09:41:38 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg2
09:41:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg2-irc
09:41:49 SGondo has joined #html-wg2
09:48:00 plh has joined #html-wg2
09:48:18 plh has changed the topic to: IRC for HTML WG breakout room 3B. For 3A, see #html-wg
09:55:36 mjs has joined #html-wg2
09:56:58 Meeting: HTML WG F2F meeting (room 3A)
09:57:28 weinig has joined #html-wg2
09:57:37 hi dsinger!
09:58:20 oops.
09:58:22 Meeting: HTML WG F2F meeting (room 3B)
10:00:23 mjs has joined #html-wg2
10:00:27 beverloo has joined #html-wg2
10:01:10 yongil_jang has joined #html-wg2
10:01:12 yongil_jang has left #html-wg2
10:04:37 hsivonen has joined #html-wg2
10:04:41 anne has joined #html-wg2
10:06:22 ScribeNick: mjs
10:07:54 Julian has joined #html-wg2
10:08:36 Sam, http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/ (test cases and links)
10:09:55 agenda:
10:09:56 (1) intro from Alexey
10:10:14 (2) IANA / rel / MIME / charset
10:10:17 Julian: thanks
10:10:32 (3) URI / IRI
10:10:45 URL!
10:10:48 (4) HTML: is it a good enough format to publish RFCs in?
10:11:23 hsivonen, will do
10:11:33 Alexey: I call you about the organization chart
10:12:14 Alexey: I want to project the IANA slide that I think was skipped yesterday
10:12:19 (setting up projector)
10:12:37 eliot has joined #html-wg2
10:14:35 (IETF and IANA is projected)
10:14:50 Alexey: IANA manages registries, and there are multiple entities that affect what IANA does
10:15:10 adam has joined #html-wg2
10:15:13 Alexey: If IETF adopts a procedure or defines a policy, IANA is required to follow it
10:15:23 Alexey: IANA does give input on what the policy should be
10:15:38 Alexey: IANA follows what IETF says in RFCs
10:16:02 Alexey: the other entity that affects IANA is the IAB (Internet Architecture Board) - talks to IANA about policy decisions like licensing
10:16:32 Alexey: IESG approves RFCs and so defines the formats, IAB controls the policy experts
10:16:56 Alexey: If people are unhappy with IANA policies they should not blame IANA - except in the case where IANA is slow in updating something
10:17:04 AVK: can blame them about format, URL persistence
10:17:34 Alexey: there is a document, RFC5226 which defines standard procedures for registries
10:17:53 Alexey: IETF can make any format that it wants, but there is a typical format for registries
10:18:08 Alexey: registries can have different policies, templates, levels of restrictiveness
10:18:26 Alexey: most permissive level is first come first serve
10:18:32 Alexey: examples include vendor names
10:18:58 Alexey: on the other end of the spectrum, the strictest ones require a standards track RFC
10:19:08 Alexey: in the middle is a procedure called "specification required"
10:19:31 Alexey: requires a stable specification from an IETF-recognized standards organization
10:19:41 adrianba has joined #html-wg2
10:19:48 HS: Is there an official definition of what is a recognized standards organization? there are different opinions
10:20:01 Alexey: no, it's not defined; people don't want to fix the list
10:20:14 Alexey: general criteria are: long established, stable document
10:20:41 HS: why is stability a requirement? if the software moves faster than the registry, then the registry is out of date
10:20:54 Alexey: depends on the registry - many registries are for developers
10:21:29 Alexey: for example, as a developer you may want to find all the link relations
10:21:34 yael has joined #html-wg2
10:21:39 AVK: but as a developer, I find current IANA registries useless
10:21:47 AVK: wikipedia is a better reference for URI schemes than IANA is
10:22:01 AVK: vetting by experts makes registries incomplete and inaccurate
10:22:10 HS: you said not just software implementors or others
10:22:24 HS: for years, image/svg+xml wasn't in the registry
10:22:39 HS: when Apple shipped MPEG-4, the type wasn't in the registry
10:22:52 HS: I can't think of any constituency for whom the registry says all that they want to know, or even close
10:22:58 SGondo has joined #html-wg2
10:22:58 AVK: apart from pedants, maybe
10:23:04 Alexey: a couple of comments on this
10:23:11 Alexey: different registries have different policies
10:23:27 Alexey: at the time when the registry was established, there was IETF consensus that this was the desired policy
10:23:28 krijnh has joined #html-wg2
10:23:53 Alexey: as time goes on, it may be that reality shows that a particular policy was too strict (or too permissive)
10:24:03 Zakim has joined #html-wg2
10:24:10 Alexey: maybe part of the answer is to revise the policy
10:24:29 Joshue has joined #html-wg2
10:24:41 HS: in the days of classic MacOS when Carbon was still used a lot, and you needed four char type and creator codes, it seemd that the value for those codes was smaller than the space for MIME types
10:25:08 HS: so you'd think you'd have a greater need than for MIME types to limit who can get what, but Apple operated a registry on first-come first-serve basis and nothing bad came out
10:25:13 Lachy has joined #html-wg2
10:25:27 MJS: you mentioned that it is possible to change the policy
10:25:39 ... assuming that some of the folks here are interested in a much more permissive policy
10:25:43 MichaelC has joined #html-wg2
10:25:56 ... what would be the process to get the IETF to change
10:26:14 Alexey: talk to the AD and talk to other people to initiate discussion
10:26:19 Lachy has joined #html-wg2
10:26:22 Alexey: I'm happy to help with the progress
10:26:29 Alexey: the other half of the answer
10:26:31 silvia has joined #html-wg2
10:26:42 Alexey: there is a reason there are expert reviews for some of the registries, like MIME types
10:27:02 Alexey: people do make stupid mistakes in MIME types, so there is an opportunities to fix this
10:27:29 HS: one of the supposed mistakes is using the text/* subtree for a lot of stuff, and there I would claim the mistake on the IETF side
10:28:01 AVK: what proportion of MIME types are not in use when they are registered? it seems like most of them already are deployed by the time you go to register them, so it might be too late to fix
10:28:16 q+
10:28:16 Alexey: in the ideal world, people should ask experts up front
10:28:17 !
10:28:31 Alexey: one example is that you can't use UTF-16 of textual types
10:28:33 HS: that's bogus
10:28:49 AVK: still insisting the case now is misguided
10:29:22 JR: one thing that Anne mentioned - some registries have a provisional system
10:29:33 JR: but not MIME types
10:29:45 Alexey: vendor prefix ones are first-come first-server
10:30:04 JR: other question -regarding the media type registration RFC, Larry has started discussing revising it in the TAG
10:30:22 JR: for example, people sniff for types - we could make that more robust
10:30:35 HS: I want to complain more about CR/LF
10:30:59 HS: the history of CR/LF restriction and the fact that text/* defaults to US-ASCII in the absence of charsets...
10:31:10 HS: this is an artifact of a leaky abstraction from SMTP
10:31:17 q-
10:31:28 HS: US-ASCII default is a theoretical most prudent default from the time when in email there wasn't an obvious default
10:31:38 HS: but neither of those considerations apply to HTTP
10:31:48 dbaron has joined #html-wg2
10:31:59 HS: HTTP can send text that has line breaks that are not CR/LF
10:32:06 HS: in fact for HTML, LF-only is preferred
10:32:22 HS: it makes no sense to say that all these types like HTML, JavaScript and CSS are "wrong"
10:32:35 HS: instead it would make more sense to say that CR/LF does not apply to HTTP
10:33:01 HS: for some types, for historical reasons we need to default to Windows -1252 or UTF-8
10:33:20 HS: pretending these need to be registered under the application/* subtree doesn't help anyone
10:33:35 HS: it only serves the RFC canon that HTTP and SMTP match, but that doesn't help authors or implementors
10:33:47 HS: line breaks should be based on transport protocol
10:34:13 HS: types themselves should be able to define their default charset
10:34:30 JR: if you look at the thing that Larry brought to the TAG about MIME on the Web...
10:34:33 JR: he mentions all these problems
10:34:56 JR: line break thing doesn't make sense on the Web
10:35:08 JR: HTTP appears to use MIME, but doesn't, and doesn't need to
10:35:25 JR: charset is also an issue for HTTP
10:35:59 JR: conflict between MIME, HTTP and XML types on text/*
10:36:32 HS: I actually implement RFC2023
10:36:40 HS: I have a checkbox for saying ignore it
10:36:43 (There's a t-shirt saying "I support RFC 3023")
10:37:01 HS: if I shipped the validator without the "ignore it" box, people couldn't use the validator
10:37:07 JR: what's the default?
10:37:13 HS: defaults to supporting it
10:37:51 Alexey: comment on Web vs email - this needs to be discussed in IETF
10:38:12 Alexey: if Web requires modified version of MIME, let's do it
10:38:19 Alexey: there is a new WG in applications area
10:38:22 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg2
10:38:35 APPSAWG
10:38:54 RRSAgent, make minutes
10:38:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg2-minutes.html MikeSmith
10:39:06 RRSAgent, make logs public
10:39:17 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/charter/
10:39:36 HS: it feels frustrating to actually have to discuss this
10:39:44 HS: that people don't believe what they say on the web
10:40:02 AVK: the feeling is that the IETF is so much behind, and then we have to get in and tell the old timers what the new world looks like
10:40:12 AVK: we're not sure it is worth our time
10:40:15 AVK: we have moved on
10:40:32 Alexey: it is occasionally helpful to talk to people who designed the original
10:40:48 Alexey: especially when it comes to character set - I think there is agreement from the original author
10:41:09 AVK: I talked about some of the discussion about moving away from text/plain drafts, and people there express fear of Unicode....
10:41:36 AVK: W3C is kind of slow too, but at least we think HTML and Unicode are ok
10:41:55 HS: well, W3C isn't ready to publish HTML5 as HTML5 yet
10:42:05 JR: IETF thinks HTML and Unicode are fine, just not for their documents
10:42:34 Alexey: there is provisional registration
10:42:53 s/that people don't believe what they say on the web/that people don't believe what they see on the web/
10:42:56 AVK: for header fields, you need spec even for provisional
10:43:06 scottv_ has joined #html-wg2
10:43:08 AVK: person guarding the header field registry was too conservative
10:44:03 JR: does header name registry have a public mailing list
10:44:06 SGondo has joined #html-wg2
10:44:28 JR: registry lists should be public
10:44:45 Alexey: can you draw cases like this to my attention? it might be implementation of process failures
10:44:50 AVK: but if we look at URI schemes..
10:45:00 Alexey: it's hard for me to defend the people who designed the procedure
10:45:17 Alexey: there was a discussion about relaxing registration of certain types of URIs
10:45:40 Alexey: so we could register things like skype or yahoo IM
10:45:58 AVK: we are trying to register about: - there should be some registration pointing to the draft
10:46:16 AVK: and for many headers, browsers have to know about them even if they are unregistered
10:46:35 AVK: difficulty of using registry causes incentive to use X- names and just not registry
10:47:03 JR: one thing we should look at is accountability - there needs to be a public mailing list for header registration
10:47:10 JR: also Larry will join us to talk about IRI
10:47:30 AVK: I would rather just get rid of IANA and have a W3C registry, with a community-managed wiki
10:48:02 HS: to consider how the XHTML2 WG was doing things - at some point it was obvious that just giving feedback wasn't going to change the way they did things
10:48:25 HS: so instead of trying to change the way they did things, another group did something else, and that became the group people paid more attention to
10:48:42 HS: there is a feeling that fixing IANA is so difficult that it would just be easier to set up a wiki
10:48:58 AVK: we could just compete
10:49:04 Alexey: this is not helpful
10:49:35 AVK: I would like a registry that would tell me X-Frame-Options exists
10:49:44 AVK: I don't think this will ever fly at IANA
10:50:40 HS: I have no experience of registration, but the language tag registry is a very positive role model
10:51:01 Alexey: when I talk to IANA, they listen
10:51:19 AVK: I think the problem is the process
10:51:31 Alexey: I can help you initiate changing the process
10:51:45 AVK: not sure I am interested in helping to fix the process if there is an easier path
10:51:58 SGondo has joined #html-wg2
10:51:59 HS: we should mention willful violations of the charset registry
10:52:31 HS: it would be useful for the main charset registry to be the place to go to find out what you need to implement
10:52:47 HS: the thing is that ISO-Latin1 should actually be interpreted as Windows-1252
10:52:49 q+
10:52:50 q+ to say that Zakim is here already
10:52:56 q-
10:53:04 HS: another example is that instead of Shift-JS you need to use the Microsoft tables not the ISO tables
10:53:22 q-
10:53:24 LM: I note that my draft covers many of these issues
10:53:34 HS: not in this much detail; I will give feedback
10:53:49 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-01
10:53:52 LM: I hope in the cases where there are willful violations, that the right thing to do is to fix the registry
10:54:17 AVK: in the case of the charset registry, there might be a need for separate registries for Web clients vs other clients
10:54:28 HS: for example the Java platform uses the IANA names for charsets with their real meaning
10:54:46 HS: it would not be good to change Java, so the registry should include both sets of info
10:55:00 HS: JAva could add an API for Web content decoders
10:55:07 LM: I think this is a three-phase process
10:55:13 LM: (1) identify the problem
10:55:25 LM: (2) identify which things need to change (w/o being explicit about how)
10:55:49 LM: (3) then there needs to be action on the change
10:55:57 LM: I would like to identify the problem and the kinds of changes first
10:56:05 LM: only then decide whether to make a wiki, change the process, etc
10:56:14 AVK: if you are already working on this, then that's great
10:56:23 LM: I would be happy to have co-authors
10:56:29 Alexey: at minimum we should talk
10:56:39 LM: I think we should bring it into a working group or take it up as an action item
10:56:58 LM: MIME is a part of the Web architecture that we have adopted without adopting it
10:57:09 JR: we talked earlier about text/html and encoding
10:57:23 LM: again I think we should describe the problem first
10:57:36 LM: same thing might be said for URI schemes
10:58:09 HS: given last call schedule (1H2010), how realistic is it that changes of these magnitude could go through the IETF
10:58:16 HS: seems unlikely
10:58:39 LM: my view is that a W3C document entering LC can make reference to documents at similar or behind level of maturity
10:58:48 LM: they don't need to be final until you go to REC
10:59:54 MS: (explains W3C process)
11:00:04 HS: one reason I'm skeptical about the rate of change at IETF is the URL thing
11:00:19 HS: we had rules in the HTML5 spec abut transforming href values to IRIs
11:00:27 HS: it was argued that IRIbis was supposed to solve it
11:00:33 HS: I remember there was a schedule
11:00:37 LM: it's quite off
11:00:50 HS: at the date when there was supposed to be a deliverable, they haven't even started
11:01:08 HS: we shouldn't send things to the IETF to die
11:01:29 mattur_ has joined #html-wg2
11:01:31 HS: I was really annoyed when I wanted to fix a bug relating to URL handling in Firefox and the spec did not have what was needed
11:01:56 HS: I think that for URLs the process has had it chance and din't deliver
11:02:15 RI: the original schedule was very aggressive and we never really expected meeting it
11:02:20 LM: it was wildly optimistic
11:02:36 LM: the problem with most standards activities is that there's nobody home except for people who showed up
11:02:53 LM: if you look at the archives, there was really a fallow period, but since then it is picking up
11:03:06 LM: meeting next week in beijing
11:03:18 LM: people who care about URLs in HTML should show up online
11:03:50 HS: there is also the problem that if people are already showing up in some venue, then moving the work to a different venue and then complaining that people didn't show up in the other venue is not productive
11:04:01 LM: the problem really is that what was in the HTML document before was wrong
11:04:26 LM: unfortunately there is complexity due to need to coordinate with IDNA and bidirectional IRIs
11:09:13 HS: you need something that takes a base IRI, a relative reference as UTF-16, and a charset, and you get a URI/IRI back
11:09:43 HS: my point is that the HTML spec doesn't need to deal with rendering any kind of address
11:10:01 HS: it just cares about resolution / parsing
11:10:35 HS: nothing about how to render an IRI
11:17:26 RRSAgent, make minutes
11:17:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg2-minutes.html MikeSmith
11:17:27 HS: what is required is someone writing down the real-world algorithm for this resolution thing
11:17:42 HS: and it needs to be somewhere that you can reference it
11:17:50 HS: if it were in the IRI specification would it be ok for you
11:18:15 HS: what I am annoyed about is that we had something that was right or fixable, was removed or delegated, and now we have to rewrite it
11:18:22 HS: I am now betting on Adam delivering it
11:18:27 JR: I would like to say one thing
11:18:51 JR: we need to find the right separation between things that are just part of the attribute and things that are part of the the resolving algorithm
11:19:02 JR: I think whitespace discarding is not part of the resolutions
11:19:46 JR: there might be a step before resolving that is part of extracting from an attribute
11:20:02 AVK: in the running code, whitespace stripping happens at the resolving end
11:20:10 SGondo has joined #html-wg2
11:21:21 LM: it would be nice if you could copy from the location bar into other apps
11:21:26