14:50:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
14:50:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-irc
14:50:06 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:50:07 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
14:50:17 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260223T100000/#agenda
14:50:18 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:50:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Introduction and announcements
14:50:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue triage
14:50:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Container PR status and discussion
14:50:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Input document acknowledgments, contributor status
14:50:21 <agendabot> agenda+ Terminology -> #79 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/79
14:50:23 <agendabot> agenda+ ETag requirements -> #62 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/62
14:50:26 <agendabot> agenda+ Metadata resources -> #67 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/67
14:51:39 <acoburn> acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG - 23 Feb 2026 - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260223T100000/
14:51:47 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
14:51:56 <acoburn> present+
14:52:09 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
14:52:16 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:52:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:53:39 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/16-lws-minutes.html
14:53:56 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/02-lws-minutes.html
14:54:04 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:54:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:58:44 <Luke> Luke has joined #lws
14:59:02 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
15:00:26 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
15:00:54 <pchampin> present+
15:01:38 <Luke> present+
15:01:51 <eBremer> present+
15:01:52 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
15:01:58 <laurens> present+
15:03:58 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
15:04:01 <bendm> present+
15:04:39 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
15:04:51 <pchampin> scribe+
15:04:59 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
15:04:59 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:05:35 <pchampin> acoburn: anyone new, or who wants to introduce themselves? anything to announce?
15:05:43 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 2
15:05:43 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Issue triage -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:05:45 <ryey> present+
15:06:30 <pchampin> acoburn: as usual, we don't want to spend more than 10 minutes on issue triage
15:07:20 <pchampin> subropic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/73
15:07:20 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/73 -> Issue 73 Scalability and implementation concerns regarding permission-based filtering (by wkerckho)
15:07:36 <pchampin> laurens: I think we can tag this one as ready for PR, it is included in one the PR recently opened
15:07:50 <pchampin> subropic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/77
15:07:51 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/77 -> Issue 77 Concerns about container creation (by pchampin) [ready-for-pr]
15:08:00 <pchampin> laurens: this one is also included in the proposed PR
15:08:01 <pchampin> q+
15:08:11 <acoburn> ack next
15:08:15 <acoburn> scribe+
15:08:39 <acoburn> pchampin: I started reviewing the container PR. Part of the suggestion in #77 was applied, but the body section still says MAY
15:08:40 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/77 -> Issue 77 Concerns about container creation (by pchampin) [ready-for-pr]
15:08:54 <pchampin> pchampin: I partly reviewed the PRs, but I only saw this issue addressed partly
15:08:59 <acoburn> laurens: yes, still says MAY, but I agree we can leave that out from the proposal
15:09:06 <pchampin> ... it still says "body MAY be empty" while I suggest "MUST"
15:09:35 <pchampin> s/pchampin: I partly reviewed the PRs, but I only saw this issue addressed partly/
15:09:40 <pchampin> s/... it still says "body MAY be empty" while I suggest "MUST"/
15:09:40 <acoburn> ... will remove wording and match expectations of this issue along with behavior of Solid and LDP
15:09:46 <acoburn> scribe-
15:10:26 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/78
15:10:27 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/78|-> Issue 78 irrelevant MUST statement? (by pchampin) https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/78
15:10:37 <pchampin> acoburn: does this need discussion?
15:10:52 <pchampin> eBremer: I can do a PR
15:11:30 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/79
15:11:30 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/79|-> Issue 79 resource identifier needs clarification (by pchampin) [ready-for-pr] https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/79
15:11:41 <pchampin> pchampin: unless someone disagree, this one is quite straightforward
15:11:49 <pchampin> eBremer: I can do the PR for that one too
15:12:25 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:12:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:12:32 <bendm> q+ to ask why to actively prohib multiple containments
15:12:42 <acoburn> ack next
15:12:43 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to ask why to actively prohib multiple containments
15:13:23 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 3
15:13:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Container PR status and discussion -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:14:01 <pchampin> acoburn: I'll let laurens describe his proposal, captured in 3 PRs
15:14:18 <pchampin> laurens: I opened 3 PRs this morning, apologies for the delay
15:14:51 <pchampin> ... I had a lot of comments from discussions with various people to integrate
15:15:24 <pchampin> ... https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/81 is core terminology and behavior for containers
15:15:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/81 -> Pull Request 81 Introducing support for Containers in the LWS protocol (by laurensdeb)
15:15:34 <pchampin> ... https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/82 builds on the previous one, introducing pagination
15:15:35 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb)
15:15:54 <pchampin> ... https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/83 ads a section describing multiple containment as an optional feature
15:15:54 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/83 -> Pull Request 83 Multiple Containment for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb)
15:16:30 <pchampin> ... note that these PRs are still marked as draft; I intend to remove the draft status from 81 after this meeting, and leave people to review it
15:16:41 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
15:16:46 <pchampin> ... more details about 81
15:17:09 <pchampin> ... some parts were spuriously removed, I will fix that after this meeting
15:17:34 <pchampin> ... this PR describes the notion of root container, and focuses on single containment
15:18:07 <pchampin> ... the wording might be too strict in some places, we might want to make it more lenient to allow multiple containment in *some* implementations
15:18:24 <pchampin> ... note the extension of the terminology section
15:18:55 <pchampin> ... it describes integrity of the containment, clarifies the deletion logic
15:19:55 <pchampin> ... note that the parent container of a resource is no longer announced with rel="partof" , but wuth rel="up"
15:19:57 <TallTed> present+
15:20:04 <pchampin> ... not permission-based filtering on containers
15:20:22 <pchampin> ... but a not describes how to do it
15:20:22 <bendm> q+
15:20:28 <acoburn> ack next
15:20:28 <laurens> ack bendm
15:20:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:20:48 <pchampin> bendm: the phrasing is quite strict right now
15:21:11 <pchampin> laurens: correct; there was a lot of discussions about the original proposal being to flexible
15:22:01 <pchampin> ... I'm hoping to merge it as is, but of course the PR is open for discussion
15:22:42 <pchampin> bendm: there is a MUST at some place, then a note says "MAY chose not to"
15:23:10 <pchampin> ... are we describing the minimum requirements, or a maximum?
15:23:26 <pchampin> laurens: typically, for spec text we would describe the minimum requirements
15:23:38 <acoburn> q+ to ask about stictness and extensibility
15:23:50 <pchampin> ... there are different ways of approaching this; I'm not particularly bound to the approach I took
15:24:23 <pchampin> q+
15:24:45 <pchampin> ... there is no systematic approach in the spec right now, on how to describe those options
15:24:48 <acoburn> ack next
15:24:49 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about stictness and extensibility
15:24:50 <laurens> ack acoburn
15:25:03 <pchampin> acoburn: to echo what bendm was saying,
15:25:12 <pchampin> ... we need to be careful about any restriction that we have.
15:25:24 <pchampin> ... We want to support interoperability, which we get by being prescriptive.
15:25:37 <pchampin> ... But we also want to allow future spefifications to build upon ours.
15:25:48 <pchampin> ... Anything we forbid could be hindering that.
15:26:29 <pchampin> ... If we restrict containment to be single-containment, we forbid multiple-containment in future extensions.
15:27:00 <pchampin> laurens: PR 81 supports only single containment. PR 83 softens it and adds the option to have multiple-containment.
15:27:16 <acoburn> ack next
15:27:18 <pchampin> acoburn: great; woudl be good to comment that in the PR.
15:27:18 <acoburn> scribe+
15:27:48 <acoburn> pchampin: +1 on being prescriptive but also to echo Ben's concern
15:28:08 <acoburn> ... what I see in section 7.5, there is a MUST and in the note a "MAY not respect the MUST"
15:28:30 <acoburn> ... not saying this is wrong, but not a fan of adding requirements and then adding exceptions
15:28:41 <acoburn> ... notes are non-normative, so they should not contain normative language
15:28:47 <TallTed> If that NOTE is retained, such MUSTs SHOULD be changed to SHOULD.
15:28:59 <laurens> q?
15:29:07 <acoburn> laurens: this is some more work needed on this section
15:29:14 <acoburn> scribe-
15:29:26 <pchampin> laurens: moving on to the section on Container Representation
15:29:49 <pchampin> ... some clarifications on the description of the format, but a lot of changes
15:29:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:30:22 <TallTed> s/but a not describes/but a note describes/
15:30:28 <pchampin> ... I would like the opinion of the group on the "mediaType" attribute of contained resources
15:30:35 <pchampin> ... should we have a single value or an arrey
15:30:42 <pchampin> s/arrey/array?
15:31:04 <acoburn> q+
15:31:11 <laurens> ack acoburn
15:31:37 <pchampin> acoburn: I don't have a strong opinion on this
15:31:56 <pchampin> ... but bengo pointed out some time ago that we are describing a resource here, while mediaType is a property of a representation
15:32:38 <pchampin> laurens: I think we can modify that subsequently, once we have some implementation experience
15:32:50 <pchampin> ... moving on to Operations
15:33:30 <pchampin> ... introduce some wording (also in the IANA considerations) about content-negotiation of application/lws+json as application/ld+json or application/json
15:34:42 <pchampin> ... application/lws+json SHOULD be considered equivelent to ld+json with profile; maybe we want a MUST there
15:34:58 <pchampin> q+
15:35:07 <TallTed> s/equivelent/equivalent/
15:35:07 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:35:07 <acoburn> scribe+
15:35:38 <acoburn> pchampin: +1 about conneg: one should be able to get JSON or JSON-LD, not sure it should be part of IANA considerations
15:35:58 <acoburn> laurens: this is not in the IANA section, rather it is in the MediaType section
15:36:03 <laurens> q?
15:36:05 <acoburn> scribe-
15:36:33 <pchampin> ... minor editorial tweaks in the rest of the Operations section
15:36:49 <pchampin> ... also the previously mention changed on rel=up replacing rel=partOf
15:37:28 <pchampin> ... the section describing Creation of resources describes how to create an empty container
15:38:06 <pchampin> ... in the example for creating a DataResource, I added Link relation types in the response
15:38:14 <pchampin> ... also added an example of creating a container
15:38:59 <pchampin> ... In the section about deleting resources, I added some working about deleting empty container resources and non-empty container resources.
15:39:49 <pchampin> ... There are some proposals about requesting a recursive deletions, not sure it should make its way into the spec as is.
15:39:57 <pchampin> s/it should/they should
15:40:51 <pchampin> laurens: it would be good is everyone could review this PR and comment on it
15:40:55 <eBremer> q+
15:41:05 <laurens> ack eBremer
15:41:20 <acoburn> q+ to ask about recursive delete
15:41:29 <pchampin> s/subrobpic/subtopic/g
15:42:03 <laurens> ack acoburn
15:42:03 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about recursive delete
15:42:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:42:23 <pchampin> acoburn: related to recursion; in my experience at Inrupt, there is a UX issue here.
15:42:36 <pchampin> ... or maybe rather Developer Experience
15:42:44 <pchampin> ... it is very handy to be able to do that
15:43:10 <TallTed> s/subropic: /subtopic: /g
15:43:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:43:27 <pchampin> ... we could reuse what exists in WebDAV
15:43:36 <pchampin> ... I would prefer that, if possible, than reinventing something new
15:43:39 <laurens> q?
15:44:36 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82
15:44:37 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82|-> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb) https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82
15:44:53 <pchampin> laurens: this one introduces a pagination mechanism
15:45:24 <pchampin> ... discussion is still needed about the notion of "large container" and threshold
15:45:50 <pchampin> ... compared to the Google doc, the PR does not rely on JSON properties for navigating pages, but on Link headers instead
15:46:15 <pchampin> ... this allows us to have the same container representation in both paginated and non-paginated cases
15:46:39 <pchampin> ... the PR emphasises the opaqueness of pagination URLs
15:47:28 <laurens> q?
15:48:00 <pchampin> ... I'll try to remove the draft status on this PR later this week
15:48:09 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/83
15:48:10 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/83|-> Pull Request 83 Multiple Containment for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb) https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/83
15:48:39 <pchampin> laurens: the wording in this PR may still be too strict
15:48:58 <pchampin> ... I tried to contrast both approaches single containment vs. multiple containment
15:49:29 <pchampin> ... the working prevents circular references
15:49:55 <pchampin> ... this PR introduces text to move a resource to another container
15:50:16 <pchampin> ... part of this text could make sense also for single containment (for moving large resources)
15:50:18 <TallTed> Multiple Containment should be similar to UNIX hard links. Single Containment with aliases/shortcuts should be like UNIX soft links. Single Containment without aliases/shortcuts will lead to undesirable data duplication in some deployments.
15:50:43 <bendm> q+ to ask about described server features
15:50:47 <pchampin> ... I think we should focus on the other PRs first
15:50:51 <laurens> q?
15:50:54 <laurens> ack bendm
15:50:54 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to ask about described server features
15:51:17 <pchampin> bendm: you are describing multiple containment as a features that servers may or may not support
15:51:23 <acoburn> q+ to mention server description resources
15:51:29 <pchampin> ... did we discuss the affordances that the server may have?
15:51:45 <pchampin> laurens: we don't really have anything in terms of classes/profiles of servers in the spec yet
15:52:02 <pchampin> ... I think this is the first optional features that we would introduce
15:52:19 <pchampin> q+
15:52:31 <laurens> ack acoburn
15:52:31 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention server description resources
15:52:35 <pchampin> ... if we introduce it, we should introduce conformance classes of sorts at the same time
15:52:42 <pchampin> q-
15:53:02 <pchampin> acoburn: the storage description may contains "services" and "capabilities"
15:53:12 <pchampin> ... services will describe endpoint providing the service
15:53:28 <pchampin> ... capabilities could be extensions of LWS or could be optional features of LWS
15:53:42 <pchampin> ... I think that multiple-containment could be advertised as a capability
15:54:04 <pchampin> <pchampin> +1 to that
15:54:21 <laurens> q?
15:54:41 <pchampin> acoburn: thanks laurens for walking us through these PRs
15:54:49 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 4
15:54:49 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Input document acknowledgments, contributor status -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:55:20 <pchampin> acoburn: currently the lws-protocol document has a list of former editors, who are the editors of Solid specifications
15:55:39 <pchampin> ... we have another input document (the Fedora specification) but we don't list its editors
15:56:08 <pchampin> ... it is important to acknowledge the editors of Solid and Fedora
15:56:15 <pchampin> ... but since LWS is not a refinement of Solid but more starting from scratch, it is a bit confusing to list them here
15:56:39 <pchampin> ... this would be more appropriate in the introduction of the document for example
15:56:53 <TallTed> The Editors and Working Group would like to extend special thanks to Editors and Contributors of input documents, especially Solid ... and Fedora ... (and please, let us avoid previously used codenames in future!)
15:56:55 <pchampin> ... We don't need to make a decision right now, please think about that.
15:57:04 <pchampin> ... We want to be respectful, but also accurate.
15:57:32 <acoburn> https://www.w3.org/Signature/Contributor.html
15:57:41 <pchampin> ... At the end of the document, it is common to have a list of contributors
15:58:02 <pchampin> ... We have flexibility on what we define to be an "editor", an "author", a "contributor"
15:58:06 <bendm> +1 to move the previous Solid editors to a less-LWS-specific location
15:58:12 <pchampin> ... The link above is how a previous WG defined these notions.
15:58:17 <acoburn> q?
15:58:50 <acoburn> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html acoburn
15:59:09 <pchampin> i|... more details about 81|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/81
15:59:19 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/23-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:59:46 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
16:00:03 <pchampin> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
16:00:04 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/73#issuecomment-3945676296
16:00:05 <m2gbot> comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/73#issuecomment-3945676296
16:00:07 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/77#issuecomment-3945676508
16:00:07 <m2gbot> comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/77#issuecomment-3945676508
16:00:08 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/78#issuecomment-3945676670
16:00:09 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/79#issuecomment-3945676764
16:00:11 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/81#issuecomment-3945676859
16:00:12 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82#issuecomment-3945676954
16:00:13 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/83#issuecomment-3945677118
19:54:11 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
21:34:44 <suaalnst> suaalnst has joined #lws
21:34:58 <suaalnst> suaalnst has left #lws
21:52:42 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws