See also: IRC log
<johnk> Scribe: John Kemp
<johnk> ScribeNick: johnk
NM: next call will be in two weeks
HT: regrets for next call
JAR: goal is to figure out what the TAG should say regarding policy around deep linking
NM: Will setup a call with Thinh (from Science Commons) for next call
NM: F2f minutes?
... Will wait one more week for approval
... Lyon minutes?
... I found them satisfactory
<jar> monday IRC log = http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-tagmem-irc
<jar> says scribe: DKA
NM: one admin item from those minutes
... "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
LM: I will check apps-discuss list to see if there has been discussion
... the action may no longer be timely
NM: there is not yet any action
ACTION-476?
<trackbot> ACTION-476 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a short note to 3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... -- due 2010-10-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/476
NM: What should we say to the RFC3023 editors?
JAR: I composed an email
... if the message I composed is OK, I'm happy to send the email
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html
<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0059.html
NM: any objections to sending this email (0070)?
JAR: I can send the email
RESOLVED: Jonathan to send text of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070.html to 3023bis editors on behalf of TAG
NM: do you recommend we put any follow up on the RFDa issue?
<noah> . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid processing for RDFa
<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)
AM: what will we do if RDFa decides not to do anything there?
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to respond to ashok
JAR: would like to make the specs consistent
<jar> . ACTION: Jonathan to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa
HT: I agree but this is not related to 3023bis
<noah> Draft action is fine with me.
JAR: it does - argues in favour of choice #1 (as noted by Larry)
<noah> HT: The media type for rdfa example is not an XML media type
HT: RDFa specs are not related to XML media types
<noah> Really? Not application/xhtml+xm;
<noah> Really? Not application/xhtml+xml
<noah> HT: Never mind.
HT: the RDFa issue is separate from the feedback we agreed to send
NM: agreed
<jar> ACTION: jar to report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-502 - Report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding fragid semantics for RDFa [on Jonathan Rees - due 2010-11-25].
close ACTION-476
<noah> close ACTION-476
<trackbot> ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed
<trackbot> ACTION-476 Draft a short note to 3023bis editors reflecting the discussion / consensus... closed
<Larry> action-487?
<trackbot> ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487
ACTION-487?
<trackbot> ACTION-487 -- Jonathan Rees to assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle -- due 2011-12-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/487
JAR: what are we doing about versioned specifications?
<noah> Jonathan's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0135.html
<noah> OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs
<noah> JAR: OWL cites a particular RFC for IRIs
JAR: OWL cites a particular version of the IRI specification, which puts them at risk for that spec changing between versions
<Larry> I'm confused why OWL doesn't cite LEIRI instead
<Larry> OWL should cite LEIRI, which will update when IRI updates
HT: it would do no harm if you suggest to OWL that they ought to say "or its successors"
<jar> "or its successors"
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's a tradeoff
JAR: That's what RDF says... and OWL should be compatible with RDF
NM: would rather not re-open the question about how specs should be future-proofed
... when you buy into some particular version at least you know "it works"
<Larry> I thought 'future-proofing' was covered at one point by the QA activity
NM: if you say "or successors" you take a gamble
... I don't feel informed enough to tell OWL what to do here exactly
LM: why don't they reference LEIRI?
... this effort was exactly to create a citeable reference
<noah> Henry, do you know why a group might be reluctant to reference LEIRI? Should RDF reference it?
LM: I don't, generally, like the "or successors" rule for specs. outside of the organization creating the spec
<Larry> I don't see what the problem is with referencing a specific version of IRI, though
NM: you propose to close this action, Jonathan?
JAR: yes
LM: potential impact: probably not much?
JAR: yes, but I don't know for sure, but would like OWL to make that judgement
<noah> NM: JAR, you suggest we close this, without at this point scheduling any followup?
LM: it's an assessment, not a judgement
<noah> JAR: yes.
<Larry> it is part of the charter of the IRI group not to make changes that mess up other things
JAR: there is potential for a future IOP problem if nothing is done, but seems unlikely
<jar> ahh...
<jar> that's helpful
NM: seems the right thing to do is to close the action with no followup at this point
<noah> close ACTION-487
<trackbot> ACTION-487 Assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle closed
<noah> ACTION-492?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492
<Larry> note: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters: * The IRI specification(s) must (continue to) be suitable
<Larry> for normative reference with Web and XML standards from W3C
<Larry> specifications. The group should coordinate with the W3C working
<Larry> groups on HTML5, XML Core, and Internationalization, as well
<noah> ACTION-491?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/491
<Larry> as with IETF HTTPBIS WG to ensure acceptability.
NM: I believe you agreed, Jonathan
JAR: yes
NM: what do we want our health warning to be?
<noah> Larry's proposal: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/21-minutes#item06\
NM: shall we look at Larry's proposal?
<noah> masinter: If you do conneg, don't do it where fragids mean different things
<noah> From Oct. 21 record.
<jar> ? "LM: You can do this [have 2 fragids], but something might break."
<Larry> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html
ACTION-492?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/492
<noah> JAR email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0144.html
NM: Can you quote what you agreed with JAR?
<noah> masinter: (4) You can have one fragment id, but not two.
<noah> masinter: You can do this, but something might break.
<noah> masinter (reworded by jar): If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be
<noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced
<noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules).
<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).
<noah> Larry agrees with:
<noah> If you deploy a 30x Location: C#D, then be
<noah> aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be inconvenienced
<noah> (since there are no fragment combination rules).
JAR: "you can do this, but something might break"
RESOLVED: The TAG endorses the health warning "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)."
NM: should we send this to anyone?
HT: Yves: pay attention ;)
<Larry> yves should take an action?
NM: I will send this to www-tag
<Larry> +1
<noah> . ACTION: Noah to publicize to www-tag & chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010
<Yves> + ietf-http-wg@w3.org
<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
<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
<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].
<jar> lm: this should go to http wg
NM: I propose we close 491, 492
<noah> close ACTION-491
<trackbot> ACTION-491 Schedule telcon attempt to formulate health warning on secondary resource redirection noting Larry proposal in 21 Oct 2010 F2F record closed
NM: any objections?
<noah> close ACTION-492
<trackbot> ACTION-492 Review Larry's health warning on redirection to secondary resources and either agree or fix closed
(none heard)
ACTION-355?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
<noah> ACTION-355?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
<jar> NM: John, let us know where this stands
<jar> scribenick: jar
<johnk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
JK: Question: Impact of webapps on interaction section of AWWW
... A few things to note: client-side state and URIs (TVR), updating state without user action, client provision of web resources (e.g. GPS),
... the word 'user-agent' appears a lot often synonymously with 'browser', & this isn't appropriate
... things look different when the 'user-agent' is something exposing user's resources to servers
lm: Terminology is a problem. user-agent != agent != user interface
NM: ok, hang on, can we think about end states for the project, goals. if not put on hold maybe.
LM: What are our options for 'end states'?
<Larry> can we start annotating webarch with issues & notes, for example?
<Larry> can we publish it as a note, or as a blog post?
NM: Update AWWW, maybe new chapter(s)
<Larry> is there something lighter weight we can do to annotate AWWW without updating it?
<Larry> or can we make AWWW more into a wiki?
LM: We might explore option of something lightweight
... Get it out, maybe as a note? So it doesn't disappear?
... AWWW update vs. nothing seems like a false dichotomy
NM: I want someone to say that they own this, to take it in *any* direction.
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to comment on what kind of product
NM: What if we get comments that we have to follow up on. Who's going to guide this process.
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
<noah> JK: I wrote down list of use cases.
AM: Beyond this [4 June email], are there other things you're working on?
NM: Pls link action-355 to any subsequent related writings...
JK: (searching)
<noah> ACTION: John to make sure ACTION-355 links all significant writings including use cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-504 - Make sure ACTION-355 links all significant writings including use cases. [on John Kemp - due 2010-11-25].
JK: Would like to publicize use case work. TAG blog entry [or note] might be good, but mindful of your (Noah's) concern about followup.
... There are needed changes to interaction model; this is important. But looking for guidance.
<johnk> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
<johnk> these are the interaction examples I sent
LM: 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
JK: 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
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to note preference for updating AWWW vs writing a new AWW section
<Larry> WebSockets isn't HTTP
NM: A lot of this is HTTP... or stretched HTTP...
JK: It's a question of putting HTTP in perspective
NM: Possible historical presentation
JK: I tried that, & tried updating AWWW. It didn't work very well.
NM: Any manner of moving ahead is fine, pick one
JK: Comments on use cases, when I send them, would help me
<noah> close ACTION-493
<trackbot> ACTION-493 Schedule discussion of interim work on ACTION-355 Due: 2010-11-09 closed
<noah> I'm asking whether we should reopen ACTION-355
<johnk> yes, reopen it, if not closed
<johnk> ACTION-355?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
<johnk> yes, it's still open
<johnk> yes, available but will have to dial back in
<johnk> yes, my call dropped
<noah> ACTION-417?
<trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security -- due 2010-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417
<johnk> I did send this URL out prior to last F2F
<noah> See: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/www-security.html
(reading docs linked from agenda)
JK: What are the architectural issues involved in security? as opposed to details.
... quick intro [cf. www-security linked above]
... Maybe form could be a section in the webapps work as discussed at f2f
LM: given upcoming TAG elections, maybe we could actively recruit in areas where we need expertise
<Larry> we're saying what the areas of important work are, and lay out the work we've done on it
(discussion of TAG's needs regarding work in progress and how to fill them)
LM: Raise awareness of work in progress via blog
NM: Table of contents for web apps work is pretty long
LM: Web apps, HTML5, security overlap significantly
<Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask what I should do next - happy to do another round on this topic too
<Larry> they overlap completely
JK: AWWW has no discussion of security - totally ignored - that's a flaw
... I suggest framing a section on security in web arch. Willing to do another round
... Thing to do is develop use cases. Would like to recommend practices that work (re security)
... Cookies and SOP are central, controversial
NM: How to build a site that's not vulnerable?
JK: Yes, CSRF tokens, which can be put in content or in URI...
... detailing issues about client/server trust is important, but could run into controversy
ADJOURNED