Nabble - w3.org - www-tag

Re: agenda for TAG meeting 8-10 Dec in progress

2009-11-24T16:02:31Z

Re: Metadata
We are expecting a draft document from Jonathan Dec 1
Here are the pointers to background reading
- Web Linking (Common registry and the HTTP Link header)
header):http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
- Well-Known URIs
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04
- Host-meta
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-hostmeta-04
- LRDD
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03

Re: WebApps Architecture
Raman, Larry and I have been working on a draft document. Early
versions are on the tag mailing list.
Should have something better by next week.
All the best, Ashok

noah_mendelsohn@... wrote:

>> If you know more than what tracker knows
>>
>
> Having been out of the office for 12 days, there's a fair amount that I
> need to go through when I get back next week. That said: nothing
> specific comes to mind, but I do have some higher level goals for the F2F
> that I hope you'll at least consider. Basically:
>
> * Goal: Figure out the success critera for our work on Web Application
> Architecture, and whether our results on that should be more than the sum
> of the parts. It would be good if we started to have some thoughts about
> the form of our results, even if the answer is just to do scattered emails
> and findings; I still think there is a chance that an AWWW Vol 2 and/or
> updates to Vol 1, might be a good way to go for Web Apps. I am not
> necessarily pushing for lots of meta-discussion about such things. I
> would like to see the vast majority or even all of of our time on Web apps
> devoted to technical discussion. With luck, some insights about the whole
> will emerge from that. Nonetheless, this is probably my top priority "as
> chair". Also, I wonder whether we should also do some looking at that
> Table of Contents from June to see whether it inspires anyone to dive into
> new topics, and thus to accept some new actions (before or during the
> F2F.)
>
> * Goal: clarify our interest is in metdata, and make sure our actions are
> well aligned with those goals. I think we are doing some good stuff in
> this space, and all of it may be well covered by existing actions and
> ISSUE-62 and ISSUE-63. Nonetheless, I tend to get some odd vibes from the
> group when metadata comes up. Some people say: "beware, that's all of
> computer science". Some seem interested specifically in one of the two
> issues but don't want the TAG spending time on the other. So, I hope we
> can come out with some TAG consensus on what our priorities are.
>
> In both cases, it would be nice to have a general sense of what success
> criteria are for, say, the next 3-6 months. Again, if we can get there by
> mostly following tracker and assigning/discussing the appropriate actions,
> that's just fine with me.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dan Connolly <connolly@...>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@...
> 11/24/2009 03:58 PM
>
> To: www-tag@...
> cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> Subject: agenda for TAG meeting 8-10 Dec in progress
>
>
> Today is T-2 weeks, so our agenda is due.
>
> If you know more than what tracker knows, let me know right away.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda
>
> That page knows everything I know except for a
> few thoughts from recent phone calls.
>
> I'll be organizing it into an agenda page today.
>
>

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-24T13:50:31Z

There are (at least) a couple of such initiatives in the cultural
heritage/archaeology community. One is STAR
(http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/star/). Generally, there's a fair
amount of interest in using SKOS to refine data expressed using CIDOC CRM in RDF.

There's also been a lot of interest in LCSH expressed in SKOS (Library of
Congress Subject headings), but I'm not personally aware of applications.

#g
--

Jonathan Rees wrote:

> Great. Can you give examples of applications that consume SKOS content
> and do something useful with it? At CC we're doing something like this
> (using NLM MeSH headings in SPARQL queries), but would like to hear
> about other instances.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Felix Sasaki
> <felix.sasaki@...> wrote:
>> An example for supporting this point: SKOS can be used to represent a
>> thesaurus in an RDF-based way. A thesaurus can be used e.g. to enhance
>> full-text search ("use all terms which are broader than my search term"). In
>> XQuery full text search, you are able to use the same kind of resource (a
>> thesaurus) with the same purpose (enhance search), but not necessarily
>> relying on RDF for thesaurus representation.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> 2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@...>
>>> I'm with you... RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
>>> any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
>>> syntactically, which is the easy part. (RDF semantics is also helpful
>>> discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
>>> vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.
>>>
>>> The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
>>> data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
>>> sought out and/or developed.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata
>>>>> applications -
>>>>> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>>>>> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>>>> RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I
>>>> think,
>>>> whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you
>>>> can
>>>> say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
>>>> metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more
>>>> restricted
>>>> domain.
>>>>
>>>>> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF,
>>>>> or
>>>>> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>>>> It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
>>>> (WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
>>>> and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
>>>> arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it
>>>> weren't
>>>> possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
>>>> than the dc:creator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a
>>>>> representation system,
>>>>> be it RDF or something else
>>>>> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>>>> Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for
>>>>> describing various
>>>>> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new
>>>>> vocabularies
>>>>> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>>>>> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be
>>>>> created.
>>>> I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is
>>>> vocabulary
>>>> mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from
>>>> multiple
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be
>>>>> associated
>>>>> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements,
>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>>>>> I think this is issue 62:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>>>> Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be
>>>> the
>>>> only way.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>
>
>

Re: agenda for TAG meeting 8-10 Dec in progress

2009-11-24T13:22:43Z

> If you know more than what tracker knows

Having been out of the office for 12 days, there's a fair amount that I
need to go through when I get back next week. That said: nothing
specific comes to mind, but I do have some higher level goals for the F2F
that I hope you'll at least consider. Basically:

* Goal: Figure out the success critera for our work on Web Application
Architecture, and whether our results on that should be more than the sum
of the parts. It would be good if we started to have some thoughts about
the form of our results, even if the answer is just to do scattered emails
and findings; I still think there is a chance that an AWWW Vol 2 and/or
updates to Vol 1, might be a good way to go for Web Apps. I am not
necessarily pushing for lots of meta-discussion about such things. I
would like to see the vast majority or even all of of our time on Web apps
devoted to technical discussion. With luck, some insights about the whole
will emerge from that. Nonetheless, this is probably my top priority "as
chair". Also, I wonder whether we should also do some looking at that
Table of Contents from June to see whether it inspires anyone to dive into
new topics, and thus to accept some new actions (before or during the
F2F.)

* Goal: clarify our interest is in metdata, and make sure our actions are
well aligned with those goals. I think we are doing some good stuff in
this space, and all of it may be well covered by existing actions and
ISSUE-62 and ISSUE-63. Nonetheless, I tend to get some odd vibes from the
group when metadata comes up. Some people say: "beware, that's all of
computer science". Some seem interested specifically in one of the two
issues but don't want the TAG spending time on the other. So, I hope we
can come out with some TAG consensus on what our priorities are.

In both cases, it would be nice to have a general sense of what success
criteria are for, say, the next 3-6 months. Again, if we can get there by
mostly following tracker and assigning/discussing the appropriate actions,
that's just fine with me.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

Dan Connolly <connolly@...>
Sent by: www-tag-request@...
11/24/2009 03:58 PM

To: www-tag@...
cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: agenda for TAG meeting 8-10 Dec in progress

Today is T-2 weeks, so our agenda is due.

If you know more than what tracker knows, let me know right away.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

That page knows everything I know except for a
few thoughts from recent phone calls.

I'll be organizing it into an agenda page today.

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

agenda for TAG meeting 8-10 Dec in progress

2009-11-24T12:58:59Z

Today is T-2 weeks, so our agenda is due.

If you know more than what tracker knows, let me know right away.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

That page knows everything I know except for a
few thoughts from recent phone calls.

I'll be organizing it into an agenda page today.

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-23T08:04:47Z

2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@...>

Great. Can you give examples of applications that consume SKOS content
and do something useful with it? At CC we're doing something like this
(using NLM MeSH headings in SPARQL queries), but would like to hear
about other instances.

I hopefully will be able to give you examples after Wednesday - I will be attending a workshop about "semantic web in libraries" - see the agenda in German, but also with speakers from LOC like Ed Summers http://www.swib09.de/programm.pdf .

Best,

Felix

Jonathan

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Felix Sasaki
<felix.sasaki@...> wrote:
> An example for supporting this point: SKOS can be used to represent a
> thesaurus in an RDF-based way. A thesaurus can be used e.g. to enhance
> full-text search ("use all terms which are broader than my search term"). In
> XQuery full text search, you are able to use the same kind of resource (a
> thesaurus) with the same purpose (enhance search), but not necessarily
> relying on RDF for thesaurus representation.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> 2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@...>
>>
>> I'm with you... RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
>> any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
>> syntactically, which is the easy part. (RDF semantics is also helpful
>> discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
>> vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.
>>
>> The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
>> data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
>> sought out and/or developed.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@...>
>> wrote:
>> >> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata
>> >> applications -
>> >> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>> >> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>> >
>> > RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I
>> > think,
>> > whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you
>> > can
>> > say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
>> > metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more
>> > restricted
>> > domain.
>> >
>> >> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF,
>> >> or
>> >> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>> >
>> > It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
>> > (WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
>> > and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
>> > arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it
>> > weren't
>> > possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
>> > than the dc:creator.
>> >
>> >
>> >> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a
>> >> representation system,
>> >> be it RDF or something else
>> >> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>> >
>> > Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>> >
>> >
>> >> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for
>> >> describing various
>> >> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new
>> >> vocabularies
>> >> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>> >> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be
>> >> created.
>> >
>> > I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is
>> > vocabulary
>> > mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from
>> > multiple
>> > sources.
>> >
>> >> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be
>> >> associated
>> >> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements,
>> >> mechanisms
>> >> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>> >> I think this is issue 62:
>> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>> >
>> > Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be
>> > the
>> > only way.
>> >
>> > Larry
>>
>
>

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-23T05:48:13Z

I think that metadata will have as many models as the types of resources
that it describes.
For example, if you have a Relational Database, there is a special
information schema to describe the tables.
So, how about saying the RDF is the *syntax* in which different
metadata models are described.
We will need to specify how different models are described in RDF
syntax. In some cases there is ongoing
work in this area in others we will need to start appropriate efforts.
All the best, Ashok

Jonathan Rees wrote:

> I'm with you... RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
> any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
> syntactically, which is the easy part. (RDF semantics is also helpful
> discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
> vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.
>
> The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
> data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
> sought out and/or developed.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@...> wrote:
>
>>> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata applications -
>>> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>>> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>>>
>> RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I think,
>> whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you can
>> say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
>> metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more restricted
>> domain.
>>
>>
>>> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF, or
>>> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>>>
>> It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
>> (WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
>> and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
>> arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it weren't
>> possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
>> than the dc:creator.
>>
>>
>>
>>> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a representation system,
>>> be it RDF or something else
>>> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>>>
>> Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>>
>>
>>
>>> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for describing various
>>> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new vocabularies
>>> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>>> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be created.
>>>
>> I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is vocabulary
>> mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from multiple
>> sources.
>>
>>
>>> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be associated
>>> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements, mechanisms
>>> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>>> I think this is issue 62: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>>>
>> Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be the
>> only way.
>>
>> Larry
>>

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-23T03:24:36Z

Great. Can you give examples of applications that consume SKOS content
and do something useful with it? At CC we're doing something like this
(using NLM MeSH headings in SPARQL queries), but would like to hear
about other instances.

Jonathan

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Felix Sasaki
<felix.sasaki@...> wrote:

> An example for supporting this point: SKOS can be used to represent a
> thesaurus in an RDF-based way. A thesaurus can be used e.g. to enhance
> full-text search ("use all terms which are broader than my search term"). In
> XQuery full text search, you are able to use the same kind of resource (a
> thesaurus) with the same purpose (enhance search), but not necessarily
> relying on RDF for thesaurus representation.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> 2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@...>
>>
>> I'm with you... RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
>> any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
>> syntactically, which is the easy part. (RDF semantics is also helpful
>> discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
>> vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.
>>
>> The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
>> data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
>> sought out and/or developed.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@...>
>> wrote:
>> >> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata
>> >> applications -
>> >> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>> >> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>> >
>> > RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I
>> > think,
>> > whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you
>> > can
>> > say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
>> > metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more
>> > restricted
>> > domain.
>> >
>> >> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF,
>> >> or
>> >> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>> >
>> > It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
>> > (WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
>> > and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
>> > arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it
>> > weren't
>> > possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
>> > than the dc:creator.
>> >
>> >
>> >> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a
>> >> representation system,
>> >> be it RDF or something else
>> >> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>> >
>> > Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>> >
>> >
>> >> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for
>> >> describing various
>> >> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new
>> >> vocabularies
>> >> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>> >> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be
>> >> created.
>> >
>> > I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is
>> > vocabulary
>> > mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from
>> > multiple
>> > sources.
>> >
>> >> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be
>> >> associated
>> >> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements,
>> >> mechanisms
>> >> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>> >> I think this is issue 62:
>> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>> >
>> > Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be
>> > the
>> > only way.
>> >
>> > Larry
>>
>
>

Re: Minutes of Nov 19 TAG Telcon

2009-11-22T23:29:03Z

> HT: If HTML WG would take on updating App C and make it as good as
> possible that would be great!

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090326#l-475

> HT: What abt HTML within SVG?
>
> DC: Have not seen a design for that

When you have SVG in text/html, you can use HTML inside foreignObject. It is parsed like HTML in text/html in general.

If you want to use HTML in image/svg+xml, you need to use the XML serialization of HTML inside foreignObject.

(You can't have {http://www.w3.org/2000/svg}svg as the root element in text/html. The parsing algorithm always generates an {http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}html root element. See the thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Mar/0006.html )

> DC: They are not active.
> ... HTML5 folks have a design on the table.
>
> HT: Does proposal say much abt semantics
>
> DC: Talks mainly abt parsing
>
> HT: Does not sound good
>
> DC: I pointed this out when I was chair

If you conclude that what HTML5 says about SVG in text/html is insufficient, logically you must also be concluding that "just use Namespaces" is an insufficient integration story for XHTML and SVG (and, hence, for XML vocabularies in the general case). ;-)

Above the parsing layer, all integration issues SVG in text/html has are issues shared with SVG in application/xhtml+xml.

> <DanC> but nothing about event-bubbling and screen arbitration
> between HTML and SVG

"Screen arbitration" belongs in the CSS WG, I think. (I'd expect events to bubble across namespace boundaries.)

> <ht> "When the SVG foreignObject element contains elements from the
> HTML namespace, such elements"
>
> DC: how does it get in the HTML namespace. This is not a complete
> proposal.

That's up to the XML Processor (XML case), the HTML parsing algorithm (the text/html case) or DOM APIs (the scripted case).

> DanC: Manu's proposal included a version attribute

Manu removed the version attribute from his draft after discussion on public-html.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@...
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-22T23:26:31Z

An example for supporting this point: SKOS can be used to represent a thesaurus in an RDF-based way. A thesaurus can be used e.g. to enhance full-text search ("use all terms which are broader than my search term"). In XQuery full text search, you are able to use the same kind of resource (a thesaurus) with the same purpose (enhance search), but not necessarily relying on RDF for thesaurus representation.

Best,

Felix

2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@...>

I'm with you... RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
syntactically, which is the easy part. (RDF semantics is also helpful
discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.

The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
sought out and/or developed.

Jonathan

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@...> wrote:
>> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata applications -
>> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>
> RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I think,
> whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you can
> say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
> metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more restricted
> domain.
>
>> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF, or
>> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>
> It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
> (WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
> and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
> arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it weren't
> possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
> than the dc:creator.
>
>
>> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a representation system,
>> be it RDF or something else
>> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>
> Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>
>
>> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for describing various
>> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new vocabularies
>> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be created.
>
> I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is vocabulary
> mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from multiple
> sources.
>
>> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be associated
>> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements, mechanisms
>> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>> I think this is issue 62: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>
> Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be the
> only way.
>
> Larry

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-22T17:04:55Z

I'm with you... RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
syntactically, which is the easy part. (RDF semantics is also helpful
discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.

The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
sought out and/or developed.

Jonathan

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@...> wrote:

>> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata applications -
>> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>
> RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I think,
> whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you can
> say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
> metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more restricted
> domain.
>
>> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF, or
>> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>
> It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
> (WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
> and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
> arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it weren't
> possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
> than the dc:creator.
>
>
>> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a representation system,
>> be it RDF or something else
>> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>
> Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>
>
>> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for describing various
>> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new vocabularies
>> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be created.
>
> I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is vocabulary
> mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from multiple
> sources.
>
>> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be associated
>> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements, mechanisms
>> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>> I think this is issue 62: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>
> Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be the
> only way.
>
> Larry

Minutes of Nov 19 TAG Telcon

2009-11-22T15:04:27Z

Are available at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/19-minutes.html
and as text below.

[1]W3C

[1] http://www.w3.org/

- DRAFT -

TAG Weekly Telcon

19 Nov 2009

[2]Agenda

[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/19-agenda

See also: [3]IRC log

[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-tagmem-irc

Attendees

Present
Jonathan Rees, Henry Thompson, Ashok Malhotra, Dan Connolly

Regrets
Noah Mendelsohn, John Kemp, TimBL, T. V. Raman

Chair
Henry Thompson

Scribe
Ashok

Contents

* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]HTML5
3. [7]Progress on HTML5 Versioning
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________

<scribe> scribe: Ashok

<scribe> scribenick: Ashok

<noah> Lurking for awhile. No phone, will probable not be on IRC
long. Please mark me "regrets", as previously noted. Thank you.

Convene

HT: Noah traveling
... Next mtg Dec 3. Noah will Chair, Larry is up for scribing.

Ashok: Regrets for Dec 3

HT: Can we have a mtg with only 4 people, Jonathan asks

<ht> Noah, proxy for admin tasks, please

<ht> So we can do them

<ht> [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-minutes.html

[9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-minutes.html

<Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask what is quorum

<jar> DC: Not cited by HTML 5, disputed.

<jar> HT: Works for me.

JR: 2 lines in minutes of Nov 12 that I did not understand. Need to
understand the subject

<jar> what are the subjects of these two sentence fragments?

<noah> Sorry, just noticed. Henry, you have my proxy for admin.

<jar> Appendix C of html 1.0 is not cited by html5

<jar> ht meant: if html5 would take on updated Appendix C, that
would be a good goal

HT: If HTML WG would take on updating App C and make it as good as
possible that would be great!

<DanC> +1 approve minutes of 2 Nov

HT: Can we agree to approve minutes of Nov 2

<jar> +1

No objection. Minutes approved.

<ht> [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html

[10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html

HT: Can we agree to approve minutes of Nov 6

No objection. Minutes of Nov 6 approved.

<ht> [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/12-minutes.html

[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/12-minutes.html

HT: Can we agree to approve minutes of Nov 12

<DanC> (minutes 6 nov are missing a back-pointer to the agenda; I
almost fixed that before this meeting, but didn't get a round to
it.)

No objection. Minutes of Nov 12 approved.

<jar> Nov 6 "removal of the Microdata section form HTML4" - that
means HTML5, right?

<DanC> yes,

<noah> Usually, when minutes are approved, I quietly make a note to
myself to remove the DRAFT indication. In this case, I'll be gone
1.5 more weeks. Please either just do it, or if you prefer, assign
me trivial actions.

scribe: no change required

<DanC> close ACTION-310

<trackbot> ACTION-310 Check with Sam Ruby on ECMA/W3C activities at
TPAC closed

HT: We have 2 f2f meetings scheduled: Dec 8-10 and March 17-19

<DanC> close ACTION-296

<trackbot> ACTION-296 update ISSUE-62 and ISSUE-63 to reference each
other closed

HTML5

<DanC> for indexing purposes:

<DanC> IsSUE-33?

<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Composability for user interface-oriented XML
namespaces -- OPEN

<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/33

[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/33

HT: Dan action on you to check HTML plans for SVG and MathML

<DanC> my msg
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0012.html

[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/0012.html

HT: They just grandfathered the entire spec
... what abt overlaps

DC: You have to use SVG element, so no ambiguity

HT: What abt HTML within SVG?

DC: Have not seen a design for that

HT: What is said about namespace declarations? Allowed and ignored?

<noah> Hmm, why do I think I asked someone about HTML and SVG and
got some answer like: some user agents may support that. This is NOT
reliable information, just a vague recollection.

DC: Don't know

HT: I will look into this
... There has been discussion abt XML namespaces in HTML mixed in
with draconian XML error recovery

<ht>
[14]http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol
3-Quin01.html

[14] http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol3-Quin01.html

HT: above is Liam's proposal
... extensibility has heated up again.

<DanC> (could we stick with the MathML/SVG stuff for a bit, mr
chair? i.e. the user interface aspects, not the namespace syntax
bits.)

HT: I have written up the media type defaulting story which we have
talked abt for 2 years

<ht>
[15]http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html

[15] http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html

HT: I don't think Liam's proposal has a chance whereas mine has a
chance.
... I'm concerened abt tactics rather than substance

DC: Reminds that we have an issue with user interface
... mixed namespace user interface documents
... CDF WG is gone!

<jar> [16]http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/

[16] http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/

DC: They are not active.
... HTML5 folks have a design on the table.

HT: Does proposal say much abt semantics

DC: Talks mainly abt parsing

HT: Does not sound good

DC: I pointed this out when I was chair

<DanC> Noah, I don't see "not reliable" in your msg

DC: I have made my peace with the proposal. Noah said he had not
made peace with it but did not suggest what to do with it

<DanC> "I still am among those who

<ht> The semantics of SVG elements are defined by the SVG
specification and other relevant specifications. [SVG]

DC: OK, That's good

<DanC> but nothing about event-bubbling and screen arbitration
between HTML and SVG

<ht> "When the SVG foreignObject element contains elements from the
HTML namespace, such elements"

DC: how does it get in the HTML namespace. This is not a complete
proposal.
... There is some algorithm for parsing the whole thing and some
elements end up in the HTML namespace

HT: Lot of special casing

DC: No attempt to do anything general

HT: How do we make progress here?

<DanC> I don't think "there's no architectural issue here"; I think
there's an architectural issue here, but legacy constrains the
solution space, and I'm OK with accepting these constraints, since,
interestingly, the right namespaces do end up in the DOM

HT: asks JR

JR: I would have to look thru the doc and do text searches

HT: What would you need to know?

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note Noah's reply re SVG and MathML and
to note that the "incorporated wholesale" is the way the (UI)
software is, to date, developed too; no other designs

HT: Asks abt integration of HTML with SVG and MathML

DanC: Incorpparte wholesale is what people do

JR: It's setting up a separate social and technical process for
extensibility outside of web arch
... we are not talking about a general-purpose design here

HT: Don't see a way to get a conclusion to this part of the
discussion.

DanC: Noah and Tim are not here ... leave my action as "Pending
Review"

Progress on HTML5 Versioning

<ht> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4

[17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4

HT: HTML issue 4 has been open for 2 years
... in Feb Larry took an action and made a proposal

<DanC> last call for proposals of 26 Oct, due 3 Dec:
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0941.htm
l

[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0941.html

DanC: There is a proposal in the spec ... no version identifiers

<noah> Am I remembering right that the TAG decided not to actively
pursue Larry's proposal? Of course, we could pick it up now, or I
may be misremembering.

<DanC> I think we didn't decide. (different from deciding not)

<ht> <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM "about:legacy-compat">

<ht> Larry made an explicit proposal?

<DanC> yeah... did larry make a proposal re. HTML version
identifiers?

JR: I have not been able to convince myself that what they are doing
is wrong
... I want to check

<noah> Don't want to push this hard, but I thought we decided not to
schedule further discussion for the (then) forseeable future. I have
no problem picking it up again if there's new info or if TAG members
are now interested.

<noah> Would have to check past minutes, and am not in a position to
do that from here.

<ht> I put this on the agenda because TV and Larry had relevant
actions due for today

<ht> Unfortunately, neither of them are here, so we have to give up.
. .

<noah> OK

<DanC> (the actions are due today as a matter of chair's perogative
to edit the tracker; they were do a while ago, when the action
owners last touched them.)

HT: With some regrets ... some support for version identifiers ...
but we need a proposal

DanC: Manu's proposal included a version attribute

HT: I thought that was still open for discussion

DC: I think it was published

HT: It is issue 76?

<DanC> [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-rdfa-in-html-20091015/

[19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-rdfa-in-html-20091015/

<DanC> I don't see @version in there.

<DanC> I saw (discussion of?) some earlier draft with html/@version

<jar> HTML+RDFa "There should be a version attribute on the html
element."

<jar> URI for issue 76 please?

DanC: Mike Smith tells me Manu moved the version att somewhere else

<ht> [20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

[20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

HT: I don't hear anyone stepping up to make a proposal.
... not happy abt this
... we we probably raise it again when they want to go to CR

<noah> Dropping off for awhile again...sorry. If I'm really in the
critical path for anything, please have someone call or SMS my cell
next 30 mins. Thanks, and thanks to HT for chairing!

<jar> ADJOURNED

<DanC> action-336?

<trackbot> ACTION-336 -- Ashok Malhotra to prep Metadata
Architecture for Dec f2f -- due 2009-11-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/336

[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/336

<DanC> action-282?

<trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on
metadata architecture. -- due 2009-12-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

<DanC> action-278?

<trackbot> ACTION-278 -- Jonathan Rees to draft changes to 2.7 of
Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case -- due
2009-10-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278

[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278

<DanC> action-278 due 10 Dec

<trackbot> ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to
cover the "Google Calendar" case due date now 10 Dec

<DanC> action-337?

<trackbot> ACTION-337 -- Larry Masinter to frame the F2F agenda and
preparation on metadata formats/representations -- due 2009-11-19 --
OPEN

<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/337

[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/337

<DanC> [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-tagmem-irc.txt

[25] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-tagmem-irc.txt

<DanC> close action-299

<trackbot> ACTION-299 Notify the TAG when the HTML WG gets closer to
closing issue-4 html-versioning closed

<DanC> action-283 due 10 Dec

<trackbot> ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
Cambridge June discussion due date now 10 Dec

<DanC> action-318 due 20 Nov

<trackbot> ACTION-318 Send note to Device APIs and Policy (DAP)
Working Group on behalf of the TAG due date now 20 Nov

<DanC> action-282: see Ashok's 13 Nov msg
[26]http://www.w3.org/mid/4AFD629C.3090609@...

[26] http://www.w3.org/mid/4AFD629C.3090609@...

<trackbot> ACTION-282 Draft a finding on metadata architecture.
notes added

<DanC> action-336 due 13 Nov

<trackbot> ACTION-336 Prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f due
date now 13 Nov

<DanC> action-116 due 10 Dec

<trackbot> ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with
the vocabulary in the rules
[27]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
either as needed. due date now 10 Dec

[27] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules

<DanC> ACTION-281: let's take a look at this when we have jar's
draft (action-282)

<trackbot> ACTION-281 Keep an eye on progress of link header draft,
report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) notes added

<DanC> action-281 due 1 Dec

<trackbot> ACTION-281 Keep an eye on progress of link header draft,
report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) due date now 1 Dec

<DanC> action-337 due 20 Nov

<trackbot> ACTION-337 frame the F2F agenda and preparation on
metadata formats/representations due date now 20 Nov

<DanC> ACTION-306 due 20 Nov

<trackbot> ACTION-306 Work with Raman, LM, JK to update Web
APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG
meetings due date now 20 Nov

<DanC> ACTION-337 due 24 Nov

<trackbot> ACTION-337 frame the F2F agenda and preparation on
metadata formats/representations due date now 24 Nov

<DanC> action-330 get somebody to talk about metadata usage e.g.
RDFa?

<DanC> action-330: get somebody to talk about metadata usage e.g.
RDFa?

<trackbot> ACTION-330 Prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
Noah etc. notes added

<DanC> ACTION-304: kinda withdrawn in favor of HT's action

<trackbot> ACTION-304 Write up issue around normative references to
particular versions of specs notes added

<DanC> close ACTION-231

<trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\"
stuff in HTTP spec closed

<DanC> action-334 due next week

<trackbot> ACTION-334 Start an email thread regarding the treatment
of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5
due date now next week

<DanC> action-309 due next week

<trackbot> ACTION-309 Henry to bring back proposed TAG pushback on
sniffing and HTTP bis draft
[28]http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/export/663/draft-ietf
-httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html, or his recommendation that we leave
it alone due date now next week

[28] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/export/663/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html

<DanC> ACTION-163: I agree with ht's proposal in the 19 Nov agenda
that he take this on

<trackbot> ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog
notes added

<DanC> ACTION-163: I=Dan that is

<trackbot> ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog
notes added

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version 1.133
([30]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/11/22 10:59:12 $

[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

--
All the best, Ashok

RE: f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-22T14:23:40Z

> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata applications -
> the datatypes of the endpoints?
> The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.

RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I think,
whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you can
say in RDF" to also be said in metadata. I think the requirements for
metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more restricted
domain.

> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF, or
> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.

It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
(WinAmp, iTunes, Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it weren't
possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
than the dc:creator.

> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a representation system,
> be it RDF or something else
> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.

Yes, RDF is one serialization.

> * Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for describing various
> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new vocabularies
> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be created.

I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is vocabulary
mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from multiple
sources.

> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be associated
> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements, mechanisms
> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
> I think this is issue 62: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62

Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be the
only way.

Larry

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt

2009-11-20T07:05:14Z

Hi Mark:
Thx for the update.
All the best, Ashok

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> FYI.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>> From: Internet-Draft@...
>> Date: 20 November 2009 2:00:02 PM AEDT
>> To: mnot@..., eran@..., draft-nottingham-site-meta@...,lisa.dusseault@...
>> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt
>>
>> New version (-04) has been submitted for draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt.
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt
>>
>> Diff from previous version:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-site-meta-04
>>
>> IETF Secretariat.
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>

An alternative approach to simplifying namespace binding

2009-11-20T06:17:17Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It seems timely to offer another proposal for consideration as we
think about addressing the concerns the HTML Working Group has raised
in response to the suggestion that support for something very like XML
Namespaces be added to the text/html serialization of HTML5. One
suggestion which has been discussed on several occasions but, as far
as I can tell, never written down, amounts to simply baking in
bindings for well-known prefixes in the context of particular media
types, so that people can, for example, simply write xf:model for an
XForms model in an HTML document without any requirement for an
explicit binding of the 'xf' prefix.

Without claiming ownership of the idea, I've written it up:

http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/11/default_prefix_declaration.html

Consider this a contribution to the discussion around
HTML-WG-ISSUE-41,

ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@...
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLBqTtkjnJixAXWBoRAtiDAJ9W2Ve4nLEglE0dwdSsIYkWm1+AbwCfXtzA
lIYXbpGg6b0DRGz5dErghKY=
=Qh20
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt

2009-11-19T19:06:23Z

FYI.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Internet-Draft@...
> Date: 20 November 2009 2:00:02 PM AEDT
> To: mnot@..., eran@..., draft-nottingham-site-meta@...,lisa.dusseault@...
> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt
>
> New version (-04) has been submitted for draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt
>
> Diff from previous version:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-site-meta-04
>
> IETF Secretariat.

--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

RE: link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-19T13:49:56Z

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 21:14 +0000, Paul Cotton wrote:
> > I'm following up with Mike and PLH.
>
> Dan, please include me in this conversation.

Right... sorry... was doing too many things at once...

> Please note that I volunteered to draft a proposal for the HTML WG Issue-27. See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0508.html

OK... good.

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Re: link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-19T13:21:39Z

Thanks, Paul. Will talk to you soon.

Cheers,

On 20/11/2009, at 8:14 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:

> Please note that I volunteered to draft a proposal for the HTML WG Issue-27. See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0508.html
>
>> I'm following up with Mike and PLH.
>
> Dan, please include me in this conversation.
>
>> I had a discussion with Hixie at the TP about the registry, and I think we have a viable way forward.
>
> Mark, I will get in touch with you when I get back from vacation on Dec 7 to figure out how to coordinate on this item.
>
>> Saying that proposals are demanded on a deadline now is a bit rich.
>
> Please note the text in the Call for Proposal:
>
> "If no Change Proposals are written by the WG meeting on December 17, this issue will be closed without prejudice."
>
> The HTML WG chairs are attempting to help the WG get into Last Call. To do this we need to clean out our issues list and for issues that are as old as Issue-27 giving a one month notice seems fair to us. Please note the "without prejudice" wording that means if someone wanted to bring up this issue again during Last Call we would certainly consider this as a valid action.
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@... [mailto:www-tag-request@...] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:42 PM
> To: Dan Connolly
> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; ashok.malhotra@...; noah_mendelsohn@...; www-tag@...; Philippe Le Hegaret; Michael(tm) Smith
> Subject: Re: link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62
>
> I had a discussion with Hixie at the TP about the registry, and I think we have a viable way forward. I'm currently documenting what was discussed, and should have a draft out shortly (although I'm currently working on about five major efforts, including an implementation of a brand-new protocol).
>
> Regarding the "dead man switch" - Proclaiming ultimatums doesn't seem productive. I've attempted to engage with the HTML5 WG several times through their chairs (albeit a different set), and never got an answer. Saying that proposals are demanded on a deadline now is a bit rich.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> On 20/11/2009, at 7:37 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
>> Thanks... this list of pointers with status info is quite timely.
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 15:24 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>> - Web Linking (Common registry and the HTTP Link header):
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
>>>
>>> IETF Last-Call ended. A revision with registry clarifications is coming shortly.
>>
>> Speaking of the IETF/IANA registry, the HTML 5 spec plans
>> a whatwg registry of link relationships in the HTML 5 spec.
>> The WG as a whole has an open issue around that, but the
>> chairs just sent a solicitation for proposals with a
>> 17 Dec dead-man switch.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0501.html
>>
>> I hope we can avoid two registries. I'm following up with
>> Mike and PLH.
>>
>> p.s. tracker, this is relevant to ACTION-281 on tracking
>> the link header draft.
>>
>> --
>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

RE: link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-19T13:14:37Z

Please note that I volunteered to draft a proposal for the HTML WG Issue-27. See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0508.html

> I'm following up with Mike and PLH.

Dan, please include me in this conversation.

> I had a discussion with Hixie at the TP about the registry, and I think we have a viable way forward.

Mark, I will get in touch with you when I get back from vacation on Dec 7 to figure out how to coordinate on this item.

> Saying that proposals are demanded on a deadline now is a bit rich.

Please note the text in the Call for Proposal:

"If no Change Proposals are written by the WG meeting on December 17, this issue will be closed without prejudice."

The HTML WG chairs are attempting to help the WG get into Last Call. To do this we need to clean out our issues list and for issues that are as old as Issue-27 giving a one month notice seems fair to us. Please note the "without prejudice" wording that means if someone wanted to bring up this issue again during Last Call we would certainly consider this as a valid action.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@... [mailto:www-tag-request@...] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:42 PM
To: Dan Connolly
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; ashok.malhotra@...; noah_mendelsohn@...; www-tag@...; Philippe Le Hegaret; Michael(tm) Smith
Subject: Re: link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

I had a discussion with Hixie at the TP about the registry, and I think we have a viable way forward. I'm currently documenting what was discussed, and should have a draft out shortly (although I'm currently working on about five major efforts, including an implementation of a brand-new protocol).

Regarding the "dead man switch" - Proclaiming ultimatums doesn't seem productive. I've attempted to engage with the HTML5 WG several times through their chairs (albeit a different set), and never got an answer. Saying that proposals are demanded on a deadline now is a bit rich.

Regards,

On 20/11/2009, at 7:37 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Thanks... this list of pointers with status info is quite timely.
>
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 15:24 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> - Web Linking (Common registry and the HTTP Link header):
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
>>
>> IETF Last-Call ended. A revision with registry clarifications is coming shortly.
>
> Speaking of the IETF/IANA registry, the HTML 5 spec plans
> a whatwg registry of link relationships in the HTML 5 spec.
> The WG as a whole has an open issue around that, but the
> chairs just sent a solicitation for proposals with a
> 17 Dec dead-man switch.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0501.html
>
> I hope we can avoid two registries. I'm following up with
> Mike and PLH.
>
> p.s. tracker, this is relevant to ACTION-281 on tracking
> the link header draft.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>

--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-19T12:42:08Z

I had a discussion with Hixie at the TP about the registry, and I think we have a viable way forward. I'm currently documenting what was discussed, and should have a draft out shortly (although I'm currently working on about five major efforts, including an implementation of a brand-new protocol).

Regarding the "dead man switch" - Proclaiming ultimatums doesn't seem productive. I've attempted to engage with the HTML5 WG several times through their chairs (albeit a different set), and never got an answer. Saying that proposals are demanded on a deadline now is a bit rich.

Regards,

On 20/11/2009, at 7:37 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

link relationship registries at IANA and whatwg.org RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-19T12:37:03Z

Thanks... this list of pointers with status info is quite timely.

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 15:24 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> - Web Linking (Common registry and the HTTP Link header):
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
>
> IETF Last-Call ended. A revision with registry clarifications is coming shortly.

Speaking of the IETF/IANA registry, the HTML 5 spec plans
a whatwg registry of link relationships in the HTML 5 spec.
The WG as a whole has an open issue around that, but the
chairs just sent a solicitation for proposals with a
17 Dec dead-man switch.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0501.html

I hope we can avoid two registries. I'm following up with
Mike and PLH.

p.s. tracker, this is relevant to ACTION-281 on tracking
the link header draft.

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Re: version identifiers

2009-11-19T10:07:12Z

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 15:29 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> (resent to public tag) with regard to ACTION-283 / ISSUE-41
>
> In the meanwhile, here is the Editor’s Draft
>
> http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html

I'm having a hard time getting engaged in this document; it
uses an editorial style that I find off-putting; it
starts with "This document...", which is too self-conscious
for my tastes.

It also presents a list of terms and definitions without
motivating the complexity.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if we're to work on
versioning, I strongly suggest we approach it as a collection
of patterns, i.e. known problems and solutions
e.g.
- when HTML was started, we didn't know which tags we'd ultimately need
- therefore: ignore unknown tags
- but: it doesn't always work; see forms, tables
(perhaps another pattern is the <noscript> alternative pattern)

- likewise in HTTP
- but there the solution is to ignore not just the header name
but the content of the header too

- the XSLT versioning strategy

- the COM uuid strategy (mostly for contrast with web techniques)

oops... time for the telcon...

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

minutes TAG meeting Nov 2, 6 in Santa Clara

2009-11-19T09:03:31Z

By reference, in hypertext:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-minutes.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html

By value, for tracker, archive search, etc.

[1]W3C

[1] http://www.w3.org/

- DRAFT -

TAG meeting during Santa Clara TPAC, part 1 (Monday AM)

02 Nov 2009

[2]Agenda

[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda.html

See also: [3]IRC log

[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-tagmem-irc

Attendees

Present
Noah_Mendelsohn_(NM), TV_Raman_(TVR), Henry_Thompson_(HT),
Larry_Masinter_(LMM), Ashok_Malhotra_(AM), Dan_Connolly_(DC),
TimBL

Regrets
John_Kemp, Jonathan_Rees

Chair
Noah Mendelsohn

Scribe
Larry Masinter, DanC

Contents

* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene, review records and agenda
2. [6]privacy policy (Device APIs)
3. [7]coordination with Webapps on CORS: preparation
4. [8]coordination with Webapps on CORS: joint session
5. [9]Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: text/html
6. [10]Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: data
7. [11]Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: authoring
spec
8. [12]Disucssion with HTML WG chairs
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________

Convene, review records and agenda

<ht> scribe: Larry Masinter

<ht> scribenick: masinter

nm: invited HTML-WG chairs at 3:30

TVR: at-risk for Fri
... regrets 12th Nov

nm: the rest of TAG who haven't should review status of open issues
that they are shepherd for by 10th Nov, please.
... future F2F meetings review (see agenda)
... TAG call for nominations posted

RESOLUTION: minutes from 23-25 Sep F2F approved
... minutes of october 8 approved
... minutes of October 22 approved

see agenda for references to minutes

privacy policy (Device APIs)

action-318?

<trackbot> ACTION-318 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send note to Device APIs
and Policy (DAP) Working Group on behalf of the TAG -- due
2009-10-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/318

[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/318

action-321?

<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Noah Mendelsohn to bug Larry about his
input to ACTION-318 -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321

[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321

action-321 was reassigned to lmm

<DanC> action-321?

<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Larry Masinter to lightly edit TAG input to
DAP WG per 8 Oct and tell Noah -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321

[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321

<DanC> (lmm, actions/321 has a link to the note to edit in the
comments)

coordination with Webapps on CORS: preparation

Art Barstow invited TAG to come down to talk to WebApps, discussing
whether we want to have that meeting

<jar> blast. wish I could

<DanC> [17]CORS: email from Henry Thompson re "CORS still not
getting to closure"

[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0316.html

<DanC> HT relayed the TAG's request for an issue; the chair,
Barstow, forwarded it to the group; the folks with concern about
confused deputy don't seem to be stepping forward to say "yes, we
want an issue"

ht: My email asked them to open an issue. But my reading of the
thread that followed didn't pile in and say 'yes'

<jar> Mark M is away from email for a couple of weeks

<jar> I don't know about Tyler, and I haven't weighed in because I
don't know what to add (and I'm not on the WG)

<jar> MM said on the list that he'd be gone and that he looks
forward to a discussion when he returns

<noahm> LM: There's the technical issue, but also process issue as
to whether WebApps is the right place to settle this security
design.

<noahm> LM: Also, Thomas Roessler is organizing a lunch on Thursday
to discuss web security

<jar> the last message on the thread basically said unguessable
tokens was best practice, and should be used in *addition* to cors.
I contemplated a response saying why do you need Origin: if you're
using unguessable tokens, but haven't figured out how to say this in
a constructive way

<jar> it's hard to participate given limited time

<masinter_> [18]Poll: Security get-together at TPAC

[18] http://doodle.com/ev7m8nvww3dw42k6

Thursday lunch meeting on web security

coordination with Webapps on CORS: joint session

<DanC> [19]CORS item in Web Applications Working Group 2 Nov minutes

[19] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item03

<DanC> [20]WebApps WG 'confused deputy problem' issue

[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/108

Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: text/html

<DanC> scribe: DanC

on text/html... and "XHTML" served as...

TBL: proposed requirement: XHTML served as text/html should work

DanC: that's not feasible

TBL: I'm doing it; it works

NM: clarify, please?. "Works" means is interpreted as it would be as
application/xhtml+xml?

DanC: you're not doing it in the general case; you stated the
requirement in the general case

HT: what doesn't work?

DanC: <blockquote />

HT: There's a well-documented set of constraints

NM: So, Dan, when you say it's infeasible, you're saying "browsers
already interpret text/html in a way that conflicts with being
compatible with application/xhtml+xml"

DC: Yes, see example of <BLOCKQUOTE /> above

LMM: I come back to the point that IETF requires that old content
not be invalidated by new specs. [roughly]
... currently, the spec goes against that.

<masinter> One possible requirement for re-registering a media type
is that a new update should not make previously valid content
invalid.

<masinter> Previously valid content included XHTML to be served as
text/html, as well as consistent versions.

<noahm> FWIW, I would like to converge ASAP on: "Here's what the TAG
wants to achieve on this during our Thurs. discussion:

TBL: that's not the HTML WG change policy; their change policy for
changes is "we'll consider the costs/impact", not 100% backward
compat

LMM: but you can't redefine the media type

DC: I think the WG has accepted that. Old stuff that broke that is
now viewed as bugs.

LMM: they've accepted it to some degree, but it doesn't give a
coherent view of HTML 2, for example. [something like that]

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to visit "well-documented set of
constraints" and to speak to the new/old invalid

DC: Henry, you said there is a well doc'd set of constraints. There
isn't, but that would be a good goal.

HT: What's in the spec isn't good enough.

DC: Not cited by HTML 5, disputed.

HT: Works for me.

DC: Me too.

HT: Is it in the current media type registration?
... there's the architectural/versioning aspect of this that LMM is
speaking to...

<masinter> "The text/html media type is now defined by W3C
Recommendations;

<masinter> the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition,
[XHTML1]

<masinter> defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible
with HTML

<masinter> 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html."

<masinter> [21]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

[21] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

NM: Do we know what to ask for?

DC: Maybe, recruit a writer to write up ...????

HT: what I want is: in the case where the content starts with an XML
declaration, parse it with an XML parser

(poll for support around that)

(discussion of label conforming ....)

<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask for something else

[missed exchange]

LMM: I don't think conformance requirements stated in terms of how
it's processed is [good]

NM: I meant it as a shorthand

LMM: the "appendix C" was an intersection... until XHTML is
well-deployed
... the question is whether anything in HTML5 [breaks] this

TBL: I don't want a "switch"...
... I want people to be able to incrementally tidy things up

<masinter> in HTML4 there was a set of documents in the intersection
of HTML4 and XHTML such that documents in the intersection could be
interpreted EITHER as XML *OR* as HTML, and that it wouldn't matter
how it was processed.

<masinter> We are asking for HTML5 to retain that there is a useful
subset in the intersection of HTML5 and XHTML

<ht> The above URI [22]http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml is Hixie's
old, but somewhat updated, argument against _serving_ XHTML as
text/html

[22] http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

<ht> I think it's actually mostly irrelevant as an argument against
'sniffing' and then _parsing_ some text/html as XHTML

<DanC_> [23]let authors choose text/html or application/xhtml+xml
(detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1188.html

<DanC_> ^^ that comment is still pending:

(discussion of W3C web site that have .htaccess depending on browser
sniffing to serve the same documents in appendix C subset as
text/html or application/xhtml+xml)

<noahm> Am I confused, I thought that question was whether it is
legal to send XXX as text/html (I.e. because it happens to be
well formed XML)

[scribing lightly until we get closer to a conclusion...]

<noahm> Why can't this be text html? xxxx<video>...</video>

<noahm> xxxx<video>...</video>

<noahm> xxxx<video>...</video>

<noahm> <html><body> xxxx<video>...</video></body></html>

propose we endorse
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1188.htm
l

[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1188.html

([25]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure.html#conformance-re
quirements )

[25] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements

<ht>
[26]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conformance-r
equirements

[26] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conformance-requirements

"XML documents that use elements or attributes from the HTML
namespace and that are served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be
sent using an XML MIME type such as application/xml or
application/xhtml+xml and must not be served as text/html.
[RFC3023]"

<noahm> Doesn't that rule out XXXXX as text/html

yes

PROPSED: take out ^^^

RESOLUTION: to request that "XML documents that use elements or
attributes from the HTML namespace and that are served over the wire
(e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME type such as
application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be served as
text/html. [RFC3023]" be removed

LMM: there's also the overall compatibility stuff...
... but perhaps we can follow that up in a different vendue

Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: data

TBL: PROPOSED: that the microdata [data?] section be removed

HT: I gather the microdata stuff is specified separately, while it's
still in the spec

<masinter> there is something else we might also want to say about
text/html, even if we aren't ready to say

TBL: PROPOSED: that the microdata section be moved to a separate
spec
... PROPOSED2: that the data-* section be moved to a separate spec

LMM: no... they should be removed, not just moved; they're out of
scope of the WG
... the proponents are free to propose it, and to ask that the WG
charter be extended...

TVR: given that the WHATWG has declared last call and that they've
published an aggregate spec, it seems likely that if they remove it
from the W3C spec, they'd keep it in the WHATWG spec

TBL: yes, that won't surprise me...

LMM: vendors often implement and specify non-standard stuff
... a rats-nest of overly interdependent stuff stifles innovation

NM: I wonder which version of the spec would get pointed to from the
media type registration

<masinter> The requirement for the charter of HTML WG is that it
should have extensibility mechanisms that would allow it

<ht> [27]the separate Microdata draft (it's 3 months old)

[27] http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/microdata.html

<ht> Not clear what status it has -- it's _not_ at WhatWG. . .

timbl: we should not be distracted by what WhatWG may or may not do

<ht> [28]HTML WG Microdata/RDFa issue

[28] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

yes, we just took a position on issue 76 (microdata)

RESOLUTION: to request that the microdata section be removed from
the HTML 5 spec

RESOLUTION: to request that the data-* section be removed from the
HTML 5 spec

<ht> [29]bug 7542 "Remove Section 5. Microdata"

[29] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7542

Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: authoring spec

NM: about the idea of an "authoring spec" for HTML 5...
... we talked about that in Maneliue [sp?]
... IH said he could produce that as a view of the text he wrote
... I had some misgivings that this would work, but he has since
done it...
... I tried to grab it and read it on the plane but found that I
only got the TOC document

author view of HTML 5 spec - static copy (2nd try) Dan Connolly
(Wednesday, 26 August)
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1296.htm
l

[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1296.html

scribe: I'm interested to take a closer look in the next couple
days... can anybody tell me how the WG treats it?

DanC: I did some scripting with it a while back...
... what I like most about it is that it clarifies discussion with
the editor; you can ask "is this about browsers or about documents"
and see the outcome clearly in the spec

LMM: I don't think many of the API invariants are document
[clearly?] [?]

TVR: I don't find this "view of the big spec" approach appealling.
It doesn't tell producers the minimum they need to do to conform [?]

NM: LMM, there is a lot about DOM APIs in the authoring version of
the spec

<noahm> [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/spec.html

[31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/spec.html

LMM: I spent a lot of energy on one example: downloading images,
width and "available" and "not available"

<timbl> TVR: The original spec was said to be necessarily
non-machine readable, and this new auhtoring spec is said to be a
CSS-filtere version of the original, and theefore a spec which is
also not machine-readable, and therefore -- as I beleive a language
should be specs in a machne-readble way -- not a suitable spec. (?)

<ht> Where did that link _come_ from??????

TVR: so how is this image width analysis relevant to the authoring
spec?

LMM: it's specified as a normative algorithm. what it tells authors
is that if width is available, height is available. [er... I thought
he was going to point out a problem but I didn't hear him give one;
did he get cut off?]
... my point, and it applies to other API specs as well, is that the
HTML 5 spec doesn't give a reasonable [... SCRIBE BRAIN EXPLODING]

NM: my point is that this "view of the main spec" won't produce
something good for authors

HT: whether a spec should be for implementors or end-users is a very
interesting question with lots of history in W3C, but it's
editorial, and not architectural

LMM: a language spec serves not only authors and browser
implementors but lots of other sorts of agents that consume/produce
HTML.

<ht> Lachlan Hunt's "A Web Developer’s Guide to HTML 5" has
sometimes been referred to as an authoring guide:
[32]http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/

[32] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/

<ht> THis is the WG's issue on this topic:
[33]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59

[33] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59

<ht> Here's Mike Smith's document:
[34]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

[34] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

<ht> Here's an interesting survey of the authoring spec. space:
[35]http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/09/normativity
.
.

[35] http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/09/normativity

Disucssion with HTML WG chairs

+PaulC

+SamR

[discussion of logistics for Thu... 1pm start time suggested.]

NM: tell us about last call... where are you?

SR: we're trying to get issues raised ASAP, rather than having the
community treat last call as a time to start raising issues

PC: we're setting up a last call process

NM: we just noted/discussed the bug/tracker-issue escalation stuff

PC: we've been testing the last call process in the WG
... the accessibility issues look like a long pole get over

SR: e.g. there's an accessibility issue where a _proposal_ is due 17
Dec
... we're setting expectation that lacking a propsal, we'll time-out
issues

NM: are these internal issues? do you check with issue raisers?

SR: it's such an open WG, but yes, in some sense they're all
internal so far
... [..missed some...] "canvas isn't accessible" is both hard and
[wrong?].

HT: can you clarify... are issues closed simply for lack of a
proposal?

PC: we close _without prejudice_, so they can be re-opened at a
later stage if required, and we explicitly call for consensus

[discussion of polyglot documents...]

[discussion of text/html media type registration... whether it
should go in the html 5 spec or not... to what extent the html 5
spec re-writes history]

(ht which is that issue again?)

<ht> [36]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

[36] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

[missed some...]

PC: advocates of microdata/RDFa haven't said they think they should
be developed independently of the HTML WG.

HT: it's people outside the WG that express this opinion

LMM: yes, the W3C membership explicitly considers these modularity
issues, as they relate to which experts/engineers to send to which
groups

SR: hmm... not sure I'd heard concerns around data-* before

PC: right; don't expect the WG to be familiar with that.

TBL: data-* competes with URI-based designs such as RDFa

SR: odd... data-* is local to a page... i.e. to be consumed by js on
the page, not by crawlers

TBL: but once there's lots of useful data-* data somewhere, crawlers
will want to crawl

SR: hmm... yes, I can see the inevitability of that. hmm.

[... discussion of various lists of things in various stages of
discussion]

NM: we didn't get to distributed extensibility this AM

SR: there are 2 things: (1) do we want people to be able to make up
their own elements? (2) XML namespaces as is. Don't lead with (1) if
your requirement is actually (2)

NM projects quote from HTML 5 spec on
#other-applicable-specification

[discussion of the CSS moz- technique in comparison to URI-based
techniques]

<ht> yes

[discussion of DOMs with namespaces that can only be created from
scripts, not from markup]

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.135
([38]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/11/17 15:52:18 $

[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

[1]W3C

[1] http://www.w3.org/

- DRAFT -

TAG meeting during Santa Clara TPAC, part 2 (Friday AM)

06 Nov 2009

Attendees

Present
Noah_Mendelsohn_(NM), Henry_Thompson_(HT),
Larry_Masinter_(LMM), Ashok_Malhotra_(AM), Dan_Connolly_(DC),
Tim_Berners-Lee_(TBL)

Regrets
John_Kemp, Jonathan_Rees, TV_Raman

Chair
Noah

Scribe
timbl

Contents

* [2]Topics
1. [3]Security BOF out-brief
2. [4]HTML joint session debrief
3. [5]Decentralized extensibility debate review
4. [6]EXI WG requests review of a content coding
5. [7]Dec f2f planning
6. [8]URI Packaging
7. [9]IRI BOF Report
8. [10]Default XML Processing Model - 10 min heads-up [Henry]
9. [11]TAG telecons, Noah's conflict
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________

<DanC> Date: 6 Nov 2009

Security BOF out-brief

<scribe> scribenick: timbl

<DanC> [13]http://esw.w3.org/topic/TPAC_Security_BOF

[13] http://esw.w3.org/topic/TPAC_Security_BOF

[Instituting more of a policy of protocol review of W3C activities.
]

Noah: How is W3C organized to deal with security?

DanC: T&S domain tends to specialize in security. There was a Web
Security Context (WSC) working group which did the browser chrome
thing. There is no generic horizontal security activity [like acc'y
or I18n].

Noah: So the TAG is the only general group looking
cross-wg..frightening

LM: Security is not a a specialty of the TAG. The IETF has a
Security directorate, and every document has a threat analysis and
mitigation review.

DanC: a new mailing list and/or wiki maybe coming out of the lunch
security BOF.

LMM: Some people thought the overhead of IG would be too big. But f
there were such a group, then there would be many people from member
companies who would participate. I suggest we the TAG endorse this.

<masinter> ... and encourage W3C staff to pursue this because the
TAG isn't prepared to do the security architectural work that needs
to be done.

<DanC> +0 on endorse...; it sounds well and good, but ...

Ashok: Security on the web, or device security too?

LMM: Wherever W3C does work.

<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to noodle on security entry in Web apps
"Table of Contents"

Noah: Two things one of which is yes i think it would be good for us
to agree that we should help people [lost]
... we could find a tag member who could spend some time thinking
about this. I hear l Larry say security is important, and we should
say security is something that w3c should do better, but he didn't
say that the tag should offer, yes if you want is to we will tell
you what you think of your security issue.

<DanC> action-306?

<trackbot> ACTION-306 -- Larry Masinter to work with JK and AM to
update Web Application architecture outline based on discussions at
TAG meetings -- due 2009-10-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306

[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306

DanC: CORS and Origin Header .. seem close to security

Larry: Suggest we ask Thomas to report

ACTION DanC as Thomas for a report form the security BOF

<trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - As Thomas for a report form the
security BOF [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to invite Thomas to report on actions from TPAC
security BOF

<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Invite Thomas to report on actions
from TPAC security BOF [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].

<ht> From Mike Smith, authored (?) by Anne van K., minutes from the
security BOF: [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-security-minutes.html

[15] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-security-minutes.html

Noah: In December I want to crank up our focus on Metadata.

Ashok: We are stalled .. how should we move this forward. Thinking
about device APIs ...

Noah: Broader than that .. a full road map of web applications,
including security.

[discussion of pressure of work and scheduling]

Noah: We meet on December 1. Let us review it before, November 19?

<DanC> action-306 due 1 Dec

<trackbot> ACTION-306 Work with JK and AM to update Web Application
architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings due date
now 1 Dec

Larry and Ashok will meet Nov 17 18 and the TAG will get it on 1st
and discuss it on the face-face on the 6th

HTML joint session debrief

HT: As there was agreement about the substantive point, we didn't
need maybe to spend 45 minutes discussing the polyglot issue, but in
fact I think it was useful.

Noah: We went though the agenda we brought with us and got though
most of it.

HT: I found it interesting that many influential member of the HTML5
WG seem to have very little awareness of the document and content
management industry, which has largely switched to end-to-end XML
over the last few years.

Timbl: Some people in the HTML group committed to do their best to
expand the polyglot overlap to be as big as possible. I applauded
that move, as the polyglot language is really valuable. Noted that
Kai/Deutche Telecom pointed out that his whole site was polyglot.

<masinter> Polyglot documents are *not* defined in the document, and
so the commitment to make sure they are allowed in the document is
insufficient.

<DanC> it was news to me that Karl had written something about
"versatile" documents (aka polyglot documents)

Timbl: It was pointed out that there was a large XML-using community
who have web pages and want them to be XML.

<DanC> [16]whatwg notes on polyglot docs

[16] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML

<timbl_> That's it

<DanC> note also "First Polyglot Validator Check Deployed"
[17]http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/09/08/First-Polyglot-Validator
-Check-Deployed

[17] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/09/08/First-Polyglot-Validator-Check-Deployed

<masinter> The text/html MIME type should reference the description
of polyglot documents which is currently not in the text/html MIME
type registration

HT: I noted in corridor discussion that if you are using digital
signature with your XML documents, converting them to HTML syntax
for transmission is not an option.

DanC: I think the community has evolved its understanding of what is
acceptable.

<DanC> DanC: two things: (a) whether formerly valid stuff is now
invalid and (b) whether history is preserved; I think (a) is
acceptable and hixie claimed history section of HTML 5 subsumes the
history in the RFC. so if they don't change anything, I'm satisfied.

Larry: The place where the the IANA considerations for MIME type
registration, section 31.1 ..

[discussion of section 13.1]

Larry: This doesn't say that the previous document types under
earlier versions of HTML are allowed too.
... RFC2854, under 'published specifications' it explained it.

Noah: In practice the goal of the spec is to include the older
languages

Larry: I don't believe that the HTML5 document does currently
clearly define a language which includes all others

DanC: Specifically, an example if that the @profile attribute has
been removed, when it was in HTML4.

<ht> Combining "This document is the relevant specification.
Labeling a resource with the text/html type asserts that the
resource is an HTML document using the HTML syntax." with "XML
documents that use elements or attributes from the HTML namespace
and that are served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using
an XML MIME type such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml
and must not be served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a
satisfactory state. If the

HT: This [above] is what Hixie promised to change, until it is
changed we can't evaluate the result.

<scribe> ACTION: HT to Assign himself an action to track the text
"""urce with the text/html type asserts that the resource is an HTML
document using the HTML syntax." with "XML documents that use
elements or attributes from the HTML namespace and that are served
over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME type
such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be
served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a satisfactory state.
If the"""

<trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - Assign himself an action to track
the text """urce with the text/html type asserts that the resource
is an HTML document using the HTML syntax." with "XML documents that
use elements or attributes from the HTML namespace and that are
served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME
type such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not
be served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a satisfactory
state.

<DanC> (Henry, I'm not sure there's a bug on the media type stuff;
the/a bug Sam opened right away was w.r.t. web addresses)

<ht> I found it, its
[18]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8154

[18] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8154

<ht> ACTION Henry S to track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on
polyglot documents, due 2009-12-05

<trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - S to track HTML WG progress on their
bug 8154 on polyglot documents, due 2009-12-05 [on Henry S. Thompson
- due 2009-11-13].

LMM: I think the microdata stuff should be not only factored out but
removed as out of HTML WG charter scope; to pursue it involves a
charter change or a new WG

TimBL: Lets as a the TAG file a bug in real time now requesting the
removal of the the Microdata section, and remove it (with no
normative reference).

Because ... [collecting rationale in IRC...]

<noahm> Modularity is beneficial in this case. There are alternative
technologies such as RDFa, and separating specs for metadata is a
good thing.

<DanC> RDFa is in considerable and increasing deployment (before
saying it's a REC)

- The modularity of the document is damaged. The issue of putting
data into HTML5 documents is sufficiently separate functionality
that it would be better to have a separate document which people
interested in data can review without having to read the rest of the
space.

<masinter> Metadata architecture is complex; real world widely
deployed metadata management systems have found that distributed
extensibility is even more important for metadata than for markup,
since each organization and community has different desires for
metainformation even if they share common understanding of the data.

<noahm> the modularity of both the design and the documentation of
it is damaged

- The microformat bits in fact overlap with, and would need review
by , dramatically separate communities such as calendaring
(iCalendar etc), contact (vCard etc).

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to consider endorsement of
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0773.htm
l

[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0773.html

<masinter> The embedding of this specification within HTML5 hinders
the involvement to the web content management community.

[20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

[20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

[discussion of fine tuning of the bug]

RESOLUTION: To endorse
[21]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76 and file a bug for
removal of the Microdata section form HTML4.

[21] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

<ht> The HTML Bugzilla bug for "remove microdata" filed by the TAG
is [22]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220

[22] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220

Decentralized extensibility debate review

HT: This felt awkward to me from the podium
... But I hear it seemed to go well.
... I have a better sense of where people who oppose NSs think the
costs are.
... That is, the cost of the tuple representation of names at the
API level; and also the syntactic overhead of managing them, and
vulnerability from lexical scoping when you are cutting and pasting.

<DanC> (re tuples as names, the XML community is hoisted by its own
petard in that case; if they'd just combined them into one URI, this
wouldn't be a problem.)

HT: The other issue, with a different character, raised by Larry,
was about where you buy into the "decentralized" part at all. There
was actually much less of the Henri's "We have done all the
extensibility we need" position.
... Going forward, we have a much better sense of how to frame
arguments.

Larry: Either the costs reduced or the benefits outweigh them.

TimBL: Meanwhile these "Unobtrusive Namespace proposals"

<masinter>
[23]http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200909/msg00068.html

[23] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200909/msg00068.html

DanC: That doesn't do anything for me

HT: MY reading is that:
... there are two classes of proposal:

<DanC> (Liams's proposal with outboard namespace declarations
doesn't meet the
[24]http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Ambiguity requirement,
aka lexical scoping)

[24] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Ambiguity

HT: 1) Liam's for example is to make it easier to change the default
ns withing certain scopes. There is an out-of-band description of
how to do this, but in well known situation they can be hard-coded,
like HTML.
... 2) Or there is an appeal to out-of-band information, which is
used to set up non-default prefixes, like SVG: "Media type derived
namespace declarations".

TimBL: These all follow from the media type.

HT: ... I prefer (2)

<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to talk about Liam's proposal

<DanC> (perhaps I read a version of Liam's proposal that's so old
that it doesn't bear on this discussion; pointer to modern version,
please?)

Noah: What I like about Liam's is that it gives you NS and also
allows you to evolve a tag from an experimental namespace into a new
version of a well-known namespace.
... (BTW Liam had sent his idea to the Hypertext Coordination group,
which had not been an effective place, but now it is sent t the HTML
WG)

<ht>
[25]http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol
3-Quin01.html

[25] http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol3-Quin01.html

HT: Option 2 has never been really written down.
... That ^^ was a version of Liam's proposal.

DanC: The current HTML5 spec is an example of one of these.

Larry: Henry, Could you submit a bug to the HTML WG that you would
like this?

HT: First I need to read Tony Ross's proposal. (linked from the
agenda or from noah's talk which is)

<DanC> further discussion showed that Dan had a different "these" in
mind and the HTML 5 spec isn't an instance.

<ht> ACTION Henry to review Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5
proposal

<trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Review Microsoft's namespaces in
HTML 5 proposal [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-11-13].

EXI WG requests review of a content coding

DC: Tim, do you believe their use cases cover any of the interesting
cases?

Tim: yes, e.g., they demonstrated on a very large SVG file;
demonstration was that it loads 200 times faster

Noah: We we not sure of the original speed analysis of these but I
don't think we have any issues now

[agreed generally, so we move on]

Noah: We asked them to register a content-encoding value and they
have, so we should thank them.

HT: We were worried that, because the encoding actually is lossy in
that that the double quotes on attributes become single quotes, it
wouldn't be accepted by the IESG, but it was.

<noahm> Proposal: the TAG thanks the EXI working group for
registering the exi content-coding. Your registration completely
resolves the concern we expressed in Mandelieu

PROPOSED: We thank the EXI WG for registering the content encoding
and encourage them in their endeavors.

<noahm> Either is fine with me.

<DanC> "exi" is registered; I don't know whether it's case sensitive

<noahm> I note that this >is< what we encouraged them to do.

TimBL: Oh dear, another nail in the coffin of the plot to use double
quotes for all attribute values except single quotes when it is a
qname ;-)

<DanC> (if the rationale is "this is what we asked them to do" then
I need a pointer)

RESOLUTION: We thank the EXI WG for registering the content encoding
and encourage them in their endeavors.

<DanC> for reference, exi registration request
[26]http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2008-October/00210
3.html

[26] http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2008-October/002103.html

ACTION Noah convey to the EXIWG the resolution "We thank the EXI WG
for registering the content encoding and encourage them in their
endeavors.".

<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Convey to the EXIWG the resolution
"We thank the EXI WG for registering the content encoding and
encourage them in their endeavors.". [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2009-11-13].

Dec f2f planning

NM: seems we should do webapps architecture at our Dec f2f meeting

<DanC> (TOC, for ref
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921 )

[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921

NM: Raman will not be there at the Dec f2f meeting

<masinter> scribenick: masinter

<noahm> Ashok will help Raman frame the F2F agenda and preparation
on Web Application Architecture

[postscript: see ACTION-306 and ACTION-337]

<noahm> Ashok will frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata
access

[postscript: see ACTION-336]

<noahm> :Larry will frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata
formats/representations

[postscript: see ACTION-337]

<DanC> action-321?

<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Larry Masinter to lightly edit TAG input to
DAP WG per 8 Oct and tell Noah -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321

[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321

<DanC> action-321 due next week

<trackbot> ACTION-321 lightly edit TAG input to DAP WG per 8 Oct and
tell Noah due date now next week

<noahm> ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F of Henry's work on referencing
changing specs

<trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Schedule F2F of Henry's work on
referencing changing specs [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-11-13].

<noahm> Dan volunteers best effort to do early versions of the
agenda for F2F.

<noahm> Noah thanks him >profusely<

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
Noah etc.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Prepare Dec f2f agenda in
collaboration with Noah etc. [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].

Noah: Unfortunately, we didn't get to on stage called for
nominations to the W3C TAG.

URI Packaging

<DanC> scribenick: DanC

LM: I reviewed widget:
... reported to webapps widget subgroup...
... reviewed it from the p.o.v. of an author of IETF guidelines on
making new URIs
... i.e. not exactly a TAG review or Adobe review
... I'm surprised that the WG considered it done
... e.g. several things "out of scope" but URI registration
guidelines requires that things be well-defined; "out of scope"
isn't well-defined

LMM's review

LMM's review:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0010.html

[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0010.html

[[ AWWW Suggestion: add guideline: "Make New URI Schemes Reusable If
You Can't Reuse URI schemes".

]

]

LMM: perhaps thismessage: could have been extended, rather than
making a new URI scheme.
... it's from MIME multipart
... for references between MIME parts

<timbl> ... The thismessage: URI scheme is a neat URI scheme which
does actually work and i widely deployed

[30]http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2557.txt <-
[31]http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html

[30] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2557.txt
[31] http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html

<timbl> ... You can make relative URIs but they don't resolve to
anything except relative the message.

<timbl> ... If you have message within message then you flatten it.

TBL: yes, that AWWW suggestion appeals to me.

<timbl> LMM: I suggest in my review adding to AWWW the advice "i you
can't reuse another r scheme, and then if you can, make you new
scheme re-=usable".

HT: thinking about the impact on implementers...

<timbl> Tim: The document should have real-life examples.

HT: old implementations of the extended scheme won't necessarily be
updated

<timbl> Noah: We would normally start with a finding for this sort
of thing.

<scribe> scribe: timbl

LMM: The draft charter for IRI is to update the guidelines for new
URI schemes.
... I withdraw the suggestion.

<noahm> q

IRI BOF Report

LMM: ... I met with the I18n group on Tuesday, and had dinner last
night with 14 people discussing IRIs, in the unicode consortium,
Lisa Dusseault (sp?) , Mike Smith
... Mike was to represent the HTML5 contingent in this.

<DanC> (note to self... brief MikeSmith on HTML 5 URI design
details... maybe I'll action myself... noah, do you mind?)

<masinter>
[32]http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/DraftIriCharter

[32] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/DraftIriCharter

LMM: It looks very positive for agreement hat there should be a WG
in the IETF wit aggressive time schedule,
... with that [linked] as draft charter.

DanC: Any chair candidates?

LMM: Maybe

<masinter> volunteers to help with chairing, managing the issue
list, shepherding the various working groups involved

LMM: I count 9 committees who are interested in what IRIs are. They
are listed at the end of the charter.
... I added ICANN.
... This is the one committee to rule them all and in the darkness
bind them.

<masinter> [33]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07

[33] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07

LMM: Right now, what web browsers will accept in a href="here"
cannot be put in other service which take URIs. There is a specified
mapping in the document which was posted, in a new versions of the
IRI-bis document, which ... [lost]
... This IRI-bis document defines in section 7 a processing model to
handle otherwise invalid IRIS which will make an IRI out of any
string.
... In the definitions, in section 1.3,
... It defines LEIRI and Web-ADDRESS as strings which might
otherwise survive such processing.
... : ... section 7.2 ...
... One needs to find a better name/abbreviation for these ..

HT: This works for me

LMM: This is my cut at the knot.

<DanC> (the word "survive" isn't in the document... ah...
"acceptable input to the processing rules in Section 7.2.")

<DanC> ACTION-298?

<trackbot> ACTION-298 -- Larry Masinter to notify the TAG of the
next IRI draft -- due 2009-09-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/298

[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/298

TimBL: Can you remove the // while you are at it? ;-)

<DanC> close action-298

<trackbot> ACTION-298 Notify the TAG of the next IRI draft closed

<ht> Here's the HTML WG Issue for web addresses:
[35]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207

[35] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207

<DanC> (our iriEverywhere issue is now open with no actions, which
bothers the pedant in me, but I can't think of... ah... NM is
pursuing it.)

<DanC> close item 7

HT:

<DanC> close item 10

Default XML Processing Model - 10 min heads-up [Henry]

HT: At the Director's insistence, when the XML proc model was
chartered, it was chartered to do two things, what ht group wanted
to do, which was a new scripting language, and what the Director
[and DanC] wanted as well which was to define the default processing
model of an XML document.
... HT: I decided eventually there was very little one could say
about the default processing mdoel... and Norm Walsh and I wrote it
on he back of a napkin yesterday.

<masinter> danc, iriEverywhere -- suggest we ask W3C I18N to produce
Rec which points people at IRI and updates
[36]http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/ and LEIRI etc.

[36] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/

HT: This is space whcih ther spcs can be iused to explain what the
input to t epropcess is. It does Xinclde,. It says you must process
the external subset. It saif you muse updat ethabse URI of
documents, and annotae al; XML ID elements with ID specs. So there
is just one consequent of any incoming XML document.
... That is consequent as a n infoset.

TimBL What about decryption?

<ht> [37]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html

[37] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html

<DanC> issue-34?

<trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- XML Transformation and composability (e.g.,
XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) -- OPEN

<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34

[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34

<DanC> action-239?

<trackbot> ACTION-239 -- Henry S. Thompson to alert chair when
updates to description of xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or
if none made) -- due 2009-12-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/239

[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/239

HT: This resolves a 10 -year old ambiguity that there is not one
defined infoset associated with any doument.
... YOu don't ahev to use it.

TimBL: Then how doe sthe receiver know whether to?

<DanC> DanC: "default" is a misnomer, then

<DanC> HT: I can see that.

LMM: Chris LIlley reminds me that there was going to na an update
teo the application/xml and so the default processing model could be
mentioned here.

Noah: What about the Follow Your Nose question? How to get to teh
set of specs from the document you receive? This dooesn't seem to
solve that problem.

<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to say this goes half way

LMM: You could urge a spec writer to define the rpocessingmodel from
the MIME spec.

Noah: This best practice for xml applications ike purcase orders
they do this.

<DanC> (the best way to say that this isn't _the_ only one is to
document 2. I think the "what you see is what you get" processing
model should get at least equal, if not preferred, footing. i.e. no
external anything)

TAG telecons, Noah's conflict

Noah: We wil lhave teleconferences in the 12 and 19th. Regrets from
Noah for the

12th

ADJOURNED

<DanC> taking a look at
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda ... organizing
actions by issue/product...

[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: DanC to invite Thomas to report on actions from TPAC
security BOF
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
Noah etc.
[NEW] ACTION: HT to Assign himself an action to track the text
"""urce with the text/html type asserts that the resource is an HTML
document using the HTML syntax." with "XML documents that use
elements or attributes from the HTML namespace and that are served
over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME type
such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be
served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a satisfactory state.
If the"""
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F of Henry's work on referencing
changing specs

[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.135
([42]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/11/17 16:48:05 $

[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Microsoft's Namespaces Proposal (TAG ACTION-327)

2009-11-19T04:52:47Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Further to TAG ACTION-327: Review Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5
proposal, herewith a review.

I have read through this document [1] which was submitted as a change
proposal to the HTML Working Group against theirISSUE-41 [2].

Its opening section sets out the argument for distributed extensibly
succintly and well.

It goes on to present a core proposal, to support namespace
declarations for prefixes and prefixed element and attribute names,
plus a number of possible additions:

1) to allow default namespace declarations with the expected effect
on unprefixed element and attribute names, except that
declarations on the document element are ignored (because they are
in practice often broken XHTML namespace declarations);

2) to treat unbound prefixes as if they were identity-declared,
i.e. <udp:foo/> would be the equivalent of <udb:foo
xmlns:udp="udp"/> if no declaration for 'udp' was in scope;

3) to define short namespace names for commonly-used namespaces,
e.g. 'html', 'svg', which could be used in declarations.

In my view the core proposal is sound, but does not address either of
the criticisms of the namespace mechanism which I understand as core
to the opposition to using it for distributed extensibility for HTML
5:

a) Syntactic complexity;
b) API complexity.

It also leaves unanswered some moderately important questions as
regards DOM construction, in particular whether

<x:div xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

results in an Element whose local name is 'div' or 'DIV'.

I personally don't see any value in the last two options, since they
are a) not anything I'm aware of a demand for and b) would lead to
more, not less, API complexity.

The first option, regarding default namespace declaration and use, is
harder to assess: including it brings the proposal nearly in line with
Namespaces for XML, but the exception for the document element, while
pragmatically well-motivated, is messy and will I fear lead to more
confusion than value. . .

ht

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/att-1216/MicrosoftDistributedExtensibilitySubmission.htm
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@...
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLBT+fkjnJixAXWBoRArdLAJ9TWTzLXStAQ83hdKZ0SBllPIxntACfW5zj
CZ95Hb8DA1iaP3kUakg1QMU=
=l/do
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

301works

2009-11-18T06:57:10Z

http://www.301works.org/ pertains to ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50)

Agenda for TAG teleconference of 12 November 2009

2009-11-18T01:23:48Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The agenda for the TAG teleconference of 12 November 2009 is now available
at [1]. A text-only copy is attached below. Many thanks to Dan
Connolly, who provided the Action review which largely determined what
we're going to tackle tomorrow.

ht [chair _pro tem_]

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/19-agenda.html

Agenda of 19 November 2009 TAG Teleconference

Nearby: [4]Teleconference details - [5]issues list and [6]Issue Tracker
([7]handling new issues) - [8]www-tag archive - [9]tag archive
1. Convene
+ Chair (pro tem): Henry, Scribe: Ashok Malhotra (confirmed)
+ Roll call -- Regrets: Tim, Noah
+ Note future regrets: Tim: [3 December (probable regrets)]
+ Agenda Review - [10]this agenda
+ Next Meeting: 3 December 2009 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn; Scribe: TBD
+ Note that there will be no teleconference on 26 November 2009 (US
Thanksgiving)
+ Future scribes: Larry -> Henry -> Dan
2. Administrative items
+ Approve [11]minutes of 2 November
+ Approve [12]minutes of 6 November
+ Approve [13]minutes of 12 November
+ Reminder of future F2F meetings:
o 8-10 December 2009 @ MIT (Per [14]resolution of 25 June 2009 -
note that Raman and John Kemp have confirmed the acceptability
of this date, though Raman is unsure he'll attend).
o 17-19 March 2010 @ MIT (per [15]decision at Sept. 2009 F2F)
+ Close [16]ACTION-310: on Noah Mendelsohn: Check with Sam Ruby on
ECMA/W3C activities at TPAC - due 2009-10-01 - pending review
+ Close [17]ACTION-296: on Larry Masinter: update ISSUE-62 and
ISSUE-63 to reference each other - due 2009-11-18 - pending review
3. HTML 5 topics
+ Background:
o [18]ACTION-332: HTML 5 plans for SVG and MathML, on Dan
Connolly, due 2009-11-10
o [19]ACTION-326: track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on
polyglot documents - on Henry Due: 2009-12-05âno recent
updates
o [20]ACTION-299: on T.V. Raman: Notify the TAG when the HTML WG
gets closer to closing [21]issue-4 html-versioning - due
2009-11-11 - pending review; [22]ACTION-283: on Larry
Masinter: Update [23]document on version identifiers, version
dated 2009-08-26 w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion - due
2009-11-17 - pending review
o [24]ACTION-327: on Henry S. Thompson: Review [25]Microsoft's
namespaces in HTML 5 proposal - due 2009-11-13 - open
o [26]HTML WG Bug wrt IRIBIS (no recent change), [27]HTML WG
Issue WRT IRIBIS (no recent updates)
+ Topic: SVG and MathML in HTML 5 -- a useful precedent/a special
case well/badly handled/... ?
+ Topic: Progress on versioning? No sign of movement wrt HTML WG
Issue 4, I don't think. Anyone read Larry's draft? This Action
refers to June discussion, but we also discussed in September???
+ Topic: Microsoft's Namespaces for HTML 5 proposal
4. Metadata Architecture issues
+ Background:
o [28]ACTION-282 on Jonathan Rees: Draft a finding on metadata
architecture. - due 2009-12-01 - open
o [29]ACTION-278 on Jonathan Rees: Draft changes to [30]2.7 of
Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case - due
2009-10-15 - open
o [31]ACTION-336 on Ashok Malhotra: Prep Metadata Architecture
for Dec f2f - due 2009-11-19 - open
o [32]ACTION-337 on Larry Masinter: frame the F2F agenda and
preparation on metadata formats/representations - due
2009-11-19 - open
+ Topic: Progress on drafting?
+ Topic: Discuss f2f plans?
5. Scalability of URI resources
+ Background: [33]ACTION-163 on Norman Walsh: Coordinate with Ted to
build a sample catalog - due 2009-11-18 - open
+ Topic: Henry proposes to take this action on himself
6. Planning the Dec. 2009 F2F
+ Background:
o [34]ACTION-330: Prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
Noah etc. [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].
o [35]Overdue TAG actions: please update dates and status ahead
of our call if possible.
o [36]Open TAG actions
+ Goals:
o Discuss F2F goals and plans
o Review Dan's early work on the agenda, if any.
o Update status of [37]overdue action items and [38]open action
items.
7. Pending Review Items:
+ [39]Pending review actions in [40]Tracker
8. Overdue Action Items:
+ [41]Overdue actions in [42]Tracker
9. Any other business
_________________________________________________________________

Noah Mendelsohn for TAG
$Revision: 1.1 $ of $Date: 2009/11/17 21:20:39 $

[43]Valid XHTML 1.1

References

1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
3. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/12-agenda
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/#telcon
5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues
6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/
7. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0054.
8. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/
9. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/
10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/19-agenda
11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-minutes.html
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html
13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/12-minutes.html
14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/25-minutes.html#item03
15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/25-minutes.html#item04
16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/301
17. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/296
18. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/332
19. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326
20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/299
21. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
23. http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html
24. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327
25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/att-1216/MicrosoftDistributedExtensibilitySubmission.htm
26. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207
27. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56
28. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
29. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/278
30. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31#hideforsecurity
31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/336
32. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/337
33. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/163
34. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/330
35. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
36. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open
37. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
38. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open
39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
40. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/
41. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
42. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/
43. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer

- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@...
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLA70tkjnJixAXWBoRAu07AJ9riCuAZ+7Kj8M+Okp1Qg157KLvxQCfTxW3
qcxYx/FuGsPmnMHXtCebwRU=
=ZWbE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 12th November 2009

2009-11-17T05:24:19Z

Draft minutes may be found at:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/12-minutes.html

And below:

Regards,

- johnk

- DRAFT -
TAG Weekly, 12th November 2009
12 Nov 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
Noah Mendelsohn, Dan Connolly, Henry Thompson, Ashok Malhotra, John
Kemp

Regrets
TV Raman, Larry Masinter, Tim Berners-Lee, Jonathan Rees (partial)
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
John Kemp

Contents

* Topics
1. Convene
2. Follow-up on TPAC
3. Planning F2F agenda
* Summary of Action Items

<scribe> Scribe: John Kemp

<scribe> ScribeNick: johnk

<ht> HST will chair (scribe note-- on the 19th)

<ht> It will be short

<ht> Yes, with help from DanC, I hope

<DanC> ok
Convene

NM: preparing agenda for next F2F

<ht> Confirm f2f is 8--10, right?

<scribe> ACTION: noah to check logistics for December F2F [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-333 - Check logistics for December F2F [on
Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-11-19].

NM: no TAG meeting on 26th Nov due to US Thanksgiving

<DanC> (did Ashok confirm scribing next week?)

<Ashok> No, but I can do so now
Follow-up on TPAC

NM: have our issues been raised adequately with HTML WG, or do we need
further TAG follow-up?
... three issues
... language on use of text/html media type

<ht> HST is tracking the text/html == polyglot doc issue

NM: are we happy with progress?

ht: I'm happy unless my action to track raises a further issue

<DanC> ACTION-309?

<trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to henry to bring back
proposed TAG pushback on sniffing and HTTP bis draft
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/export/663/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html,
or his recommendation that we leave it alone -- due 2009-11-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

NM: Larry's issue was regarding whether previous versions of HTML were
covered by the media type registration associated with HTML5

<DanC> (hixie pointed to 1.4, IIRC)

NM: Hixie suggested current text met this issue
... Larry pushed back

danc: TimBL had a slightly different, but related issue

NM: perhaps better to schedule it for F2F?

I agree, since I haven't had time to look at this issue

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53

NM: text that we would find in HTML editors draft is what they plan to use?

danc: would like to find any resolution to the recorded issue

NM: we could take it to email?

<DanC> . ACTION victim: raise html/media type registration [slow down so
somebody can type]

<scribe> ACTION: henry to start an email thread regarding the treatment
of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-334 - Start an email thread regarding the
treatment of pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of
HTML5 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-11-19].

NM: second issue - microdata - assume that current action is sufficient?

<DanC> microdata bug

NM: Henry opened a bug at the TAG F2F after substantive discussion
(8220) linked from agenda
... third issue - data-* attributes
... should data-* attributes be retained in HTML?
... we have new information from the WG as to why they are included in HTML

NM (after discussion with the WG)

ht: my understanding is that data-* is there to allow people to get
stuff into the DOM for their own purposes

NM: that may be it's intended use, but it would be easy enough to use it
in the same way that microdata could be used

ht: that is a criticism of the general concept of distributed extensibility

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to speak to "local", author-defined stuff vs global

danc: there are things like the 'class' attribute
... I don't have to agree with anybody what that "means"

I just got booted off the phone call

yes

and for some reason calling again is failing

<noahm> DC: In the beginning, the class attribute was for the author's
own purposes (and I was happy)

<noahm> DC: Nobody else had to agree to it. Then things like
microformates poached on that, inviting tools to give a global
interpretation, e.g. per VCard

OK, I'm back

<noahm> DC: This then says that, for private use, you can get anything
except things like VEvent, VCard. Think I've heard Ian Hickson suggest
you search the Web globally for conflicts.

<noahm> DC: There were things that you only ascribed meaning to at your
own risk. HTML WG seems to say the same.

<jar_> yes, this is a classic binding/use matching problem...

<noahm> DC: That does not directly compete with RDFa; different use
cases. It competes with the situation where data-* migrates into
something like microformats.

<noahm> DC: That said, do I think data-* does more harm than good? Hmmm.

<noahm> DC: I guess I'd leave it to the HTML WG.

ok

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say the extensibility is better than data-

ht: you can say that data-* is an ad-hoc partial solution to
extensibility and we'd like a better one

<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to talk about small vs. big solutions.

NM: would be some merit is saying that a full general extensibility
solution would cover this
... data-* is more limited but likely easier to use than a more general
solution
... easy DOM accessors available which might not be for more general
mechanisms

<noahm> NM: for its intended purposes

DC: something better would not involve global co-ordination

<jar_> until 19:55 CEST

DC: intended use-case is "I don't have to coordinate with anybody"

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that something uri-based is worse than
data-* for its intended purpose in that it involves global coordination

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to reply to DanC

<jar_> (minutes editor: the "until ..." can obviously be deleted, as can
this)

HT: I think we agree (DanC) but URI minting doesn't involve spinning up
a new server
... not worried about name collisions because it's for my private use

DC: example.org is not yours to choose, for example

<DanC> ("non-unique-data-names.org" _is_ global coordination, still.)

NM: example.com use is not the only problem, and could be solved by
registering the name
... proposals about this issue?

<DanC> +0 to conveying our earlier resolution; I nominate Henry to do it.

NM: I'd like to put before the group a new resolution to override the
previous resolution

HT: I'm happy to postpone this until the more general situation around
namespaces is clearer

I agree with that FWIW

NM: propose to do what Henry said - change our resolution to say that we
will reconsider data-* as we learn more about distributed extensibility
in HTML

<DanC> (process wonk note: all this discussion was out of order if our
earlier decision stands; it was vacated when we started discussion. )

HT: I would prefer to put this on the F2F

<DanC> . ACTION: Dan remind us about data-* after dust on distributed
extensibility has settled

<noahm> Proposed resolution: The TAG, for now, withdraws its intention
to request removal of data-*, but intends to revisit as the distributed
extensbility story becomes clearer

NM: I would like to be informed by the group before I make this resolution

<DanC> either (a) all this was advice to the chair re whether to
reconsider (vacate) our earlier decision, or (b) the chair accepted the
new information was sufficient to reconsider the earlier decision

<noahm> (c) the chair, informed by this discussion, will not convey a
TAG decision on data-* until we have time to review today's analyis with
Tim & Dan @F2F

<DanC> ACTION: Dan remind us about data-* after dust on distributed
extensibility has settled [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-335 - Remind us about data-* after dust on
distributed extensibility has settled [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-19].

<noahm> (c) the chair, informed by this discussion, will not convey a
TAG decision on data-* until either a) we have new information on dist.
extensibility in HTML 5 or b) some WG member requests an agenda item

<noahm> Informally agreed.

<DanC> maybe not "dust has settled", but just "technical progress is
available"

<DanC> action-335 due 2009-01-01

<trackbot> ACTION-335 Remind us about data-* after dust on distributed
extensibility has settled due date now 2009-01-01

NM: feel that our progress on distributed extensibility was also unfinished

DC: would like to hear about two relevant actions

<DanC> ACTION-313?

<trackbot> ACTION-313 -- John Kemp to talk to Balisage participants
about XML namespace work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and
summarize -- due 2009-11-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/313

<noahm> NM: in particular, do we have clear next steps or agreement not
to do anything fo now.

<DanC> (the other is ACTION-327 , Henry)

<noahm> JK: Yes, I talked to 2-3 people who went to Balisage. Sense I
got was that Liam made a presentation, there was discussion, no action
after that.

<noahm> JK: These people were people mostly from the XML community.

<noahm> JK: I marked the action pending review.

<DanC> for indexing purposes:

<DanC> ISSUE-54?

<trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- Tag soup integration -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54

I note that there has been discussed of Liam's doc in HTML WG

<DanC> ACTION-327?

<trackbot> ACTION-327 -- Henry S. Thompson to review Microsoft's
namespaces in HTML 5 proposal -- due 2009-11-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/327

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0334.html
(Liam's message to HTML)

<noahm> HT: I'm tempted to noodle on proposals that prebind prefixes
rather than the default namespace.

<noahm> The problem with fixing just prefixes is that it doesn't help
much with the <mosaic:img> --> <img> evolution. Otherwise, I think it
may be the right thing.

NM: do we want to assign actions on Liam's doc?

close action-313

<trackbot> ACTION-313 Talk to Balisage participants about XML namespace
work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and summarize closed

<noahm> NM: OK, we're closing 313. For now ACTION-327 is our only
scheduled followup on distributed extensibility.

NM: there is larger question of spreadsheet containing potential HTML issues

<DanC> ACTION-330: take a look the review topics spreadsheet

<trackbot> ACTION-330 Prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with Noah
etc. notes added
Planning F2F agenda

NM: would like to focus on other two themes
... arch of web apps
... and metadata

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda

DC: reified major themes as 'products' in tracker
... HTML5 review
... grouped some under issues

<DanC> ACTION-277: about patent policy

<trackbot> ACTION-277 Ensure any issue is resolved with Art notes added

(reviewing action items linked from
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda)

<DanC> action-306?

<trackbot> ACTION-306 -- Larry Masinter to work with JK and AM to update
Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG
meetings -- due 2009-12-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306

<noahm> From the unpublished mintes of Friday:

<noahm> <noahm> Ashok will help Raman frame the F2F agenda and
preparation on Web Application Architecture

<noahm> <noahm> Ashok will frame the F2F agenda and preparation on
metadata access

<noahm> <noahm> :Larry will frame the F2F agenda and preparation on
metadata formats/representations

<ht> HST is leaving

<DanC> action-306?

<trackbot> ACTION-306 -- Ashok Malhotra to work with Raman, LM, JK to
update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG
meetings -- due 2009-12-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306

<DanC> action-281?

<trackbot> ACTION-281 -- Ashok Malhotra to keep an eye on progress of
link header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) -- due
2009-10-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/281

<DanC> . ACTION Ashok: prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f

<DanC> ACTION: Ashok to prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f
[on Ashok Malhotra - due 2009-11-19].

<DanC> ACTION: Larry to frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata
formats/representations [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-337 - frame the F2F agenda and preparation on
metadata formats/representations [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-11-19].

NM: eg. identify early reading people should be doing
... difficulty in using tracker lately has been people not keeping
issues up to date
... works fine if you send email mentioning the tracker item

<DanC> (yeah, email that mentions the actions in tracker notation works
best)

NM: use tracker!
... minuting from F2F - where are we?
... i) can we find authoritative logs?
... ii) who will format them?

<noahm> http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-tagmem-irc

NM: ADJOURN

<DanC> . ACTION Noah: format minutes 5 Nov

<noahm> ACTION: Noah to format Tim's minutes from 6 November base on his
private copy of the log [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-338 - Format Tim's minutes from 6 November
base on his private copy of the log [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-11-19].

<DanC> action-338?

<trackbot> ACTION-338 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send Tim's minutes from 6
November to Dan for formatting -- due 2009-11-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/338

<DanC> and I sent you mail, noah
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ashok to prep Metadata Architecture for Dec f2f [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Dan remind us about data-* after dust on distributed
extensibility has settled [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: henry to start an email thread regarding the treatment of
pre-HTML5 versions in the media type registration text of HTML5
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata
formats/representations [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: noah to check logistics for December F2F [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to format Tim's minutes from 6 November base on his
private copy of the log [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-tagmem-irc]

[End of minutes]

XBL2 as HTML5's extensibility mechanism (was Re: HTML 5 integration of SVG and MathML addresses ISSUE-33/mixedUIXMLNamespace-33?)

2009-11-17T05:15:11Z

On Nov 11, 2009, at 22:07 , Dan Connolly wrote:

Some quick research shows

XBL 2 is at CR as of March 2007 http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/ , waiting

for 2 implementations.

(...)

I'm not sure if either of those mechanisms is powerful enough

to handle something like SVG or MathML.

To the best of my knowledge XBL2 could indeed be used to implement SVG or MathML, assuming you had the APIs to produce the graphics rendering (e.g. Canvas2D). It might not be trivial (e.g. you'd still have to do your own hit testing, animation engine, etc.) and it might not be fast (e.g. SVG's <use> element would probably do very nasty to the performance of your CSS cascade) but it would work. You'd get SVG elements that not only render as SVG elements but also behave as such and expose the same APIs.

I think that XBL2 solves a lot of the extensibility debate by putting the choice in the users' hands, leaving only the question of how to extend core, low-level functionality.

Say that in order to better capture email discussions that are archived as HTML documents I wished to create an element representing philippics. It would naturally be stylable, and would also expose its own specific API as part of the DOM (e.g. philippic.onhalfwaythrough = doze;). Using XBL2, I can build a binding that does just that. Then when it comes to syntax, the author using my binding has a choice of:

- if using XHTML (or any other XML language), have a <robin:philippic> element:
 @namespace robin url("http://berjon.com/ns/diatribes#");
 robin|philippic { binding: url("diatribes.xml#philippic") }

- just adding a <philippic> element to HTML:
 philippic { binding: url("diatribes.xml#philippic") }

- binding based on a class (<div class='philippic'>):
 .philippic { binding: url("diatribes.xml#philippic") }

- or on an attribute (<aside type='philippic'>):
 aside[type=philippic] { binding: url("diatribes.xml#philippic") }

Or in fact any CSS that draws my fancy (though the above three would be the expected big ones).

XBL2 is, effectively, an extensibility mechanism for any format that has a DOM and runs in UAs that support CSS. It is limited in the higher-level semantics that it can provide but then so are namespaces; and it would be quite trivial to embed something like RDDL in XBL2. It also isn't necessarily tied to JS and I believe it could be used as a GRRDL-like mechanism.

Some may balk at the notion of author-chosen syntax but that's not very different from the fact that authors can today turn pretty much any element into any other with a good dose of CSS. It also means that user style sheets can override disliked UA behaviour.

This does make repurposing content harder since one has to process the CSS as well as the content but I think that this problem has two sides: if you're doing fully open ended indexing of the web you probably need to process CSS anyway as otherwise content can game you by setting "display: none" on things a crawler should see but not users; conversely if you're processing content within a reasonably controlled environment you can impose a syntax.

Extensibility-wise this only leaves the case of core functionality that cannot be easily added without extending browsers (I wonder how much of this there is that isn't about accessing a device's capabilities). Say you wanted to make audio processing available in the browser using for instance a syntax similar to SVG's filters. You would probably need some form of audio functionality added to the browser. I'd make the case that much if not all of this functionality ought to be added as an API and have its declarative side handled by XBL2. This points to a much awaited TAG finding on API versioning and extensibility.

Remains the question of how we handle the case of a binding becoming popular enough that it ought to migrate into, say, HTML 8. Could maybe XBL2 have a form of use-native-if-available attribute? This however doesn't seem like a major hurdle to address.

So, is there any reason why we can't just dub XBL2 as HTML5's extensibility mechanism and declare victory?

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/

RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-13T14:24:42Z

- Web Linking (Common registry and the HTTP Link header):

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06

IETF Last-Call ended. A revision with registry clarifications is coming shortly.

- Well-Known URIs

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-03

IETF Last-Call ended. This was originally proposed as /site-meta but was replaced with the '/.well-known/' path prefix for HTTP and HTTPS URIs with a lightweight registry. A minor revision is coming shortly with adjustments to the registry structure per last-call feedback.

- Host-meta

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-hostmeta-04

An evolving draft. After site-meta was replaced with a common prefix for well-known URIs, host-meta was proposed as a common documents for protocols looking to avoid minting their own policy or metadata document. It is scoped for an entire host (per 3986, the entity controlling the hostname namespace across protocols). Host-meta uses the XRD schema (an OASIS XRI TC committee draft).

- LRDD

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03

Complete rewrite pending. LRDD was initially proposed as a general purpose discovery mechanism for obtaining resource descriptors using links. The only new component in LRDD was the introduction of host-meta as a place to store templates for transforming resource URI into the URI of their descriptors. Since that entire section has now been moved to the host-meta specification, LRDD no longer offers any new elements other than listing useful link locations.

The next version of LRDD will move it into another direction, providing a more restrictive and specific flow using links for web protocols. Since all the building blocks are now defined elsewhere (namely host-meta and Web linking), LRDD can focus on a single simple profile that is sufficient for protocols such as WebFinger and OpenID.

Hope this helps.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@... [mailto:www-tag-request@...] On Behalf
> Of ashok malhotra
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:12 PM
> To: noah_mendelsohn@...
> Cc: www-tag@...
> Subject: Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62
>
> Here are some pointers:
> Link header draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
> Site-meta draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-
> 03
> LRDD draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> noah_mendelsohn@... wrote:
> > Thank you Ashok, this looks like a very good start. It would be very
> > helpful to me if in the next week or two you would, working with Dan
> while
> > I am gone, try to evolve this closer to the form of a F2F agenda
> item.
> > Substantively, I think that means relating this to existing open
> actions,
> > and if appropriate opening new ones. Also, it would be very helpful
> if
> > you could give links to current versions of references, and suggest
> to
> > other TAG members which should be required reading in advance of our
> > discussion, and which are provided just for reference.
> >
> > Right now, I'm assuming your work on this and Larry's look at issue
> 63
> > will be more or less orthogonal, but please do keep an eye out for
> any
> > areas that might require coordination. Thank you.
> >
> > Noah
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn
> > IBM Corporation
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@...>
> > Sent by: www-tag-request@...
> > 11/13/2009 08:43 AM
> > Please respond to ashok.malhotra
> >
> > To: "www-tag@..." <www-tag@...>
> > cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> > Subject: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62
> >
> >
> > Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
> > My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for
> > access to Metadata
> > (Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably
> satisfied
> > with and what we need is
> > a document that ties them all together and explains what should be
> used
> > in what situations with examples, etc.
> >
> > Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document. See
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
> > If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be
> wonderful.
> >
> > As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we
> > talked about a document
> > to tie the threads of Metadata access together. Mark said he was
> > interested in writing such a document but
> > was constrained by time availability etc. I have not followed up
> with
> > Mark because, I think, the TAG should
> > first decide what we want to do in the area.
> >

Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-13T13:12:05Z

Here are some pointers:
Link header draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
Site-meta draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-03
LRDD draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03
All the best, Ashok

noah_mendelsohn@... wrote:

> Thank you Ashok, this looks like a very good start. It would be very
> helpful to me if in the next week or two you would, working with Dan while
> I am gone, try to evolve this closer to the form of a F2F agenda item.
> Substantively, I think that means relating this to existing open actions,
> and if appropriate opening new ones. Also, it would be very helpful if
> you could give links to current versions of references, and suggest to
> other TAG members which should be required reading in advance of our
> discussion, and which are provided just for reference.
>
> Right now, I'm assuming your work on this and Larry's look at issue 63
> will be more or less orthogonal, but please do keep an eye out for any
> areas that might require coordination. Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@...>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@...
> 11/13/2009 08:43 AM
> Please respond to ashok.malhotra
>
> To: "www-tag@..." <www-tag@...>
> cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> Subject: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62
>
>
> Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
> My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for
> access to Metadata
> (Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably satisfied
> with and what we need is
> a document that ties them all together and explains what should be used
> in what situations with examples, etc.
>
> Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document. See
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
> If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be wonderful.
>
> As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we
> talked about a document
> to tie the threads of Metadata access together. Mark said he was
> interested in writing such a document but
> was constrained by time availability etc. I have not followed up with
> Mark because, I think, the TAG should
> first decide what we want to do in the area.
>

f2f planning - Issue 63

2009-11-13T12:58:41Z

Larry, this is your issue but I had a thought that may help us move forward.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63
Why don't we look at your four bullet points through the RDF lens.

* Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata applications –
the datatypes of the endpoints?
The model is RDF. We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF, or
encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
* Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a representation system,
be it RDF or something else
Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
* Metadata vocabularies: what are appropriate vocabularies for describing various
media objects and network services? What is the process by which new vocabularies
can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains. Others need to be created.
* Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be associated
with “data” or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements, mechanisms
for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
I think this is issue 62: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62

What do you think? Make any sense?

--
All the best, Ashok

Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-13T08:19:59Z

Jonathan Rees writes:

> A deadline later than Dec 1 for either metadata OR HTTP
> semantics would help me out quite a bit.

I suppose the two are related to a point, but given that we've identified
metadata as a big theme for the TAG, my leaning would be to suggest
delaying HTTP semantics as necessary to get preparation on metadata going
into the F2F. Thank you.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

Jonathan Rees <jar@...>
Sent by: www-tag-request@...
11/13/2009 10:29 AM

To: ashok.malhotra@...
cc: "www-tag@..." <www-tag@...>, (bcc: Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

Yes, I have this as an action (ACTION-282, due date now put at Dec 1).
I am still hoping to make a start on this but some help would be
welcome - it turns out Dec 1 is simultaneously a deadline for this,
for HTTP semantics, and for reports on two of my non-W3C projects, so
I'm going to be overwhelmed between now and then. A deadline later
than Dec 1 for either metadata OR HTTP semantics would help me out
quite a bit.

Jonathan

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:43 PM, ashok malhotra
<ashok.malhotra@...> wrote:
> Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
> My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for
access
> to Metadata
> (Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably satisfied
with
> and what we need is
> a document that ties them all together and explains what should be used
in
> what situations with examples, etc.
>
> Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document. See
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
> If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be wonderful.
>
> As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we
talked
> about a document
> to tie the threads of Metadata access together. Mark said he was
interested
> in writing such a document but
> was constrained by time availability etc. I have not followed up with
Mark
> because, I think, the TAG should
> first decide what we want to do in the area.
> --
> All the best, Ashok
>
>

Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-13T07:29:22Z

Yes, I have this as an action (ACTION-282, due date now put at Dec 1).
I am still hoping to make a start on this but some help would be
welcome - it turns out Dec 1 is simultaneously a deadline for this,
for HTTP semantics, and for reports on two of my non-W3C projects, so
I'm going to be overwhelmed between now and then. A deadline later
than Dec 1 for either metadata OR HTTP semantics would help me out
quite a bit.

Jonathan

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:43 PM, ashok malhotra
<ashok.malhotra@...> wrote:

> Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
> My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for access
> to Metadata
> (Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably satisfied with
> and what we need is
> a document that ties them all together and explains what should be used in
> what situations with examples, etc.
>
> Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document. See
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
> If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be wonderful.
>
> As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we talked
> about a document
> to tie the threads of Metadata access together. Mark said he was interested
> in writing such a document but
> was constrained by time availability etc. I have not followed up with Mark
> because, I think, the TAG should
> first decide what we want to do in the area.
> --
> All the best, Ashok
>
>

Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-13T06:32:34Z

Thank you Ashok, this looks like a very good start. It would be very
helpful to me if in the next week or two you would, working with Dan while
I am gone, try to evolve this closer to the form of a F2F agenda item.
Substantively, I think that means relating this to existing open actions,
and if appropriate opening new ones. Also, it would be very helpful if
you could give links to current versions of references, and suggest to
other TAG members which should be required reading in advance of our
discussion, and which are provided just for reference.

Right now, I'm assuming your work on this and Larry's look at issue 63
will be more or less orthogonal, but please do keep an eye out for any
areas that might require coordination. Thank you.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@...>
Sent by: www-tag-request@...
11/13/2009 08:43 AM
Please respond to ashok.malhotra

To: "www-tag@..." <www-tag@...>
cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for
access to Metadata
(Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably satisfied
with and what we need is
a document that ties them all together and explains what should be used
in what situations with examples, etc.

Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document. See
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be wonderful.

As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we
talked about a document
to tie the threads of Metadata access together. Mark said he was
interested in writing such a document but
was constrained by time availability etc. I have not followed up with
Mark because, I think, the TAG should
first decide what we want to do in the area.
--
All the best, Ashok

f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

2009-11-13T05:43:56Z

Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for
access to Metadata
(Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably satisfied
with and what we need is
a document that ties them all together and explains what should be used
in what situations with examples, etc.

Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document. See
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be wonderful.

As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we
talked about a document
to tie the threads of Metadata access together. Mark said he was
interested in writing such a document but
was constrained by time availability etc. I have not followed up with
Mark because, I think, the TAG should
first decide what we want to do in the area.
--
All the best, Ashok

Re: Flash same-origin vulnerability

2009-11-13T01:13:18Z

I don't see much new here -- this is vintage HTML injection, just with "HTML" replaced by "Flash". (The rest sounds like a few nifty tricks for hiding Flash in other file types; nothing qualitatively new in there, either.)

Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@...>

On 13 Nov 2009, at 03:18, noah_mendelsohn@... wrote:

> The article at [1] seems pertinent to our discussions of security.
> Basically, as I understand it, the vulernability involves sites that allow
> a user to upload a file, and which then serve that file back without
> extensive checking. When the attack succeeds, it's possible to get a SWF
> file to execute with the origin context of the site to which you uploaded.
> That's a bit of an oversimplification. See [1] for details.
>
> Noah
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.foregroundsecurity.com/MyBlog/flash-origin-policy-issues.html
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>