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