IRC log of tagmem on 2010-07-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:58:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-tagmem-irc
16:58:13 [johnk]
zakim, this is tag
16:58:38 [johnk]
trackbot-ng: start telcon
16:58:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
16:58:42 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
16:58:42 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:43 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
16:58:43 [trackbot]
Date: 15 July 2010
16:58:46 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
16:59:11 [johnk]
scribe: johnk
16:59:18 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
16:59:26 [johnk]
ScribeNick: johnk
16:59:26 [Zakim]
+DKA
16:59:49 [johnk]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/07/15-agenda
17:00:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.413.458.aaaa
17:01:31 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:01:57 [Zakim]
+Jonathan_Rees
17:02:12 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
17:02:12 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
17:02:38 [Zakim]
+Noah_Mendelsohn
17:02:48 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, +1.413.458.aaaa, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn
17:02:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Ashok, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, DKA, johnk, timbl, Yves, trackbot
17:03:24 [Zakim]
+Yves
17:04:04 [johnk]
topic: minutes approval
17:04:31 [johnk]
RESOLUTION: approve minutes of the 24th June
17:04:48 [johnk]
topic: Administration
17:05:05 [johnk]
nm: no teleconference next week, discuss following weeks
17:05:20 [johnk]
nm: I'm at risk for the 29th July
17:05:42 [johnk]
nm: any requests, otherwise I'll leave as tentative
17:06:15 [johnk]
nm: ok, hearing no requests, will leave the next teleconference as tentatively for the 29th July
17:06:42 [johnk]
nm: any changes to the agenda?
17:06:50 [johnk]
(hears none)
17:07:08 [johnk]
topic: siteData-36
17:07:12 [noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0005.html
17:07:17 [johnk]
ACTION-451
17:07:24 [johnk]
ACTION-451?
17:07:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-451 -- Jonathan Rees to attempt to close ISSUE-36 (dummy action so that this shows up in agenda planning) -- due 2010-07-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:07:24 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/451
17:07:58 [johnk]
ISSUE-36 is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/36
17:09:18 [johnk]
nm: I assume that RFC says "this is a good way of doing this" (dealing with well-known URIs management)
17:09:50 [johnk]
jar: the RFC sets up a registry, and from reviewing the issue, I believe that the RFC and the registry resolves it
17:10:03 [johnk]
jar: the RFC should carry a lot of weight
17:10:29 [johnk]
PROPOSAL: close ISSUE-36
17:10:31 [noah]
+1 to close
17:10:37 [jar]
+1 close
17:10:42 [Yves]
+1 to close
17:10:44 [johnk]
+1
17:10:46 [DKA]
+1
17:10:49 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:10:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, +1.413.458.aaaa, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves
17:10:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Ashok, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, DKA, johnk, timbl, Yves, trackbot
17:10:56 [johnk]
should add notes to the issue, refing the RFC
17:11:39 [johnk]
RESOLUTION: we believe RFC5785 provides an appropriate means of using site metadata, and are thus closing ISSUE-36
17:12:17 [johnk]
topic: Generic fragment id processing
17:12:25 [johnk]
ACTION-443?
17:12:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-443 -- Jonathan Rees to chase down what specs say regarding looking up fragid in 2nd representation if not found in 1st representation -- due 2010-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:12:25 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/443
17:12:44 [johnk]
nm: what happens when conneg interacts with frag processing?
17:13:02 [noah]
close ACTION-451
17:13:02 [trackbot]
ACTION-451 Attempt to close ISSUE-36 (dummy action so that this shows up in agenda planning) closed
17:13:47 [johnk]
jar: in theory you look at any or all of the available pieces of information, you figure out what the fragid refers to
17:14:05 [johnk]
jar: you could get the information from conneg or other sources
17:14:14 [johnk]
jar: so there is the possibility for confusion
17:14:37 [johnk]
yl: is there a relationship to connecting fragment ids?
17:14:58 [johnk]
yl: similar to issue in HTTP combining fragment ids
17:15:07 [johnk]
jar: I think it's a different issue
17:15:27 [johnk]
nm: in any particular interaction you get back only one representation
17:15:39 [johnk]
nm: issue is when you get multiple different representations
17:15:45 [johnk]
nm: agree the redirection case is different
17:16:17 [Yves]
redirection allows frags on the redirected URI, and indeed it's a different issue
17:16:23 [johnk]
nm: what do we want to do with the issue related to your action (jar)?
17:16:50 [noah]
close ACTION-443
17:16:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-443 Chase down what specs say regarding looking up fragid in 2nd representation if not found in 1st representation closed
17:16:51 [johnk]
jar: I don't think there's anything particularly new, suggest to close the action
17:17:04 [Yves]
see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43
17:17:15 [johnk]
nm: should look at Yve's issue too
17:17:29 [johnk]
s/Yve's/Yves'/
17:18:08 [johnk]
yl: mime type definition is not well-defined in the case of fragment ids
17:18:15 [johnk]
nm: you do an interaction and get a redirect
17:18:30 [johnk]
nm: follow the redirect, and second interaction gives you a representation
17:18:51 [johnk]
nm: and you are suggesting that it is the second representation's mime type that rules
17:18:54 [johnk]
yl: yes
17:19:08 [jar]
GET A#B -> 307 C#D, GET C#D -> 200 Content-type M
17:19:19 [johnk]
jar: I think that is common practice
17:19:33 [Yves]
in fact you do GET A
17:19:59 [jar]
what is meaning of A#B, given GET A -> 307 C#D, GET C#D -> 200 Content-type M
17:20:25 [jar]
what is meaning of A#B, given GET A -> 307 C#D, GET C -> 200 Content-type M
17:20:50 [johnk]
nm: does everyone agree with the simple case?
17:20:57 [jar]
#(A,'B') = #(#(C,'D'),'B')
17:22:09 [noah]
Not what I first thought, but now that I think about it, what you're proposing makes a lot of sense. +1
17:22:11 [johnk]
jar: what resource is identified by C#D, and then determine what resource is identified within that context for B
17:22:36 [noah]
(Granting that, in the end, we may have to just spec what browsers are doing, regardles of what seems cleanest architecturally).
17:23:02 [Yves]
if in html (or xml) the id 'D' appaers before 'B' and hence is not in the subtree, should the redirect locate it?
17:23:12 [jar]
I would say "within that secondary resource" not "within that context"
17:23:15 [noah]
Challenge: we have rules for resolving a fragid vs. a media typed doc, I.e., read the mime type registration; what's the rule for resolving against a secondary resource, which in general may not have mime type
17:23:18 [Yves]
s/appaers/appears/
17:23:42 [noah]
So, in your example, which spec would I read to find out how to resolve a B against #(C,'D')
17:23:46 [johnk]
jar: I agree it could be solved by the mime type registration
17:23:59 [timbl]
? GET A#B -> 307 C#D ??
17:24:10 [johnk]
jar: if primary resource is an element, what does it mean to have a secondary resource that is also an element?
17:24:13 [timbl]
Can you redirect to C#D ?
17:24:23 [timbl]
I though that C#D was illegal in a redirect
17:24:29 [Yves]
timbl, it is allowed
17:24:41 [jar]
no it's not... not in rfc 2616
17:24:46 [jar]
but yes in 2616bis i think
17:24:48 [johnk]
nm: you're proposing to solve this in MIME type reg, but with a particular architectural solution
17:24:50 [jar]
(worth checking)
17:24:51 [timbl]
It is done by purl
17:25:12 [johnk]
nm: "I will tell you how the second resource resolves within the context of the first"
17:25:29 [johnk]
jar: would like the idea of composition of these to be dealt with somehow
17:25:40 [noah]
NM: But, implicitly, the media type registration for the primary resource is a good place to specify that two level resolution?
17:25:49 [timbl]
So what does it mean to redirect to a fragment?
17:25:54 [Yves]
agree that the composition needs to be defined, at least with a default
17:26:07 [johnk]
jar: you don't redirect to a fragment, just to a resource
17:26:16 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:26:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, johnk, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves
17:26:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Ashok, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, DKA, johnk, timbl, Yves, trackbot
17:26:23 [jar]
you don't redirect to a fragment, you redirect to a (secondary) resource
17:26:32 [timbl]
I can imagne it means "A#B and C#D identify the same thing, go fetch C to learn mode" but I don'ytk know where that is written
17:26:35 [jar]
this is a use/mention issue
17:26:51 [noah]
But, the point is, that the second frag resolution should be defined in terms of the first.
17:27:06 [timbl]
"In terms of"?
17:27:32 [jar]
C#D#B
17:27:37 [Yves]
in fact A redirect to C#D, so A#B and C#D are not the same
17:27:38 [timbl]
Aaaagh
17:27:57 [johnk]
jar: what would a URI with two '#' in it mean (conceptually)?
17:28:03 [jar]
ok, then use my #(,) notation if ## is so scary
17:28:31 [johnk]
nm: it's repeated operations, not parsing of syntax
17:29:02 [johnk]
nm: having noted all this, should we do more?
17:30:27 [jar]
how does this compositional idea compare to actual browser behavior? can a new media type reg resolve the dissonance?
17:30:33 [johnk]
YL: would suggest we track an issue
17:31:11 [johnk]
NM: carrying this under ISSUE-39 currently
17:31:35 [johnk]
ISSUE-57?
17:31:35 [trackbot]
ISSUE-57 -- The use of HTTP Redirection -- open
17:31:35 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
17:32:00 [johnk]
ACTION on Noah to schedule discussion of redirecting to secondary resources
17:32:00 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:32:20 [noah]
. ACTION: Noah to schedule, when Tim is available, discussion of redirection from A#B to C#D
17:32:29 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to schedule, when Tim is available, discussion of redirection from A#B to C#D
17:32:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-452 - Schedule, when Tim is available, discussion of redirection from A#B to C#D [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-07-22].
17:33:02 [johnk]
ACTION-449
17:33:05 [jar]
(that's meaning of A#B given redirection from A to C#D)
17:33:08 [johnk]
ACTION-449?
17:33:08 [trackbot]
ACTION-449 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) -- due 2010-07-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:33:08 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449
17:33:27 [noah]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0125.html
17:34:14 [johnk]
nm: drafted email saying the TAG thinks you should back off from generic processing of frag ids
17:34:20 [johnk]
nm: got pushback
17:34:52 [noah]
ACTION-450?
17:34:52 [trackbot]
ACTION-450 -- Yves Lafon to investigate generic processing of svg+xml and XHTML+xml -- due 2010-07-01 -- OPEN
17:34:52 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/450
17:35:00 [johnk]
YL: it was possible to create valid fragments that looked like XPointers, but which led to nothing
17:35:16 [johnk]
YL: I need to investigate further
17:35:51 [johnk]
NM: speaking as an individual, I would like to see the TAG change its advice
17:35:53 [jar]
+1 we should probably change our advice
17:36:02 [johnk]
NM: indicating that generic process is part of RFC 3023
17:36:20 [johnk]
NM: and making clear that future specs. will support generic processing of frag ids
17:36:41 [Yves]
and also media type wanting to define fragment must do so in order to avoid confict with generic processing
17:36:47 [johnk]
JAR: we should think hard before changing advice
17:36:49 [DKA]
+1 to thinking twice and getting Henry's and Tim's feedback on this.
17:36:58 [Yves]
s/confict/conflict
17:37:02 [noah]
ACTION-449?
17:37:02 [trackbot]
ACTION-449 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) -- due 2010-07-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:37:02 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449
17:38:11 [johnk]
. ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of this when Tim, Larry and Henry are around and send an email to 3023 group describing our action
17:38:45 [noah]
. ACTION: Noah to let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns.
17:38:49 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:39:14 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns.
17:39:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-453 - Let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-07-22].
17:39:49 [johnk]
NM: will edit due date on 449 to match, and link to minutes
17:40:49 [johnk]
topic: Web Developer Camp
17:41:09 [johnk]
DKA: sent email suggesting this idea to TAG
17:42:34 [johnk]
DKA: combining the TAG Web App Architecture initiative and the prevalence of Web APP developers in CA seems like a good environment for exploring relevant issues
17:42:42 [noah]
I suspect your workshops on other topics, like security, specifically drew world-class experts. "camp" doesn't quite suggest that same model to me.
17:43:17 [johnk]
DKA: could be an opportunity for us to learn
17:43:39 [johnk]
DKA: could be an opportunity to create understanding about what the TAG/W3C is doing in this area
17:44:14 [johnk]
DKA: would be useful to see it as a W3C event, rather than TAG
17:44:31 [johnk]
DKA: but should also be seen as being related to the TAG work
17:44:54 [johnk]
DKA: scope should focus on what I would call loosely "architectural issues"
17:44:57 [noah]
Wasn't there some sort of developer-focused event at the Bay Area TPAC last Nov? Am I misremembering?
17:45:10 [johnk]
DKA: what are boundary problems, or issues faced by Web developers?
17:45:24 [noah]
I'm thinking of: http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/DevMeeting
17:45:34 [noah]
W3C invites the public to gather for an afternoon of discussion and networking. This Developer Gathering takes place during W3C's annual Technical Plenary (TPAC) Week, when W3C Working Groups meet face-to-face and work to resolve the most challenging technical issues facing the Consortium.
17:45:43 [noah]
How did that work out?
17:45:45 [johnk]
DKA: we can work on a scope and then start on logistics
17:46:46 [johnk]
NM: how would it differ from or be the same as previous workshops?
17:48:20 [johnk]
NM: is this a bunch of experts to a roundtable so that we make the TAG more effective, that's one thing?
17:48:37 [johnk]
NM: or more grassroots-level event?
17:48:42 [johnk]
DKA: perhaps both?
17:49:13 [johnk]
NM: what is success?
17:49:46 [noah]
I see, e.g. learning about points of confusion.
17:49:57 [johnk]
DKA: action points for us on Web architecture?
17:50:21 [noah]
FWIW: I often give classes that focus on some of the subtle points in our TAG findings.
17:50:41 [johnk]
DKA: a formal workshop might not be appropriate
17:50:45 [noah]
That does tend to tease out discussion of what people don't understand, and what they disagree with.
17:51:12 [johnk]
NM: I think we need a bit more structure in order to make this successful
17:52:30 [johnk]
NM: one way to do this would be to have a series of presentations, structured around TAG findings
17:52:41 [johnk]
NM: including about stuff we haven't yet resolved
17:52:52 [johnk]
NM: and then open the floor after each presentation...
17:53:16 [johnk]
DKA: I think that would be valuable... but would like to find a way to listen to what concerns are
17:53:40 [johnk]
DKA: spend some of the time in listen mode, and some in talk mode telling people what has been done
17:54:14 [Yves]
doing two-ways communication and learn form issues we might not realize people bump in would be good
17:58:44 [johnk]
DKA: merging unconference with scheduled presentations is difficult
17:59:03 [johnk]
JK: (discusses how we might do that)
17:59:15 [johnk]
NM: scheduling would be difficult
17:59:23 [johnk]
DKA: was thinking about either Sun/Mon
18:00:24 [johnk]
NM: we need to have good attendance from the TAG
18:01:24 [johnk]
NM: we need to iterate on the success criteria - why do this, who should come, etc.
18:09:01 [johnk]
NM: OK, so should we spend TAG time on this event?
18:09:02 [DKA]
+1
18:09:03 [DKA]
:)
18:09:04 [Yves]
+1
18:09:08 [johnk]
+1
18:09:14 [noah]
.5
18:09:16 [noah]
Nervous
18:09:29 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:09:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, johnk, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves
18:09:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, DKA, johnk, Yves, trackbot
18:09:34 [jar]
+1 but I think most of the work can/should be done offline. tag should support efforts of organizers
18:10:10 [johnk]
and I'm happy to actually ask at least one person whether he would be interested in such an event
18:10:36 [jar]
s/the work/the work of organizing/
18:12:21 [johnk]
volunteers to list potential topics and people as a start
18:12:23 [DKA]
I'm happy to take lead on this with TAG support on topics and format, reaching out to W3C team folks to help with logistics...
18:12:58 [jar]
oracle?...
18:13:23 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
18:14:03 [jar]
DKA has my vote
18:16:19 [johnk]
. ACTION DKA to take lead in organizing possible Web application workshop
18:17:35 [DKA]
. ACTION DKA to take lead in organizing possible Web apps architecture camp / workshop / openday
18:18:01 [DKA]
ACTION DKA to take lead in organizing possible Web apps architecture camp / workshop / openday
18:18:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-454 - Take lead in organizing possible Web apps architecture camp / workshop / openday [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-07-22].
18:19:16 [johnk]
topic: privacy workshop
18:19:55 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
18:19:56 [DKA]
action noah to schedule discussion on privacy workshop outcomes.
18:19:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-455 - Schedule discussion on privacy workshop outcomes. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-07-22].
18:20:05 [johnk]
topic: pending review items
18:20:14 [johnk]
ACTION-355?
18:20:14 [trackbot]
ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications -- due 2010-06-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:20:14 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
18:21:29 [Zakim]
-DKA
18:24:22 [noah]
ACTION-363?
18:24:22 [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 2010-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:24:22 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/363
18:24:32 [noah]
close ACTION-363
18:24:32 [trackbot]
ACTION-363 Inform SemWeb CG about market developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate relationship to RDFa and linked data closed
18:24:41 [johnk]
ACTION-435?
18:24:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-435 -- Jonathan Rees to consult Tyler Close regarding UMP-informed web storage vulnerability analysis -- due 2010-06-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:24:41 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/435
18:25:03 [johnk]
close ACTION-435
18:25:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-435 Consult Tyler Close regarding UMP-informed web storage vulnerability analysis closed
18:25:14 [johnk]
NM: any other business?
18:25:29 [johnk]
NM: hearing none, ADJOURN
18:25:32 [Zakim]
-Jonathan_Rees
18:25:34 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
18:25:34 [Zakim]
-Noah_Mendelsohn
18:25:35 [Zakim]
-Yves
18:25:36 [johnk]
rrsgent, generate minutes
18:26:34 [Zakim]
-johnk
18:26:35 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:26:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were DKA, +1.413.458.aaaa, Jonathan_Rees, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves, johnk
18:27:04 [johnk]
rrsagent, generate minutes
18:27:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-tagmem-minutes.html johnk