W3C

- DRAFT -

W3C TAG Teleconference of 18 April 2013

18 Apr 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Yehuda_Katz, Marcos_Cáceres, Jeni_Tennison, Anne_van_Kesteren, Noah_Mendelshon, Tim_Berners-Lee, Yves_Lafon, Peter_Linss
Regrets
Henry, Thomposon
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
slightlyoff

Contents


scribenic

<scribe> scribenick: slightlyoff

annevk: 0824

<noah> date: 18 April 2013

are those nicks or names?

<trackbot> Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 18 April 2013

thanks

<noah> Marcos will scribe on 2 May

<noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 18-20 March 2013 F2F at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/03/18-agenda are approved

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/04/04-minutes

<noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 4 April at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/04/04-minutes are approved

<noah> TPAC 2013

<noah> 11-15 November 2013

<noah> Shenzhen, China

logistics

<JeniT> (TimBL isn't on the call, just in IRC)

thanks...is there a way to minus?

noah: we haven't talked much about TPAC, but it's a productive opportunity to talk with other groups and unless there are objections, will ask for a room

fragment identifier semantics

<noah> ACTION-790?

<trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Jeni Tennison to do new Editor's Draft of fragids spec for approval to publish as CR -- due 2013-04-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/790

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html

<wycats_> I can commit to reviewing it for the next meeting

noah: we have a draft from Jeni, comments were received, and the new draft is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html
... current status is review to go to CR

<JeniT> wycats_, I did email it to you privately too

noah: do we need to review anything in detail?

JeniT: lets review the changes and then we can decide what to go over in detail

<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Apr/0033.html

<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html#publishers

JeniT: have added a note to emphasize that if you have conneg, not all versions must resolve all identifiers

<wycats_> JeniT: I somehow missed the email (I see it now)

<noah> Note

<noah> Note that this best practice does not imply that every structure that is addressable within one content-negotiated representation must have an equivalent structure addressable by the same fragid in all other content-negotiated representations. It is likely that some fragids will have meaning only in one of the content-negotiated representations, for example because they are interpreted by a

<noah> script within an HTML representation but not in any others.

<wycats_> JeniT: I'm sure it's fine

<noah> Looks very good to me.

<JeniT> Scripts can also be used to map a fragid on a document that contains an embedded resource (such as an image or video) into a fragid that applies to that embedded resource. Scripts can use the fragid of the location navigated to within an iframe to alter the display of the embedding document.

JeniT: second point: pages that embed images/video and use fragids in the outer page to resolve to the sub-resource content is addressed just following the previous note (see link above)

<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html#fragid-structures

JeniT: final major change is the addition of an appendix: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html#fragid-structures

<wycats_> if I recall correctly, my concern was just to make sure that people knew to try to create their own key/values for fragments that they didn't expect to be interoperable with other mime types

JeniT: this goes thorough many formats that define fragids and outlines them

<wycats_> looks like Best Practice 8 covers this

<wycats_> 8 and 9 I should say

JeniT: the point is to make authors aware of the other prevalant formats to avoid overlap

noah: the TAG has published a finding, and there's specific practices around hashbang...it's addressed in B7, but not mentioned elsewhere and the finding isn't referenced...should it be?

JeniT: it's referenced but not linked

wycats_: we're revisiting a lot of this now
... the outcome will be that people won't do this any more

<wycats_> specifically, insofar as we're telling people not to conflict with existing practices for other MIME types, the fact that we're calling out the use of #! on the web means that people won't use it in other contexts

<noah> I'm fine with going to CR

JeniT: the other change is the exit criteria

wycats_: what will we do about the potential JSON-pointer conflict?

JeniT: it says this is a fragid syntax you *can* use with JSON, it's not a "must"
... will expand that section in the appendix and make it explicit that if you use it as-is, it may conflict with thigns that use #/ in a different way

wycats_: if you conneg this way, yes, this is probably a bad idea

JeniT: if they're declaring conneg'd content with pointers that will map to both, the advice will be to make up your own pointer syntax in the fragid

wycats_: I care about this because I have systems that do this

JeniT: the other conflict we're likely to see will be the "+json" mimetype registration

wycats_: will take this offline and reply to your email

JeniT: if people can get back to me within the week, I'll work around wrapping up the exit criteria and JSON-pointer points and get this to Yves next week for publication

<wycats_> I'm fine with provisional approval

noah: this is about provisional approval for this...objections?

<JeniT> Yves: we agreed exit criteria at F2F, I just somehow didn't include them in the draft from what I can see

<wycats_> slightlyoff: provisional approval to go ahead with the CR with the document as-is

<noah> ACTION-790

<trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Jeni Tennison to do new Editor's Draft of fragids spec for approval to publish as CR -- due 2013-04-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/790

no objection from me. Thanks JeniT for getting this done!

<noah> ACTION-790

<trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Jeni Tennison to do new Editor's Draft of fragids spec for approval to publish as CR -- due 2013-04-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/790

<JeniT> Yves, oh yes, they are there!

<noah> . RESOLUTION: We will publish Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions

<noah> W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 23 April 2013

<JeniT> just in the wrong place

<Yves> I was looking for then in the SoTD, but here is fine

<Yves> I'll add a pointer from the SoTD when publishing

<noah> W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 25 April 2013

<wycats_> no objection here

<noah> RESOLUTION: We will publish W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 25 April 2013

RESOLUTION: We will publish W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 25 April 2013

noah: anything else to do on this? don't think so

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html

noah: we have a product page for this work...thought we had a plan to update it

do product pages see much traffic?

<noah> ACTION: Jeni to tweak product page for Fragment ids - Due 2013-04-30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-797 - tweak product page for Fragment ids [on Jeni Tennison - due 2013-04-30].

<JeniT> slightlyoff, maybe Yves can find out

Authoritative Metadata

Yves: is that possible? do we have analytics on our pages?

<noah> ACTION-793?

<trackbot> ACTION-793 -- Anne van Kesteren to draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata -- due 2013-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/793

<noah> Finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412

<Yves> a bit difficult, but I can ask for some stats

<noah> ACTION-793?

<trackbot> ACTION-793 -- Anne van Kesteren to draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata -- due 2013-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/793

noah: annevk to review and draft disclaimer text because there's controversy about sniffing.

<noah> Anne's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Apr/0007.html

noah: annevk's mail has generated some discussion and noah likes it

annevk: no comments for now about the proposal or responses

wycats_: seems fine

<JeniT> happy with it

I'm alright with it

<Yves> same

noah: are you proposing that the typography is the same as in the draft?

<wycats_> that is how I would prefer the typography

annevk: hoping the typography would be pretty obvious

<noah> Take a look at the proposed formatting: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html

noah: what do we think?

I'm fine wit hthat

<wycats_> question: is Content-Type the only header for which this is true?

<wycats_> btw: Chrome has started allowing servers to opt into authoritative metadata

<noah> We don't have much precedent for doing things this way. I don't think this point is more important than many others that are made in the finding.

<annevk> wycats_: afaik

<wycats_> and Github has started using that

JeniT: is there any standard way to put notices in specs?

Yves: ?

JeniT: is there a standard way to put in notices for things like version succession

<annevk> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/ <- has a similar warning

<noah> I would prefer adding it in two places:

<noah> in ordinary text as a 2nd para in the abstract

<annevk> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/

annevk: we've put warning in REC's, e.g. CSS1

<noah> Following point 4 in the summary at the top

<wycats_> X-Content-Type-Options:nosniff

<wycats_> is what Chrome and IE support

annevk: it's been a big red box

noah: I think this is important, but not more important than other things the finding says

<annevk> wycats_: I believe that doesn't actually remove all sniffing

noah: counter is to put it in 2 place: 2nd paragraph of abstract and below/near summary of key points
... won't stand in the way, but it doesn't feel like an emergency

<annevk> wycats_: e.g. <img> will still sniff, it'll only check if Content-Type mentions an image type of sorts if that header is present

noah: feeling that the right way to fix this in the long run is to fix 2616

wycats_: don't think that's true. Recollection is that it tells you to do it, not based on "do what the specs say"
... IE + chrome have a header for authoritative metadata
... github is using it to prevent hot-linking

I'll just note that the idea of metadata opting into authoritative metadata is HALARIOUS

wycats_: the desire for a big-red-box is to help people who are in the mind of thinking about sniffing to see the point
... should we be investigating the state of nosniff?

noah: suggesting that we deal with formatting first, then nosniff in a sec
... there's no publication process for TAG findings

<wycats_> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941(v=vs.85).aspx

<wycats_> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471020

noah: we just put it up and send a couple of emails

<wycats_> http://philip.html5.org/tests/ie8/cases/content-type-nosniff.html

noah: the way to do this might be to just re-publish the finding

<annevk> wycats_: I think it might be interesting to look into the specifics of that if we think we can make it work

<wycats_> ^^ some nosniff links

noah: objections? (none heard)

<noah> RESOLTUION: The TAG will republish the authoritative metadata finding to include the content and formatting proposed in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html

<annevk> wycats_: and maybe define it as part of http://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/ if it actually does what it suggests (which I'm doubting to some extent)

RESOLUTION: The TAG will republish the authoritative metadata finding to include the content and formatting proposed in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html

<scribe> ACTION: noah will republish [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-798 - Will republish [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-04-25].

<noah> ACTION: Noah to republish authoritative metadata finding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-799 - Republish authoritative metadata finding [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-04-25].

oh balls

<wycats_> "This is not needed because Gecko doesn't violate the Http RFC unlike IE and doesn't do content-sniffing at all if a content-type is given."

<wycats_> I suspect that that is incorrect

I think I just did something automated and incorrect

<noah> ACTION-793?

<trackbot> ACTION-793 -- Anne van Kesteren to draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata -- due 2013-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/793

<noah> close ACTION-793

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-793 draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata.

<annevk> noah: fwiw, smaller type as in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/ would work for me

me? or wycats_ ?

<annevk> noah: it being super clear is what's most important

wycats_: it seems like Chrome has adopted it, there are publishers using it, and FF is loooking to adopt

<noah> Can we get a link to the spec for this header?

wycats_: we might want to revisit the conclusions in light of the world changing

noah: is there a spec?

wycats_: linked to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941(v=vs.85).aspx

<noah> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

<noah> MIME-Handling Change: X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

wycats_: annevk has raised a legit question: does it do what it says? or are there caveats?

noah: ugg...X-?

wycats_: IE created, others followed

<annevk> Seems Gecko is awaiting a spec

noah: Yves, do you have a sense for who we might coordinate with?

<wycats_> https://github.com/mozilla-services/cornice/issues/102

Yves: there's no need to register experimental headers

<wycats_> apparently the sniffing can trigger XSS attacks

<annevk> (from skimming the bug, which matches what I'd like us to do)

noah: was talking about something else: some future change to the flag might make it legit, and there's a coordination question around who owns "content-type"

<wycats_> everyone always says the "I really mean it" thing, but it never actually turns out to be true

noah: what's the best role for the TAG?

<annevk> I think http://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/ should own this.

<wycats_> it's usually just unfortunate legacy behavior

<wycats_> see: <!doctype html>

<annevk> It's an explicit opt out for the thing defined there...

Yves: it was discussed in the HTTP WG so there's not a ton of need to cooridnate

wycats_: used to be sympathetic to the "I really mean it" argument, but as I've seen it play out over time, you can imagine that people MIGHT misuse, but I don't observe that

<noah> To be clear, I was raising a point relating to coordination across groups, not the "I really mean it" technical point

<annevk> I filed a bug on MIME Sniffing: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21742

wycats_: happy to investigate with annevk and slightlyoff
... if annevk is correct in that it doesn't actually mean what it says, we might come to different conclusions

noah: a group to collect and report seems good

yes

doing it now

<Yves> relevant thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0104.html

<scribe> ACTION: wycats, slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Error finding 'wycats,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users>.

sorry

I'm not great at this = \

due before F2F?

would prefer that

<annevk> Seems I filed a duplicate :-)

<annevk> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19865 is the bug

<noah> ACTION: yehuda with help from slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status - Due 2013-05-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-800 - with help from slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status [on Yehuda Katz - due 2013-05-14].

<noah> Note: this may be a topic for F2F, we will decide after telcon on 16 May

Publishing & Linking

<noah> F2F disussion: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/03/19-minutes#item02

noah: my recollection is that we'll put out P&L as a NOTE
... couldn't find a formal decision to do that
... there was an action for Ashok to update it, and he has done it
... can others confirm that that's true?

annevk: yes, to be published as a note and then perhaps go forward from there

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08

<wycats_> no objections

noah: with that clarification, latest draft is above, and the question is: are we ready to publish as a NOTE?

<wycats_> would love to get this off our plate

no objections

<noah> . RESOLUTION: We will publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note. The TAG does not commit to further work.

<annevk> wycats_: might still get updated though ;)

<noah> We note that Ashok may choose to propose some updates.

<JeniT> +1

<noah> RESOLUTION: We will publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note. The TAG does not commit to further work.

RESOLUTION: We will publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note. The TAG does not commit to further work.

<noah> ACTION: Yves to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note and announce - Due 2013-04-30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-801 - publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note and announce [on Yves Lafon - due 2013-04-30].

<noah> ACTION-776?

<trackbot> ACTION-776 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from Larry to redraft Publishing and Linking, responding to comments, for review at F2F -- due 2013-04-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/776

<noah> close ACTION-776?

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-776 With help from Larry to redraft Publishing and Linking, responding to comments, for review at F2F.

noah: nothing else formal on the agenda, so inclination is to close the call
... adjourned! call in 2 weeks and Marcos will scribe

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jeni to tweak product page for Fragment ids - Due 2013-04-30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to republish authoritative metadata finding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: noah will republish [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: wycats, slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: yehuda with help from slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status - Due 2013-05-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note and announce - Due 2013-04-30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc]
 
[End of minutes]