IRC log of tagmem on 2003-02-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:18:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:20:23 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
17:20:56 [Ian]
RRSAgent, start
17:21:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:22:19 [Ian]
17:23:05 [Ian]
Roll call: DC, CL, PC, DO, SW, RF, TBL.
17:23:17 [Ian]
(and IJ)
17:23:22 [Ian]
To arrive later: TB
17:23:25 [Ian]
Regrets: NW
17:25:43 [Ian]
Approved 27 Jan minutes:
17:30:13 [Ian]
[Review of agenda]
17:31:43 [Ian]
1) Re-Confirm Stuart as Co-Chair
17:31:47 [Ian]
2) Mailing list usage
17:33:41 [Ian]
Discussion of volume on list, TAG conversations
17:34:26 [Ian]
TBL: Need to remind people more often what list policy is.
17:35:31 [Ian]
PC: We need to manage discussion more.
17:36:20 [Ian]
DC: Whoever owns an issue should manage discussion; if we don't have an owner for an issue, that is info.
17:36:40 [Ian]
DC: If someone says "change x to y" in the arch doc, I'd like to see response from the editor straight away.
17:37:02 [Ian]
DC: We will get higher quality comments on the doc if we encourage comments and respond appropriately to them.
17:37:28 [Ian]
[Discussion of separate comments list for spec.]
17:38:12 [Ian]
CL: I'd rather comments be sent to www-tag. Monthly reminder to people how to use www-tag.
17:40:23 [Ian]
DC: Comments that are not about an issue and not about the arch doc are out of order.
17:43:27 [Ian]
DC: I need owners of issues to, say, moderate discussion.
17:44:45 [Ian]
Action SW: Send draft mailing list policy to
17:48:14 [Ian]
Summarizing thoughts on policy:
17:48:23 [Ian]
- Refer to issue number in subject line.
17:48:38 [Ian]
- Please indicate whether you are raising a new issue; TAG does not guarantee will be taken up.
17:48:45 [Ian]
- Please send text for the arch doc.
17:49:27 [Ian]
PC: Need to give feedback to the list to make sure discussion goes in a direction that is useful to us.
17:50:06 [Ian]
TBL: Refurbish the idea of issue owner.
17:50:17 [Ian]
(who moderates discussion)
17:50:35 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
17:53:08 [Ian]
PC: When new issues are brought up, need to do a better job of getting on agenda, and closing thread quickly if we are not interested.
17:53:31 [Ian]
DC: Not responding is better. if the threads get out of control, I expect the Chair to do something.
17:54:14 [Ian]
IJ: Start mailing list policy by looking at what's already on home page; then we'll just update that; then send out monthly reminder.
17:57:12 [Ian]
17:57:14 [Ian]
Teleconference time?
17:57:43 [Ian]
SW: Some comments about preparing for the meeting M when agenda available Thursday.
17:57:55 [Ian]
DC: I'd be more productive on a different day. How about Weds?
17:58:15 [Ian]
PC: I have lots of calls already Monday.
18:03:21 [Ian]
[No change to teleconf time]
18:03:45 [Ian]
Next teleconf: 17 Feb. NW will chair.
18:04:08 [Ian]
SW: NW and IJ need to do meeting agenda for 24 Feb as well.
18:04:14 [Ian]
18:04:17 [Ian]
Action item tracking.
18:04:34 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to have a single action item list.
18:06:29 [Ian]
DC: Action items falling on the floor is part of life. If someone forgot to carry an action item forward then that's life; if we forgot then it must not have been that important.
18:09:50 [ChrisMali]
ChrisMali has joined #tagmem
18:09:50 [Ian]
18:19:26 [Ian]
Planning for 2003
18:20:04 [Ian]
- Milestones and ambitions
18:20:07 [Ian]
- Evangelism
18:20:10 [Ian]
- Ftf meetings
18:20:14 [Ian]
- Tech plenary
18:21:41 [Ian]
DC: Infoworld article on top technologies referred to GET in Web Services. I am pleased that somebody noticed this.
18:22:38 [Ian]
18:23:31 [Ian]
PC: We have a goal of going to last call (arch doc) mid-year.
18:24:03 [Ian]
(see 6 Jan 2003 minutes:
18:24:14 [Ian]
DC: I'd rather revisit that at the end of the meeting.
18:24:36 [Ian]
PC: Our ftf meeting schedule should take our milestones into account.
18:25:01 [Ian]
(e.g., we close document at summer meeting).
18:26:59 [Ian]
[Discussion of 1- or 2-day meetings]
18:37:52 [Ian]
Proposals in May:
18:38:05 [Ian]
- Overlap WWW conf.
18:38:25 [Ian]
- Weekend before WWW 2003?
18:39:04 [Ian]
[2 day]
18:39:20 [Ian]
PC: During week of 21 July?
18:39:36 [Ian]
PC: Could be in Vancouver or Redmond....
18:39:58 [Ian]
Proposal: 21-22 July, YVR
18:40:31 [Ian]
RF: West Coast in July not good for me.
18:40:37 [Ian]
SW: England ok then.
18:43:45 [DanC_jam]
18:44:01 [Ian]
SW: I prefer 22-23 July.
18:44:10 [Ian]
(Tues Weds)
18:44:44 [DanC_jam]
22-23 July BRS is one proposal (hosted by HP/Williams)
18:45:17 [Ian]
PC: I can do either Bristol or Vancouver in July.
18:48:01 [Ian]
22/23 July: YVR (PC, DO, DC, CL), BOS (RF, TBL, IJ), LHW (SW)
18:52:40 [Ian]
PC: For Nov, I propose 14-15 Nov...
18:54:40 [Ian]
RF: IETF meets in Minnesota 9-14 Nov
18:57:13 [Ian]
TBL: Could also meet sometime in October.
18:57:24 [Ian]
18:57:26 [Ian]
Tech Plenary
18:58:40 [Ian]
PC: DO, PC think the TAG session should be technical. However, JD thinks we will be bombarded with process-like quesitons.
18:59:10 [Ian]
10 mins: Role of TAG
18:59:15 [Ian]
15 mins: ARch Doc
18:59:35 [Ian]
60 mins: 3 items from TAG issues list (incl discussion)
19:00:09 [Ian]
PC: Others on planning committee suggested walk-through of arch doc.
19:03:59 [Ian]
RF: I will try to arrange to be in Boston on 5 March
19:05:41 [Ian]
PC: Proposed issues - 29, 8, 32
19:06:55 [Ian]
DO: I pushed back on discussing xlink issue.
19:07:36 [Ian]
(And there will be BOFs at lunch)
19:10:30 [Ian]
TBL: I'd like to get WGs involved in the discussion, where they have real-life issues. I'd like to connect with people in WGs
19:12:16 [Ian]
TBL: E.g, for namespace doc, show three slides of pros and cons, then ask for comments.
19:12:27 [Ian]
DO: I'd like to have pros/cons for each one.
19:15:16 [Ian]
DC: 29/32 are pretty close.
19:16:09 [Ian]
DC: How about a protocol issue?
19:17:28 [Ian]
PC: Steve Zilles has agreed to moderate the session.
19:17:54 [Ian]
DC: I'd prefer HTTPSubstrate-16 to 29
19:18:09 [Ian]
DC: I'd (reluctantly) be willing to present.
19:19:25 [Ian]
DC: I endorse IRIEverywhere
19:20:49 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #tagmem
19:21:28 [Ian]
PC: I'd like to know, by the end of this meeting, who will lead discussion of each part of the presentation.
19:21:53 [Ian]
19:21:56 [Ian]
Issues list gardening
19:22:25 [Ian]
19:22:32 [Ian]
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName?
19:23:30 [Ian]
DC: The XML Schema WG released a requirements doc for XML Scheme 1.1. They have accepted as a "desideratum" (not a requirement) to make URI names for schema components.
19:23:43 [Ian]
DC: That's not acceptable to me.
19:23:54 [Ian]
DC: We need more than that.
19:23:59 [Ian]
SW: Will these be HTTP URIs?
19:24:02 [Ian]
DC: It's not relevant.
19:25:15 [Ian]
See First class objects (RQ-23)
19:25:24 [Ian]
19:25:28 [DanC_jam]
19:25:33 [DanC_jam] First class objects (RQ-23)
19:25:37 [Ian]
"Define an algorithm for generating a URI for any construct in a schema (or, possibly, in a schema document), thus making schema constructs first-class objects in the Web. Minimally the algorithm should cover element( type)s, attributes, simple types, complex types, and notations. Optionally it may also cover other constructs such as named groups and items in enumerations of legal values."
19:26:01 [Ian]
19:41:36 [Ian]
19:41:58 [Ian]
SW: Who owns issue 6? TB indicated, but last issue was for DC.
19:42:26 [Ian]
DC: I'm willing to take this up, and that we contact the Schema WG and tell them that the desideratum is insufficient.
19:42:36 [Ian]
RF: Is it really the Schema WG's job? Or more general?
19:43:00 [Ian]
TBL: What the Schema WG does has an impact on a lot of users (of schemas).
19:43:34 [Ian]
DO: This is starting to come up in Web Services.
19:45:03 [Ian]
Action DC: Write up a summary of this issue.
19:47:23 [Ian]
PC: See, which I think speaks to RQ-23.
19:47:47 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:48:02 [Ian]
PC: We should look at current status of "XML Schema: Component Designators" as well as reqs doc.
19:48:19 [DanC_jam]
ACTION DC: propose TAG response to XML Schema requirement (RQ-23)
19:48:38 [Ian]
19:49:18 [Ian]
19:49:32 [Ian]
whenToUseGet-7 : (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms (2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method? GET plus a body?)
19:49:53 [Ian]
[DO comments on WSDL 1.1]
19:51:08 [Ian]
DO: WG had, I think, forgotten the part about mapping from (WSDL) "parts" to URIs. I reminded them.
19:51:23 [Ian]
DO: This is now part of their requirements.
19:51:30 [DanC_jam]
19:52:39 [Ian]
DC: When I last looked at WSDL, I thought that when you did binding, you could map to GET. But seems most useful, when person is making interface, that they could state a preference for GET.
19:53:58 [Ian]
[Latest version 28 Oct?]
19:54:09 [Ian]
DC: I have seen failure modes when people think at the wrong moment of the design process.
19:54:29 [Ian]
RF: It doesn't do you any good if the identifier you can do GET on doesn't reflect something about the interface of the resource
19:54:51 [Roy]
never mind
19:59:09 [Ian]
DC: It would be useful for me if DO sent details about state of WSDL.
19:59:20 [Ian]
Action DO: Report on status of WSDL requirements doc.
20:01:25 [Ian]
DC: It's worth it for me to keep a queue open, and look at their spec when it's done.
20:05:11 [Ian]
Action IJ: Fix issues list to show that actions/pending are orthogonal to decisions.
20:05:13 [Ian]
20:05:23 [Ian]
namespaceDocument-8 : What should a "namespace document" look like?
20:05:40 [Ian]
PC: TB and I have an action pending on this:
20:06:09 [Ian]
PC: Please put on TAG agenda for 17 Jan.
20:06:10 [Ian]
20:06:15 [Ian]
uriMediaType-9 Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?
20:06:48 [Ian]
DC: TAG did a finding; we asked IETF; we had liaison blunders; we did an Internet draft; Mark Baker and I had not addressed some feedback from Larry Masinter.
20:07:05 [Ian]
DC: So we updated the appnedix. That is issued as an internet draft.
20:07:15 [Ian]
DC: We've not called for discussion on www-tag.
20:08:00 [Ian]
DC: There are several paths to take at this point.
20:08:31 [Ian]
20:08:43 [DanC_jam]
20:10:13 [Ian]
RF: IANA won't do anything unless it's an RFC. We could make an addendum to the media type registration process, and put through IETF group.
20:11:02 [Ian]
DC: I just want to ask for a policy statement that they won't break their Web space.
20:11:23 [Ian]
DC: The proposal says that they will give 1 year notice given, etc.
20:13:41 [Ian]
RF: Problem is IANA has no leader, and not aware of WG doing work in this area.
20:14:17 [Ian]
DC: looks like discussion in is critical path.
20:14:56 [Ian]
DC: I want to start discussion when I have bandwidth to deal with it.
20:15:21 [Ian]
Action DC: Start discussion on, but not urgent.
20:15:23 [Ian]
20:15:35 [Ian]
mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 : What is the meaning of a document composed of content in mixed namespaces?
20:16:27 [Ian]
CL: I've written some text on this.
20:16:54 [Ian]
CL: I think this is an umbrella issue and that we would do well to attack smaller pieces.
20:17:01 [Ian]
CL: We already have agreement on subsumed bits.
20:17:39 [Ian]
DC: I don't feel obliged to answer it. There is no general purpose solution for how to compose things.
20:18:27 [Ian]
TBL: There are two crying needs (1) to be able to mix xforms, svg, math, xhtml ....
20:19:10 [Ian]
[DIscussion of some embedding issues]
20:19:50 [Ian]
TBL: In the area of graphics, I'd like to see schema used to express these constraints.
20:21:03 [Ian]
TBL: Second problem is, e.g., how do you introduce something like encryption. I think that we need to at least point to questions that need to be addressed by a WG.
20:21:42 [Ian]
DC: Please replace 13 with two issues: (1) One issue with mixing some known specs (2) One issue on encryption (3) Maybe RDF in HTML.
20:22:48 [Ian]
CL proposed: "Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces", mixingUIXMLns-33
20:25:30 [Chris]
20:25:40 [Ian]
CL proposed: "XML functions: Encryption, XSLT, XInclude and other XML transformations"
20:28:12 [Ian]
[Discussion of RDF in HTML]
20:28:35 [Chris]
[and RDF in SVG]
20:30:53 [Ian]
change xmlTransformations -> xmlFunctions
20:32:03 [Ian]
TBL Proposed: RDFinHTML-35, "Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in HTML."
20:32:51 [Ian]
20:34:19 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 "Composability for user interface-oriented XML namespaces", owner CL
20:34:58 [Ian]
TBL for second one: "Specifying languages (e.g., encryption, xslt, xinclude) which operate in the context of other arbitrary languages and affect their processing."
20:35:02 [Ian]
PC: Is this work for Core?
20:35:44 [Ian]
TBL: Perhaps. But I don't like talking about processing model; I like to talk about what things mean.
20:35:59 [Ian]
TBL: What is common among these things is that they stand for some function of their contents, not their contents.
20:36:17 [Ian]
TBL: XSLT, etc. have the common property of having to be elaborated first.
20:36:23 [Roy]
The effect of intermediate XML processing on namespace semantics?
20:36:30 [Ian]
TBL: There is a default processing model (and only one that makes sense).
20:37:20 [Chris]
I note as important that TimBL just said that XMLFunc is a *default* processing model so an external processing pipeline language could override it
20:37:46 [Chris]
so XMLFunc is about what hapens with no other information
20:38:15 [Ian]
PC: "Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption"
20:38:48 [Ian]
Resolved: xmlFunctions-##, "Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption)", owner TBL
20:39:10 [DanC_jam]
not yet resolved
20:39:10 [Ian]
[Not yet resolved.]
20:39:27 [Ian]
SW: I would like to see a crisp articulation of the problem before we accept the issue.
20:39:36 [Chris]
[presque resolved]
20:39:55 [DanC_jam]
s/see a crisp/assign an action to get a crisp/
20:40:51 [Ian]
DO: What is our expected deliverable ?
20:41:03 [Ian]
DO: What happens to frag ids in this situation?
20:41:23 [Ian]
TBL, DC: Seems in scope to me
20:41:57 [Ian]
Resolved: xmlFunctions-##, "Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT, XInclude, Encryption)", owner TBL
20:42:11 [Ian]
Action TBL: Please crisply state the issue with a reference to XML Core work.
20:43:05 [Ian]
Proposed: RDFinHTML-35, "Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML."
20:43:19 [Ian]
DC: I have to address this elsewhere. Ok by me if TAG does not accept.
20:45:13 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
20:45:51 [Ian]
DC Proposed: RDFinHTML-35, "Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML." To address, e.g., whether someone is accountable for RDF statements made inside an HTML document.
20:48:16 [Ian]
TBL: Is the RDF ignorable in an HTML document
20:48:16 [Ian]
20:48:30 [Ian]
PC: I think that's a good question.
20:48:44 [Ian]
PC: I think DC is hypothesizing that nobody is currently answering this question.
20:48:55 [Ian]
RF: "RDF semantics in HTML" is the issue then.
20:50:09 [Chris]
how is that different from "whether someone is accountable for RDF statements"
20:50:29 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept RDFinHTML-35, "Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML." Owner: DC (with low expectations).
20:51:18 [Ian]
Action DC: Write up a crisp articulation of issue RDFINHTML-35. [DC says - don't expect results before May 2003 meeting]
20:51:26 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
20:52:04 [Ian]
Proposed: Replace mixedNamespaceMeaning-13, explaining that we identified three subissues (may be others) and that initial issue was deemed to large.
20:52:29 [Ian]
Resolved: Replace mixedNamespaceMeaning-13, explaining that we identified three subissues (may be others) and that initial issue was deemed to large.
20:52:39 [Ian]
Action SW: Report to www-tag on disposition of this issue.
20:52:55 [Ian]
Deadline for SW action: before 13 Feb.
20:53:02 [DanC_jam]
re how different: I didn't intend it to be different
20:54:01 [Ian]
Deadline for CL, TBL actions: 17 Feb.
20:54:47 [Ian]
21:12:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
21:18:11 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
21:18:23 [TBray]
Hey guys, anyone on?
21:49:17 [TBray]
Earth to TAG...
22:23:23 [Ian]
22:31:05 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
22:31:22 [DanC_jam]
looking for gizmo ala
22:32:25 [Ian]
22:32:53 [Ian]
URIEquivalence-15 : When are two URI variants considered equivalent?
22:32:57 [Ian]
DC: I don't think he's closer this time.
22:33:06 [Ian]
[We will wait for discussion tomorrow]
22:33:08 [Ian]
22:33:12 [Ian]
HTTPSubstrate-16 : Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C agree with RFC 3205?
22:33:45 [Ian]
RF: I agree with the RFC. Does anyone disagree?
22:35:59 [Ian]
From RFC3205
22:36:22 [Ian]
Summarizing issue: For each application, use a different port.
22:37:21 [Ian]
RF: The RFC is about recommended practice for IETF docs (not whether the battle has already been lost since, e.g., one can do TCP/IP over HTTP...).
22:38:07 [Ian]
TBL: Suppose I publish Ical using HTTP.
22:38:59 [Ian]
TBL: It is very very useful to serve the same data in different contexts, or to have very different data over the same port.
22:40:06 [Ian]
RF: Keith is talking about using HTTP for presence protocols, e.g.
22:40:22 [Ian]
RF: IPP is an awful protocol; should have been HTTP.
22:41:03 [Ian]
RF: IPP doesn't use HTTP (violation or arch principle); uses a POST.
22:41:58 [Ian]
CL: If you are getting the status of a printer, use GET. If you are sending data to a printer, use POST.
22:45:44 [Ian]
DC: We could phrase a question to the editor (e.g., a SOAP scenario).
22:46:03 [Ian]
TBL: I'd like to point out that reuse of HTTP is a good thing. Reuse for many types of clients and data is a good thing.
22:46:41 [Ian]
TBL: We could say that we fear that the tone of the document suggests otherwise. If the document is meant to criticize tunneling one protocol over another, then it should say so.
22:48:27 [Ian]
Mail from RF:
22:48:28 [Ian]
22:48:33 [Ian]
22:48:41 [Ian]
"After spending another night trying to figure out what we would like
22:48:41 [Ian]
to say in regard to RFC 3205, I am ready to declare this as a "waste
22:48:41 [Ian]
of time"."
22:49:28 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #tagmem
22:51:40 [Ian]
TBL: I am dissatisfied with simply sweeping under the rung.
22:52:07 [Ian]
RF: Please tell me what to say and I'll send it to them.
22:52:52 [Ian]
DC: What's a well-designed Web service?
22:53:36 [Ian]
DO: Purchase orders.
22:54:00 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
22:55:01 [Ian]
DC: How about SOAP primer example?
22:56:29 [Ian]
Action RF: Write a response to IESG asking whether the Web services example in the SOAP 1.2 primer is intended to be excluded from 3025.
22:57:25 [Ian]
22:57:35 [Chris]
22:57:40 [Chris]
original email
22:57:52 [Ian]
errorHandling-20 : What should specifications say about error handling?
22:58:06 [Chris]
22:58:10 [Ian]
CL: The QAWG has marked up this issue as "solved."
22:58:16 [Chris]
QA WG guideline; issue now closed
22:58:31 [Chris]
23:00:10 [Ian]
PC: But QAWG resolution is about deprecation, not error-handling.
23:01:30 [Ian]
DC: "Silent failures are evil."
23:01:46 [Ian]
CL: Depends on what you define as an error. E.g., is it an error if you have an invalid HTML file?
23:01:51 [Ian]
DC: What are you doing with it?
23:02:30 [Ian]
CL: Once you've decided you've got an error, you're all set. But deciding is the hard part.
23:03:26 [Ian]
PC: I think that this issue was raised essentially in the QAWG and that they've closed it for themselves. We could read their proposed resolution and see whether we agree.
23:04:12 [Ian]
CL: Don't fix things silently; people come to rely on a particular type of correction (that's not part of a spec).
23:05:32 [Chris]
"I'd like to request
23:05:32 [Chris]
that the TAG come up with generalized guidance on the appropriateness of
23:05:32 [Chris]
error recovery in web software.
23:05:58 [Chris]
all depends on how you define an error
23:07:16 [Chris]
it relates to composability, and to validation
23:07:46 [Chris]
its asking for guidance on specwriters
23:11:30 [Ian]
DC: Where could we put info from finding on Mime type finding on interpretation in arch doc?
23:11:41 [Ian]
[Discussion about where in arch doc.]
23:12:09 [Chris]
conflict between "strict generate/loose accept" and the general failure of that paradigm
23:12:11 [Ian]
PC: This is the conflict between xpath and xquery. Most xquery people want static type-checking. Most xpath 1.0 people want to allow flexibility in what they want xpath to work over.
23:12:46 [Ian]
PC: People should at least be conscious of the trade-off.
23:14:22 [Chris]
other people should define classes of error. scope for tag finding on handling of errors once identified (such as silent recovery and fixup being bad)
23:15:08 [Ian]
DC: I just want to take a piece of the finding and find a place to put it in the arch doc.
23:16:08 [Ian]
Action CL: Write a draft finding (deadline 1 month) on the topic of (1) early/late detection of errors (2) late/early binding (3) robustness (4) definition of errors (5) recovery once error has been signaled.
23:17:39 [Ian]
23:17:40 [Chris]
due date: first week of March
23:18:00 [Ian]
23:18:16 [Ian]
xlinkScope-23 : What is the scope of using XLink?
23:18:53 [Chris]
everyone should use it once it has been rewritten and got through a much stricter CR ;-)
23:19:39 [Ian]
SW: I am confirmed as owner of this issue.
23:20:13 [Ian]
DC: Next discussion at tech plenary.
23:20:26 [Ian]
PC: Lunchtime BOF.
23:21:22 [Ian]
SW: Should we reconfirm our position from Sep 2002?
23:21:25 [Ian]
[Not for today]
23:21:27 [Ian]
23:21:33 [Ian]
contentTypeOverride-24 : Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTP content type parameters?
23:24:16 [Ian]
TBL: Two issues (1) overriding server (2) xinclude.
23:26:16 [Chris]
A URI reference may be accompanied by a media type that indicates the content type of the resource identified by the URI. When specified, this type value takes precedence over other possible sources of the media type (for instance, the "Content-type" field in an HTTP exchange, or the file extension). The exception to this behavior is that when the protocol indicates a media type that is known by the grammar processor as a grammar format type then the media type in
23:26:41 [Chris]
Informative: use of the type attribute should be considered a last resort. For instance, the type may be appropriate when a grammar is fetched via HTTP but (1) a web server cannot be configured to indicate the correct media type, and (2) the grammar processor is unable to automatically detect the media type.
23:26:52 [Chris]
23:28:15 [Ian]
CL: Some specs have attributes that are advisory only (e.g., likely media type).
23:28:41 [Ian]
CL: This seems different; sounds like an override; "don't believe the server."
23:29:33 [Ian]
RF: If you were able to do this with an applet, it would be a security hole. But for this particular problem they are trying to solve, may not be.
23:29:40 [Ian]
CL: But it may not be a good idea, either.
23:30:18 [Ian]
[TAG notes that this spec is still as CR.]
23:30:29 [Ian]
CL: TAG should tell this WG that they shouldn't try to do this sort of thing.
23:31:04 [Ian]
SW: Owner?
23:32:16 [Ian]
DC: I endorse such a comment "don't do this."
23:33:17 [Ian]
IJ: "*the* content type" is problematic in 2.2.2.
23:33:27 [Ian]
DC: What the server sends back is the authoritative media type.
23:35:45 [Ian]
RF: When client expectation is different from media type from server, there should be a user interrupt where the user can override the behavior.
23:36:02 [Ian]
RF: It's reasonable to allow the user to override an error; it's unreasonable to override automatically.
23:36:11 [Ian]
DC: Another example of silent recovery from error being harmful.
23:38:45 [Chris]
Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0
23:38:52 [Ian]
Action DC: Send an email to the Voice WG that third para of 2.2.2 CR of Speech Recognition Grammar Spec is wrong regarding override of media type.
23:39:10 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
23:40:38 [Ian]
CL: I will then propose to the TAG to adopt that position.
23:40:43 [Ian]
23:41:14 [Ian]
deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act?
23:41:16 [Ian]
23:52:20 [Ian]
23:52:25 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop