W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Minutes of TAG telcon of 2009-12-17

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:23:28 +0000
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5boclwytlb.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Available online at

  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html

and below as plain text.

ht
- --------------

                                   - DRAFT -

                                  TAG telcon

17 Dec 2009

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Dan  Connolly,  John Kemp, Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah
          Mendelsohn, Jonathan Rees, Henry S. Thompson

   Regrets
          Tim Berners-Lee, T. V. Raman

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn:

   Scribe
          Henry S. Thompson

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]Metadata in HTML5
         3. [7]HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification
         4. [8]ACTION-283  on  Larry Masinter: Update document on version
            identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion - due 2009-12-10 -
            pending review
         5. [9]ACTION-309 on Henry S. Thompson: draft input to HTTP bis draft
            re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion - due 2009-12-09 - pending
            review
         6. [10]draft  input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec
            discussion
         7. [11]ACTION-359 on Noah Mendelsohn: Communicate TAG resolution to
            HTML WG - due 2009-12-17 - pending review
         8. [12]ACTION-358 on Noah Mendelsohn: Schedule discussion of 'usage of
            'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...'
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________

Admin

   NM: F2F minutes review anyone?

   DC: Look good

   JK: I've looked at 8 and 10

   NM: I propose to postpone these until January

   <DanC> -1

   HST: I would like to publish

   NM: Any objections to approving?

   JR: Could we say go ahead if no objections in a few days?

   NM: RESOLUTION: Minutes will go out unless Chair hears objection by Monday
   21 Jan

   NM: Obviously I will fix minor bugs, only delay for substantial pblms

   <DanC> +1 NM is welcome to edit as he sees fit

   NM: Action to Larry to send 3 December minutes

   LM: I need help with the originals

   HST: I will send you a draft

   <DanC> action-215 due 22 Dec

   <trackbot> ACTION-215 Send minutes of 3 Dec TAG teleconference to www-tag
   for review due date now 22 Dec

   NM: No telcon 24 or 31 December
   ... Next telcon 7 January 2010
   ... Moving next f2f to 24--26 March
   ... based on change in TAG f2f

   LM: IETF is meeting week of 22 March
   ... Progress on URI work, I really need to be there

   <masinter> [14]http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF77

   NM: Would you come if we stuck with the old dates?

   LM: I am not sure about the 22 week

   NM: 17-19 would still work?

   LM: Yes

   <masinter> yes, 17-19th is better, i just realized the IETF conflict for
   21-26

   <johnk> I don't mind either way

   HST: Do you have firm confirmation from TV that he will come?

   NM: I think so. . .

   DC: And what about TBL?
   ... I would rather not make this decision today

   HST: I thought TBL had one day pblm
   ... in the week of the 22nd
   ... Doodle poll?

   <jar__> it's capability-based

   <jar__> :-)

   NM: No resolution

   <DanC> close ACTION-346

   <trackbot> ACTION-346 Collect March 2010 W3C Team day info closed

   <scribe>   ACTION:   Henry   to   put  up  Doodle  poll  [recorded  in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-365 - Put up Doodle poll [on Henry S. Thompson -
   due 2009-12-24].

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll
   input [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-366 - Bring f2f date proposal to group based on
   poll input [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-24].

   action-366 due 6 January

   <trackbot> ACTION-366 Bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input
   due date now 6 January

Metadata in HTML5

   <DanC> (the WG doesn't close bugs; the editor does.)

   LM: I'm not sure the original TAG submission is actually on record wrt the
   poll which is now underway

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask the chair to say what he knows about TBL and
   TVR's availability for the proposed dates and to ask LMM if change proposals
   in both ways are on the table and

   The relevant HTML issue is [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

   <DanC> I want the poll, not the issue

   DC: Change proposals in both directions on the table?

   LM: Yes, in both directions

   <masinter> [18]http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html

   <DanC> [19]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/

   <masinter> and
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results

   NM: Q2 is objections to proposal to split; Q3 is objections to proposal to
   keep
   ... This looks like an internal exercise on the part of the HTML5 WG
   ... arising from our concern
   ... So we could just wait
   ... Or we could/should make a comment

   HST: I think we were being asked to comment

   DC: Only members of the HTML WG can comment

   HST: OK, I was wrong

   DC: What's gotten missed?

   LM: The points in the rationale for the bug we raised

   DC: Which ones?

   LM: [points from [21]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220]

   <DanC> there's a para with "high profile content management system"

   DC: I think those are covered

   NM: Anyone other than LM like us to do anything here?

   <DanC> and "Added Benefit of modularizing Microdata"

   HST: Yes, I do -- I want 8220 read into the poll

   <DanC> (you want 8220 in the question or in a response?)

   HST: No, I want it entered as an objection to the 'keep' option

   NM: But we already filed the bug -- we can use that to come back in

   <DanC> (ah. as a response. I can get that into the team input to the poll)

   DC: So now I understand HST wants this in the response
   ... I can get it in the W3C Team response

   HST: I would prefer not to dilute the team response with the TAG's points

   NM: So we need someone in the WG

   LM: I'm willing to let this go -- NM has convinced me

   NM: Are we comfortable with that?

   HST: What I would like is for NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220
   bug as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata
   in"

   <masinter> 1+ to chairs & archive

   <DanC>  in  particular,  www-archive@w3.org  ; it predates the public-
   convention

   DC: Copy to www-archive?

   HST: sure

   <scribe> ACTION: NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input
   to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to
   www-archive@w3.org [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-367 - Ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug
   as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata
   in", cc to www-archive@w3.org [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-24].

HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification

   NM: we got email from Maciej
   [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0087.html  and
   replied [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0088.html
   ... I thought Maciej's response was weak wrt Mike Smith's draft, so pushed
   back on that front
   ... LM also pushed back a bit
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0095.html
   ... Any action needed now?

   DC: I think we've gone too far

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to say that i'm ok with letting this go

   DC: We should just look at what they now do

   LM: I'd like to see it on a schedule or list of deliverables

   DC: What list? Their charter?

   LM: Not clear

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to back NM's response wrt Mike Smith's doc

   NM:  I'm sympathetic to LM's point -- if a WG takes on a commitment to
   produce a WD and take it to Last Call, there is some implied commitment to
   put effort into that
   ... Not a Charter change, I think it's already covered
   ... But I would like to see a public commitment to do the work, with success
   criteria

   <DanC> (basically, I now where maciej lives; if he doesn't give us what we
   ask for, I know how to start the discussion about why not.)

   HT: My reading of what Maceij said made a firm and binding commitment to the
   author  view,  which  was one of the things we asked for. There was no
   commitment on the Mike Smith draft, and I think it was appropriate to push
   back.

   HST: We didn't get what we asked for

   NM: I think the requests crossed

   <DanC> (what we asked for is last call on the html 5 reference; how could we
   have gotten that already? sigh.)

   HST: I don't think we should micromanage the WG

   NM: What about the first request, wrt the authoring view -- are you happy?

   HST: Yes, I think that commitment was adequate

   NM: Anything further we should do?

   <masinter> "plus the fact that it was actively maintained and reviewed by
   itself for quality"

   LM: If you agree with my concern about the authoring view, . . .
   ... I agree that the editor has agreed to move stuff if it's misclassified
   ... but what's missing is any commitment from the HTML5 WG to review the
   result for quality
   ... But I am willing to drop this

   NM: Me too, reluctantly

   <DanC> (we just dealt with ACTION-359 so I'll close it.)

   <DanC> close ACTION-359

   <trackbot> ACTION-359 Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG closed

ACTION-283 on Larry Masinter: Update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
Cambridge June discussion - due 2009-12-10 - pending review

   LM: New input from JR on version identifiers
   ...   My   inclination   is   not   to   update   the   existing  doc.
   [26]http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html, but write a new one
   that's shorter
   ... I'm also waiting for input from HST on XML-compatibility guidelines
   ...  As  long  as  you're  careful to distinguish implementations from
   specifications
   ... and implementations evolve faster than specs do
   ... then the utility of VIs is limited

   <DanC> (tracker, note we're touching on ISSUE-41)

   <noah> I'm not sure I buy the "version of implementations" point, at least
   as a typical idiom

   LM: because it doesn't map to implementations reliably
   ... But 'limited' doesn't mean 'none'

   NM: So you're suggesting closing 283 and opening a new one?

   <DanC> -1 "schedule" actions. please just actions to do technical work;
   they'll naturally get scheduled.

   LM: Suggesting closing 283 and scheduling short discussion for guidance
   before I decide whether to take a new document forward

   <DanC> a pending review action is implicitly an action for the chair to
   schedule discussion.

   NM: Is your existing email sufficient?

   <masinter> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0094.html

   DC: Could we review whether HT minuted LM's analysis correctly above?

   <johnk> P&C = [28]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/ (from
   Larry's email)

   <masinter> i think the minutes are OK so far, the email says more

   LM: So given that what users want VIs for is to identify implementations,
   they don't work in the case cited

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask for clarification on the implementations
   versioning

   NM: I don't quite understand where you're trying to go with implementation
   versioning
   ... I think we need to be clear about the role of senders and receivers

   <DanC> (examples are great; let's go slow enough to get them recorded)

   NM: Suppose we had stability for a while wrt version 3
   ... and now innovation has set in

   NM: We had code written which was generating instances of that version of
   the language

   NM: And there were agents which implemented that version of the language to
   process documents

   <DanC>  I can go with "name implementations" as a paraphrase for "name
   receiver understandings"

   <jar__>  it's  an  ontology ... hierarchy of classes whose members are
   implementations

   <DanC> I wrote it as an ontology.

   <DanC> my ontology for this stuff:
   [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
   'formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t. recent TAG
   versioning terminology'

   <Zakim>  masinter,  you  wanted  to  note  that,  in  the  cases where
   implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not
   useful in producer/consumer communication.

   LM:  Even in that lossy situation, there is still value for VIs in the
   production context

   <noah> I think the problem is that we're not being clear on what is being
   identified. In many cases, people grab pieces of different specs, knowing
   full well which they're grabbing from

   <DanC> tx for writing it down, LMM. I see the key point: "in the cases where
   implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not
   useful in producer/consumer communication."

   LM: And sometimes, when there's an incompatible change, there can be utility
   even in the producer-consumer communication
   ... context.

   LM: So that could all be an update to what we say in AWWW about VIs

   <noah> I tend to be anti-VI in general.

   <masinter> Danc, are not *as* useful

   <DanC> I just copied/pasted what you wrote, masinter . but ok, *as* useful.

   <masinter> DanC, I was correcting myself, the utility in producer/consumer
   communication is limited to the unfortunate situation where it's necessary
   to introduce incompatible changes

   <DanC> gotcha, lmm

   DC: I am somewhat positive about this, but not sure updating AWWW is the
   most effective route -- I like blog articles these days

   NM: Languages evolve in multi-faceted ways -- sometimes it's chunky, when
   there's agreement to move from V3 to V4
   ... When you talk about implementations evolving, that's masking that fact
   ... because some impls are innovating wrt the video tag, and some other
   impls are innovating somewhere else

   NM: In that kind of situation, you onlyneed VIs if there are conflicting
   interpretations somewhere

   NM: as long as it's all "this tag is supported, or it isn't" then there's no
   need
   ... Differentiating the production pipeline from the producer-consumer
   connection doesn't really get at that issue

   NM: I'm not sure it helps

   <DanC> (trying to get consensus on this doesn't seem like a good use of TAG
   discussion time; I'd much rather see LMM write it up as he sees it and let
   NM either comment on that or do a separate piece.)

   <Zakim>  masinter,  you  wanted  to  disagree  with  NM about 'needing
   multi-dimensional version indicators'

   LM: Multi-dimensional VIs? Where I'm going is that you only need VIs for
   specifications
   ... If you need a VI for "version 3 plus the video tag from Apple impl. of
   xxx and the other tag from foobar impl of ..."

   LM: then you need to write a spec. that says that, and you can have a VI
   ... I'm only trying to find a minimal utility claim: there is value for VIs
   for published specs.
   ... Maybe there are other use cases, but that's the one I care about right
   now

   <masinter>  My  belief is that you only need version indicators in the
   language to indicate versions of specifications. And if there is a need for
   a version indicator for something, you would have a spec for it

   <DanC> (I guess I should turn
   [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136intoa
   blog article; wish I'd done it a while ago.)

   <noah> Larry says: you only need VIs for specs. My (noah's) position is: you
   need VIs whenever the same content might mean different things, or when
   tools or consumers want early warning

   NM: I'm pointing to another important case, which is when there's a conflict
   between two interpretations, i.e. if the documents are ambiguous

   [scribe is not keeping up]

   <masinter> Noah, there may be other uses for which you might also want
   version indicators to help with, but they don't, or can't, in the situation
   where languages evolve independently outside of standards

   LM: So I hear you asking for VIs in cases where they are needed, but it's
   hard to see how to get them

   <DanC> +1 we've made some progress and are reaching diminishing returns;
   please sketch actions

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask NM to write up what he said

   NM: The IRC log will have to do

   DC: I will write up my ontology in this space

   <DanC>  ACTION  Dan  write  up  version  change  ontology as blog item
   [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-368 - Write up version change ontology as blog
   item[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136[on
   Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-24].

   <jar__> +1 to LM's new story, too.

   LM: So no value in the email?

   HST: No, I like it, please write it up

   <masinter> ok, i wanted enough discussion to get feedback

   <DanC> action-368 due 1 Mar 2010

   <trackbot>  ACTION-368  Write  up version change ontology as blog item
   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136duedate
   now 1 Mar 2010

   <masinter> action-283?

   <trackbot>  ACTION-283 -- Larry Masinter to update document on version
   identifiers  w.r.t.  Cambridge  June  discussion  -- due 2009-12-10 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283

   <DanC> close action-283

   <trackbot>  ACTION-283  Update  document on version identifiers w.r.t.
   Cambridge June discussion closed

   <DanC> . ACTION Larry write a shorter document on version indicators

   <DanC> ACTION Larry write a shorter document on version indicators

   <trackbot>  Created  ACTION-369  - Write a shorter document on version
   indicators [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-12-24].

ACTION-309 on Henry S. Thompson: draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing
based on 8 Dec discussion - due 2009-12-09 - pending review

   <masinter> action-309?

   <trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to draft input to HTTP bis draft
   re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion -- due 2009-12-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309

   <johnk>  I'll note that I (this morning) bumped the dates on all of my
   agenda-linked actions until the 7th

   <johnk> (of Jan)

draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion

   HST: My new proposed input is at
   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html

   <masinter> +1 like Henry's text

   <DanC> +1 "don't always meet their obligation to provide correct headers

   <noah> Propose: "don't always meet their obligation to provide correct
   Content-type headers"

   <DanC> and +1 "...configuration issues..."

   DC: Not happy with the "servers don't supply correct ..."

   NM: Agree with DC

   <masinter> I'd be happy to have the TAG send it with just a note saying that
   we'd like them to review it

   <jar__> I don't like "obligation"

   <masinter> i don't like Noah's rewording

   <johnk>  Propose: "provide Content-type headers which do not correctly
   identify the content sent"

   JAR: I prefer HST's wording

   <masinter> johnk's is good

   <DanC> +1 "...headers which do not correctly..."

   <masinter> provide a content-type header, to be accurate

   <noah> suggest s/alter/increase/ the security exposure

   <jar__> "correct" is a weasel word, and I like it that it is

   <jar__> +1 Johnk

   <DanC> +1 send on behalf of the TAG as ammended

   NM: Any objections to adopting JK's proposal

   <jar__> +1 TAG

   [none]

   NM: replace 'alter' with 'increase'

   HST: Agreed

   <DanC> +1 send on behalf of the TAG as ammended x2

   HST: Propose to send this from me on behalf of the TAG

   <jar__> +1

   <johnk> +1

   NM:   RESOLUTION:   HST   to  send  a  revised-as-amended  version  of
   [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
   HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG

   <scribe>  ACTION:  Henry  HST  to send a revised-as-amended version of
   [38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
   HTTP    bis    list    on    behalf    of   the   TAG   [recorded   in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-370 - HST to send a revised-as-amended version of
   [40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
   HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-24].

   <DanC> close action-309

   <trackbot> ACTION-309 draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8
   Dec discussion closed

ACTION-359 on Noah Mendelsohn: Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG - due
2009-12-17 - pending review

   DC: Been closed

   <DanC> ACTION-356 due 12 Jan 2010

   <trackbot> ACTION-356 Work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames next
   week due date now 12 Jan 2010

   <DanC> [41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html

   <DanC> "proposals are due January 16, 2010"

   <DanC> thread continues
   [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/0025.html

ACTION-358 on Noah Mendelsohn: Schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs
'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...'

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note I also submitted a bug/change proposal

   DC: [asks people to read the email at
   [43]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html]
   ... Polling the group

   NM: I'm not spun up

   LM: I've already pushed back on this issue

   <noah>  Could  someone paste a link to the HTML 5 usage that's causing
   concern?

   JAR: I'm sympathetic to the proposition "there is no such thing as what you
   [Julian    Reschke]    call   a   resource"   --   Ian   Hickson,   in
   [44]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/1133.html

   JAR: We've used this word for a long time, it confuses things to use it in a
   contradictory way

   DC: I expect that if TBL were here he'd say the Hypertext web doesn't need
   this distinction

   AM: There's been alot of stuff written about this
   ... It would be useful if we could agree and write something small

   <noah> +1 to being very careful, agree with HT

   <masinter> [45]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264

   <masinter> "The result is also at odds with reality (since some resources
   have no representation and content-negotiated resources may have many)."

   <masinter>

   <jar__> Ian "There is no such thing as what you [Julian] call a resource" -
   Dan & Jonathan sympathetic

   <noah> That's the bug report, but where's the HTML 5 text that's causing
   concern. Quick search of the HTML 5 draft doesn't reveal it to me.

   <noah> Which HTML 5 section are we discussing?

   <DanC> lots of them, noah; one of hixie's msgs to www-archive says which

   HST: Trying for a "yes and" response -- I liked what Rhys Lewis was trying
   to do before we lost him

   <masinter> Noah, it's spread throughout the document, there was someone from
   Oracle who did an analysis

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that HTML should normatively reference
   IRI spec which also uses 'resource' and 'representation'

   LM: I made some arguments in this bug report
   [46]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264

   <DanC> (oh. we have like *1* minute left. didn't hear that somehow.)

   LM:  One  important  point is that you are going to have to read other
   documents to implement anything on the web
   ... and understand them
   ... and they use these words differently
   ... The bad news is that fixing this is a big and messy job -- these terms
   are spread out throughout the HTML5 draft

   <DanC> noah, when is our next meeting?

   <jar__> I think the harder problem is that no one likes "representation",
   really... it forces you to buy into REST/AWWW

   <noah> Section 2.1.1 has title "resources", but seems to define the terms
   "supported"  and "Mime Type". I'm a bit at sea. Is that implicitly the
   definition of resource as advertised?

   <DanC> ooh... good point... "resources which have multiple resources" is
   goofy.

   LM: A concrete problem is that there are resources with no representation,
   and resources with many: if you have only one word, you can't address this
   at all

   NM: We will have to come back to this

   JK: We need both concepts, we have to do whatever we have to do to fix that

   NM: Adjourned until 2010-01-07

   <jar__> I like "document" for Ian:resource and awww:Representation ...

   +1 to JAR

   <jar__> ... but timbl likes "document" = awww:Resource ...

   OK, I am about to start quoting FRBR, watch out :-)

   <DanC> FRBR is good stuff.

   <DanC> ACTION-363?

   <trackbot> ACTION-363 -- Jonathan Rees to inform SemWeb CG about market
   developments  around  webfinger  and  metadata access, and investigate
   relationship to RDFa and linked data -- due 2010-01-31 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/363

   <DanC> jar's TAG actions
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/38732

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW]  ACTION:  Henry  HST  to  send  a  revised-as-amended version of
   [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
   HTTP    bis    list    on    behalf    of   the   TAG   [recorded   in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW]   ACTION:   Henry   to   put   up   Doodle   poll  [recorded  in
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input to
   the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to
   www-archive@w3.org [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input
   [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02]
     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [54]scribe.perl version 1.134 ([55]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2009/12/18 19:16:16 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-agenda.html
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-tagmem-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item00
   6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item01
   7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item02
   8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item03
   9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item04
  10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item05
  11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item06
  12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item07
  13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  14. http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF77
  15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01
  16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02
  17. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
  18. http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
  19. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/
  20. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results
  21. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
  22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03
  23. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0087.html
  24. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0088.html
  25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0095.html
  26. http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html
  27. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0094.html
  28. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/
  29. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
  30. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
  31. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
  32. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
  33. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
  34. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
  35. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309
  36. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
  37. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
  38. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
  39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04
  40. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
  41. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html
  42. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/0025.html
  43. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html
  44. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/1133.html
  45. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
  46. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
  47. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/363
  48. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/38732
  49. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
  50. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04
  51. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01
  52. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03
  53. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02
  54. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  55. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

- -- 
       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@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       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)

iD8DBQFLK9awkjnJixAXWBoRAvjNAJ91AhQWGc8B0T8Tw3+LaFnZ/p4JiQCePJPy
mS5ymD4Wts3phJM4codT3k0=
=A7/J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 19:24:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT