IRC log of tagmem on 2009-12-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:00:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:00:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-tagmem-irc
18:00:22 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
18:00:29 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
18:00:30 [jar__]
i would prefer there to be an entity, and then XML and other sorts of literals or whatever all related to it
18:00:30 [Zakim]
+DanC
18:00:31 [ht]
scribenick: ht
18:00:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.413.458.aaaa
18:00:36 [ht]
scribe: Henry S. Thompson
18:00:42 [ht]
meeting: TAG telcon
18:00:47 [noah_office]
Good afternoon, Henry.
18:00:54 [Zakim]
+jar
18:00:58 [ht]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-agenda.html
18:01:10 [ht]
chair: Noah Mendelsohn:
18:01:16 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
18:01:18 [noah_office]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], DanC, +1.413.458.aaaa, jar, Ashok_Malhotra
18:01:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Ashok, johnk, noah_office, Zakim, noah, jar__, timbl, jar, ht, DanC, trackbot
18:01:26 [noah_office]
zakim, [IBMCamrbidge] is me
18:01:26 [Zakim]
sorry, noah_office, I do not recognize a party named '[IBMCamrbidge]'
18:01:34 [noah_office]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
18:01:34 [Zakim]
+noah_office; got it
18:01:50 [ht]
present: Dan Connolly, Jonathan Rees, Noah Mendelsohn, Ashok Malhotra, Henry S. Thompson, John Kemp
18:01:57 [ht]
zakim, +1 is johnk
18:01:57 [Zakim]
+johnk; got it
18:02:07 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
18:02:07 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
18:02:09 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
18:02:09 [Zakim]
+Ht
18:02:10 [Zakim]
sorry, noah, I do not recognize a party named '[IBMCambridge]'
18:02:17 [noah]
zakim, noah_office is me
18:02:17 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:02:35 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, DanC, johnk, jar, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht
18:02:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Ashok, johnk, noah, Zakim, jar__, timbl, jar, ht, DanC, trackbot
18:03:42 [ht]
NM: F2F minutes review anyone?
18:04:00 [ht]
DC: Look good
18:04:07 [ht]
JK: I've looked at 8 and 10
18:04:36 [ht]
NM: I propose to postpone these until January
18:04:40 [DanC]
-1
18:04:45 [ht]
HST: I would like to publish
18:05:11 [ht]
NM: Any objections to approving?
18:05:33 [ht]
JR: Could we say go ahead if no objections in a few days?
18:06:08 [ht]
NM: RESOLUTION: Minutes will go out unless Chair hears objection by Monday 21 Jan
18:06:21 [DanC]
+1 NM is welcome to edit as he sees fit
18:06:24 [ht]
NM: Obviously I will fix minor bugs, only delay for substantial pblms
18:06:29 [Zakim]
+Masinter
18:06:34 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
18:06:43 [ht]
Present+ Larry Masinter
18:06:55 [masinter]
my phone is muted
18:07:43 [ht]
NM: Action to Larry to send 3 December minutes
18:07:55 [ht]
LM: I need help with the originals
18:08:01 [ht]
HST: I will send you a draft
18:08:29 [DanC]
action-215 due 22 Dec
18:08:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-215 Send minutes of 3 Dec TAG teleconference to www-tag for review due date now 22 Dec
18:08:55 [ht]
NM: No telcon 24 or 31 December
18:09:04 [ht]
... Next telcon 7 January 2010
18:09:44 [ht]
NM: Moving next f2f to 24--26 March
18:09:55 [ht]
... based on change in TAG f2f
18:10:12 [ht]
LM: IETF is meeting week of 22 March
18:10:23 [DanC]
q+ to ask the chair to say what he knows about TBL and TVR's availability for the proposed dates
18:10:24 [ht]
... Progress on URI work, I really need to be there
18:10:47 [masinter]
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF77
18:11:00 [ht]
NM: Would you come if we stuck with the old dates?
18:11:24 [ht]
LM: I am not sure about the 22 week
18:11:33 [ht]
NM: 17-19 would still work?
18:11:37 [ht]
LM: Yes
18:12:09 [masinter]
yes, 17-19th is better, i just realized the IETF conflict for 21-26
18:12:14 [johnk]
I don't mind either way
18:12:16 [ht]
HST: Do you have firm confirmation from TV that he will come?
18:12:21 [noah]
q?
18:12:21 [ht]
NM: I think so. . .
18:12:30 [ht]
DC: And what about TBL?
18:12:38 [ht]
... I would rather not make this decision today
18:13:00 [ht]
HST: I thought TBL had one day pblm
18:13:14 [ht]
... in the week of the 22nd
18:13:58 [ht]
HST: Doodle poll?
18:14:21 [ht]
NM: No resolution
18:14:40 [DanC]
close ACTION-346
18:14:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-346 Collect March 2010 W3C Team day info closed
18:14:43 [jar__]
it's capability-based
18:14:52 [jar__]
:-)
18:14:58 [ht]
ACTION: Henry to put up Doodle poll
18:14:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-365 - Put up Doodle poll [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-24].
18:15:24 [ht]
ACTION: Noah to bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input
18:15:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-366 - Bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-24].
18:15:37 [ht]
action-366 due 6 January
18:15:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-366 Bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input due date now 6 January
18:16:24 [ht]
Topic: Metadata in HTML5
18:16:38 [DanC]
(the WG doesn't close bugs; the editor does.)
18:17:32 [DanC]
q+ to ask LMM if change proposals in both ways are on the table
18:18:08 [DanC]
q+ to ask LMM for a pointer to the poll
18:18:11 [ht]
LM: I'm not sure the original TAG submission is actually on record wrt the poll which is now underway
18:18:21 [noah]
q?
18:18:26 [noah]
ack next
18:18:27 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask the chair to say what he knows about TBL and TVR's availability for the proposed dates and to ask LMM if change proposals in both ways are on the table and
18:18:30 [Zakim]
... to ask LMM for a pointer to the poll
18:18:41 [ht]
The relevant HTML issue is http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
18:18:55 [DanC]
I want the poll, not the issue
18:19:04 [ht]
DC: Change proposals in both directions on the table?
18:19:15 [ht]
LM: Yes, in both directions
18:19:27 [masinter]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
18:20:24 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/
18:20:52 [masinter]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/
18:21:05 [masinter]
and http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results
18:21:15 [ht]
NM: Q2 is objections to proposal to split; Q3 is objections to proposal to keep
18:21:44 [ht]
NM: This looks like an internal exercise on the part of the HTML5 WG
18:21:49 [ht]
... arising from our concern
18:21:55 [ht]
... So we could just wait
18:22:21 [ht]
... Or we could/should make a comment
18:22:39 [ht]
HST: I think we were being asked to comment
18:22:48 [ht]
DC: Only members of the WG can comment
18:22:53 [ht]
HST: OK, I was wrong
18:23:47 [noah]
s/the WG/the HTML WG/
18:24:19 [ht]
DC: What's gotten missed?
18:24:34 [ht]
LM: The points in the rationale for the bug we raised
18:24:38 [ht]
DC: Which ones?
18:26:19 [ht]
LM: [points from http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220]
18:26:20 [DanC]
there's a para with "high profile content management system"
18:26:25 [ht]
DC: I think those are covered
18:26:35 [ht]
NM: Anyone other than LM like us to do anything here?
18:26:37 [DanC]
and "Added Benefit of modularizing Microdata"
18:26:53 [ht]
HST: Yes, I do -- I want 8220 read into the poll
18:27:26 [DanC]
(you want 8220 in the question or in a response?)
18:27:50 [ht]
HST: No, I want it entered as an objection to leaving things in place
18:28:11 [ht]
NM: But we already filed the bug -- we can use that to come back in
18:28:21 [DanC]
(ah. as a response. I can get that into the team input to the poll)
18:28:27 [DanC]
q+
18:28:45 [noah]
q?
18:28:49 [noah]
ack next
18:29:11 [masinter]
q+ is ok with letting this go
18:29:19 [masinter]
q+ to say that i'm ok with letting this go
18:29:25 [ht]
DC: So now I understand HST wants this in the response
18:29:33 [ht]
... I can get it in the W3C Team response
18:29:47 [ht]
HST: I would prefer not to dilute that with the TAG's points
18:29:56 [ht]
NM: So we need someone in the WG
18:30:11 [ht]
LM: I'm willing to let this go -- NM has convinced me
18:30:27 [ht]
NM: Are we comfortable with that?
18:31:57 [ht]
HST: What I would like is for NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in"
18:32:34 [masinter]
1+ to chairs & archive
18:32:49 [DanC]
in particular, www-archive@w3.org ; it predates the public- convention
18:32:50 [ht]
DC: Copy to www-archive?
18:32:56 [ht]
HST, sure
18:33:03 [ht]
s/HST,/HST:/
18:33:24 [ht]
ACTION: NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to www-archive@w3.org
18:33:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-367 - Ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to www-archive@w3.org [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-24].
18:34:02 [ht]
Topic: HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification
18:34:30 [ht]
NM: we got email from Maciej http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0087.html and replied http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0088.html
18:35:12 [ht]
NM: I thought Maciej's response was weak wrt Mike Smith's draft, so pushed back on that front
18:35:29 [ht]
... LM also pushed back a bit http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0095.html
18:35:38 [ht]
NM: Any action needed now
18:35:49 [ht]
DC: I think we've gone too far
18:35:50 [noah]
q+
18:35:57 [noah]
ack masinter
18:35:57 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to say that i'm ok with letting this go
18:35:58 [ht]
... We should just look at what they now do
18:36:09 [ht]
LM: I'd like to see it on a schedule or list of deliverables
18:36:16 [ht]
DC: What list? Their charter?
18:36:20 [noah]
q?
18:36:21 [ht]
LM: Not clear
18:36:35 [ht]
q+ to back NM's response wrt Mike Smith's doc
18:36:44 [ht]
ack noah
18:36:45 [noah]
ack next
18:36:47 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to back NM's response wrt Mike Smith's doc
18:37:35 [ht]
NM: I'm sympathetic to LM's point -- if a WG takes on a commitment to produce a WD and take it to Last Call, there is some implied commitment to put effort into that
18:37:45 [ht]
... Not a Charter change, I think it's already covered
18:38:06 [ht]
... But I would like to see a public commitment to do the work, with success criteria
18:39:04 [DanC]
(basically, I now where maciej lives; if he doesn't give us what we ask for, I know how to start the discussion about why not.)
18:39:10 [noah]
HT: My reading of what Maceij said made a firm and binding commitment to the author view, which was one of the things we asked for. There was no commitment on the Mike Smith draft, and I think it was appropriate to push back.
18:39:35 [ht]
HST: We didn't get what we asked for
18:39:52 [ht]
NM: I think the requests crossed
18:40:05 [DanC]
(what we asked for is last call on the html 5 reference; how could we have gotten that already? sigh.)
18:40:21 [ht]
HST: I don't think we should micromanage the WG
18:40:32 [noah]
q?
18:40:43 [ht]
NM: What about the first request, wrt the authoring view -- are you happy?
18:40:54 [ht]
HST: Yes, I think that commitment was adequate
18:41:04 [ht]
NM: Anything further we should do?
18:41:32 [masinter]
"plus the fact that it was
18:41:32 [masinter]
actively maintained and reviewed by itself for quality"
18:42:07 [ht]
LM: If you agree with my concern about the authoring view, . . .
18:42:23 [noah]
q?
18:42:27 [ht]
LM: I agree that the editor has agreed to move stuff if it's misclassified
18:42:46 [ht]
... but what's missing is any commitment from the HTML5 WG to review the result for quality
18:42:55 [ht]
... But I am willing to drop this
18:43:08 [ht]
NM: Me too, reluctantly
18:43:18 [DanC]
(we just dealt with ACTION-359 so I'll close it.)
18:43:23 [DanC]
close ACTION-359
18:43:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-359 Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG closed
18:43:28 [ht]
Topic: ACTION-283 on Larry Masinter: Update document on version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion - due 2009-12-10 - pending review
18:43:45 [ht]
LM: New input from JR on version identifiers
18:44:05 [ht]
... My inclination is not to update that doc., but write a new one that's shorter
18:44:32 [ht]
... I'm also waiting for input from HST on XML-compatibility guidelines
18:44:49 [ht]
LM: As long as you're careful to distinguish implementations from specifications
18:44:58 [ht]
... and implementators move faster than specs do
18:45:12 [ht]
... then the utility of VIs is limited
18:45:23 [DanC]
(tracker, note we're touching on ISSUE-41)
18:45:33 [noah]
I'm not sure I buy the "version of implementations" point, at least as a typical idiom
18:45:34 [ht]
LM: because it doesn't map to implementations reliably
18:46:04 [ht]
LM: But 'limited' doesn't mean 'none'
18:46:21 [ht]
NM: So you're suggesting closing 283 and opening a new one?
18:46:45 [DanC]
-1 "schedule" actions. please just actions to do technical work; they'll naturally get scheduled.
18:46:57 [ht]
LM: Suggesting closing 283 and scheduling short discussion for guidance before I decide whether to take a new document forward
18:47:14 [DanC]
a pending review action is implicitly an action for the chair to schedule discussion.
18:47:22 [ht]
NM: Is your existing email sufficient?
18:47:54 [masinter]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0094.html
18:49:42 [ht]
DC: Could we review whether HT minuted LM's analysis correctly above?
18:50:04 [noah]
q+ to ask for clarification on the implementations versioning
18:50:18 [ht]
s/implementators move faster/implementations evolve faster/
18:50:57 [johnk]
P&C = http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/ (from Larry's email)
18:51:02 [masinter]
i think the minutes are OK so far, the email says more
18:51:06 [ht]
LM: So given that what users want VIs for is to identify implementations, they don't work in the case cited
18:51:21 [noah]
ack next
18:51:22 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask for clarification on the implementations versioning
18:51:51 [ht]
NM: I don't quite understand where you're trying to go with implementation versioning
18:52:06 [ht]
... I think we need to be clear about the role of senders and receivers
18:52:13 [DanC]
(examples are great; let's go slow enough to get them recorded)
18:52:36 [ht]
NM: Suppose we had stability for a while wrt version 3
18:52:42 [ht]
... and now innovation has set in
18:53:01 [DanC]
I can go with "name implementations" as a paraphrase for "name receiver understandings"
18:53:03 [jar__]
it's an ontology ... hierarchy of classes whose members are implementations
18:53:10 [ht]
NM: We had code written which was generating instances of that version of the language
18:53:27 [DanC]
I wrote it as an ontology.
18:53:35 [masinter]
q+ to note that, in the cases where implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not useful in producer/consumer communication. Rather, they are only useful in the production pipeline and validation, content management
18:53:40 [ht]
NM: And there were agents which implemented that version of the language to process documents
18:53:45 [noah]
ack next
18:53:46 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to note that, in the cases where implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not useful in producer/consumer communication.
18:53:51 [Zakim]
... Rather, they are only useful in the production pipeline and validation, content management
18:54:31 [DanC]
my ontology for this stuff: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 'formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t. recent TAG versioning terminology'
18:54:38 [ht]
LM: Even in that lossy situation, there is still value for VIs in the production context
18:55:10 [noah]
I think the problem is that we're not being clear on what is being identified. In many cases, people grab pieces of different specs, knowing full well which they're grabbing fromom
18:55:10 [DanC]
tx for writing it down, LMM. I see the key point: "in the cases where implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not useful in producer/consumer communication."
18:55:15 [ht]
LM: And sometimes, when there's an incompatible change, there can be utility even in the producer-consumer communication
18:55:25 [ht]
... context.
18:55:37 [noah]
I tend to be anti-VI in general.
18:55:40 [noah]
q?
18:55:44 [DanC]
q+
18:55:52 [ht]
LM: So that could all be an update to what we say in AWWW about VIs
18:55:59 [masinter]
Danc, are not *as* useful
18:56:03 [noah]
q?
18:56:05 [noah]
q+
18:56:23 [DanC]
I just copied/pasted what you wrote, masinter . but ok, *as* useful.
18:56:34 [ht]
DC: I am somewhat positive about this, but not sure updating AWWW is the most effective route -- I like blog articles these days
18:57:11 [ht]
NM: Languages evolve in multi-faceted ways -- sometimes it's chunky, when there's agreement to move from V3 to V4
18:57:27 [ht]
... When you talk about implementations evolving, that's masking that fact
18:57:47 [ht]
... because some impls are innovating wrt the video tag, and some other impls are innovating somewhere else
18:57:48 [masinter]
DanC, I was correcting myself, the utility in producer/consumer communication is limited to the unfortunate situation where it's necessary to introduce incompatible changes
18:58:03 [masinter]
q+ to disagree with NM about 'needing multi-dimensional version indicators'
18:58:17 [ht]
NM: In that kind of situation, you only _need_ VIs if there are conflicting interpretations somewhere
18:58:31 [DanC]
gotcha, lmm
18:58:42 [ht]
NM: as long as it's all "this tag is supported, or it isn't" then there's no need
18:59:08 [ht]
NM: Differentiating the production pipeline from the producer-consumer connection doesn't really get at that issue
18:59:10 [noah]
q?
18:59:10 [DanC]
(trying to get consensus on this doesn't seem like a good use of TAG discussion time; I'd *much* rather see LMM write it up as he sees it and let NM either comment on that or do a separate piece.)
18:59:15 [ht]
... I'm not sure it helps
18:59:18 [noah]
ack danc
18:59:23 [ht]
s/.../NM:/
18:59:34 [noah]
ack noah
18:59:38 [noah]
ack masinter
18:59:38 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to disagree with NM about 'needing multi-dimensional version indicators'
19:00:12 [ht]
LM: Multi-dimensional VIs? Where I'm going is that you only need VIs for specifications
19:00:42 [ht]
LM: If you need a VI for "version 3 plus the video tag from Apple impl. of xxx and the other tag from foobar impl of ..."
19:00:43 [masinter]
My belief is that you only need version indicators in the language to indicate versions of specifications. And if there is a need for a version indicator for something, you would have a spec for it
19:00:44 [DanC]
(I guess I should turn http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 into a blog article; wish I'd done it a while ago.)
19:00:45 [noah]
Larry says: you only need VIs for specs. My (noah's) position is: you need VIs whenever the same content might mean different things, or when tools or consumers want early tarning
19:00:50 [noah]
s/tarning/warning/
19:00:59 [ht]
LM: then you need to write a spec. that says that, and you can have a VI
19:01:36 [ht]
LM: I'm only trying to find a minimal utility claim: there is value for VIs for published specs.
19:01:50 [ht]
... Maybe there are other use cases, but that's the one I care about right now
19:02:32 [ht]
NM: I'm pointing to another important case, which is when there's a conflict between two interpretations, i.e. if the documents are ambiguous
19:02:44 [ht]
[scribe is not keeping up]
19:02:56 [masinter]
Noah, there may be other uses for which you might also want version indicators to help with, but they don't, or can't, in the situation where languages evolve independently outside of standards
19:02:58 [ht]
q+ to ask NM to write up what he said
19:03:35 [noah]
ack ht
19:03:35 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask NM to write up what he said
19:03:41 [ht]
LM: So I hear you asking for VIs in cases where they are needed, but it's hard to see how to get them
19:03:48 [DanC]
+1 we've made some progress and are reaching diminishing returns; please sketch actions
19:04:09 [ht]
NM: The IRC log will have to do
19:04:18 [ht]
DC: I will write up my ontology in this space
19:04:39 [DanC]
ACTION Dan write up version change ontology as blog item http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
19:04:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-368 - Write up version change ontology as blog item http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-24].
19:04:42 [jar__]
+1 to LM's new story, too.
19:04:45 [ht]
LM: So no value in the email?
19:04:53 [ht]
HST: No, I like it, please write it up
19:05:01 [masinter]
ok, i wanted enough discussion to get feedback
19:05:07 [DanC]
action-368 due 1 Mar 2010
19:05:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-368 Write up version change ontology as blog item http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 due date now 1 Mar 2010
19:05:13 [masinter]
action-283?
19:05:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-283 -- Larry Masinter to update document on version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion -- due 2009-12-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:05:13 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
19:05:28 [DanC]
close action-283
19:05:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion closed
19:05:38 [DanC]
. ACTION Larry write a shorter document on version indicators
19:06:03 [DanC]
ACTION Larry write a shorter document on version indicators
19:06:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-369 - Write a shorter document on version indicators [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-12-24].
19:07:04 [ht]
Topic: ACTION-309 on Henry S. Thompson: draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion - due 2009-12-09 - pending review
19:07:07 [masinter]
action-309?
19:07:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion -- due 2009-12-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:07:07 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309
19:07:07 [johnk]
I'll note that I (this morning) bumped the dates on all of my agenda-linked actions until the 7th
19:07:10 [johnk]
(of Jan)
19:07:35 [noah]
topic: draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion
19:07:56 [ht]
HST: My new proposed input is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
19:08:36 [masinter]
+1 like Henry's text
19:09:33 [DanC]
+1 "don't always meet their obligation to provide correct headers
19:09:35 [noah]
Propose: "don't always meet their obligation to provide correct Content-type headers"
19:09:45 [DanC]
and +1 "...configuration issues..."
19:09:46 [ht]
DC: Not happy with the "servers don't supply correct ..."
19:10:06 [ht]
NM: Agree with DC
19:10:37 [masinter]
I'd be happy to have the TAG send it with just a note saying that we'd like them to review it
19:10:46 [jar__]
I don't like "obligation"
19:10:52 [jar__]
q?
19:11:02 [masinter]
i don't like Noah's rewording
19:11:03 [johnk]
Propose: "provide Content-type headers which do not correctly identify the content sent"
19:11:12 [ht]
JAR: I prefer HST's wording
19:11:12 [masinter]
johnk's is good
19:11:45 [DanC]
+1 "...headers which do not correctly..."
19:11:53 [masinter]
provide a content-type header, to be accurate
19:12:22 [noah]
suggest s/alter/increase/ the security exposure
19:12:29 [jar__]
"correct" is a weasel word, and I like it that it is
19:12:58 [jar__]
+1 Johnk
19:13:09 [DanC]
+1 send on behalf of the TAG as ammended
19:13:10 [ht]
NM: Any objections to adopting JK's proposal
19:13:14 [jar__]
+1 TAG
19:13:16 [ht]
[none]
19:13:40 [ht]
NM: replace 'alter' with 'increase'
19:14:00 [ht]
HST: Agreed
19:14:13 [DanC]
+1 send on behalf of the TAG as ammended x2
19:14:22 [ht]
HST: Propose to send this from me on behalf of the TAG
19:14:24 [jar__]
+1
19:14:32 [johnk]
+1
19:14:59 [ht]
NM: RESOLUTION: HST to send a revised-as-amended version of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG
19:15:09 [ht]
ACTION: Henry HST to send a revised-as-amended version of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG
19:15:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-370 - HST to send a revised-as-amended version of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-24].
19:15:24 [DanC]
close action-309
19:15:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-309 draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion closed
19:15:28 [ht]
Topic: ACTION-359 on Noah Mendelsohn: Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG - due 2009-12-17 - pending review
19:15:45 [ht]
DC: Been closed
19:16:51 [DanC]
ACTION-356 due 12 Jan 2010
19:16:51 [trackbot]
ACTION-356 Work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames next week due date now 12 Jan 2010
19:18:05 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html
19:18:18 [DanC]
"proposals are due January 16, 2010"
19:18:56 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
19:18:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, DanC, johnk, jar, Ashok_Malhotra, Ht, Masinter
19:19:17 [DanC]
thread continues http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/0025.html
19:19:36 [ht]
Topic: ACTION-358 on Noah Mendelsohn: Schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...'
19:21:55 [masinter]
q+ to note I also submitted a bug/change proposal
19:22:07 [DanC]
ack masinter
19:22:07 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to note I also submitted a bug/change proposal
19:22:36 [ht]
DC: [asks people to read the email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html]
19:22:49 [ht]
DC: Polling the group
19:22:51 [DanC]
(which viewpoint? I gave several in 0070)
19:22:57 [ht]
NM: I'm not spun up
19:23:12 [ht]
LM: I've already pushed back on this issue
19:23:54 [noah]
Could someone paste a link to the HTML 5 usage that's causing concern?
19:23:56 [ht]
JAR: I'm sympathetic to the proposition "there is no such thing as what you [Hickson] call a resource" -- Roy Fielding
19:24:08 [masinter]
q?
19:24:14 [DanC]
(Fielding? where did that come from; I don't think he said that.)
19:24:18 [ht]
... We've used this word for a long time, it confuses things to use it in a contradictory way
19:24:33 [masinter]
q+ to note that HTML should normatively reference IRI spec which also uses 'resource' and 'representation'
19:24:52 [ht]
s/Roy Fielding/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/1133.html
19:25:00 [noah]
Larry, I'll let DC continue his "round the table poll" then go to the queue
19:25:19 [ht]
DC: I expect that if TBL were here he'd say the Hypertext web doesn't need this distinction
19:25:40 [ht]
AM: There's been a _lot_ of stuff written about this
19:25:56 [johnk]
q+ to note that I think we need both "concepts" (representation and resource) as documented
19:26:00 [ht]
... It would be useful if we could agree and write something small
19:26:17 [jar__]
Henry, I think the proposition "there is ..." is Dan quoting Ian... so "you" refers to Fielding ... please check when the minutes get edited
19:26:34 [noah]
+1 to being very careful, agree with HT
19:26:36 [masinter]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
19:26:38 [masinter]
found it
19:26:45 [DanC]
q?
19:26:51 [DanC]
q+ noah
19:27:32 [masinter]
"The result is also at odds with reality (since some resources have
19:27:32 [masinter]
no representation and content-negotiated resources may have many)."
19:27:36 [jar__]
Ian "There is no such thing as what you [Julian] call a resource" - Dan & Jonathan sympathetic
19:27:48 [noah]
That's the bug report, but where's the HTML 5 text that's causing concern. Quick search of the HTML 5 draft doesn't reveal it to me.
19:27:59 [noah]
Which HTML 5 section are we discussing?
19:28:20 [jar__]
s/refers to Fielding/refers to Julian/
19:28:24 [DanC]
lots of them, noah; one of hixie's msgs to www-archive says which
19:28:37 [ht]
HST: Trying for a "yes and" response -- I liked what Rhys Lewis was trying to do before we lost him
19:28:39 [masinter]
Noah, it's spread throughout the document, there was someone from Oracle who did an analysis
19:28:39 [DanC]
ack masinter
19:28:39 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to note that HTML should normatively reference IRI spec which also uses 'resource' and 'representation'
19:29:17 [ht]
LM: I made some arguments in this bug report http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
19:29:29 [DanC]
(oh. we have like *1* minute left. didn't hear that somehow.)
19:29:37 [ht]
... That you are going to have to read other documents to implement anything on the web
19:29:42 [ht]
... and understand them
19:29:50 [ht]
... and they use these words differently
19:30:15 [ht]
LM: The bad news is that fixing this is a big and messy job -- these terms are spread out throughout the HTML5 draft
19:30:23 [DanC]
noah, when is our next meeting?
19:30:29 [jar__]
I think the harder problem is that no one likes "representation", really... it forces you to buy into REST/AWWW
19:30:40 [noah]
Section 2.1.1 has title "resources", but seems to define the terms "supported" and "Mime Type". I'm a bit at sea. Is that implicitly the definition of resource as advertiseded?
19:30:42 [DanC]
ooh... good point... "resources which have multiple resources" is goofy.
19:31:02 [ht]
LM: A concrete problem is that there are resources with no representation, and resources with many: if you have only one word, you can't address this at all
19:31:39 [ht]
NM: We will have to come back to this
19:31:53 [ht]
JK: We need both words, we have to do whatever we have to do to fix that
19:32:08 [johnk]
s/both words/both concepts/
19:32:58 [ht]
NM: Adjourned until 2010-01-07
19:33:03 [Zakim]
-noah
19:33:04 [jar__]
I like "document" for Ian:resource and awww:Representation ...
19:33:06 [Zakim]
-Masinter
19:33:10 [Zakim]
-johnk
19:33:12 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
19:33:14 [ht]
+1 to JAR
19:33:26 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs world-visible
19:33:42 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:33:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-tagmem-minutes.html ht
19:33:48 [jar__]
... but timbl likes "document" = awww:Resource ...
19:33:52 [Zakim]
-Ht
19:34:15 [ht]
OK, I am about to start quoting FRBR, watch out :-)
19:35:47 [DanC]
FRBR is good stuff.
19:38:29 [DanC]
ACTION-363?
19:38:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-363 -- Jonathan Rees to inform SemWeb CG about market developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship to RDFa and linked data -- due 2010-01-31 -- OPEN
19:38:29 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/363
19:39:35 [DanC]
jar's TAG actions http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/38732
20:02:46 [Zakim]
-DanC
20:02:47 [Zakim]
-jar
20:02:48 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
20:02:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were DanC, +1.413.458.aaaa, jar, Ashok_Malhotra, johnk, Ht, noah, Masinter
21:33:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
23:54:21 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem