17:57:04 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:57:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc 17:58:15 zakim, call me 17:58:15 Sorry, Larry; you need to be more specific about your location 17:58:30 zakim, call me at +16509683794 17:58:30 I am sorry, Larry; I do not permit dialing by number 17:58:33 topic #tagmem http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/18-agenda.html 17:58:38 johnk has joined #tagmem 17:59:04 zakim, code? 17:59:04 the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht 17:59:16 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:59:23 +Masinter 17:59:39 +[IPcaller] 17:59:58 zakim, IP is me 17:59:58 sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named 'IP' 17:59:59 noah has joined #tagmem 18:00:11 zakim, [IP is me 18:00:11 +ht; got it 18:00:20 zakim, Masinter is me 18:00:20 +Larry; got it 18:00:24 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:00:58 zakim, Noah_Mendelsohn is me 18:00:58 +noah; got it 18:01:04 zakim, who is here? 18:01:04 On the phone I see Larry, ht, noah 18:01:05 Ashok has joined #tagmem 18:01:06 On IRC I see noah, johnk, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, Larry, Norm, timbl, Yves, trackbot 18:01:54 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:02:00 +Bjorn_Bringert 18:02:44 +Yves 18:03:10 yes, calling from google voice ;) 18:03:23 zakim, Bj is johnk 18:03:23 +johnk; got it 18:03:35 zakim, who is here? 18:03:35 On the phone I see Larry, ht, noah, Ashok_Malhotra, johnk, Yves 18:03:37 On IRC I see Ashok, noah, johnk, RRSAgent, Zakim, ht, Larry, Norm, timbl, Yves, trackbot 18:03:51 thanks Henry 18:04:16 nope, that was one keystroke, recalling the input buffer 18:04:33 +Jonathan_Rees 18:04:36 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/18-agenda 18:04:41 Chair: Noah 18:05:06 jar has joined #tagmem 18:05:08 Regrets, Dan Appelquist 18:05:18 NM: next call will be in two weeks 18:05:26 HT: regrets for next call 18:06:29 Topic: "deep linking" 18:06:48 JAR: goal is to figure out what the TAG should say regarding policy around deep linking 18:08:11 NM: Will setup a call with Tim (from Science Commons) for next call 18:08:17 Topic: Minutes approval 18:09:12 NM: F2f minutes? 18:09:19 NM: Will wait one more week for approval 18:09:27 NM: Lyon minutes? 18:09:42 NM: I found them satisfactory 18:11:12 monday IRC log = http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-tagmem-irc 18:11:29 says scribe: DKA 18:11:47 NM: one admin item from those minutes 18:12:39 NM: "Noah to send a note to www-tag and chairs mailing list to drive awareness of the mine [sic] document and solicit feedback?" was a potential action, but has not been actually assigned 18:13:35 LM: I will check apps-discuss list to see if there has been discussion 18:13:57 LM: the action may no longer be timely 18:14:19 NM: there is not yet any action 18:14:46 Topic: Generic processing of fragment IDs 18:14:51 ACTION-476? 18:14:51 ACTION-476 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a short note to 3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... -- due 2010-10-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:14:51 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476 18:15:27 NM: What should we say to the RFC3023 editors? 18:15:34 JAR: I composed an email 18:15:58 JAR: if the message I composed is OK, I'm happy to send the email 18:16:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html 18:16:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0059.html 18:18:28 NM: any objections to sending this email (0070)? 18:18:36 zakim, who is talking? 18:18:48 noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: johnk (45%), ht (100%), noah (20%), Jonathan_Rees (80%) 18:19:32 JAR: I can send the email 18:19:44 RESOLVED: Jonathan to send text of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html to 3023bis editors on behalf of TAG 18:20:12 NM: do you recommend we put any follow up on the RFDa issue? 18:20:48 . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid processing for RDFa 18:21:13 q+ 18:21:19 In Jonathan's message to 3023bis editors, of the two choices, I prefer #1 over #2... but I'm willing to live with #2, even though it makes me uneasy.... (anything grandfathered once is likely to happen again) 18:21:26 ack next 18:21:44 AM: what will we do if RDFa decides not to do anything there? 18:22:27 q+ to respond to ashok 18:22:35 ack next 18:22:36 ht, you wanted to respond to ashok 18:23:11 JAR: would like to make the specs consistent 18:23:27 . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa 18:23:39 HT: I agree but this is not related to 3023bis 18:23:46 Draft action is fine with me. 18:23:55 JAR: it does - argues in favour of choice #1 (as noted by Larry) 18:24:18 HT: The media type for rdfa example is not an XML media type 18:24:20 HT: RDFa specs are not related to XML media types 18:24:31 Really? Not application/xhtml+xm; 18:24:34 Really? Not application/xhtml+xml 18:24:39 HT: Never mind. 18:25:08 HT: the RDFa issue is separate from the feedback we agreed to send 18:25:11 NM: agreed 18:25:35 ACTION: jar to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa 18:25:35 Created ACTION-502 - Report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [on Jonathan Rees - due 2010-11-25]. 18:26:25 close ACTION-476 18:26:25 close ACTION-476 18:26:25 ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed 18:26:25 ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed 18:26:50 action-487? 18:26:50 ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:26:50 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487 18:26:54 Topic: IRIs related to RDF/XML et al 18:27:03 ACTION-487? 18:27:03 ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:27:03 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487 18:27:23 JAR: what are we doing about versioned specifications? 18:27:27 Jonathan's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0135.html 18:27:35 OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs 18:27:42 JAR: OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs 18:27:48 JAR: OWL cites a particular version of the IRI specification, which puts them at risk for that spec changing between versions 18:27:53 q+ to say it's a tradeoff 18:28:00 I'm confused why OWL doesn't cite LEIRI instead 18:28:05 q+ 18:28:25 OWL should cite LEIRI, which will update when IRI updates 18:28:32 HT: it would do no harm if you suggest to OWL that they ought to say "or its successors" 18:28:37 "or its successors" 18:28:41 ack next 18:28:43 noah, you wanted to say it's a tradeoff 18:28:50 JAR: That's what RDF says... and OWL should be compatible with RDF 18:29:08 NM: would rather not re-open the question about how specs should be future-proofed 18:29:29 NM: when you buy into some particular version at least you know "it works" 18:29:35 I thought 'future-proofing' was covered at one point by the QA activity 18:29:41 NM: if you say "or successors" you take a gamble 18:30:09 ack next 18:30:10 NM: I don't feel informed enough to tell OWL what to do here exactly 18:30:24 LM: why don't they reference LEIRI? 18:30:46 LM: this effort was exactly to create a citeable reference 18:30:50 Henry, do you know why a group might be reluctant to reference LEIRI? Should RDF reference it? 18:31:30 LM: I don't, generally, like the "or successors" rule for specs. outside of the organization creating the spec 18:32:00 I don't see what the problem is with referencing a specific version of IRI, though 18:32:11 Norm has left #tagmem 18:32:21 NM: you propose to close this action, Jonathan? 18:32:25 JAR: yes 18:32:34 LM: potential impact: probably not much? 18:32:50 JAR: yes, but I don't know for sure, but would like OWL to make that judgement 18:33:07 NM: JAR, you suggest we close this, without at this point scheduling any followup? 18:33:08 LM: it's an assessment, not a judgement 18:33:11 JAR: yes. 18:33:35 it is part of the charter of the IRI group not to make changes that mess up other things 18:33:46 JAR: there is potential for a future IOP problem if nothing is done, but seems unlikely 18:33:51 ahh... 18:33:54 that's helpful 18:34:01 NM: seems the right thing to do is to close the action with no followup at this point 18:34:03 close ACTION-487 18:34:03 ACTION-487 Assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle closed 18:34:24 Topic: Redirecting to a secondary resource 18:34:30 ACTION-492? 18:34:30 ACTION-492 -- Jonathan Rees to review Larry's health warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or fix -- due 2010-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:34:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492 18:34:51 note: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters: * The IRI specification(s) must (continue to) be suitable 18:34:51 for normative reference with Web and XML standards from W3C 18:34:51 specifications. The group should coordinate with the W3C working 18:34:51 groups on HTML5, XML Core, and Internationalization, as well 18:34:53 ACTION-491? 18:34:53 ACTION-491 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon attempt to formulate health warning on secondary resource redirection noting Larry proposal in 21 Oct 2010 F2F record -- due 2010-11-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:34:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/491 18:34:54 as with IETF HTTPBIS WG to ensure acceptability. 18:34:57 NM: I believe you agreed, Jonathan 18:34:58 18:34:59 JAR: yes 18:35:34 NM: what do we want our health warning to be? 18:35:36 Larry's proposal: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/21-minutes#item06\ 18:36:58 NM: shall we look at Larry's proposal? 18:37:28 masinter: If you do conneg, don't do it where fragids mean different things 18:37:35 From Oct. 21 record. 18:39:00 ? "LM: You can do this [have 2 fragids], but something might break." 18:39:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html 18:39:30 ACTION-492? 18:39:30 ACTION-492 -- Jonathan Rees to review Larry's health warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or fix -- due 2010-10-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:39:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492 18:40:13 JAR email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html 18:40:14 NM: Can you quote what you agreed with JAR? 18:40:31 masinter: (4) You can have one fragment id, but not two. 18:40:31 masinter: You can do this, but something might break. 18:40:31 masinter (reworded by jar): If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be 18:40:31 aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced 18:40:31 (since there are no fragment combination rules). 18:40:32 yes: it's If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced (since there are no fragment combination rules). 18:40:33 18:40:33 18:41:05 Larry agrees with: 18:41:05 If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be 18:41:05 aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced 18:41:05 (since there are no fragment combination rules). 18:41:06 JAR: "you can do this, but something mike break" 18:41:13 s/mike/might/ 18:41:46 RESOLVED: The TAG endorses the health warning "If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be 18:41:46 aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced 18:41:46 (since there are no fragment combination rules)." 18:42:11 NM: should we send this to anyone? 18:42:21 HT: Yves: pay attention ;) 18:42:21 yves should take an action? 18:42:35 NM: I will send this to www-tag 18:42:44 +1 18:42:55 . action noah to send a note to www-tag noting this resolution 18:43:11 . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag & chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 18:43:23 + ietf-http-wg@w3.org 18:43:46 . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 18:43:55 ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 18:43:55 Created ACTION-503 - Publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-11-25]. 18:43:56 lm: this should go to http wg 18:44:05 NM: I propose we close 491, 492 18:44:06 close ACTION-491 18:44:06 ACTION-491 Schedule telcon attempt to formulate health warning on secondary resource redirection noting Larry proposal in 21 Oct 2010 F2F record closed 18:44:10 NM: any objections? 18:44:12 close ACTION-492 18:44:12 ACTION-492 Review Larry's health warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or fix closed 18:44:13 (none heard) 18:44:52 ACTION-355? 18:44:52 ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN 18:44:52 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 18:44:53 topic: Interaction in Web Arch 18:45:02 ACTION-355? 18:45:02 ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN 18:45:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 18:45:45 noah: John, let us know where this stands 18:45:54 scribenick: jar 18:46:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html 18:46:34 johnk: Question: Impact of webapps on interaction section of AWWW 18:48:02 ... A few things to note: client-side state and URIs (TVR), updating state without user action, client provision of web resources (e.g. GPS), 18:48:45 ... the word 'user-agent' appears a lot often synonymously with 'browser', & this isn't appropriate 18:49:15 ... things look different when the 'user-agent' is something exposing user's resources to servers 18:49:50 lm: Terminology is a problem. user-agent != agent != user interface 18:51:24 noah: ok, hang on, can we think about end states for the project, goals. if not put on hold maybe. 18:51:29 q+ on what kind of product 18:51:55 larry: What are our options for 'end states'? 18:52:15 can we start annotating webarch with issues & notes, for example? 18:52:30 can we publish it as a note, or as a blog post? 18:52:36 noah: Update AWWW, maybe new chapter(s) 18:52:53 is there something lighter weight we can do to annotate AWWW without updating it? 18:53:01 or can we make AWWW more into a wiki? 18:53:34 larry: We might explore option of something lightweight 18:54:43 larry: Get it out, maybe as a note? So it doesn't disappear? 18:54:51 q+ 18:55:10 ... AWWW update vs. nothing seems like a false dichotomy 18:55:38 noah: I want someone to say that they own this, to take it in *any* direction. 18:56:10 ack next 18:56:11 Larry, you wanted to comment on what kind of product 18:56:12 ack next 18:56:13 noah: What if we get comments that we have to follow up on. Who's going to guide this process. 18:56:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html 18:57:03 JK: I wrote down list of use cases. 18:57:14 ashok: Beyond this [4 June email], are there other things you're working on? 18:57:40 noah: Pls link action-355 to any subsequent related writings... 18:58:01 johnk: (searching) 18:58:27 ACTION: John to make sure ACTION-355 links all significant writings including use cases. 18:58:27 Created ACTION-504 - Make sure ACTION-355 links all significant writings including use cases. [on John Kemp - due 2010-11-25]. 19:00:14 noah: Would like to publicize use case work. TAG blog entry [or note] might be good, but mindful of your (Noah's) concern about followup. 19:00:21 s/noah:/johnk:/ 19:00:25 q? 19:00:59 johnk: There are needed changes to interaction model; this is important. But looking for guidance. 19:01:30 q+ to note preference for updating AWWW vs writing a new AWW section 19:01:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html 19:02:11 these are the interaction examples I sent 19:04:16 larry: how to deal with webapps in webarch - i'm inclined to think an AWWW update is the way to go. If a new edition is too hard, maybe publish a description of how it *would* be updated 19:05:22 q? 19:05:25 johnk: I started out that way, but AWWW goes into a lot of detail around HTTP, and a lot of the relevant interactions will happen outside of HTTP. So maybe decrease level of HTTP detail, so we can see patterns better 19:05:28 ack next 19:05:30 Larry, you wanted to note preference for updating AWWW vs writing a new AWW section 19:06:03 WebSockets isn't HTTP 19:06:21 noah: A lot of this is HTTP... or stretched HTTP... 19:07:12 johnk: It's a question of putting HTTP in perspective 19:07:42 noah: Possible historical presentation 19:08:28 johnk: I tried that, & tried updating AWWW. It didn't work very well. 19:08:53 -ht 19:09:03 noah: Any manner of moving ahead is fine, pick one 19:09:28 johnk: Comments on use cases, when I send them, would help me 19:10:14 close ACTION-493 19:10:15 ACTION-493 Schedule discussion of interim work on ACTION-355 Due: 2010-11-09 closed 19:10:45 John? 19:10:53 I think I got kicked off the phone? 19:10:55 I'm asking whether we should reopen ACTION-355 19:11:05 yes, reopen it, if not closed 19:11:08 ACTION-355? 19:11:08 ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications -- due 2011-01-02 -- OPEN 19:11:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 19:11:21 yes, it's still open 19:11:28 yes, available but will have to dial back in 19:11:58 yes, my call dropped 19:12:19 topic: Security 19:12:38 ACTION-417? 19:12:38 ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security -- due 2010-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:12:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417 19:12:53 I did send this URL out prior to last F2F 19:12:54 See: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/www-security.html 19:13:06 (reading docs linked from agenda) 19:13:51 +John_Kemp 19:15:38 johnk: What are the architectural issues involved in security? as opposed to details. 19:16:10 ... quick intro [cf. www-security linked above] 19:16:22 q? 19:17:25 q+ 19:17:36 ack next 19:17:44 johnk: Maybe form could be a section in the webapps work as discussed at f2f 19:18:39 larry: given upcoming TAG elections, maybe we could actively recruit in areas where we need expertise 19:19:39 we're saying what the areas of important work are, and lay out the work we've done on it 19:19:58 + in particular that the TAG isn't a "semantic web" group 19:20:42 notice to minutes editor: clean up 19:22:59 q+ to ask what I should do next - happy to do another round on this topic too 19:23:09 (discussion of TAG's needs regarding work in progress and how to fill them) 19:23:56 larry: Raise awareness of work in progress via blog 19:24:38 noah: Table of contents for web apps work is pretty long 19:24:51 larry: Web apps, HTML5, security overlap significantly 19:25:06 ack next 19:25:08 johnk, you wanted to ask what I should do next - happy to do another round on this topic too 19:25:10 they overlap completely 19:25:34 johnk: AWWW has no discussion of security - totally ignored - that's a flaw 19:26:09 q? 19:26:27 ... I suggest framing a section on security in web arch. Willing to do another round 19:27:44 q? 19:28:59 johnk: Thing to do is develop use cases. Would like to recommend practices that work (re security) 19:30:11 johnk: Cookies and SOP are central, controversial 19:30:23 q? 19:30:24 noah: How to build a site that's not vulnerable? 19:31:04 johnk: Yes, CSRF tokens, which can be put in content or in URI... 19:31:44 ... detailing issues about client/server trust is important, but could run into controversy 19:32:59 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:33:02 -noah 19:33:04 -Larry 19:33:06 -Yves 19:33:07 -Jonathan_Rees 19:33:07 ADJOURNED 19:33:09 -John_Kemp 19:33:29 johnk, a presentation can be good and yet not take sides 19:34:11 rrsagent, pointer 19:34:11 See http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc#T19-34-11 19:38:10 disconnecting the lone participant, johnk, in TAG_Weekly()1:00PM 19:38:13 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:38:15 Attendees were [IPcaller], ht, Larry, noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Bjorn_Bringert, Yves, johnk, Jonathan_Rees, John_Kemp 19:52:08 johnk_ has joined #tagmem 20:13:26 rrsagent, make log public 21:02:12 johnk has joined #tagmem 21:58:34 Zakim has left #tagmem 22:59:17 Norm has joined #tagmem