14:57:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-irc ←
14:57:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:57:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:57:15 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes ←
14:57:16 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:16 <trackbot> Date: 27 January 2014
15:00:06 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
15:00:13 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:00:56 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:01:28 <JohnArwe> zakim seems under the weather today
John Arwe: zakim seems under the weather today ←
15:01:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:01:55 <JohnArwe> ...just dropped me w/o asking for a code, but second try worked
John Arwe: ...just dropped me w/o asking for a code, but second try worked ←
15:03:06 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steve_Speicher ←
15:03:24 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, Steve_Speicher is me ←
15:03:24 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:04:27 <Zakim> +Matt
Zakim IRC Bot: +Matt ←
15:04:37 <betehess> Zakim, Matt is Andrei
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, Matt is Andrei ←
15:04:37 <Zakim> +Andrei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Andrei; got it ←
15:04:53 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:04:54 <betehess> Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, Andrei also has Alexandre ←
15:04:54 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre; got it ←
15:04:57 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:04:57 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:06:05 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:06:15 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
15:06:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, SteveS, Andrei, TallTed, Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, SteveS, Andrei, TallTed, Roger ←
15:06:17 <Zakim> Andrei has Andrei, Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: Andrei has Andrei, Alexandre ←
15:06:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see nmihindu, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, SteveS, deiu, betehess, TallTed, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, thschee, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see nmihindu, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, SteveS, deiu, betehess, TallTed, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, thschee, trackbot ←
15:07:06 <betehess> scribe: Alexandre
(Scribe set to Alexandre Bertails)
<betehess> chair: Arnaud
<betehess> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.27
15:07:10 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
<betehess> topic: Admin
15:07:57 <betehess> Arnaud: last week, because of not enough people on the call, we had an informal call
Arnaud Le Hors: last week, because of not enough people on the call, we had an informal call ←
15:08:15 <betehess> ... let's approve the minute from last meeting, 2 weeks ago
... let's approve the minute from last meeting, 2 weeks ago ←
15:08:28 <betehess> ... anybody looked at them?
... anybody looked at them? ←
15:08:38 <SteveS> look fine to me
Steve Speicher: look fine to me ←
15:09:06 <betehess> Resolved: Minutes of 13 January approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of 13 January approved ←
15:09:11 <betehess> ... next meeting is next week
... next meeting is next week ←
15:09:23 <betehess> ... Feb 3rd
... Feb 3rd ←
15:09:56 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
<betehess> topic: Tracking of actions
15:10:28 <betehess> I guess you can close mine
I guess you can close mine ←
15:10:30 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:10:37 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P2 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P2 is me ←
15:10:37 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
15:10:47 <betehess> Arnaud: anybody claiming victory?
Arnaud Le Hors: anybody claiming victory? ←
15:11:17 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
15:11:17 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
15:11:26 <betehess> ... we can close ACTION-128
... we can close ACTION-128 ←
<betehess> topic: Timeline
15:11:57 <betehess> Arnaud: wanted to spend a minute speaking about timeline
Arnaud Le Hors: wanted to spend a minute speaking about timeline ←
15:12:08 <betehess> ... current charter expires at the end of May
... current charter expires at the end of May ←
15:12:23 <betehess> ... we should try having a PR before then
... we should try having a PR before then ←
15:12:34 <betehess> ... think it's possible
... think it's possible ←
15:12:44 <betehess> ... even if we close all issues today, still hard to get there
... even if we close all issues today, still hard to get there ←
15:12:55 <betehess> ... can't afford to discuss new things
... can't afford to discuss new things ←
15:13:04 <betehess> ... people need to accept that the spec won't be perfect
... people need to accept that the spec won't be perfect ←
15:13:20 <betehess> ... it's better if we don't have to re-charter
... it's better if we don't have to re-charter ←
15:13:37 <betehess> ... so we don't have to prove to the w3c management that we're ready to deliver
... so we don't have to prove to the w3c management that we're ready to deliver ←
15:14:02 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
15:14:06 <betehess> ... also depends on the editors, but there are quite a few changes so it won't be done in one week
... also depends on the editors, but there are quite a few changes so it won't be done in one week ←
15:14:25 <JohnArwe> regrets: cody
15:14:31 <betehess> ... one big unknown: what we get during 2nd LC
... one big unknown: what we get during 2nd LC ←
15:14:47 <betehess> ... we may have significant comments and go to another LC
... we may have significant comments and go to another LC ←
15:14:59 <betehess> ... requires negotiations with the commenters
... requires negotiations with the commenters ←
15:15:09 <betehess> ... so the timeline I drafted is an idea
... so the timeline I drafted is an idea ←
15:15:29 <betehess> ... time will tell us
... time will tell us ←
15:15:49 <betehess> ... we've had a lot of comments after 1rst LC
... we've had a lot of comments after 1rst LC ←
15:16:07 <betehess> ... the time for next f2f could be in 2 months from now
... the time for next f2f could be in 2 months from now ←
15:16:08 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:16:34 <betehess> ... would give us a chance to meet after the LC
... would give us a chance to meet after the LC ←
15:16:59 <betehess> ... just wanted to tell people what to expect
... just wanted to tell people what to expect ←
15:17:24 <betehess> sandro: agree with general analysis, was wondering about tracking implementations/test suite for CR
Sandro Hawke: agree with general analysis, was wondering about tracking implementations/test suite for CR ←
15:17:38 <betehess> Arnaud: there is a wiki page tracking all that
Arnaud Le Hors: there is a wiki page tracking all that ←
15:17:41 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations
Steve Speicher: http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations ←
15:17:44 <betehess> ... don't know how accurate it is
... don't know how accurate it is ←
15:18:03 <betehess> ... what's not clear is how long it will take for people to reflect last changes
... what's not clear is how long it will take for people to reflect last changes ←
15:18:27 <betehess> ericP: what you have to do is proving that your implementation do X, Y and Z
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what you have to do is proving that your implementation do X, Y and Z ←
15:18:39 <betehess> sandro: the test suite is just human readable
Sandro Hawke: the test suite is just human readable ←
15:18:41 <betehess> ericP: correct
Eric Prud'hommeaux: correct ←
15:18:44 <SteveS> Info on "Testing" http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing
Steve Speicher: Info on "Testing" http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing ←
15:19:14 <betehess> Arnaud: Raul has been trying to do that but couldn't keep up with all the changes (nobody can blame him)
Arnaud Le Hors: Raul has been trying to do that but couldn't keep up with all the changes (nobody can blame him) ←
15:19:26 <Zakim> -??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P11 ←
15:19:27 <betehess> sandro: maybe somebody will share his code
Sandro Hawke: maybe somebody will share his code ←
15:19:36 <betehess> ericP: problem is for non-generic triplestores
Eric Prud'hommeaux: problem is for non-generic triplestores ←
15:19:46 <betehess> Arnaud: yes, there can be domain specific constraints
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, there can be domain specific constraints ←
15:20:13 <betehess> ... will be mainly based on claims from people
... will be mainly based on claims from people ←
15:20:30 <betehess> ericP: we do the same in other WGs, when we give them the test suites
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we do the same in other WGs, when we give them the test suites ←
15:20:35 <nmihindu> s/Juan/Raul
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: s/Juan/Raul (warning: replacement failed) ←
15:20:49 <betehess> sandro: we can skip CR if we meet those criteria
Sandro Hawke: we can skip CR if we meet those criteria ←
15:20:59 <betehess> ericP: even better if we have that for LC
Eric Prud'hommeaux: even better if we have that for LC ←
15:21:17 <betehess> Arnaud: let's move on with the agenda
Arnaud Le Hors: let's move on with the agenda ←
15:21:31 <betehess> topic: Accept-POST
15:21:40 <betehess> ... written by Erik Wilde
... written by Erik Wilde ←
15:21:52 <betehess> JohnArwe: erik will do some cleanup on the draft
John Arwe: erik will do some cleanup on the draft ←
15:22:11 <betehess> ... ask people with implementations, prototypes, intentions, to tell him
... ask people with implementations, prototypes, intentions, to tell him ←
15:22:20 <betehess> ... to have an implementation report
... to have an implementation report ←
15:22:30 <betehess> ... and give to IETF
... and give to IETF ←
15:22:52 <betehess> Arnaud: he asked several times people to give feedback
Arnaud Le Hors: he asked several times people to give feedback ←
15:22:58 <betehess> ... it's in our interest to support it
... it's in our interest to support it ←
15:23:07 <betehess> ... we also have dependency on it
... we also have dependency on it ←
15:23:32 <betehess> ... better sooner than later
... better sooner than later ←
15:23:38 <betehess> Arnaud: let's start with the issues
Arnaud Le Hors: let's start with the issues ←
15:23:54 <betehess> ... we've had plenty of discussions on these issues already
... we've had plenty of discussions on these issues already ←
15:24:12 <betehess> ... I want to limit conversations and vote directly
... I want to limit conversations and vote directly ←
15:24:20 <betehess> ... to know where people stand
... to know where people stand ←
15:24:32 <betehess> ... so let's try
... so let's try ←
15:25:14 <betehess> TOPIC: ISSUE-92
15:24:49 <betehess> Arnaud: start with issue-92
Arnaud Le Hors: start with ISSUE-92 ←
15:25:07 <roger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92
Roger Menday: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92 ←
15:25:07 <betehess> ... last it was proposed, only one objection from Henry but everybody else agreed
... last it was proposed, only one objection from Henry but everybody else agreed ←
15:25:21 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by changing rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by changing rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model ←
15:25:27 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:25:30 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
15:25:34 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:25:41 <betehess> irc.w3.org
irc.w3.org ←
15:25:57 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:26:08 <bblfish> ok
Henry Story: ok ←
15:26:10 <sandro> -0.5
Sandro Hawke: -0.5 ←
15:26:10 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:26:22 <bblfish> -1
Henry Story: -1 ←
15:26:24 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:26:27 <roger> +0.5
Roger Menday: +0.5 ←
15:26:48 <betehess> Arnaud: so the situation hasn't really changed
Arnaud Le Hors: so the situation hasn't really changed ←
15:27:02 <betehess> ... still mostly in favor
... still mostly in favor ←
15:27:17 <betehess> ... there is an alternative: keeping rel=type
... there is an alternative: keeping rel=type ←
15:27:08 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by keeping rel=type for client introspection of interaction model
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by keeping rel=type for client introspection of interaction model ←
15:27:17 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:27:18 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:27:22 <ericP> -.5
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -.5 ←
15:27:25 <betehess> -.5
-.5 ←
15:27:28 <deiu> 0
Andrei Sambra: 0 ←
15:27:31 <SteveS> +0
Steve Speicher: +0 ←
15:27:38 <JohnArwe> -0.5 [holds nose]
John Arwe: -0.5 [holds nose] ←
15:27:48 <TallTed> -.75
Ted Thibodeau: -.75 ←
15:27:51 <roger> +0.5
Roger Menday: +0.5 ←
15:27:59 <ericP> hold your nose and give up on other interaction modes
Eric Prud'hommeaux: hold your nose and give up on other interaction modes ←
15:28:08 <nmihindu> +0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0 ←
15:28:12 <bblfish> nonsense, you can have other interaction modes
Henry Story: nonsense, you can have other interaction modes ←
15:28:18 <Ashok> 0
Ashok Malhotra: 0 ←
15:28:30 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-92 by keeping rel=type for client introspection of interaction model
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-92 by keeping rel=type for client introspection of interaction model ←
15:28:38 <betehess> Arnaud: thank you all
Arnaud Le Hors: thank you all ←
15:28:48 <betehess> ... I know it's not what the majority wanted
... I know it's not what the majority wanted ←
15:29:03 <TallTed> I think the option of multiple rel=type headers should be mentioned...
Ted Thibodeau: I think the option of multiple rel=type headers should be mentioned... ←
15:29:04 <betehess> ... Henry, you'll carry the burden of a decision nobody wanted
... Henry, you'll carry the burden of a decision nobody wanted ←
15:29:06 <bblfish> they'll thank me for it.
Henry Story: they'll thank me for it. ←
15:29:18 <betehess> TOPIC: ISSUE-89
15:29:28 <betehess> Arnaud: started with a conversation started by john
Arnaud Le Hors: started with a conversation started by john ←
15:29:41 <betehess> ... we agreed to add ldp:contains
... we agreed to add ldp:contains ←
15:29:47 <betehess> ... question was: should it be materialized?
... question was: should it be materialized? ←
15:29:57 <betehess> ... john looked into using the Prefer header
... john looked into using the Prefer header ←
15:30:12 <betehess> ... people had to read it and had enough time
... people had to read it and had enough time ←
15:30:33 <betehess> ... Prefer lets the client specify what triple it wants
... Prefer lets the client specify what triple it wants ←
15:30:50 <betehess> ... can request the server not to send certain triple with omit
... can request the server not to send certain triple with omit ←
15:31:02 <betehess> ... works at least with membership and containment triples
... works at least with membership and containment triples ←
15:31:07 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-89 by adopting John's Proposal to materialize ldp:contains with a Prefer header to filter triples
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-89 by adopting John's Proposal to materialize ldp:contains with a Prefer header to filter triples ←
15:31:12 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
15:31:13 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:31:16 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:31:16 <JohnArwe> +1
15:31:19 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:31:22 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:31:25 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:31:39 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:31:46 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:31:50 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:32:11 <bblfish> 0 did not have time to read it
Henry Story: 0 did not have time to read it ←
15:32:19 <betehess> Arnaud: ouf !
Arnaud Le Hors: ouf ! ←
15:32:19 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-89 by adopting John's Proposal to materialize ldp:contains with a Prefer header to filter triples
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-89 by adopting John's Proposal to materialize ldp:contains with a Prefer header to filter triples ←
15:32:35 <betehess> Arnaud: now, other things related to that
Arnaud Le Hors: now, other things related to that ←
15:32:51 <betehess> ... Alex proposed to improve the spec in an email
... Alex proposed to improve the spec in an email ←
15:33:13 <betehess> ... by dropping the non-member-properties resource
... by dropping the non-member-properties resource ←
15:33:24 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Remove all mention of non-member-properties and non-containment resources from the spec, the need is addressed by the Prefer header.
PROPOSED: Remove all mention of non-member-properties and non-containment resources from the spec, the need is addressed by the Prefer header. ←
15:33:33 <betehess> ... but you can to the "same" with the Prefer header
... but you can to the "same" with the Prefer header ←
15:33:41 <betehess> ... you can achieve the same thing
... you can achieve the same thing ←
15:33:50 <betehess> ... so this would make the spec simpler
... so this would make the spec simpler ←
15:34:13 <betehess> ... so it should be fine to remove it
... so it should be fine to remove it ←
15:34:14 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
15:34:23 <JohnArwe> +1
15:34:38 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:34:40 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:34:50 <betehess> Arnaud: this is just house cleaning
Arnaud Le Hors: this is just house cleaning ←
15:34:51 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:34:52 <ericP> +.5 (sounds good but i haven't thought hard)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +.5 (sounds good but i haven't thought hard) ←
15:34:59 <SteveS> +0.5 no strong preference
Steve Speicher: +0.5 no strong preference ←
15:35:03 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:35:12 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
15:35:19 <bblfish> +.5 sounds good but I have not thought hard. if it is just house cleaning then +1
Henry Story: +.5 sounds good but I have not thought hard. if it is just house cleaning then +1 ←
15:35:20 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
15:36:12 <betehess> Arnaud: the spec today speaks about a special resource Link-ed from the container to avoid having some triples
Arnaud Le Hors: the spec today speaks about a special resource Link-ed from the container to avoid having some triples ←
15:36:21 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:36:39 <betehess> JohnArwe: the server is always free to ignore the Prefer header
John Arwe: the server is always free to ignore the Prefer header ←
15:36:51 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:37:13 <betehess> bblfish: used to be some kind of relation to link to the resource?
Henry Story: used to be some kind of relation to link to the resource? ←
15:38:02 <betehess> JohnArwe: instead of the server supplying the Link header for the subject of triples you're interested, now the client would ask to omit those triples with the Prefer header
John Arwe: instead of the server supplying the Link header for the subject of triples you're interested, now the client would ask to omit those triples with the Prefer header ←
15:38:11 <betehess> Arnaud: and you avoid one round-trip
Arnaud Le Hors: and you avoid one round-trip ←
15:38:23 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Remove all mention of non-member-properties and non-containment resources from the spec, the need is addressed by the Prefer header.
RESOLVED: Remove all mention of non-member-properties and non-containment resources from the spec, the need is addressed by the Prefer header. ←
15:38:27 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Methods.html
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Methods.html ←
15:38:38 <betehess> bblfish: in early spec in HTTP, there was a SEARCH method
Henry Story: in early spec in HTTP, there was a SEARCH method ←
15:38:49 <betehess> ... we could add a SEARCH method
... we could add a SEARCH method ←
15:39:07 <betehess> Arnaud: don't know, but we can't afford to investigate in SEARCH
Arnaud Le Hors: don't know, but we can't afford to investigate in SEARCH ←
15:39:13 <betehess> ... maybe for LDP Next
... maybe for LDP Next ←
15:39:28 <JohnArwe> @henry: looking at header reg, not seeing SEARCH
John Arwe: @henry: looking at header reg, not seeing SEARCH ←
15:39:30 <betehess> ... on Friday, john proposed an extension for Prefer
... on Friday, john proposed an extension for Prefer ←
15:39:45 <SteveS> thinks instead of SEARCH verb, people would just expose a SPARQL endpoint
Steve Speicher: thinks instead of SEARCH verb, people would just expose a SPARQL endpoint ←
15:39:48 <betehess> ... we could also allow the other way around
... we could also allow the other way around ←
15:39:50 <bblfish> JohnArwe: it's at the end of http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Methods.html
John Arwe: it's at the end of http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Methods.html [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
15:39:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Add Prefer: include per John's addition proposal
PROPOSED: Add Prefer: include per John's addition proposal ←
15:39:58 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:39:59 <betehess> ... where the client can ask triples to be included
... where the client can ask triples to be included ←
15:40:33 <betehess> +0.5 sounds ok but didn't have time to do a deep review of the proposal
+0.5 sounds ok but didn't have time to do a deep review of the proposal ←
15:40:39 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:40:42 <bblfish> Which issue are we looking at?
Henry Story: Which issue are we looking at? ←
15:41:01 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:41:07 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.27#ISSUE-89_-_Managed_Resources
Steve Speicher: ISSUE-89_-_Managed_Resources">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.27#ISSUE-89_-_Managed_Resources ←
15:41:11 <JohnArwe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jan/0124.html is the link from the agenda
John Arwe: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jan/0124.html is the link from the agenda ←
15:41:11 <betehess> ... still related to issue 89
... still related to ISSUE-89 ←
15:41:51 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:42:52 <betehess> Arnaud: with this, we'd have 2 preferences, omit and include, both dual
Arnaud Le Hors: with this, we'd have 2 preferences, omit and include, both dual ←
15:42:59 <JohnArwe> +0.5 (merely because it's not bare-minimum ... LDP could live with omit only; but I agree with the view that it's more natural for clients)
John Arwe: +0.5 (merely because it's not bare-minimum ... LDP could live with omit only; but I agree with the view that it's more natural for clients) ←
15:43:28 <betehess> roger: too bad we can't reuse URL for the preferences in the Prefer header
Roger Menday: too bad we can't reuse URL for the preferences in the Prefer header ←
15:43:45 <betehess> JohnArwe: just following the syntax from the spec
John Arwe: just following the syntax from the spec ←
15:43:49 <betehess> ... has to be a token
... has to be a token ←
15:44:18 <betehess> ... one possibility would be to make it a URI, not sure if that would be allowed by the BNF
... one possibility would be to make it a URI, not sure if that would be allowed by the BNF ←
15:44:26 <betehess> TallTed: we should check that
Ted Thibodeau: we should check that ←
15:44:38 <betehess> Arnaud: yes, but that's orthogonal to this proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, but that's orthogonal to this proposal ←
15:44:54 <betehess> TallTed: would be really good though
Ted Thibodeau: would be really good though ←
15:44:57 <bblfish> not sure of this as of the other, since I had not read it carefully
Henry Story: not sure of this as of the other, since I had not read it carefully ←
15:45:05 <betehess> Arnaud: I'm not stopping you from proposing that to happen
Arnaud Le Hors: I'm not stopping you from proposing that to happen ←
15:45:09 <JohnArwe> @Ted, would your pref for URI be met by the qname syntactic form?
John Arwe: @Ted, would your pref for URI be met by the qname syntactic form? ←
15:45:11 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Add Prefer: include per John's addition proposal
RESOLVED: Add Prefer: include per John's addition proposal ←
15:45:11 <betehess> ... would need a proposal
... would need a proposal ←
15:45:11 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:45:26 <betehess> ... who wants to take the action?
... who wants to take the action? ←
15:45:35 <betehess> ... maybe TallTed?
... maybe TallTed? ←
15:45:45 <betehess> TallTed: ok, we'll look into it
Ted Thibodeau: ok, we'll look into it ←
15:46:21 <betehess> ACTION: TallTed to investigate the use of URIs with the Prefer header
ACTION: TallTed to investigate the use of URIs with the Prefer header ←
15:46:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Investigate the use of uris with the prefer header [on Ted Thibodeau - due 2014-02-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-129 - Investigate the use of uris with the prefer header [on Ted Thibodeau - due 2014-02-03]. ←
15:47:06 <JohnArwe> @ted: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18
John Arwe: @ted: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18 ←
15:47:20 <JohnArwe> the BNF refers back to bis however
John Arwe: the BNF refers back to bis however ←
15:47:20 <betehess> Arnaud: ok, now, more house cleaning
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, now, more house cleaning ←
15:47:22 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Get rid of ldp:created which is subsumed by ldp:contains
PROPOSED: Get rid of ldp:created which is subsumed by ldp:contains ←
15:47:44 <betehess> ... we have ldp:created for historical reasons
... we have ldp:created for historical reasons ←
15:48:02 <betehess> ... now we have agreed to have ldp:contains
... now we have agreed to have ldp:contains ←
15:48:15 <betehess> ... still didn't take time to get rid of ldp:created
... still didn't take time to get rid of ldp:created ←
15:48:22 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:48:23 <JohnArwe> ...that's why Prefer is still a draft w/o an RFC #, the normative reference on bis queues it behind bis on the IETF editor's queue.
John Arwe: ...that's why Prefer is still a draft w/o an RFC #, the normative reference on bis queues it behind bis on the IETF editor's queue. ←
15:48:28 <betehess> ... so ldp:created is now obsolete
... so ldp:created is now obsolete ←
15:48:42 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:48:48 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
15:48:50 <JohnArwe> +1
15:48:59 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:49:00 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:49:04 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:49:14 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:49:15 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:49:24 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Get rid of ldp:created which is subsumed by ldp:contains
RESOLVED: Get rid of ldp:created which is subsumed by ldp:contains ←
15:49:59 <betehess> Arnaud: looking at leftovers re: issues
Arnaud Le Hors: looking at leftovers re: issues ←
15:50:03 <betehess> TOPIC: ISSUE-86
15:50:08 <JohnArwe> "Ding dong, the witch-ssue is dead"
John Arwe: "Ding dong, the witch-ssue is dead" ←
15:50:24 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 doing nothing
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 doing nothing ←
15:50:32 <betehess> Arnaud: I think we can now just close this one easily
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we can now just close this one easily ←
15:50:36 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:50:54 <betehess> Arnaud: now we have a new term: containment
Arnaud Le Hors: now we have a new term: containment ←
15:51:01 <betehess> ... different from membership
... different from membership ←
15:51:11 <betehess> ... the editors will reflect that when they have time
... the editors will reflect that when they have time ←
15:51:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:51:38 <betehess> bblfish: say you keep membership triple, now you don't have membershipXXX anymore
Henry Story: say you keep membership triple, now you don't have membershipXXX anymore ←
15:51:45 <betehess> ... suppose it's ok to keep it
... suppose it's ok to keep it ←
15:51:53 <betehess> ... but you have problem with other relations
... but you have problem with other relations ←
15:52:00 <betehess> ... not in sync with membership triples
... not in sync with membership triples ←
15:52:24 <betehess> Arnaud: ah, talking about the name of rhte predicates
Arnaud Le Hors: ah, talking about the name of rhte predicates ←
15:52:33 <JohnArwe> s/rthe/the/
John Arwe: s/rthe/the/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
15:52:48 <betehess> ... I understand, but would be a different issue
... I understand, but would be a different issue ←
15:53:21 <betehess> I would let the editors free to propose changes during their rewriting
I would let the editors free to propose changes during their rewriting ←
15:53:37 <SteveS> betehess, I was going to suggest the same thing
Steve Speicher: betehess, I was going to suggest the same thing ←
15:53:59 <betehess> Arnaud: ok, still, I think we can close issue-86
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, still, I think we can close ISSUE-86 ←
15:54:15 <betehess> ... but recognize Henry's point
... but recognize Henry's point ←
15:54:30 <bblfish> fine
Henry Story: fine ←
15:54:32 <betehess> ... lets have the editors make proposal for new names
... lets have the editors make proposal for new names ←
15:55:06 <TallTed> regretfully, I think we do need another round of naming for the membership predicates, given where we've settled with the model (ldp:contains + ldp:members) ... but I do think that's distinct from 86
Ted Thibodeau: regretfully, I think we do need another round of naming for the membership predicates, given where we've settled with the model (ldp:contains + ldp:members) ... but I do think that's distinct from 86 ←
15:55:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 doing nothing
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 doing nothing ←
15:55:30 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:55:30 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:55:31 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
15:55:31 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:55:31 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:55:34 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:55:35 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:55:35 <JohnArwe> +1
15:55:37 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:55:48 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 doing nothing
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 doing nothing ←
15:56:35 <betehess> Arnaud: I don't want to have 5 proposals for new names, so I'll let the editors choose
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't want to have 5 proposals for new names, so I'll let the editors choose ←
15:56:43 <betehess> ... let's have them fight together
... let's have them fight together ←
15:56:51 <SteveS> Editors were part of the original discussion on names and where we landed, we can use that same feedback again
Steve Speicher: Editors were part of the original discussion on names and where we landed, we can use that same feedback again ←
15:57:02 <betehess> TOPIC: ISSUE-93
15:57:15 <bblfish> Issue-93
15:57:15 <trackbot> Issue-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-93 -- Accept and Auth -- raised ←
15:57:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/93 ←
15:57:41 <betehess> Arnaud: was raised by bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: was raised by bblfish ←
15:57:55 <betehess> ... might be expensive to determine what's really allowed
... might be expensive to determine what's really allowed ←
15:58:02 <betehess> ... and the client might not even care
... and the client might not even care ←
15:58:21 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:58:34 <betehess> ... and we don't touch on Authorization, Authentication, etc.
... and we don't touch on Authorization, Authentication, etc. ←
15:58:35 <betehess> ... so I don't think we should discuss that today
... so I don't think we should discuss that today ←
15:58:46 <betehess> ... so the proposal is to remove a section in the spec
... so the proposal is to remove a section in the spec ←
15:58:52 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:58:53 <betehess> ... and we completely rely on HTTP
... and we completely rely on HTTP ←
15:59:12 <betehess> bblfish: I tried to do something like that with WebACL
Henry Story: I tried to do something like that with WebACL ←
15:59:19 <betehess> ... using OPTIONS
... using OPTIONS ←
15:59:43 <betehess> ... was interested in people's feedback on that
... was interested in people's feedback on that ←
16:00:07 <betehess> Arnaud: the problem here is for the client to ask the server "what can I do?"
Arnaud Le Hors: the problem here is for the client to ask the server "what can I do?" ←
16:00:19 <betehess> ... and depending on authorization, it could be different
... and depending on authorization, it could be different ←
16:00:31 <betehess> ... so it can set the wrong expectation
... so it can set the wrong expectation ←
16:01:00 <SteveS> should be clear, it is not the Accept header but the Allow header
Steve Speicher: should be clear, it is not the Accept header but the Allow header ←
16:01:07 <betehess> ... so it can be expensive
... so it can be expensive ←
16:01:14 <betehess> non-issue for me
non-issue for me ←
16:01:52 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
16:01:52 <betehess> ... as always, it comes down on where you put the burden
... as always, it comes down on where you put the burden ←
16:01:58 <betehess> ... can be server or client
... can be server or client ←
16:02:12 <bblfish> I am ok with removing the HEAD/GET Allow. Just wondering if clients can rely on the server's setting the Allow: headers
Henry Story: I am ok with removing the HEAD/GET Allow. Just wondering if clients can rely on the server's setting the Allow: headers ←
16:02:17 <betehess> ... also, the server is free to lie
... also, the server is free to lie ←
16:02:24 <JohnArwe> I think clients will generally prefer responses that are as specific to its context as possible. OTOH doing so can lead to perverse results; e.g. on some wikis, until you login you don't see an Edit button (b/c you're an unauthenticated client). If a server said "GET/HEAD only" to an unauthenticated request, even though that's specific to the client's context that *does not* mean that the client could not "upgrade"
John Arwe: I think clients will generally prefer responses that are as specific to its context as possible. OTOH doing so can lead to perverse results; e.g. on some wikis, until you login you don't see an Edit button (b/c you're an unauthenticated client). If a server said "GET/HEAD only" to an unauthenticated request, even though that's specific to the client's context that *does not* mean that the client could not "upgrade" ←
16:02:24 <JohnArwe> or find new capabilities available if it changed context (e.g. became authenticated).
John Arwe: or find new capabilities available if it changed context (e.g. became authenticated). ←
16:02:45 <betehess> TallTed: the client has to deal with failure in any case, so don't make it more complicated
Ted Thibodeau: the client has to deal with failure in any case, so don't make it more complicated ←
16:02:50 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
16:02:53 <betehess> Arnaud: yes, agree
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, agree ←
16:03:05 <betehess> SteveS: wanted some clarity on the statement
Steve Speicher: wanted some clarity on the statement ←
16:03:30 <betehess> ... it means that they are not required for GET/HEAD?
... it means that they are not required for GET/HEAD? ←
16:03:46 <betehess> ... so a SHOULD could be better there?
... so a SHOULD could be better there? ←
16:04:05 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:04:06 <betehess> bblfish: I think the MAY on GET/HEAD is ok
Henry Story: I think the MAY on GET/HEAD is ok ←
16:04:28 <betehess> ... if servers don't implement it correctly, then you can't rely on it anymore
... if servers don't implement it correctly, then you can't rely on it anymore ←
16:04:42 <SteveS> "4.3.2 LDPR servers must support the HTTP response headers defined in section 4.9 ."
Steve Speicher: "4.3.2 LDPR servers must support the HTTP response headers defined in section 4.9 ." ←
16:05:29 <betehess> JohnArwe: if you're un-authenticated, and you're trying to do stuff, then you can expect to be limited
John Arwe: if you're un-authenticated, and you're trying to do stuff, then you can expect to be limited ←
16:05:52 <betehess> TallTed: then if you don't see the OPTIONS, then how do you know it's supported?
Ted Thibodeau: then if you don't see the OPTIONS, then how do you know it's supported? ←
16:05:58 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:06:34 <betehess> JohnArwe: I know security people and for them, if you don't try to do something, you don't need to know if you can actually do it
John Arwe: I know security people and for them, if you don't try to do something, you don't need to know if you can actually do it ←
16:06:37 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:07:01 <JohnArwe> basically there are things pulling a server to respond in each direction
John Arwe: basically there are things pulling a server to respond in each direction ←
16:07:04 <betehess> bblfish: I think JohnArwe and TallTed are disagreeing
Henry Story: I think JohnArwe and TallTed are disagreeing ←
16:07:23 <betehess> ... have a feeling there is some unclarity there
... have a feeling there is some unclarity there ←
16:07:43 <betehess> ... is OPTIONS what I can do now, or if I'm authenticated?
... is OPTIONS what I can do now, or if I'm authenticated? ←
16:07:55 <betehess> ... depending on answer, we may not need Allow header
... depending on answer, we may not need Allow header ←
16:08:29 <betehess> ... so for me, it should tell you what you're allowed to do depending on if you're authenticated or not
... so for me, it should tell you what you're allowed to do depending on if you're authenticated or not ←
16:08:43 <betehess> Arnaud: we're not changing http OPTION
Arnaud Le Hors: we're not changing http OPTION ←
16:09:23 <betehess> ... so the proposal was just to remove section @@@
... so the proposal was just to remove section 4.3.2 ←
16:09:39 <betehess> s/@@@/4.3.2/
16:09:59 <betehess> ... and Henry thinks we can use a SHOULD instead
... and SteveS thinks we can use a SHOULD instead ←
16:10:00 <bblfish> what is 4.3.2 now?
Henry Story: what is 4.3.2 now? ←
16:10:12 <betehess> s/Henry/SteveS/
16:10:16 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/#ldpr-4_3_2
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/#ldpr-4_3_2 ←
16:10:33 <Arnaud> 4.3.2 LDPR servers MUST support the HTTP response headers defined in section 4.9 .
Arnaud Le Hors: 4.3.2 LDPR servers MUST support the HTTP response headers defined in section 4.9 . ←
16:10:35 <betehess> Arnaud: that is a stable link to the section in question
Arnaud Le Hors: that is a stable link to the section in question ←
16:10:56 <bblfish> +1 I agree with Arnaud that this is too strong for GET/HEAD
Henry Story: +1 I agree with Arnaud that this is too strong for GET/HEAD ←
16:10:58 <JohnArwe> ...and 4.9 in same doc says...
John Arwe: ...and 4.9 in same doc says... ←
16:10:58 <JohnArwe> 4.9 HTTP OPTIONS
16:10:58 <JohnArwe> This specification imposes the following new requirements on HTTP OPTIONS for LDPRs beyond those in [HTTP11]. Other sections of this specification, for example PATCH, Accept-Post and Paging, add other requirements on OPTIONS responses.
John Arwe: This specification imposes the following new requirements on HTTP OPTIONS for LDPRs beyond those in [HTTP11]. Other sections of this specification, for example PATCH, Accept-Post and Paging, add other requirements on OPTIONS responses. ←
16:10:58 <JohnArwe> 4.9.1 LDPR servers MUST support the HTTP OPTIONS method.
John Arwe: 4.9.1 LDPR servers MUST support the HTTP OPTIONS method. ←
16:10:58 <JohnArwe> 4.9.2 LDPR servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR�s URL with the HTTP Method tokens in the HTTP response header Allow.
John Arwe: 4.9.2 LDPR servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR�s URL with the HTTP Method tokens in the HTTP response header Allow. ←
16:10:59 <betehess> ... several possibilities
... several possibilities ←
16:11:04 <betehess> ... we could do nothing
... we could do nothing ←
16:12:04 <betehess> ... soften 4.3.2 from MUST to SHOULD
... soften 4.3.2 from MUST to SHOULD ←
16:12:12 <bblfish> It is odd that LDPR MUST Support. It sounds like it says one has to have Allow
Henry Story: It is odd that LDPR MUST Support. It sounds like it says one has to have Allow ←
16:12:15 <betehess> ... remove 4.3.2 altogether
... remove 4.3.2 altogether ←
16:12:30 <betehess> ... (3 possibilities)
... (3 possibilities) ←
16:13:42 <betehess> Arnaud: also, I think we used it in response to one of Tim's comments
Arnaud Le Hors: also, I think we used it in response to one of Tim's comments ←
16:13:44 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:14:02 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:14:02 <betehess> SteveS: and he wanted to have as many MUSTs as possible
Steve Speicher: and he wanted to have as many MUSTs as possible ←
16:14:56 <betehess> bblfish: if you have an edit button on a webpage, then the client would do an extra round trip to know if it's editable
Henry Story: if you have an edit button on a webway, then the client would do an extra round trip to know if it's editable ←
16:15:16 <betehess> Arnaud: not the way the web works today
Arnaud Le Hors: not the way the web works today ←
16:15:24 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
16:15:31 <betehess> s/page/way/
16:15:32 <Arnaud> ack deiu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack deiu ←
16:16:02 <betehess> deiu: from my dev point-of-view, would be interested to have some kind of option for when you do the first request
Andrei Sambra: from my dev point-of-view, would be interested to have some kind of option for when you do the first request ←
16:16:10 <betehess> ... so that you don't need to do it later
... so that you don't need to do it later ←
16:16:24 <bblfish> Deiu it's the Allow header not Accept header
Henry Story: Deiu it's the Allow header not Accept header ←
16:16:59 <betehess> Arnaud: yes, we want to avoid having to do OPTION all the time
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, we want to avoid having to do OPTION all the time ←
16:17:06 <betehess> ... maybe it's a mistake removing it
... maybe it's a mistake removing it ←
16:17:29 <betehess> bblfish: it is a bit expensive to implement, but not a big problem
Henry Story: it is a bit expensive to implement, but not a big problem ←
16:17:46 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
16:17:49 <betehess> Arnaud: also the spec does not speak about auth*
Arnaud Le Hors: also the spec does not speak about auth* ←
16:18:14 <betehess> sandro: I understand it as a static field
Sandro Hawke: I understand it as a static field ←
16:18:41 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/#ldpr-HTTP_OPTIONS
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/#ldpr-HTTP_OPTIONS ←
16:18:48 <betehess> bblfish: it sounds as if it was for that specific request
Henry Story: it sounds as if it was for that specific request ←
16:18:52 <Arnaud> 4.9.2 LDPR servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR’s URL with the HTTP Method tokens in the HTTP response header Allow.
Arnaud Le Hors: 4.9.2 LDPR servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR’s URL with the HTTP Method tokens in the HTTP response header Allow. ←
16:19:01 <JohnArwe> This feels like a case for Prefer, honestly ... if the client's intent "potentially includes" update, then it might ask for specificity. Since MANY clients are not interested in update (we usually use a RoT 10:1 read:write), and ErikW pointed out it's often a losing proposition if the computation is expensive.
John Arwe: This feels like a case for Prefer, honestly ... if the client's intent "potentially includes" update, then it might ask for specificity. Since MANY clients are not interested in update (we usually use a RoT 10:1 read:write), and ErikW pointed out it's often a losing proposition if the computation is expensive. ←
16:19:20 <betehess> ... then you could always return everything and people would realize later they can't do the operation
... then you could always return everything and people would realize later they can't do the operation ←
16:19:22 <SteveS> I wonder if this guidance is better for say, our guidance doc?
Steve Speicher: I wonder if this guidance is better for say, our guidance doc? ←
16:19:24 <deiu> q-
Andrei Sambra: q- ←
16:20:09 <betehess> Arnaud: today, the section is 4.9.2
Arnaud Le Hors: today, the section is 4.9.2 ←
16:20:24 <betehess> ... just pasted current wording
... just pasted current wording ←
16:20:52 <betehess> sandro: uncertainty makes me nervous. would like to see a test case
Sandro Hawke: uncertainty makes me nervous. would like to see a test case ←
16:21:12 <betehess> Arnaud: as you said earlier, a static approach would make you compliant
Arnaud Le Hors: as you said earlier, a static approach would make you compliant ←
16:21:19 <betehess> ... question is whether you expect more
... question is whether you expect more ←
16:21:26 <betehess> sandro: depends on the use-case
Sandro Hawke: depends on the use-case ←
16:21:38 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
16:21:42 <betehess> Arnaud: we would have to add more requirements
Arnaud Le Hors: we would have to add more requirements ←
16:21:49 <betehess> ... don't know what to put at risk
... don't know what to put at risk ←
16:22:11 <betehess> sandro: Henry may not be the only one with those expectations
Sandro Hawke: Henry may not be the only one with those expectations ←
16:22:21 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
16:22:28 <bblfish> I was arguing if the point of Allow is to avoid clients doing a round trip, then returning Allow: PUT, ... which is never related to the authentication level, then all servers will be publishing this info, and the client will have to do a few more round trips anyway. ( Say that we follow link acl that requires a lot more calls )
Henry Story: I was arguing if the point of Allow is to avoid clients doing a round trip, then returning Allow: PUT, ... which is never related to the authentication level, then all servers will be publishing this info, and the client will have to do a few more round trips anyway. ( Say that we follow link acl that requires a lot more calls ) ←
16:22:39 <betehess> SteveS: wanted to bring up the possibility to say something in the guidelines doc
Steve Speicher: wanted to bring up the possibility to say something in the guidelines doc ←
16:23:06 <betehess> ... or we could create variants of 4.9.2
... or we could create variants of 4.9.2 ←
16:23:29 <betehess> ... depending on what the server wants to support
... depending on what the server wants to support ←
16:23:51 <betehess> Arnaud: this convinced me that at most, we should do nothing
Arnaud Le Hors: this convinced me that at most, we should do nothing ←
16:23:55 <bblfish> deiu: it's the Allow header
Andrei Sambra: it's the Allow header [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
16:24:05 <deiu> sorry, the Allow header
Andrei Sambra: sorry, the Allow header ←
16:24:09 <betehess> ... people should make concrete proposals
... people should make concrete proposals ←
16:24:20 <roger> I'm heading off - I think we resolved some thorny issues today and made good progress.
Roger Menday: I'm heading off - I think we resolved some thorny issues today and made good progress. ←
16:24:29 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
16:24:55 <betehess> bblfish: we could ask TimBL what he thinks about it
Henry Story: we could ask TimBL what he thinks about it ←
16:25:01 <betehess> Arnaud: I want to close this now
Arnaud Le Hors: I want to close this now ←
16:25:15 <betehess> ... but I'm happy to investigate further
... but I'm happy to investigate further ←
16:25:25 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:25:29 <betehess> ... is that acceptable?
... is that acceptable? ←
16:25:33 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:25:45 <betehess> bblfish: what's the issue with keeping it open one more week?
Henry Story: what's the issue with keeping it open one more week? ←
16:25:51 <betehess> ... would save time
... would save time ←
16:26:09 <betehess> ... I'm implementing it and it's kinda important
... I'm implementing it and it's kinda important ←
16:26:23 <betehess> ... people reading the text don't know what they have to do with it
... people reading the text don't know what they have to do with it ←
16:26:52 <betehess> Arnaud: the difference is that if we close it, it means that if nobody does anything, we'd have a default decision
Arnaud Le Hors: the difference is that if we close it, it means that if nobody does anything, we'd have a default decision ←
16:27:06 <betehess> ... it's adminitrative
... it's adminitrative ←
16:27:07 <SteveS> an action on someone to do something before next week?
Steve Speicher: an action on someone to do something before next week? ←
16:27:16 <betehess> sandro: is somebody willing to take an action?
Sandro Hawke: is somebody willing to take an action? ←
16:27:23 <betehess> Arnaud: good point
Arnaud Le Hors: good point ←
16:27:23 <JohnArwe> fwiw, the "support" word is in HTTP Allow's definition itself. we're not causing any new problems (nor are we solving any) by re-using the word.
John Arwe: fwiw, the "support" word is in HTTP Allow's definition itself. we're not causing any new problems (nor are we solving any) by re-using the word. ←
16:27:35 <betehess> ... if not, we could close it now
... if not, we could close it now ←
16:28:20 <SteveS> perhaps send to some http-discuss list?
Steve Speicher: perhaps send to some http-discuss list? ←
16:28:37 <betehess> Arnaud: we made good progress, we have this issue pending
Arnaud Le Hors: we made good progress, we have this issue pending ←
16:28:44 <betehess> ... let's let it be in this state (raised)
... let's let it be in this state (raised) ←
16:28:49 <betehess> ... and discuss it next week
... and discuss it next week ←
16:29:01 <betehess> ... I'm glad we went though almost everything
... I'm glad we went though almost everything ←
16:29:08 <betehess> ... hopefully we can get through this
... hopefully we can get through this ←
16:29:16 <betehess> ... anything else before we close?
... anything else before we close? ←
16:29:17 <JohnArwe> q+
16:29:45 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe ←
16:29:48 <betehess> ... we'll have other things to discuss: guidelines, test suites, etc.
... we'll have other things to discuss: guidelines, test suites, etc. ←
16:29:54 <betehess> JohnArwe: re: f2f
16:30:02 <betehess> ... we may want to set the date
... we may want to set the date ←
16:30:23 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
16:30:31 <betehess> Arnaud: don't know how strict the w3c is about setting this date, already gave some dates as a placeholder
Arnaud Le Hors: don't know how strict the w3c is about setting this date, already gave some dates as a placeholder ←
16:30:36 <betehess> ... let's close on this
... let's close on this ←
16:30:40 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:30:41 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:30:43 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:30:44 <Zakim> -Andrei
Zakim IRC Bot: -Andrei ←
16:30:45 <Zakim> -nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu ←
16:30:48 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:30:49 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:30:51 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:30:59 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:31:31 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:31:33 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:31:33 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, SteveS, Andrei, Alexandre, TallTed, Roger, ericP, Sandro, nmihindu, bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, SteveS, Andrei, Alexandre, TallTed, Roger, ericP, Sandro, nmihindu, bblfish ←
16:35:39 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:35:39 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:35:39 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
16:35:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:35:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:35:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:35:48 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-actions.rdf : ←
16:35:48 <RRSAgent> ACTION: TallTed to investigate the use of URIs with the Prefer header [1]
ACTION: TallTed to investigate the use of URIs with the Prefer header [1] ←
16:35:48 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-irc#T15-46-21
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-ldp-irc#T15-46-21 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe