 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-tagmem-irc#T18-20-37
18:21:32 [jar]: rrsagent, make logs member-visible
18:21:50 [raman]: raman has left #tagmem
18:35:00 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, Ht, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM
18:35:04 [Zakim]: TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:35:05 [Zakim]: Attendees were Stuart, Ht, Norm, DanC, Raman, Ashok_Malhotra, +1.604.709.aaaa, DaveO, Jonathan_Rees
18:37:29 [Norm]: RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
18:37:33 [Norm]: RRSAgent, make minutes
18:37:33 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-tagmem-minutes.html Norm
20:29:19 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #tagmem