Meeting minutes
https://
<pchampin> will have to leave in 45m
Admin
Approve last meeting's minutes
<roba> https://
Approve last meeting's minutes
<YoucTagh> +1
<roba> +1
+1
<pchampin> +0
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved
Open actions from last meeting
https://
roba: first action (access for Nick) has been resolved
<roba> w3c/
roba: Nick has made some pull requests
roba: https://
YoucTagh: Has updated issue
roba: behaviour is acceptable. If you ask for a profile
… but the media type is noc available, you should
… answer 406 (never return a media type the client
… didn't ask for)
YoucTagh: media type is one of the dimensions in http
… if the default representation does not have the
… requested media type, we can specify that in the
… link header, so the client would know that anyway.
… If the server doesn't want to send a default representation
… it would return 406
YoucTagh: In reacztive CNEG, the I-D specifies using HEAD to query for the
… supported profiles. That should be 300.
ProfileNegotiation/
roba: If a client uses HEAD without specifying a profile,
… the server should answer with the default representation
… including all headers
<YoucTagh> https://
YoucTagh: according to the spec, the response headers for GET
… and HEAD need not be the same.
pchampin: http semantics says that the answer to HEAD
… request SHOULD be the same as for a GET (i. e. the headers)
… that should go for the status code, too
roba: The question is if the server returns 200 or 406 for
… a request for a header/profile combination it cannot
… support
… we need to make decision on that
pchampin: it would be important to discuss this with the IETF group
ACTION: roba to word-smith a proposal for 200 vs 406
IEtF
pchampin: At TPAC there was a meeting with IETF people,
… concerns that the ProfNeg spec is more IETF tha W3C
… there are companion documents in IETF space
… their advice would be send this to the http WG at IETF
roba: sees the benefit of having the protocl side done in one place
… W3C work includes an ontology with semantics
… and the QSA side doesn't fit with IETF, either
… the W3C work should refer to IETF docs, not duplicate them
<roba> LarsG: have been working on this for 5 years with Rueben Verbourgh and Herbert van Soempel
<roba> ... were rejected by the IETF protocol working group - would be happy to recontact
roba: main contacts Martin Thompson and Mark Nottingham from http WG
pchampin: large part of the spec is in W3C space, but the
… protocol part should be IETF
LarsG: The proposed I-D is at https://
ACTION: pchampin to contact Martin Tompson and Mark Nottingham in order to get a liaison
rest of actions...
roba: Action to prepare PR for #45 (https://
YoucTagh: There is a branch for that
… questions about some examples
roba: A 4.2 is just an example, shouldn't be in the same PR
YoucTagh: format(s) should be consistent with link hint spec (https://
… has updated references (how do we reference RFCs?)
… will try just using RFC...
Open Pull Requests
roba: Nick has done a change to use JSON-LD at some places, too
… we should be able to merge that
… <assigning YoucTagh as reviewer>
… merging that directly
… PR #48
… here Lars needs to review
… and Nick make to changes requested by YoucTagh
roba: Won't attend next meeting