IRC log of tagmem on 2003-06-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:53:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:56:50 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
18:56:50 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago
19:00:28 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:00:28 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:00:29 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:00:31 [Zakim]
19:00:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.514.200.aaaa
19:01:04 [Ian]
zakim, aaaa is Paul
19:01:04 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
19:02:56 [Zakim]
19:02:58 [Zakim]
19:03:08 [Ian]
zakim, P1 is Stuart
19:03:08 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not recognize a party named 'P1'
19:03:13 [Ian]
zakim, ??P1 is Stuart
19:03:13 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:03:15 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
19:03:24 [Zakim]
19:04:06 [Zakim]
19:04:19 [Zakim]
19:05:01 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
19:05:28 [Norm]
I'm on my way. Had the carpets cleaned today and I have to get all the cords untangled so I can plug the phone back in
19:05:55 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:05:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ian, Paul, DanC, Stuart, Tim_Bray
19:05:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Norm, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, DanC
19:06:49 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:07:08 [Ian]
Regrets: CL, TBL, RF
19:07:21 [Zakim]
19:07:33 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, DC, NW, DC, DO, TB, IJ
19:07:50 [Ian]
Chair: SW, Scrib: IJ
19:08:11 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:08:18 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept minutes of 16 Jun teleconf
19:08:27 [Ian]
19:09:02 [Ian]
Review of agenda:
19:09:09 [Ian]
19:09:19 [Zakim]
19:09:58 [Ian]
Proposed next meeting: 30 June.
19:10:02 [Ian]
Regrets: PC
19:10:25 [Ian]
Resolved to meet next on 30 June.
19:10:30 [Ian]
19:10:36 [Ian]
Interactions with the Voice WG
19:11:05 [DaveO]
's the translation into canadian that costs a lot, eh?
19:11:23 [Ian]
SW: Voice WG has some proposed text. I would like to engage them first to iron out some wrinkles, and then bring back text to the TAG.
19:11:26 [TBray]
is this voice browser stuff in the agenda?
19:12:24 [DanC]
point 5 under 1 admin is "Next meeting with Voice WG". I was lost for a bit too, tbray
19:12:45 [Ian]
SW: I hope to talk to Voice WG this week, get some revised text, and continue discussion with TAG on www-tag.
19:12:56 [Ian]
(SW expects to use www-tag)
19:13:37 [Ian]
Action SW: Work with Voice WG on revised text related to contentTypeOverride-24 and bring back to TAG.
19:13:42 [Ian]
19:13:52 [Ian]
Summer meeting planning
19:14:17 [Ian]
19:14:24 [Ian]
19:14:32 [Ian]
SW: Looks like 18/25 August at risk.
19:15:13 [TBray]
possibly we didn't bother to register problems with known holidays
19:16:05 [Ian]
[Some discussion about Labo(u)r Day Monday]
19:16:21 [Ian]
DO: Regrets for Labor Day.
19:16:26 [TBray]
T.Bray will not be on labour day call
19:16:51 [Ian]
DC: I move to cancel all meetings in August.
19:17:16 [TBray]
against canceling August meetings
19:17:17 [Norm]
19:17:20 [Ian]
PC: No
19:17:20 [DaveO]
19:17:22 [Stuart]
sw against
19:17:37 [Ian]
iJ: I'm for cancelling labor day
19:17:48 [Ian]
19:18:14 [Ian]
23 June Arch Doc
19:18:20 [Ian]
19:18:57 [Ian]
Action RF 2003/06/02: Rewrite section 5. Section 5 is expected to be short.
19:19:05 [Ian]
We don't know if that discharges his action.
19:19:32 [Ian]
SW: I don't think that that's the text RF expected to provide.
19:19:38 [Ian]
TB: Nor do I.
19:19:40 [Ian]
DC: Really?
19:20:10 [Ian]
19:20:35 [DanC]
it seems hard to confirm whether Roy intends to write more.
19:21:59 [DanC]
the "will describe..." text seems to belong under 4.2. Future Directions for Interactions
19:22:10 [Ian]
TB: If this is all we had, I think it would be ok to drop 4.1/4.2 and move forward.
19:22:25 [Ian]
TB: I.e., I would support going to last call even with this stub.
19:22:57 [Ian]
[Action continued]
19:23:07 [Ian]
Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
19:23:09 [TBray]
not sure about dropping 4.2, but yes drop 4.1
19:23:13 [Ian]
[Action continued]
19:23:24 [Ian]
Completed action DO 2003/06/02: Update description of issue abstractComponentRefs-37
19:23:42 [Stuart]
19:23:52 [Ian]
19:25:35 [DanC]
odd that this appears under arch doc in the agenda.
19:25:45 [Ian]
DO: Most updates based on comments from RF.
19:26:01 [TBray]
19:26:28 [Ian]
DO: RF expressed a preference.
19:26:35 [Ian]
DO: I think there's a dependency on opacity issue.
19:26:38 [Stuart]
ack TBray
19:26:59 [Ian]
TB: Procedurally, it seems that we now have enough material to bite down and see what we think. Put this on top of queue at future meeting.
19:27:21 [Ian]
PC: Do any requirements meet needs of WSDL group?
19:27:25 [Ian]
DO: I've not asked them for review.
19:27:45 [Ian]
TB: When we discuss this, they should let us know in advance of our teleconf.
19:28:07 [Ian]
Action DO: Point Jonathan Marsh at options. Ask them for their analysis.
19:28:32 [DanC]
(pls let the minutes have a separate section for this discussion of abstractComponentRefs-37 , not under "arch doc")
19:28:42 [Ian]
19:29:16 [Ian]
Not done: # Action SW 2003/06/02: Continue work on and make available a draft finding related to the opacity of URIs.
19:29:34 [Ian]
Not done: Action DO 2003/06/02: Write up a couple of paragraphs on extensibility for section 3.
19:29:54 [Ian]
Not Done: Action IJ 2003/06/16: Attempt to incorporate relevant bits of "Conversations and State" into section to be produced by RF.
19:30:16 [Ian]
7. Action PC 2003/06/16: Send second draft of AC announcement regarding TAG's last call expectations/thoughts and relation to AC meeting feedback.
19:30:24 [Ian]
PC: Not done.
19:31:30 [Ian]
PC: I expect to send DO a redraft.
19:32:21 [Ian]
19:33:32 [Ian]
IJ: Where we on arch doc? Ready to go to TR page?
19:34:11 [Ian]
DC: If it's good enough for IJ and two readers, good enough for me to go to TR page.
19:34:27 [Ian]
TB: I promise to read by Thurs and publish an opinion as to going to TR.
19:34:30 [Ian]
DC: I also commit to reading it.
19:34:52 [Ian]
PC, DO, NW: Sounds good.
19:34:58 [Ian]
NW: I do plan to read the arch doc this week.
19:35:42 [Ian]
DC: I think we don't know where TBL is on this. I think he would not object to publishing.
19:36:28 [Ian]
SW: Therefore, with approval from DC, IJ, and TB on 23 June draft, IJ can request publication as TR document.
19:36:34 [DanC]
19:36:51 [Stuart]
19:36:59 [Ian]
19:37:32 [Stuart]
19:37:38 [Ian]
Client handling of MIME headers
19:37:43 [Ian]
19:37:54 [Ian]
Completed #
19:37:54 [Ian]
Action IJ 2003/06/16: Add to draft finding discussion about servers not guessing header information (e.g., charset).
19:38:30 [DanC]
next is 2) E. R. Harold requested... , no?
19:38:58 [Ian]
3) I think the finding should address issues of "local override"
19:38:58 [Ian]
of headers. Some examples where instructions in content
19:38:58 [Ian]
seem to override headers (if so, why ok? if not, why not?).
19:38:58 [Ian]
- xml:lang
19:38:58 [Ian]
- SCRIPT/type in HTML
19:39:00 [Ian]
- Mixed content
19:39:41 [TBray]
19:40:14 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:40:43 [Ian]
TB: I think that it's ok, once you're inside content, to have extra metadata to help process a particular chunk of the content.
19:41:08 [Ian]
TB: xml:lang would have no interpretation if the whole content were served as text/plain.
19:41:19 [Norm]
Ian: wrt 3.2.4 in the new draft, I had intended the two SHOULD paragraphs to be good practice (or some other sort of) notes
19:41:41 [Ian]
TB: The default toplevel context is that headers are authoritative for the entity as a whole.
19:41:57 [Ian]
IJ: what about xml:lang on the document root?
19:42:15 [Ian]
TB: Won't have meaning unless the media type defines the interpretation.
19:42:53 [Ian]
DC: This is not overriding, this is specializing.
19:43:44 [Ian]
[Discussion of xml:lang; predefined but not required by xml 1.*
19:44:26 [Ian]
4) We should include a comment that the SMIL 1.0 Recommendation
19:44:26 [Ian]
(and possibly others?) does not do the right thing in
19:44:26 [Ian]
this area.
19:44:35 [Ian]
TB, DC: Yes.
19:44:48 [Ian]
Also, in HTML 4.01, META/http-equiv can be used by servers to
19:44:48 [Ian]
generate an HTTP header (see section 7.4.4 [7], subsection
19:44:48 [Ian]
"META and HTTP headers"). This might be a source of confusion
19:44:48 [Ian]
because the META element is supposed to be interpreted
19:44:50 [Ian]
server-side, not client-side.
19:44:52 [Ian]
DC: Yes, deal with that.
19:45:19 [Ian]
19:46:29 [Ian]
DC: Let's try to get through this discussion with 0 bytes changes.
19:47:09 [Ian]
- Add note about use of RFC2119 terms.
19:47:09 [Ian]
- Sugested tweaking language around
19:47:09 [Ian]
"engaging in non-authoritative behavior" in section 4.
19:47:12 [Ian]
[Those two done]
19:47:47 [Ian]
TB: Need to talk up security issues that can occur when headers not respected.
19:48:06 [Ian]
PC: Yes, I think we should. This is a compelling argument.
19:48:32 [Ian]
DC: I think there's a CERT Advisory over this...can't remember...
19:49:07 [Ian]
Action TB: Ask www-tag for info about security whole related to contentTypeOverride
19:49:39 [Ian]
From Roy at the 12 May teleconf [8]: Roy cited "efficiency"
19:49:39 [Ian]
as a reason why the architecture makes server headers
19:49:39 [Ian]
authoritative. The draft finding does not make the efficiency
19:49:40 [Ian]
argument and probably should.
19:49:48 [Ian]
19:50:42 [Ian]
DC: If your firewalls say "Keep out all postscript" and this is labeled as "text/plain", and the client peeks in and says "this looks like postscript", then the client has violated firewall rules.
19:51:23 [Ian]
IJ: Efficiency argument is that less costly to examine short string than to look into content.
19:51:39 [Ian]
TB: Notably to fire up an xml parser.
19:52:03 [Ian]
TB: It's substantially more costly to dispatch on metadata than on examination inside content.
19:52:50 [Ian]
PC: There's a trade-off between performance and usability.
19:53:41 [Ian]
TB: Arch args on performance and security are pretty high.
19:54:25 [Ian]
TB: The CERT Advisory looks very good.
19:54:29 [Norm]
19:54:32 [Norm]
19:56:20 [Ian]
Summarizing: IJ expects to revise finding to take account:
19:56:27 [Ian]
1) Editorial request from E. R. Harold
19:56:33 [Ian]
2) SMIL 1.0 gets it wrong
19:56:42 [Ian]
3) A security scenario
19:56:49 [Ian]
4) Efficiency argument.
19:57:41 [Ian]
Action IJ: Update finding early this week.
19:57:51 [Ian]
Expectation is to finalize next week.
19:58:57 [Ian]
DC: Whoops, let's not finalize before we meet with Voice WG again.
19:59:25 [Ian]
DC: I suggest that we go back to the Voice WG to say we're pretty close on this.
19:59:33 [Ian]
SW: I'll be talking with IJ and the Voice folks on this.
19:59:48 [Ian]
DC: If we invite them to a teleconf, I'd like them to come prepared having read this finding.
20:00:54 [Ian]
20:01:02 [Ian]
URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST
20:01:19 [Ian]
20:02:05 [Ian]
20:02:57 [Ian]
20:03:07 [Ian]
"I think that at this time, Ian's summary is actually more accurate of the
20:03:07 [Ian]
current state of affairs. That is, GET is supported, without RPC vs non-rpc
20:03:07 [Ian]
invoke styles being referenced.
20:03:07 [Ian]
20:03:52 [Ian]
DO: There's a difference between RPC generally and the way that SOAP uses the term RPC.
20:04:04 [Ian]
DO: I think we are niggling a bit on the exact overlap.
20:05:03 [Ian]
DO: I need to refresh my memory on this.
20:05:37 [Ian]
Larry Masinter comments
20:05:37 [Ian]
20:06:45 [DanC]
"data" would work.
20:06:48 [DanC]
or ftp.
20:07:22 [Ian]
DC: LM is asking us to answer when HTTP is the answer or when any URI would work.
20:07:52 [Ian]
TB: LM's point is well-taken. We should be specific about whether we are talking just about HTTP or a larger class.
20:09:01 [Ian]
IJ: I think a sentence will do.
20:09:31 [Ian]
Action IJ: Incorporate a sentence about scope based on LM comments.
20:09:59 [Ian]
Action IJ 2003/06/09: Turn TB apple story into a finding.
20:10:04 [Ian]
IJ: Not done; some of this in arch doc.
20:10:21 [Ian]
20:10:22 [Ian]
* How should the problem of identifying ID semantics in XML languages be addressed in the absence of a DTD?
20:10:24 [Ian]
20:11:11 [Ian]
From CL: "XMLID will be further revised to incorporate the good feedback from
20:11:11 [Ian]
last week. XML Core want to ensure that their preferred option is
20:11:11 [Ian]
listed in the doc, which I am happy to do, and there is a good chance
20:11:14 [Ian]
we can close that issue and make the draft finding a real finding in
20:11:14 [Ian]
fairly short order.
20:11:14 [Ian]
20:11:52 [Ian]
DC: I don't remember where we are on choosing a preferred solution.
20:12:30 [Ian]
20:13:20 [Ian]
Walkthrough of issues list
20:13:33 [Stuart]
20:14:10 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to establish whether resolution to an issue is essential to going to last call; and to get a sense of how close we are to closing.
20:14:19 [Ian]
* rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
20:14:19 [Ian]
o Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum (RQ-23).
20:14:34 [Ian]
DC, TB: Not required to complete for last call.
20:14:44 [Ian]
TB: I'm more convinced this is hard and important.
20:15:20 [TBray]
20:15:48 [Ian]
DC: The Arch has grown without this feature and an arch doc can talk about web that precedes this issue.
20:15:54 [Ian]
TB: I agree with DC.
20:16:25 [Ian]
[Support for addressing this issue face-to-face]
20:17:01 [Ian]
DC: Put issues 37 and 38 nearby
20:17:50 [Ian]
20:18:27 [Ian]
* DO: Monitor WSDL WG. See WSDL Reqs, Req#128
20:18:51 [Ian]
DC: I think issue 7 needs to be closed before last call
20:19:15 [Ian]
WSDL spec currently doesn't hurt or help w.r.t this issue.
20:19:40 [Ian]
PC: DO could remind WSDL working group at last call.
20:19:44 [Ian]
20:19:52 [Ian]
20:20:00 [Ian]
TB: You won't leave the room in Vancouver until closed.
20:20:51 [Ian]
PC: Are issues 8 and 35 related?
20:20:55 [Ian]
TB: I can speak to that.
20:21:18 [Ian]
DC: I don't have an expectation that we'll close issue 8 any time soon.
20:22:07 [Ian]
TB summarizing what he thinks necessary to declare victory (1) revised rddl (2) finding citing rddl as one option (3) mapping to RD
20:22:12 [Ian]
20:22:53 [Ian]
PC: I agree with TB's view of history.
20:23:22 [Ian]
PC: Please make required reading the thread that starts with publication of TB's latest version.
20:23:44 [Ian]
TB: Jonathan Borden was agreeing with DC. I would grumble but wouldn't stand in the way.
20:24:37 [Ian]
TB: I think it's good to have a statement about canonical RDF to generate. Someone contributed an xslt script.
20:25:35 [Ian]
# uriMediaType-9
20:25:44 [Ian]
20:25:44 [Ian]
* IANA appears to have responded to the spirit of this draft (see email from Chris Lilley).What's required to close this issue?
20:25:47 [Ian]
* Action CL 2003/05/05: Propose CL's three changes to registration process to Ned Freed. [What forum?]
20:26:18 [Ian]
DC: We didn't end up discussing this at last W3C/IETF meeting for a number of reasons.
20:27:36 [Ian]
TB: I don't think this issue stands in the way of the arch doc
20:28:09 [Ian]
20:28:29 [Ian]
DC: If we're not going to resolve this one, we need to stay clear of it.
20:28:40 [Ian]
[IJ modified doc to address DC's concern]
20:29:07 [Ian]
TB: If RF and TBL don't think we need to resolve this before moving I'm ok to move forward without resolving it.
20:29:22 [Ian]
PC: How do we expect to make progress on this?
20:29:42 [Ian]
TB: This issue is important, but not currently actively affecting the arch doc.
20:30:10 [Ian]
NW: I don't object to leaving it off the agenda of this ftf meeting. But I do not believe we will make substantive progress on this issue except at a face-to-face meeting.
20:30:41 [TBray]
20:31:03 [Ian]
SW: We'll finish this agenda item next time.
20:31:17 [Ian]
SW: Sounds like we will not discuss httpRange-14 at this upcoming ftf meeting.
20:31:42 [Zakim]
20:31:48 [Zakim]
20:31:50 [Zakim]
20:31:52 [Zakim]
20:31:53 [Zakim]
20:31:54 [Ian]
20:31:54 [Zakim]
20:32:02 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian-BOS
20:32:02 [Zakim]
sorry, Ian, I do not see a party named 'Ian-BOS'
20:32:05 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
20:32:05 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
20:32:06 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
20:32:09 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop