IRC log of tagmem on 2003-07-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:51:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:51:52 [Ian]
zakim, this will be TAG
18:51:53 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 21 minutes ago
18:52:23 [Norm]
An op can kick people out of the conference and do other administrative sorts of things. I'm not sure how the W3C server is setup though.
18:52:37 [Ian]
First person in gets op
18:52:55 [Norm]
18:53:00 [Ian]
Thank you
18:53:10 [Ian]
18:55:29 [Ian]
18:59:40 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
18:59:56 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
18:59:56 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I don't know what conference this is
18:59:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, Norm
19:00:38 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:00:39 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:00:40 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:00:41 [Zakim]
19:00:59 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
19:01:04 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:01:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ian
19:01:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanC, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, Norm
19:01:05 [Zakim]
19:02:22 [Zakim]
19:02:30 [Norm]
zakim, ??P3 is Stuart
19:02:30 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:02:34 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p3 is me
19:02:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '??p3'
19:04:44 [Zakim]
19:05:07 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
19:05:39 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:05:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ian, Norm, Stuart, Tim_Bray
19:05:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, DanC, Stuart, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ian, Norm
19:06:03 [Zakim]
19:06:07 [Ian]
Regrets: TBL, RF
19:06:21 [Ian]
Roll call: SW, NW, IJ, TB, DO
19:06:26 [Ian]
Likely regrets: PC
19:07:38 [Zakim]
19:08:30 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #tagmem
19:08:48 [Ian]
IJ: I made requested changes to 30 June minutes
19:08:55 [Ian]
19:09:05 [Ian]
(Changes requested by Chris Lilley)
19:09:15 [Ian]
DC: I'm ok with minutes pending ok from CL
19:09:21 [Ian]
This agenda:
19:09:29 [Ian]
19:10:25 [Ian]
(Add Dan Connolly to roll)
19:10:38 [Ian]
19:10:42 [Ian]
Next meeting: 14 July?
19:10:51 [Ian]
NW: Likely regrets.
19:11:09 [Ian]
Resolved: Next meeting 14 July
19:11:23 [Ian]
DO: I'll have to miss final 30 mins of 14 July mtg
19:11:28 [Ian]
19:11:32 [Ian]
FTF meeting agenda
19:11:35 [Zakim]
19:11:42 [Ian]
SW: I count on having a draft of ftf agenda by end of this week.
19:12:22 [Ian]
19:12:30 [Ian]
contentTypeOverride-24 and Voice WG
19:12:44 [Ian]
See draft text from Jerry Carter
19:12:58 [Ian]
19:13:11 [Ian]
JC: Thanks to SW and IJ for discussions last week and for comments on text.
19:13:53 [Ian]
JC: One point in contention was use of "type" attribute overriding server headers. We've concluded that that was inappropriate and the new language makes the headers authoritative.
19:14:01 [Stuart]
19:14:26 [Ian]
JC: We are taking a direction that the HTML WG seems to be going with XHTML 2.0: using "type" as a kind of preference (accept header).
19:14:34 [TBray]
19:14:46 [Ian]
JC: Once representation returned, if no header sent, then type serves as a strong hint.
19:15:12 [Ian]
JC: Most of SW/IJ comments have been incorporated. There are a few remaining minor issues open.
19:15:25 [DanC]
yeah... the pointer from the agenda goes to the 26 June 2002 draft
19:15:41 [Ian]
TBray: Sounds like the results are clean and sensible. We should all be happy.
19:16:33 [Ian]
Draft text:
19:16:43 [Ian]
19:16:58 [Ian]
[JC gives quick overview]
19:17:27 [Ian]
TBray: Looks fine to me.
19:17:38 [Ian]
DC: Please clarify the semantics of the table.
19:19:43 [Ian]
JC: First three lines provide context; fourth line provides desired behavior.
19:19:56 [Stuart]
19:20:18 [Ian]
19:20:21 [Ian]
ack TBray
19:21:48 [DanC]
I'm looking at
19:22:04 [Ian]
19:22:55 [Zakim]
19:24:09 [Ian]
DC: Declared media type, if I understand, is some combination of server type and preferred type.
19:25:21 [Zakim]
19:26:01 [Ian]
IJ: I had initially said that dual usage of "type" was unnecessary; just use it as a preference.
19:26:18 [TBray]
I see potential editorial quibbles, but the thrust is architecturally sound, are we micro-managing?
19:26:24 [Ian]
IJ: But SW made a good point that it's cheaper to verify something's type than it is to determine the type of something.
19:26:38 [Ian]
DC: I"m not comfortable with "alleged media type". I'd be most comfortable with a test case.
19:27:14 [Ian]
DC: You are headed for PR?
19:27:20 [Ian]
JC: Yes, this is the only outstanding issue.
19:27:34 [Ian]
DC: Do you have test cases for this behavior?
19:27:37 [Ian]
JC: I think so.
19:27:55 [Ian]
JC: I would need to look at details. We have about 200 tests.
19:28:04 [Ian]
JC: I believe there's a test for this; I"d have to be sure.
19:28:31 [Ian]
DC: What would make me feel most comfortable is a test that shows a server returning text/plain and an implementation noticing the error.
19:28:51 [Ian]
JC: That's a reasonable request. There are probably 2-3 tests one would run for this (i.e., each of the special cases).
19:29:59 [Ian]
DC: It's not critical that the TAG endorse the final text. We were asked our opinion, we gave it, they tweaked their spec, and everybody's happy.
19:30:03 [Ian]
JC: Outside of this discussion, I owe some personal feedback regarding test cases.
19:30:37 [Zakim]
19:30:43 [Ian]
JC: But I think the issues between the Voice WG and the TAG are resolved.
19:30:43 [Ian]
SW: I'd like to record our thanks to the Voice WG!
19:30:43 [Ian]
TB, DC: Absolutely.
19:30:43 [Ian]
The TAG wishes the Voice WG good luck!
19:30:43 [Ian]
[JC leaves]
19:31:01 [Ian]
19:31:16 [Ian]
Finding regarding contentTypeOverride-24
19:31:24 [Ian]
19:32:51 [Ian]
19:32:56 [Ian]
NW comments:
19:33:12 [Ian]
19:33:15 [Ian]
NW: Mostly editorial nits
19:33:20 [Ian]
NW: Fine on the whole.
19:33:45 [Ian]
NW: Section 6, point 3, I would support "MUST NOT"
19:34:11 [Ian]
Specifications MAY include hints about server headers but SHOULD NOT include requirements that a client override these headers without involving the user.
19:34:30 [Ian]
DC: Seems strange to constrain the spec. If you don't have the user's consent, you can't hold them responsible.
19:34:57 [Ian]
DC: I don't think this is the best advice we can give to spec writers.
19:35:42 [Ian]
DC: If a user agent wants to do something different than the published protocol, they have to do so with the consent of the user, otherwise they are not acting on behalf of the user.
19:36:50 [Ian]
TBray: Any time somebody writes this sort of thing in a spec, they can be sure they'll get static from the TAG.
19:36:55 [Ian]
DC: Will we read every spec?
19:38:12 [Ian]
DC: We can just say "The server mime type is authoritative."
19:38:24 [Ian]
TBray: Then we should say nothing about what specs do..."SHOULD" is misleading.
19:38:32 [DanC]
"number 3"?
19:38:46 [Ian]
[Section 6 of finding, bullets 1-3]
19:39:08 [Ian]
NW, DC: Change to MUST NOT in bullet 2.
19:39:34 [Ian]
IJ: I can live without bullet 3 since section 5 covers this.
19:39:57 [Ian]
Resolved: Drop bullet 3 and to change SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT in item 2.
19:40:03 [Ian]
[Section 6]
19:40:31 [Ian]
See comments from Rob Lanphier
19:40:39 [Ian]
19:41:40 [Ian]
TBray: I think some of RL's comments about servers are useful, e.g., default content type is harmful.
19:42:23 [Ian]
IJ: Seems like a reasonable addition to talk about how to address this issue in practice.
19:42:34 [Ian]
DC: Don't talk about "harmful", talk about "risks of default content type"
19:42:54 [Ian]
DC: The right answer in case of misconfigured server is not to sweep it under the rug.
19:43:13 [Ian]
See TBL comments
19:43:22 [Ian]
19:44:44 [Stuart]
19:44:46 [Ian]
TBray: Unless TBL can provide some examples of the impact on programmers, what's the utility of this?
19:44:48 [Ian]
19:45:04 [Ian]
DC: To me this look editorial and is not a huge improvement.
19:45:26 [Ian]
DC: Putting "the" in your face doesn't help things.
19:46:37 [Ian]
DC: I'd prefer that IJ return to TBL and ask for more motivation.
19:49:50 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
19:50:19 [Ian]
TBray: I like TBL's example of showing how even self-describing content not sufficient (or may provide wrong info) about author's intent in some cases.
19:50:50 [Ian]
Action IJ: Take into account comments from Rob Lanphier, TBL, NW, SW (editorial), and above resolution.
19:51:00 [Ian]
and produce a new draft of finding.
19:51:28 [Ian]
SW: I'd prefer "status of the resource" over "meaning of the resource".
19:51:34 [Ian]
19:51:50 [Ian]
SW: I think that "meaning of the resource" is more complex than its state.
19:52:52 [Ian]
SW: Second security example didn't seem so credible to me.
19:53:28 [Ian]
DC: "State" of the resource and "Meaning" of the resource are very different.
19:53:41 [DanC]
no, I said status
19:53:47 [DanC]
I agree that 'state' is OK
19:53:50 [Ian]
19:54:02 [Ian]
DC: I"m ok with "state"
19:54:08 [Ian]
[IJ will correct above.]
19:54:56 [Ian]
IJ: I'll produce a new draft for next week.
19:54:57 [Norm]
Ian, we can't hear you
19:55:02 [Ian]
19:55:07 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
19:55:07 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
19:55:08 [Zakim]
19:56:06 [Norm]
Come back to us, Ian! :-)
19:56:24 [TBray]
Ian: I think asked you to send a note to the SMIL folks saying "thanks, we're taking your input seriously & will redraft"
19:57:04 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
19:57:45 [Ian]
zakim, dial Ian-BOS
19:57:45 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:57:46 [Zakim]
19:57:47 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:57:47 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:57:52 [TBray]
On "URIs, Addressability, etc..."
19:58:04 [DanC]
where's the text that both of you like, DaveO?
19:58:13 [DaveO]
I'll try to find...
19:59:09 [DaveO]
19:59:33 [Ian]
TBray: As for PUT v. POST, just state that we won't cover, and point to new issue.
20:00:42 [Ian]
DO: See my counter proposal and take Noah's suggestion:
20:00:59 [Ian]
20:01:22 [Ian]
Action DO: Send final text to
20:01:59 [Ian]
Action IJ: Produce new draft of finding with (1) change based on LM comment, (2) text from DO (3) comment about new PUT issue.
20:02:30 [Ian]
Action IJ: Follow up with SYMM IG saying we'll take into account input and produce new draft.
20:02:38 [Ian]
20:02:45 [Ian]
contentPresentation-26: Action CL 2003/06/02: Make available a draft finding on content/presentation.
20:02:49 [Ian]
Haven't seen new draft.
20:02:52 [DanC]
(hmm... no story atop )
20:03:06 [Ian]
20:03:24 [Ian]
20:04:06 [Ian]
DC: I think the finding may be getting too long.
20:04:16 [Ian]
DC: I was hoping for three paras that say "Don't peek into URIs."
20:04:48 [DanC]
I'm looking at
20:05:04 [Ian]
"People and software making use of URIs assigned outside of their own authority (i.e. observers) MUST NOT attempt to infer properties of the referenced resource except as licensed by relevant normative specifications or by URI assignment policies published by the relevant URI assignment authority."
20:05:35 [DaveO]
20:05:39 [Ian]
q+ DO
20:05:39 [DaveO]
20:05:45 [Ian]
q- DO
20:06:15 [Ian]
SW: Can one make use of information published by W3C (in a policy)?
20:06:34 [Ian]
DC: Shorten 3 to "Don't peek inside the URI." It's always safe to not peek inside the URI.
20:07:15 [Ian]
DO: On Scheme component designators and wsdl components....
20:08:33 [DanC]
the W3C tech reports naming policy isn't based on the URI alone. there's no guarantee that is a W3C working draft. If you know that it is a WD somehow, you can learn stuff from the URI. but you can never just peek into the URI alone.
20:09:34 [Stuart]
20:09:35 [Ian]
DO: DC's point (don't peek in URIs) is in conflict with what some groups are trying to do.
20:10:24 [Ian]
SW: Does this draft need more work before sending to www-tag?
20:10:41 [Ian]
DO: I agree with DC that it seems a little long.
20:11:01 [Ian]
20:11:02 [DanC]
(odd... I'm having trouble following the link to
20:11:04 [DanC]
ack danc
20:11:04 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to object to 'alleged' type
20:11:16 [Ian]
q- DaveO
20:11:58 [Norm]
20:12:19 [DavidOrch]
DavidOrch has joined #tagmem
20:12:44 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:13:32 [Ian]
NW: If I understand DC correctly, sounds like DC is saying that if I know XQuery is a Working Draft, then I can find meaning in WD in URI. If I saw a URI ending in "WD-".... could I infer that it's a WD?
20:13:34 [Ian]
DC: No.
20:13:49 [Ian]
DC: You have to look at the TR page as well.
20:14:00 [Ian]
DC: One you have found something on the TR page, there's quite a bit you can go on.
20:14:42 [Ian]
DC: If you start from the TR page and find the URI, that's fine.
20:14:56 [Ian]
DC: But if you find the URI on the floor somewhere, you can't go on that alone.
20:15:11 [Norm]
That exists does not imply foo is a WD unless and until it appears *as a link* on the TR page.
20:16:29 [Ian]
DC: Just don't peek in the URI.
20:17:01 [Ian]
DO: I don't want the finding written that way.
20:17:21 [Ian]
DC: A story would be useful.
20:18:01 [Ian]
DC: If you want to treat the entire topic, then start with a story.
20:18:12 [Ian]
DC: It's not clear why someone wants to read all this stuff.
20:18:21 [Ian]
DC: I don't think IJ is hot on the trail of a story.
20:18:45 [Ian]
DC: I don't think this comes up very often...may not deserve a real story.
20:19:04 [Ian]
SW: I will take a crack at writing something short before floating on www-tag.
20:19:46 [Ian]
NW: Perhaps DO could write a couple of paragraphs to motivate why one would want to do this.
20:19:58 [DanC]
which wsdl group posting?
20:21:04 [Ian]
DO: I'll write up something in response to SW's draft.
20:21:15 [DavidOrch]
20:21:39 [Ian]
DC: I'm not sure putting burden on SW is appropriate. Maybe just send what you've got and say there isn't agreement.
20:21:39 [Ian]
DC: Promote third bullet to abstract.
20:22:29 [Ian]
DO: Amazon publishes policy for query parameters.
20:23:10 [Ian]
DC: Perhaps cheapest approach is to open up to community.
20:23:33 [Ian]
ack DavidOrch
20:23:34 [DanC]
treating the whole forms interface convention is more than I would have expected for a finding on issue metadataInURI-31
20:26:04 [Ian]
DO: Where do others stand on this?
20:26:04 [Ian]
NW: I'm definitely on the fence.
20:26:04 [Ian]
NW: I think there's a lot of merit in "don't look inside the URI", but I understand what the WSDL WG wants to do.
20:26:06 [Ian]
DC: Don't put version numbers in URIs.
20:26:10 [Ian]
TBray: I think the answer is still "probably not"
20:26:16 [Ian]
20:27:25 [TBray]
[VER 2] Draft: Last Call request for TAG Architecture of the World-Wide Web document
20:27:37 [TBray]
20:28:00 [DanC]
the question of who sends it to ac-forum is a good one
20:28:11 [Ian]
20:28:11 [Ian]
20:28:16 [Ian]
20:28:26 [TBray]
Hi Ian
20:28:37 [TBray]
Issue is: who sends this thing, and to whom
20:28:47 [TBray]
SW: want's TimBL's sign-off
20:28:55 [TBray]
SW: would want to sign it from both of us
20:30:05 [Ian]
DC: Don't put TBL's signature at bottom of something he hasn't read.
20:30:05 [Ian]
TBray: I propose that SW find TBL and get him to sign off.
20:30:25 [TBray]
Action: 1. SW to try to get TimBL to sign off
20:30:36 [TBray]
2. If so, SW/TBL to send it as co-chairs
20:30:42 [TBray]
3. if not, IJ to send on behalf of TAG
20:30:56 [DanC]
20:30:59 [Zakim]
20:30:59 [Zakim]
20:31:01 [Zakim]
20:31:07 [Zakim]
20:31:08 [Zakim]
20:34:03 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
20:34:43 [Ian]
20:34:45 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop