Content (Negotiation) Subgroup

06 June 2018

Meeting Minutes

<LarsG> Action-123?

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<trackbot> Sorry, LarsG, I don't understand 'trackbot, associate this channes with #dxwg'. Please refer to <http://‌www.w3.org/‌2005/‌06/‌tracker/‌irc> for help.

<LarsG> Action-123?

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

recap of plenary profiles work

previous plenary content discussed

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2018/‌06/‌05-dxwg-minutes

discussion about profile negociation

this group is waiting for Requirements finalisation from theplenary group

this group commits to aligning different implementations of profileneg mechanisms

(from agenda) the role of description - is there any requirement to advertise what profiles exist and where is metadata about these held

Yes, this seems to be emerging from the Plenary group's workj

(from the agenda) do we need to do anything about URL parameters that take precedence over, and can substitute for, headers in negotiation

yes, we will resolve this by alining implementations (HTTP layer, browser layer) and also b following web norms (exact URIs trump HTTP headers)

(from agenda) possible use of tokens representing profiles identified by URIs

example: gnafld.net/address/GAACT714845933?_view=alternates

discussed at length!

(from agenda) conformance with parent profiles - do services advertise just the most specialised or all profiles they conform to? Do clients have to select a level that matches what the service knows about.

example: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌tree/‌gh-pages/‌profiledesc/‌examples

we understand this is analagous to SPARQL queries not finding upper classes due to systems not doing inferencing up subClassOf chains

we could advertise something like "make sure you set fallback options in an Accpept-Profile header"

we admit we don't have all the answers when servers don't know they contain information according to a Profile of other Profiles/Standards they don't know about and can't advertise

(from agenda) what is required within DXWG above and beyond the IETF activity?

The direction of profile work is being set now by Plenary group.

Looks like we will have a technology-independent Profiling Gudance document then 3 technology-specific implementations: HTTP profile neg, in-browser profile neg, Profile Dec ontology

next meeting

In a fortnight

Minutes formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version 2.41 (2018/03/23 13:13:49), a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See CVS log.