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

Draft of minutes from 5 February 2009 TAG telecon for review

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:57:32 -0500
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0902100557q5134d14fie049b38a407f6801@mail.gmail.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

At http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/02/05-minutes.html and below in plain text.
-Jonathan

W3C
- DRAFT -
TAG Weekly
05 Feb 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Raman, Noah_Mendelsohn, jar, Ht, Ashok_Malhotra, Masinter, John.Kemp, Stuart
Regrets
    TimBL, DanC
Chair
    Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
    Jonathan Rees

Contents

    * Topics
         1. Convene
         2. Welcome new TAG members
         3. Approval of Minutes from previous telcons
         4. Organizing this year's TAG work
         5. ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection
         6. ISSUE-51 (selfDescribingWeb-51): Well known formats and
URI based extensibility
         7. ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41): (short) What are good
practices for designing extensible XMLlanguages and for handling
versioning?
         8. ISSUE-30 (BinaryXML-30): Standardize a "binary XML" format?
         9. Broken links in TAG finding uriMediaType-9
        10. Any other business (Metadata - broader context)
    * Summary of Action Items

<jar> scribe: Jonathan Rees

<jar> scribenick: jar

<masinter> yay chair
Convene

noah: We have everyone here except Tim and Dan.

regrets for Feb 12: Henry
Welcome new TAG members
Approval of Minutes from previous telcons

<masinter> postpone approving previous minutes

noah: Problem with truncations for 22nd minutes

<scribe> ACTION: Noah make sure minutes for 22nd are dealt with
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-220 - Make sure minutes for 22nd are dealt
with [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-12].

<masinter> they're ok

RESOLUTION: Minutes of Jan 29 are approved
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-minutes
Organizing this year's TAG work

<noah> Email: Organizing TAG work in 2009
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jan/0081.html

<noah> Announcement email for TAG participation guide:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0006.html

noah: I encourage TAG members to read recent email re getting organized
... Request to returning TAG members to summarize what they did over
past year, etc. in next week

<noah> Announcement email for TAG participation guide:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0006.html

<noah> Draft of Guide: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html

noah: This is an attempt to reduce overhead, explain details about
actions, minutes, etc.
... John said it was helpful
... Wants to uncover places where we disagree over little things, but
not discuss these disagreements for a few weeks necessarily
... Review process at F2F, not now.

<masinter> no disagreements about content of document so far, want to
edit for readability, e.g., separate out policy from process

noah: Please help in staying on top of issues. Think about which
issues you care about
... Current telecon time OK?

HT: Will continue to have to leave at quarter past
... [that's not an objection]

noah: 4 weeks until F2F. Agenda work starts in earnest in 1 week

(no objections to telecon time heard)

noah: What's our AC reporting obligation, exactly?

<noah> Previous summary to AC was at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/sum10.html

stuart: We often make our reports public, btw. Group is on the hook to
prepare 3 month summary

noah: Agenda - anything to add?

ashok: New item please at end... ...
ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57): The use of HTTP Redirection

noah: Do we want to actively consider reopening httpRange-14?

<noah> scribenick: noah

JR: I started a review of how this {ISSUE-57] got started. Saw under
original aims to consider how 303 might be used, and other ways to get
information about resource, warning about cacheing behavior, and
question of how browsers treat the URL window in case or redirects. I
haven't checked what browsers do.
... but I think browsers leave old URI in place.

<masinter> I think there's a 'category error', mixing specifications
of languages and their semantics with recommendations about best
practice for operational behavior, and making the semantics depend on
the operational behavior actually following best practice

JR: I don't know what needs to be resolved, but a lot of activity has
been happening independent of the TAG. I.e. link header, sitemetadata,
and protocol that uses both of those to get information about resource
(XRD)

AM: Where is 3rd one discussed?

JR: Not sure, maybe www-talk or httpbis WG, though it doesn't have to
do with that. [www-talk@w3.org]

LM: Link header is an http header, so pertinent to httpbis.

JR: This is at next level up. None of these things are published or
standardized yet. Link hdr is on standards track, the protocol is not.

<johnk> resource descriptor discovery

NM: Speaking as chair, is our de-facto short term goal to help these
three groups land in a good place, separately or together?

<johnk> POWDER have mentioned the 'describedBy' attribute in this context

JR: Not sure about TAG as a whole, but I am interested.

<masinter> think we should discuss priorities before committing to do
a lot more work on this

NM: Would like to know what TAG thinks it's doing here.

LM: Also want to talk about higher level issue I typed in above.

<jar> scribenick: jar

masinter: Problem with separation of concerns. Mismatch between HTTP
layer and [something else]
... It's confused

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say I'm interested in this issue, will
contribute review effort

ht: Happy to abide by ruling over priority of this issue, but would be
happy to contribute if it is part of our work

<masinter> (a) organize priorities first (b) if we talk about this,
let's talk about why it's a hard problem, see note about 'category
error' in IRC log above

noah: Do you (HT) and Jonathan want to go off for a while?

ht: Don't come back to it until someone asks for it.

raman: Re 4 weeks coming up to F2F, good to get closure on old issues,
but not expense of new ones.

noah: Please bring up the new ones.

<noah> JR: I think I can put issue 200 down a bit.

<noah> NM: Whatever you're doing, please update ISSUE-200 to reflect
true status and expected date.

<noah> JR: I did ask httpbis to clarify what's meant by resource.

<noah> HT: A small request, eh?

<noah> JR: So, I acknowledge the TAG didn't tell me to do that.

<masinter> IMHO, HTTP document should defer to URI document about
definition 'resource'

<noah> TVR: You don't have to ask TAG permission to do things.

<noah> JR: Just wanted to alert TAG I did this.

<masinter> and if you don't like what URI says, update it

<Zakim> jar, you wanted to discuss HTTPbis and httpRange-14

masinter: IMO http should defer to URI RFC re def of resource.

<noah> Chair alert -- I'm about to go on to next issue.

ashok: Ashok will bring up an item under 'any other business' which is
related to uniform access to metadata
ISSUE-51 (selfDescribingWeb-51): Well known formats and URI based extensibility

noah: Draft is out for quiet review. No TAG responses, silence = assent.

<masinter> i'm unhappy that this wasn't published before my term
began, because now I have to review it

noah: Responses from Daniel - editorial

(apparent assent on Daniel's suggestions)

<johnk_> specific assent from me on Daniel's changes

ht: Are you sure that's the draft you want us to look at? Warning
about 3023, etc.

<noah> The draft you should be looking at is:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2009-01-29.html

noah: The agenda was wrong
... Noah will proceed with publication as group has allowed him to.
ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41): (short) What are good practices for
designing extensible XMLlanguages and for handling versioning?

<ht> HST has now checked the bits of
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2009-01-29.html
that he was on the hook for, and is happy

noah: Did not settle disposition of action items

ashok: 'Working group' note, which WG is that?

ht: The TAG is a WG for many Process purposes.

noah: What about DO's ACTION-165, about AWWW erratum?

<noah> ISSUE-41 has a link to
http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/version_identifiers_reconsider.html

<noah> Quoting from the AWWW:

<noah> Proposal for Future Architecture Document: Version information

<noah> If a language or data format will change in incompatible ways,
then indicate the language version used for each instance.

stuart: I believe there is an erratum document for AWWW. The action
was to come up with an actual proposed change to AWWW

<masinter> wish there were better summaries of the issues in the agenda

<noah> AWWW says: A data format specification SHOULD provide for
version information.

noah: Any volunteers to take this?

<masinter> I think the issue isn't just the version identifiers, it's
also the policy for making new versions and keeping backward
compatibility

john: Would be willing to take a crack at it. Not clear on status of
doc as WG note

<Stuart> See also: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/errata.html

<Stuart> John... in your earlier status question, was that about AWWW
or about the WG Note that David is yet to publish?

jar: jar: volunteers to assist...

noah: go to ISSUE-41 in tracker, follow link to QA blog for context

<masinter> I volunteer to get more data, from experience PDF
versioning, which went through long discussion and policy questions

<Stuart> AWWW itself is a W3C Recommendation

<johnk_> basically, what is the relationship between the TAG, this WG
note and Dave?

action-165 reassigned to John Kemp

<Stuart> action-165?

<trackbot> ACTION-165 -- John Kemp to formulate erratum text on
versioning for the web architecture document -- due 2009-01-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165

masinter: SUccess in using version identifier may depend on [...scribe
lapse...]. Recent experience with PDF

noah: Larry, we may have looked at some of the relevant issues;
consider going through the issue logs
... There's this line in AWWW that doesn't seem quite right
... Let's try to do a simple correction to AWWW
... rather than pulling on the ball of string

raman: Do it *only* if it can be done in one line

<masinter> I have an action item to deal with versioning in HTML5

noah: Two more actions to dispose of. Now action-181 on JAR

<noah> NM: Jonathan, do you want to do more on the formalism?

<noah> JAR:I don't need to, but TAG has asked.

<noah> NM: Propose we close this, since we've changed the context.

<noah> JR: I feel some obligation to Dave. Maybe I should work it out with him.

<johnk_> Can we extend the deadline for the action and revisit?

noah: Propose to close this as a TAG issue... even if stays open with JAR & DO

<Stuart> yes

<scribe> ACTION: jar to work with Dave Orchard to close up the
formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Work with Dave Orchard to close up the
formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks [on
Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-12].

action-221 due 2009-02-19

<trackbot> ACTION-221 Work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism
facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks due date now
2009-02-19

<noah> Close action-181

<trackbot> ACTION-181 Update versioning formalism to align with
terminology in versioning compatibility strategies closed

stuart: Propose to push due date for ACTION-183 out.

<Stuart> action-183?

<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- David Orchard to incorporate formalism into
versioning compatibility strategies -- due 2009-03-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/183

<masinter> why is this an issue?
ISSUE-30 (BinaryXML-30): Standardize a "binary XML" format?

noah: There were concerns that the notion of doing an incompatible
serialization of XML would be disruptive (this is history)
... Some people felt use cases and requirements didn't hang together so well
... So TAG met with them in France. They talked about compactness,
which was not really such a concern...
... then about performance. In my recollection we are waiting for
this. The work here is to figure out who owes whom what.

masinter: These issues came out when W3C was first considering
starting this work

noah: Two efforts started at the workshop. Use cases & goals hunt led
to 32 use cases.
... This seemed like a lot. There seemed to be methodology problems.

<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2005/09/exi-charter-final.html

noah: We need to make sure we don't owe them anything at this point
(or figure out what's owed).

masinter: Was this raised with the TAG?

noah: TAG chose to be proactive.

masinter: Still? [Does anyone on the TAG still want to be practive?]

noah: I do

raman: let it happen and see what happens

<masinter> i think the only appropriate response is to add an
applicability statement that restricts the recommended domain of
applicability

<masinter> or that adds some cautions etc

ht: I don't feel the speed issue continues to be a determine factor
regarding whether this will be damaging to XML.
... The more important issue is, exactly how this stuff is served.
... Close the issue down for now, but we'll keep an eye on it.
Broken links in TAG finding uriMediaType-9

<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0118.html

noah: Volunteer?

<masinter> general operational problem with all W3C specs

jar: Can't we make the link work?

<johnk> +1

<masinter> either leave it, or fix it for W3C publications in general

<johnk> doesn't preclude other more wide-ranging efforts

<masinter> if you fix this, ask staff to deal with general issue

<Stuart> IMO it has always been open to the TAG to go back and revise a finding.

noah: Do we mean to futureproof links to specs that can change?

<masinter> working groups change, so the W3C webmaster needs to have a
way of dealing with broken links even when working group isn't active

<Stuart> W3C has a strong policy wrt to updating TR page docs... we
can, and have on one occassion published a TR page finding.

(jar notices these are links to IETF... retracts offer to try to make them work)

<noah> Proposal: the TAG will ask the W3C staff to come up with a
general policy for dealing with links that become broken in W3C
publications

<Stuart> As an institution the W3C principal output is a document
collection; and as the collection grows, document maintenance becomes
an institutional problem.

noah: Objections?

(none)

<noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will ask the W3C staff to come up with a
general policy for dealing with links that become broken in W3C
publications

<masinter> I will draft a note

<scribe> ACTION: masinter to draft a note to W3C staff regarding
maintaining working links, for TAG review [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-222 - Draft a note to W3C staff regarding
maintaining working links, for TAG review [on Larry Masinter - due
2009-02-12].

<masinter> The broken links are broken because it is IETF official
policy to remove documents that have been expired

<scribe> ACTION: John to attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping
between URIs and Internet Media Types [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-223 - Attempt to fix the broken links in
Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types [on John Kemp - due
2009-02-12].
Any other business (Metadata - broader context)

<masinter> is there a pointer to the issue we're discussing?

<Stuart> Related links [WSRA, URIs, and metadata]:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jan/0036.html and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html

ashok: ... You guys are specifying SOAP messages, but they want
metadata. If you are in URI world, there are other ways to get it
under development
... Why don't you think about allowing access differently in the SOAP
and HTTP worlds?

<masinter> wonder if a metadata workshop would be useful -- too many
different approaches to metadata going on to necessarily do this in
tag

masinter: Would an access to metadata workshop be of some interest?

noah: Does this fit under ISSUE-57?

masinter: No, broader

<scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of metadata (scope,
issue, coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-224 - Schedule discussion of metadata
(scope, issue, coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon
[on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-12].

ADJOURNED.

<Stuart> Good job Noah.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jar to work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism
facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: John to attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping
between URIs and Internet Media Types [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: masinter to draft a note to W3C staff regarding
maintaining working links, for TAG review [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah make sure minutes for 22nd are dealt with [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of metadata (scope, issue,
coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/02/10 13:53:30 $
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 13:58:12 GMT

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