IETF
iri@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, 6 November 2012< ^ >
stpeter has set the subject to: IRI WG | IETF Note Well applies | http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/minutes
Room Configuration

GMT+0
[12:13:31] MartinDürst leaves the room
[21:21:30] cweber joins the room
[21:52:42] cweber leaves the room
[21:53:22] Julian joins the room
[21:53:53] yone joins the room
[21:53:54] cweber joins the room
[21:54:43] MartinDürst joins the room
[21:54:45] plehegar joins the room
[21:54:53] <MartinDürst> hello Peter
[21:55:03] <MartinDürst> Hello Philippe
[21:55:08] <plehegar> Hi Martin!
[21:55:49] stpeter joins the room
[21:56:53] SM joins the room
[21:57:16] <MartinDürst> Meetecho still has IETF in Quebec City
[21:57:33] <MartinDürst> Meetecho: The meeting session you requested is not available yet!
[21:57:51] <cweber> Hi everyone
[21:58:13] <MartinDürst> Philippe, are you in Atlanta?
[21:58:14] <SM> http://www.meetecho.com/ietf85/iri
[21:58:47] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[21:58:55] Alessandro Amirante joins the room
[21:59:24] <SM> Alessandro, let us know when your stream is up
[21:59:41] <stpeter> MartinDürst: would you like to test?
[21:59:50] <MartinDürst> yes, let's test
[21:59:58] Chris Weber joins the room
[21:59:59] <MartinDürst> Meetecho isn't open yet
[22:00:08] <stpeter> MartinDürst: I could patch you in via Skype if needed
[22:00:08] <Alessandro Amirante> just a sec!
[22:00:12] audio iri joins the room
[22:00:26] <stpeter> yes the Meetecho guys are setting things up as we speak
[22:00:36] Chris Weber leaves the room
[22:00:42] <stpeter> they had to run over here from another meeting
[22:00:55] <Alessandro Amirante> exactly ;)
[22:01:03] <MartinDürst> The better your technology, the buisier you get :-)
[22:01:05] hober0 joins the room
[22:01:07] <Alessandro Amirante> we're up now
[22:01:08] <stpeter> MartinDürst: :)
[22:01:18] Chris Weber joins the room
[22:01:34] hober0 waves from SF
[22:01:41] <stpeter> http://www.meetecho.com/ietf85/iri
[22:01:48] Martin Dürst joins the room
[22:01:50] <Alessandro Amirante> Slide 1: IRI WG IETF 85
[22:01:55] resnick joins the room
[22:01:55] <Alessandro Amirante> Slide 2: Note Well (Summary)
[22:02:02] <Alessandro Amirante> Relatore corrente: St.Peter
[22:02:03] tony.l.hansen joins the room
[22:02:06] <Alessandro Amirante> Slide 2: Note Well (Summary)
[22:02:09] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[22:02:15] guest joins the room
[22:02:26] julian.reschke joins the room
[22:02:27] <Alessandro Amirante> Slide 3: Logistics
[22:02:33] fneves joins the room
[22:02:40] <Alessandro Amirante> Slide 4: Agenda Bashing
[22:02:56] Julian leaves the room
[22:04:13] <MartinDürst> Dialed in to Meetecho now
[22:04:23] <MartinDürst> lots of noise, strong bass
[22:04:43] =JeffH joins the room
[22:04:55] barryleiba joins the room
[22:04:58] <MartinDürst> I'm hearing Larry, but mostly mumbling
[22:05:10] <tony.l.hansen> are there slides for Larry's thread talk?
[22:05:14] <stpeter> tony.l.hansen: no
[22:05:27] <barryleiba> Martin, is Larry better now?
[22:05:42] <barryleiba> (His voice, that is; no comments needed on Larry himself......)
[22:05:42] <hober0> is anyone scribing, for those of us without audio?
[22:05:46] <SM> intelligible
[22:05:46] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[22:05:55] <MartinDürst> Better now, less bass, but still lots of noice
[22:06:00] Dowon Kim joins the room
[22:06:05] <stpeter> minutes at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/minutes
[22:06:19] <SM> Larry sounds exhasted
[22:07:10] JcK joins the room
[22:07:11] <hober0> stpeter: I'm guessing Larry didn't say "Welcome to Etherpad Lite!" :)
[22:07:26] <resnick> @sm: Just lugubrious.
[22:07:51] dthaler joins the room
[22:08:31] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[22:09:04] <julian.reschke> hober0: why no audio?
[22:09:11] <barryleiba> "Lugubrious" is such a good word.
[22:10:06] <hober0> julian: not at the office and no headphones handy
[22:10:26] <julian.reschke> hober0: ok
[22:10:29] <MartinDürst> Philippe, please speak more slowly
[22:10:33] <Lorenzo Miniero> any problem with the streams?
[22:10:41] <Lorenzo Miniero> I just tested and they should be fine
[22:10:45] <plehegar> Martin, sorry, will try
[22:10:48] <MartinDürst> Lots of noise, yes!
[22:10:57] <SM> Lorenzo, just the speakers but we cannot ask you to fix them:)
[22:11:01] <MartinDürst> Can hear people, but not understand them.
[22:11:14] <Lorenzo Miniero> which stream are you listening to?
[22:11:22] <julian.reschke> mp3 stream sounds good to me
[22:11:24] redaka joins the room
[22:11:34] <plehegar> I mentioned the fact that the HTML5 spec still has a section on URLs, ie 2.6
[22:11:39] <Lorenzo Miniero> I'm listening to the flash audio stream and there seems to be no noise there
[22:11:46] <plehegar> the text was never removed from the HTML5 spec and isn't going to be removed before we move to CR
[22:12:08] <Lorenzo Miniero> SM ok :)
[22:12:08] <SM> Lorenzo, requires an effort to follow what is being said
[22:13:06] john.levine joins the room
[22:13:16] <MartinDürst> My hand is up: Larry's plan is to start lots of work. May be worth it, but would like to think about whether it's possible to get almost there with less work.
[22:13:44] <MartinDürst> IRI and what HTML URL spec calls 'valid URL' are already extremely close.
[22:13:45] <stpeter> MartinDürst: would you like me to relay to the mic?
[22:13:54] <stpeter> IRI WG, IETF 85
Minutes
Larry Masinter describes recent history
PLH: text is actually still in HTML5 spec
LM: Chris Weber has been gathering test cases
LM: if going to update 3986, need more than informal reports
LM: possible way forward: combine 3986[bis] and 3987bis
LM: e.g., comparison text in one place makes sense
[22:14:09] <stpeter> LM: I don't think there are implementations of 3987 per se
[22:14:23] <MartinDürst> who is speaking? Leslie?
[22:14:29] <resnick> Yes.
[22:14:34] <stpeter> Leslie Daigle: assuming 3986bis and 3987bis combined, where does that leave other documentation
[22:14:50] <stpeter> LM: if we succeed, we'd have a document that would be easy to reference from HTML5 etc.
[22:14:52] Takehito Akagiri joins the room
[22:15:02] <julian.reschke> mic: I believe there are many implementations of 3986 relaxed to unicode, which should be more or less 3987
[22:15:13] <MartinDürst> Still have lots of bass, but also too many highs
[22:15:18] sideshowbarker joins the room
[22:15:19] <MartinDürst> Middle may be okay
[22:15:27] <stpeter> Dave Thaler at mic
[22:15:27] <SM> Martin, move to the mp3 stream
[22:15:31] <SM> It is clearer
[22:15:48] <stpeter> DT: we've recently implemented (parts of) 3987 in Windows
[22:15:49] <MartinDürst> SM: In that case, I won't be able to speak
[22:16:03] <stpeter> LM: the spec we have doesn't match implementations
[22:16:09] <SM> well, for now. You can switch back later
[22:16:12] <resnick> Julian, after what Larry just said, do you still need to say that at the mic?
[22:16:24] <stpeter> John Klensin at mic
[22:16:25] <julian.reschke> mic: would we better in a better place if 3987 was just 3986 with urichar being extended?
[22:16:36] <Lorenzo Miniero> Martin, are you planning to intervene remotely?
[22:16:41] redaka leaves the room
[22:16:43] <Lorenzo Miniero> because in such case we need to tune the mixer accordingly
[22:17:10] <MartinDürst> Lorenzo, yes, I'm on skype, so I can speak myself.
[22:17:14] <stpeter> JK: this might leave us with the worst aspects that make comparison a nasty problem
[22:17:31] <Lorenzo Miniero> ah ok, thought you meant through Meetecho sorry
[22:17:39] <stpeter> LM: the problem is the lack of workers
[22:17:52] <julian.reschke> resnick: nope (not for that comment)
[22:17:56] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room
[22:18:02] <stpeter> LM: I'm not willing to keep working on the separate spec (3987bis)
[22:18:31] <MartinDürst> Lorenzo, yes, I'm skyping into Meetecho
[22:18:56] <stpeter> JK: ISTM that if there's no energy to work on the combined spec, then probably not to work on combined spec
[22:18:57] hildjj joins the room
[22:19:16] <resnick> Please re-type the etherpad URL.
[22:19:26] <stpeter> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/minutes
[22:19:32] <stpeter> resnick: I'm just taking notes here
[22:19:34] <resnick> Damn.
[22:19:56] <stpeter> LM: might be a chance of getting more energy on combined spec
[22:19:58] resnick tries to pay attention to the fact that we have real tools in this organization
[22:20:01] <stpeter> Ted HArdie at mic
[22:20:22] Tony Hansen joins the room
[22:20:45] <julian.reschke> mic: would we better in a better place if 3987 was just 3986 with urichar being extended?
[22:20:55] <stpeter> TH: originally IRI were presentation layer above URIs, but that didn't work because people wanted IRIs in protocol elements
[22:20:56] Michael[tm] Smith joins the room
[22:21:19] <stpeter> TH: I see a different transition happening now
[22:21:28] <stpeter> julian.reschke: I'll relay
[22:22:13] <stpeter> TH: problem I see is that we're moving the interface definition
[22:22:29] <stpeter> TH: when you don't have versions, you must change the name
[22:22:42] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[22:23:08] <stpeter> TH: I don't think we have clarity here about the APIs because we're changing those
[22:23:16] Tony Hansen joins the room
[22:23:32] <MartinDürst> Re. additional workers for a combined spec: James Snell said he would be interested. He has a good track record, but just one person (and nobody from the HTML5/WHATWG crowd) does not a summer make.
[22:23:41] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[22:23:53] <stpeter> Roy Fielding at mic
[22:24:24] Wilhelm Joys Andersen joins the room
[22:24:42] <MartinDürst> to TH: RFC 3987 already says IRIs are (new) protocol element. But in general, I agree.
[22:24:50] <julian.reschke> mic: clarifying for Roy: I don't want to change 3986, I want to make 3987bis much simpler
[22:24:56] nemo joins the room
[22:25:13] dthaler leaves the room
[22:25:48] <MartinDürst> Roy: I'll take you up about your idea to make 3987bis much simler. Please give us your ideas!
[22:26:01] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[22:26:11] <julian.reschke> (besides that agreeing a lot with what Roy is saying)
[22:26:20] Tony Hansen joins the room
[22:26:58] <MartinDürst> Simlifying 3987: Was that Roy or Julian?
[22:27:01] sideshowbarker leaves the room
[22:27:13] <stpeter> Pete Resnick at the mic
[22:27:50] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room
[22:28:22] <stpeter> PR: if that bifurcation happens, is 3986+3987 enough?
[22:28:40] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[22:28:46] <stpeter> RF: I expect that work will continue to happen and we can't control that
[22:28:54] <MartinDürst> Mic: I think the only thing that the WHTATWG guys have criticised about 3986 was that browsers use a variant of relative reference resolution.
[22:29:29] <MartinDürst> who's talking?
[22:29:34] <barryleiba> Crocker
[22:29:35] <stpeter> Dave Crocker at mic
[22:29:35] <SM> Dave
[22:30:45] <stpeter> Jeff Hodges at the mic
[22:31:02] <julian.reschke> mic: as a matter of fact, it's non trivial to actually get a statement from WHATWG about what's wrong with 3986 *except* for the things it does not say
[22:31:41] <stpeter> JH: one idea is defining these higher-layer presentation things something else (not URL)
[22:31:54] <stpeter> julian.reschke: noted
[22:32:22] <julian.reschke> there's zero chance they'll agree on another name
[22:32:33] mattur joins the room
[22:33:38] <stpeter> Joe Hildebrand at the mic
[22:33:53] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[22:33:53] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[22:34:34] <=JeffH> yeah, i just wanted to throw that out cuz some others had. fine, let'em call these "human experience urls" "URLs" and then folks need to blog a bunch to disambig.
[22:34:54] <=JeffH> but overall yet more confusion is likely headed the Internet's way......
[22:34:59] <julian.reschke> mic: the problem isn't just non-ASCII, it's also whitepace, single percent signs, invalid fragment identifiers etc
[22:35:36] <stpeter> julian.reschke: yes
[22:35:47] <stpeter> julian.reschke: BTW, I am showing the chatroom on the screen here
[22:36:30] <julian.reschke> mic: HTML4 says it's a RFC 2396 URI
[22:36:44] <MartinDürst> Mic: Being compatible with the Web is a good idea. But if you follow URI/IRI specs, you are 99.9% compatible with the Web (probably more). Browsers are a very specific kind of application, they have a very high pressure on (bugwards) compatibility. If I write e.g. a Web spider, I don't have to care about non-valid URIs/IRIs, I can just take the valid ones and will be fine.
[22:36:55] <julian.reschke> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html#edef-A
[22:38:43] cweber leaves the room
[22:40:04] <stpeter> MartinDürst: I will relay your comment
[22:40:22] <MartinDürst> Mic: Re. naming, what about publishing something like http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ and add another chapter/section (maybe add a "Modern" or so view in addition to the "Classical" and "Contemporary" views), mentioning that the term "URL" is also used in some specs as meaning "URI/IRI reference (with some preprocessing)".
[22:40:32] hillbrad joins the room
[22:40:55] <julian.reschke> Martin: the WHATWG p.o.v. is that in a spider you *indeed* want to do what browsers do (not sure I agree)
[22:41:27] =JeffH leaves the room
[22:41:37] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room
[22:41:49] <MartinDürst> Julian: Yes if your name is Google (who has everything and wants more). No if you only have a limited number of harddisks :-(
[22:42:07] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[22:42:43] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[22:42:47] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[22:42:56] =JeffH joins the room
[22:42:58] <Wilhelm Joys Andersen> Why would a spider ever want to do anything _else_ than a browser?
[22:42:59] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[22:43:00] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[22:44:38] <MartinDürst> Wilhelm: Because it's much simpler, and you can avoid crap. If a page author doesn't get e.g. %-escaping right, maybe the page isn't worth that much.
[22:44:41] <stpeter> John Klensin at mic
[22:44:52] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> Yes, I agree with the bugwards compatibility point made Martin.
[22:45:53] <MartinDürst> "Web context": WHATWG viewpoint is actually narrower. The Web is much wider than browsers, but for the WHATWG, browsers are the main (and sometimes only) focus.
[22:46:03] Silvia Pfeiffer joins the room
[22:46:19] <julian.reschke> mic: mapping garbage to valid URIs is one thing (and probably needed), but mapping it to garbage is a bigger concern (the latter for instance happens for tailing % signs (in Anne's spec))
[22:46:54] <stpeter> julian.reschke: mapping garbage to garbage, or mapping valid URIs to garbage?
[22:47:17] <julian.reschke> garbage to garbage and sending it across the wire
[22:47:39] <julian.reschke> like "http://example.com/%"
[22:47:50] <stpeter> Roy Fielding at the mic
[22:49:33] Wilhelm Joys Andersen leaves the room
[22:49:33] <stpeter> Joe Hildebrand at the mic
[22:50:46] <MartinDürst> Mic: The WHATWG doesn't want to change the syntax (of valid URIs/IRIs), at least not in a big way.
[22:52:01] <julian.reschke> Martin: well, they want to make processing identifiers depend on the scheme - in their view, the parser has hard-wired knowledge about certain schemes
[22:52:36] <stpeter> Roy Fielding at mic
[22:53:28] <hober0> Processing URLs already depends on the scheme. We just want to write that down somewhere referenceable.
[22:53:51] <hildjj> what you missed: Ted put an empty chair in front of Roy for him to argue with
[22:54:07] <stpeter> hober0: I'll relay
[22:54:18] <Andrew Sullivan> I keep not going to the mic, but I am confused about how there can be this much to say if nobody is willing to do any work.
[22:54:29] <julian.reschke> hober0: well, one can try to reduce that; for instance data URIs vs fragment identifiers is broken only in *some* browsers
[22:54:59] <hildjj> Andrew Sullivan: yup. i'm going to withdraw the perception of my energy from the room. :(
[22:55:00] <SM> There's no energy. Whatever the outcome, who's going to do the work?
[22:55:03] hildjj leaves the room
[22:55:22] <hober0> Isn't Anne doing the work?
[22:55:31] <MartinDürst> Andrew: One simple explanation: Everybody wants something different to happen.
[22:55:48] <SM> I did not see that, hober0 :-)
[22:56:00] <Andrew Sullivan> Then there's not "work to do". That is, it's not one thing to do
[22:56:03] <stpeter> hober0: yes, Anne is doing some work
[22:56:13] JcK leaves the room
[22:56:20] <stpeter> whether it is "the" work is another question ;-)
[22:56:24] JcK joins the room
[22:56:32] <MartinDürst> Andrew: More explanation: It's on everybody's radar, but not high up.
[22:57:18] <Andrew Sullivan> That's different, then: we're back to people want different things, but nobody wants it bad enough to do the work
[22:57:32] <Andrew Sullivan> Larry started the meeting with what sounded like "shut down the WG"
[22:57:56] <stpeter> Andrew Sullivan: actually, Anne wants something different enough to do some work in the HTML5 spec
[22:58:19] <julian.reschke> Andrew: one of the things to figure out is what *exactly* needs fixing/extension
[22:58:39] <MartinDürst> hober0: Anne is doing some very good work. But the fact that he is getting around to that seriously only now that he's no longer working for a browser vendor (or otherwise) looks somewhat symptomatic.
[22:58:42] <stpeter> Roy Fielding at mic
[22:58:52] <Andrew Sullivan> right, that part I got. I just don't get how it causes this room to invest the energy in having these arguments but not to invest the energy in hammering out the relevant text.
[22:59:44] <julian.reschke> if we were able to fix "file:", we'd be in a much better position
[22:59:47] <MartinDürst> hober0: What we had previously was lots of different people giving up quickly. Browser makers were okay with the way things were, at least to the extent that they had different priorities.
[22:59:51] <Andrew Sullivan> I mean, I can't hardly complain: I'm not doing any work either. I'm just unsure how this all relates to Larry's stated unwillingness to work more on this
[23:01:04] <SM> Larry is being realistic
[23:02:33] <stpeter> that was Andrew Sullivan at the mic
[23:04:14] Dowon Kim leaves the room
[23:05:22] <Andrew Sullivan> Oops, sorry
[23:05:37] <Andrew Sullivan> yes it was me
[23:06:24] <MartinDürst> Mic: Some people are speaking about doing actual work. Why don't we move on in the agenda, so that we can maybe even get some actual work done?
[23:07:07] <stpeter> Pete Resnick at the mic
[23:07:20] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room
[23:08:56] barryleiba leaves the room
[23:09:34] <julian.reschke> mic: well, they are *not* doing preprocessing
[23:09:46] barryleiba joins the room
[23:09:50] <SM> Isn't it processing?
[23:10:26] Yoshikazu GOTO joins the room
[23:11:20] <julian.reschke> ....HTTP header fields...
[23:11:32] <MartinDürst> People should speak at the mic!
[23:11:44] nemo leaves the room
[23:11:48] <stpeter> MartinDürst: yes
[23:13:49] <MartinDürst> To have a stable reference, we'll have to reference a version in github :-)
[23:13:53] <julian.reschke> yeah, we can just steal Anne's spec :-)
[23:14:10] <barryleiba> No, Martin: the RFC Ed copies it.
[23:15:30] <stpeter> Mark Nottingham at the mic
[23:15:49] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[23:16:05] nemo joins the room
[23:16:18] Silvia Pfeiffer leaves the room
[23:16:26] <stpeter> MartinDürst: are there reasons why we should not shut down the WG?
[23:16:45] <stpeter> MartinDürst: I can patch you in via Skype if needed
[23:17:00] <MartinDürst> Mic: RFC 3987 was done in as an individual submission. That might work for RFC 3987bis, too.
[23:17:12] <MartinDürst> Stpeter: I'm already in Meetecho
[23:18:10] <MartinDürst> RFC 3987(bis) IRI references are pretty much what WHATWG calls valid URLs.
[23:18:39] <julian.reschke> mic: I still think we should replace 3987 with something that is much simpler, by simply extending the valid URI characters
[23:19:43] nemo leaves the room
[23:23:39] barryleiba leaves the room
[23:25:26] <MartinDürst> Mic: URI/IRI schemes (as forseen in 4395bis) are already working, e.g. xmpp.
[23:26:58] Takehito Akagiri leaves the room
[23:29:12] julian.reschke notes there's arelated side discussion on the WHATWG IRC channel
[23:29:31] Yoshikazu GOTO leaves the room
[23:29:59] <Alessandro Amirante> Slide 2: URI Bulk Third-Party Registration Experi
[23:30:04] <MartinDürst> Julian, is the WHATWG channel archived somewhere?
[23:30:11] <SM> Yes
[23:30:22] <MartinDürst> (ideally with pointers to specific timepoints)
[23:30:51] hillbrad leaves the room
[23:31:08] =JeffH leaves the room
[23:31:25] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[23:31:35] <MartinDürst> SM: can you give me a pointer to the WHATWG channel archive?
[23:32:19] nemo joins the room
[23:32:23] <SM> Done
[23:32:24] <MartinDürst> Dave, really great work!
[23:33:06] john.levine leaves the room
[23:33:07] <Alessandro Amirante> Presentazione interrotta
[23:33:12] <stpeter> meeting adjourned
[23:33:13] nemo leaves the room
[23:33:20] <MartinDürst> thanks everybody
[23:33:32] <julian.reschke> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20121106
[23:33:43] audio iri leaves the room
[23:33:57] fneves leaves the room
[23:33:59] <Tobia Castaldi> bye bye
[23:34:05] yone leaves the room
[23:34:13] SM leaves the room
[23:34:14] julian.reschke leaves the room
[23:34:45] stpeter leaves the room: Disconnected: connection closed
[23:34:46] hober0 leaves the room
[23:35:09] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[23:35:57] Alessandro Amirante leaves the room
[23:37:13] guest leaves the room
[23:39:11] JcK leaves the room
[23:43:43] plehegar leaves the room
[23:52:50] cweber joins the room
[23:53:39] mattur leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!