https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2019.05.16
<LarsG> +1
+1
<roba> +1
<LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2019/05/09-dxwgcneg-minutes
<LarsG> +1
<roba> +1
+1
Resolved: Approve minutes from last meeting
<LarsG> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/4
roba: no action on ACTION-193 yet
LarsG: ACTION-325 & ACTION-326 missing
<LarsG> action-325?
<trackbot> action-325: Nicholas Car to Contact roba regarding action-193 and jmeter tests -- due 2019-05-09 -- OPEN
Peter WS has put in ACTION-327 for conneg subgroup
LarsG ACTION 325, 326 & 327
<LarsG> ncar: we've talked about action-325
LarsG: can close ACTION-325 sicne roba is discussing ACTION-193 here
<LarsG> action-326?
<trackbot> action-326: Lars G. Svensson to Write proposal in #785 regarding how to handle multiple dimensions in link headers -- due 2019-05-16 -- OPEN
LarsG: discussing ACTION-326 and Issue 785 - my conclusion is we need to include cartesion product of Media Type & Profile in Link headers to avoid repeated HTTP 406 failures
roba: I don't think this will scale well
LarsG: old IETF RFC for profile conneg contained cartesian products but new one does't
* I can hear you fine
* trying new mic
* I can still hear you fine
roba: we should only say true things and if we do't say something - like no listing Media Type - we shoudl consider it true
roba: if a profile is unqualifid with a MT list, it should be true for them
* it seems you still can't hear me
https://w3id.org/mediatype/text/html&_view=alternates
roba: we can either deliver sparse info or cartesian product as long as you don't make a false MT/Profile combo claim
LarsG: options for communicating this makes clients harder to make
roba: still, this isn't a hard client function
<LarsG> ncar: if we don't take a stance, we're only pushing the issue further down
<LarsG> roba: if the client has to evaluate the cartesian product it's harder to
http://ldapi.ga.gov.au/sss/sample/AU239?_view=alternates
<LarsG> ... build a page from it (grouping similar items)
<LarsG> ncar: this page has eight views and five formats
<LarsG> ... roba's example would compress that significantly
<LarsG> ... would like to put some more examples into the issue
<LarsG> ... so that we can take a stance
roba: if I support multiple DCAT-APs, do I list all the profiles, since they are in a hierarchy?
<LarsG> ncar: we haven't decided on that yet, but we're assuming that both parties
<LarsG> ... know about the hierarchy
<LarsG> roba: that's a bold assumption
<LarsG> ncar: #785 depends on profile hierarchies. Will create new issue
<LarsG> ncar: Peter has drafted an email text that we can send
<LarsG> roba: not inconsistent with our work, but we need to review it line by line
<LarsG> ... most seems to be dealt with
<LarsG> ... the second issue (definition of constraint) is something we need to think about
<LarsG> ... we should raise an issue to discuss that
<LarsG> ... any specification can take the role of a profile
Issue 932 created for problem of all-profiles representation as mentioned regarding 785 above
Action: roba to draft replies to Tom's email in a new GH issue
<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Draft replies to tom's email in a new gh issue [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-05-23].
Succeeded: s/ACTUONB/ACTION
Succeeded: s/if we offer two options/if we don't take a stance/
Succeeded: s/Peter has drafted an email text that we can send/ncar: Peter has drafted an email text that we can send/