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