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