+1
<ncar> +1
<roba> +1
Resolved: Agenda confirmed
+1
<roba> +1
<ncar> +1
Resolved: Approve minutes from last meeting
<ncar> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/4
action-193?
<trackbot> action-193: Rob Atkinson to Move jmeter test suite to within w3c systems -- due 2018-09-05 -- OPEN
roba: still open
action-347?
<trackbot> action-347: Rob Atkinson to Create new gh issue explaining the problem of redirects and refer to that issue in the wd -- due 2019-07-18 -- OPEN
<ncar> This action is already addressed by Issue 603
roba: there is an issue 603 but is it really reflected in the draft?
ncar: don't think so
ncar: will go into an early part of the abstract model
roba: abstract model is correct for web architecture
ncar: will put that into an existing PR
… then roba can commit to that PR in the same branch
… Shall paste issue 603 into the document
… which should resolve the issue
… Done (reference to 603 is now in the document)
… and we can close 347
close action-347
<trackbot> Closed action-347.
action-351
<trackbot> action-351: Lars G. Svensson to Review antoine's comments and check if the 3pwd addresses them all -- due 2019-08-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<LarsG> was dealt with in last week's meeting. can be closed
close action-351
<trackbot> Closed action-351.
action-355
<trackbot> action-355: Lars G. Svensson to Respond to tom baker re uris for profiles inside of documents -- due 2019-08-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<LarsG> mail has been sent to comments and WG lists. Can be closed
close action-355
<trackbot> Closed action-355.
action-356
<trackbot> action-356: Nicholas Car to Implement antoine's suggestions as laid out in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-515982929 -- due 2019-08-08 -- OPEN
ncar: not yet complete
action-357?
<trackbot> action-357: Rob Atkinson to Add examples using 303 redirects -- due 2019-08-08 -- OPEN
ncar: there are a number of examples in the doc. the fourth example currently has a 303 redirect
roba: Need some time to review
… keep open
action-358?
<trackbot> action-358: Rob Atkinson to to convene working session to co-develop common model to match link header data and alternates view requirements. -- due 2019-08-08 -- OPEN
ncar: has thought about this but not done anything yet.
roba: have been working through the requirements
… but need working code
… will get to it asap
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-515982929
ncar: Have done quite some edits but not all.
… need to discuss #11
… have done #4, #5, #6, #7 and #15
… there is a separate branch for this in github
… #16 is a long one, need to come back to that and the following ones
… #11: if you want to have a preference order of profiles
… you need an ordered list
… Antoines asks what happens when the q-Values differ from that preference list
… my understanding is that q-values give a preference order
<LarsG> +1
ncar: one could use q-values with query string tokens, too
roba: cannot say if one of the othere is better
ncar: abstract model says "some kind of list ordering"
ncar: default is not to have any ordering in QSA
… so we need to find a way to do it
roba: seems reasonable
<Lots of discussion about how q-values are used in conneg and if we need to mimick that exactly in QSA>
<LarsG> : Those who want to use q-values probably use header-based conneg anyway
... so we don't really need them in QSA
ncar: will craft a proposal
… as part of the ongoing edits
… #16
… #17 shall check this one
… #18 text removal, easy
… #19 shall look.
<ncar> Try this link for ordering: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Conneg+3PWD%22
ncar: #538, we should close this one and create new issues for the remaining parts
… #575 in progress
… #589 Jaro hasn't responded so let's keep it open for another few days
… #591 part of #575, too. We must align
… #678 in on LarsG who hasn't done anything yet
roba: we don't have a use case
ncar: #785
roba: this is to clarify if we need distinct URLs for all representations
ncar: we've answered it already
… shall put the link to the new example into the issue
… and then we can ask Kam if he's fine with that
… #852
roba: still open, shall have a look at the 303 examples
ncar: #904 Is probably closed since we've proposed a solution
… are we happy with the propsed way?
roba: shall look closer during my implementation
ncar: OK, let's close and then re-open if necessary
+1
ncar: #932 we've got a recommendation to list all profiles
roba: then the clients might get a long list ...
… and then it still needs to figure out which is the most specific one
ncar: it will take one that it knows from the list, and if it doesn't know any of the profiles
… then it's not worse out than before
roba: What is taken as base specification is a context specific choice
… would like to leave this open a bit more
… it's easier to think through when you implement
ncar: #1017
roba: think we've done that, have written text
ncar: shall read the discussion and mark due for closing if it's covered
+1
ncar: #1022
roba: there is no functional requirement in conneg to differentiate between "functional" and "data" profiling
ncar: shall read the last comments and see if it's ok
ncar: if we give the plenary the 3wpd on August 15, they have two weeks time to review and then we can go to publication
Succeeded: s/683/603/
Succeeded: s/past/paste/