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

Draft minutes from July 23 Telcon

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:18:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4A6DB72C.4030105@oracle.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
.. are at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes.html

A text version is appended below.

                               - DRAFT -

                           TAG Weekly Telcon

23 July 2009

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/23-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          T.V. Raman, Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn,
          Dan Connolly, Henry Thompson

   Regrets
          Jonathan Rees, John Kemp, Tim Berners-Lee

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Ashok

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Convene
         2. [5]Minutes of f2f
         3. [6]HTML
         4. [7]Architecture of the Web of Applications
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: Ashok

   <scribe> scribenick: Ashok

Convene

   Regrets from JK, JR and Tim

   Next calls: Aug 6 and 13

   Noah: Larry, can you scribe on 8/6?

   LM: Yes, if need be

Minutes of f2f

   <DanC> Date: 2009/07/21 19:39:15
   [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-minutes.html 2009/07/21
   20:50:04 [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/24-minutes.html
   2009/07/21 22:17:44
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/25-minutes.html

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-minutes.html
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/24-minutes.html
     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/25-minutes.html

   <DanC> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda

   <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes for June 23-25 f2f approved w/o
   objection.

   Noah: Asks about end-date for Calls for Exclusions

   Dan: Ends Oct 22

   Noah: Reminds people of future meetings

   Sept 23-25, TPAC Nov 2-6, Dec 8-10

   <noah> DC: Tech plenary program committee is forming

   Dan: Asks about TPAC committee
   ... if you have nominations talk to Ralph Swick

   Noah: I have organized agenda around the 3 major themes
   ... we will discuss action items and have technical discussions as
   needed.

HTML

   Re. Action 283:

   LM: I have not done that

   <DanC> ACTION-283 due next week

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

   LM: let's postpone by one week

   Re ACTION-287:

   LM: Delay a bit.
   ... HT has assigned sections to people to review
   ... Let's withdraw 287. We will figure out reviews as needed

   <DanC> ACTION-287: we'll figure out where these issues fit in the
   course of review

   <trackbot> ACTION-287 Schedule telcon time for Larry to walk us
   through a few short sections of HTML 5 document notes added

   <DanC> close ACTION-287

   <trackbot> ACTION-287 Schedule telcon time for Larry to walk us
   through a few short sections of HTML 5 document closed

   <noah> [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0026.html

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0026.html

   Re: ACTION-288:

   Henry proposes division in above mail

   HT: I broke up sections to get to right granularity and tried to
   make sure everyone got about the same number of pages
   ... everything gets read once most get read twice
   ... just a suggestion to get us started

   <DanC> (it works quite well for me)

   HT: I have no investment in this. Happy to modify

   Noah: Surprised me a liitle in terms of amount of reading
   ... but once I started worked well.

   DC: Seems good
   ... we will run into issue of overlap with other specs

   LM: More concerned with robustness principles
   ... emphasises what you shd accept rather than what/how you create
   material

   Noah: I suggest we withhold judgement till we do the readings
   ... lets go read and then discuss

   LM: There have been comments on general issues which seem like
   interesting architectural perspectives
   ... you may want to keep claims made by others in mind
   ... Look at spec and look for examples of what people have commented
   on.
   ... Where things are specified algorithmically rather than
   constraints on results
   ... and things not required in the spec
   ... New note today:

   <ht> [14]http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/

     [14] http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/

   <masinter> and discussion around it

   Noah: Helping the HTML effort succeed is one of our big themes ...
   so we should look for how to do that

   TVR: Depends on your definition of success.
   ... HTML folks may say "stay our of our way"

   Noah: No, they have listened to us
   ... so we shd discuss what success would mean
   ... Thinks about schedule
   ... is end of Aug too late?

   HT: That's what it has to be for me

   Noah: Asks about Last Call

   <DanC> See [15]http://www.whatwg.org/issues/data.html w.r.t. last
   call

     [15] http://www.whatwg.org/issues/data.html

   Dan: Look at graph above ... trending towrads zero in next month or
   two. Started 2 yrs ago
   ... This is Ian Hicksons view
   ... supports an Oct Last Call

   Noah: Hixie sent an authoring spec

   <DanC> DanC: Ian Hickson's count of issues is trending toward 0, but
   the WG has another issues list that doesn't have much momentum

   <noah> One of 3 things better be true:

   <noah> 1) Authoring spec looks good on the first try

   <noah> 2) Authoring spec isn't so good, but we don't care that the
   HTML 5 spec in its current from, so it's OK for the HTML 5 browser
   spec to head out to last call

   <noah> 3) Authoring spec isn't looking so good, and we said the core
   spec would be a base for the authoring spec, so we need to slow down
   and make sure what we're taking to last call is indeed a good base
   for authoring

   <noah> I'm not predjudging which is the case, but timing suggests it
   better be (1) or (2) because we're not leaving room for (3).

   Noah: This is going to Last Call in Oct. We cannot finish reading
   till end-August.
   ... we could push back on Last Call

   HT: No problem. Last Call is when we can comment

   Noah: Shall I ask TAG members to complete reading by end-August?

   Dan and HT: Checking Tim's schedule

   Dan: End August is good
   ... someone should reach Tim by phone

   Noah: I will do that

   <noah> ACTION: noah to tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial]
   [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action01]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Tell Tim about HTML Reading plan
   [trivial] [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-30].

   Noah: We are agreed that everyone will have their reading done by
   end-August

Architecture of the Web of Applications

   Noah: We agreed this would be one of our focus areas
   ... Summarizes that status of this item.
   ... (Aside) I need to create a TAG Report... I will start on this
   and send to folks for review

   Re: Action 264

   Ashok: Done. Close it.

   Re. Action 273

   <DanC> close action-264

   <trackbot> ACTION-264 Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon
   discussion of geolocation and privacy closed

   Noah: Change due date to August 4

   <DanC> action-264?

   <trackbot> ACTION-264 -- Ashok Malhotra to draft agenda item for
   upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy -- due
   2009-08-04 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/264

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/264

   <noah>
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jul/0049.html

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jul/0049.html

   Ashok: There is a Last Call for the GeoLocation API spec. This punts
   privacy to the implementations
   ... I think this is a concern.
   ... wanted to point this out to the TAG

   <noah> The question is, should we review:
   [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/

     [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/

   Ashok: I think TAG should review the GeoLocation API spec

   <noah> NM: What do other TAG members think?

   LM: I will discuss draft at IETF mtg. I will know more after that

   NM: We have a week to respond

   Dan: Suggest Noah quote para in AM's mail and send mail to WG saying
   we will comment

   <masinter> I would like to tell them we're going to discuss it

   Noah: I will say "we have receieved this. This is summer. I will
   point to para and say we may have comments on this."

   <masinter> My concern is whether there is an architectural mismatch
   between IETF and W3C architecture for geographic information.

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to write to Geolocation WG saying "we have
   concern that the spec does not say enough about user privacy"
   [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action02]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action02

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-290 - Write to Geolocation WG saying "we
   have concern that the spec does not say enough user privacy" [on
   Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-30].

   LM: Explains his concern: IETF is looking at related issues for the
   Web and we want to understand their impact

   <DanC> action-273?

   <trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Ashok Malhotra to carry forward framing
   issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and LM -- due
   2009-06-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/273

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/273

   <masinter> Concern is about architectural coherence, of which user
   privacy is an example technical issue

   Re: Action 273.

   Noah: Shall we leave open?
   ... it is a big theme. We have a draft TOC.

   <DanC> ACTION-273 due 11 Aug

   <trackbot> ACTION-273 Carry forward framing issues around Archicture
   of APIs, with help from JK and LM due date now 11 Aug

   Noah: AM can you act as shepherd on the issue?
   ... LM, JK and AM will be shepherds.
   ... Next due date Aug 11

   Re: Action 275:

   Dan: I talked with Phillipe and Matt Womer. They said IETF has an
   architecture but deployment is sparse.

   LM: I think it is a policy issue
   ... that it is not deployed, we should not have a policy

   <raman> Sir Humphrey: the administration of the policy of
   administration vs the policy of the administration of policy:-)

   Dan: IETF has proposed just policy but mechanism. W3C spec has
   policy not mechanism.

   Ashok as scribe: I don't think I got the above line correctly.

   <masinter> The IETF has a policy that user privacy preferences
   should be transmitted with user location, and has also endorsed a
   mechanism for accomplishing that policy

   <DanC> to some extent, anyway

   <DanC> " A conforming

   <DanC> implementation of this specification must provide a mechanism
   that

   <DanC> protects the user's privacy and this mechanism should ensure
   that no location information is made available without the user's
   express permission.

   <masinter> The W3C specification does not implement the mechanism,
   but also does not provide any other mechanism for accomplishing the
   IETF policy

   <noah> AM: I disagree. The W3C spec hasn't any policy. The
   implementation should handle privacy.

   <noah> DC: No, "MUST" handle, and that IS a policy

   <ht> I want to remind myself when we come back to action 279 that a)
   Safari/WebKit(maybe) and Mozilla will shortly ship CORS support but
   that b) There has been essentially no response to a large set of
   detailed set of security issues raised by Frederick Hirsch on 30
   June

   LM: W3C has no mechanism that would provide policy

   Dan: Deployed implementations do have some policies

   <masinter> IETF policy is that all mechanisms for transmission of
   user location should also include a mechanism for transmitting
   privacy preferences

   Dan: Disagrees

   <masinter> I should amend what I'm saying is: this is what the
   concern is, and what we should investigate

   <masinter> and the nature of what we should discuss

   Re. Action 275

   Dan: Kill the action

   <DanC> kill as in declare victory

   Re. Action 276

   <DanC> close action-275

   <trackbot> ACTION-275 Propose concrete steps wrt GeoPriv after
   consultion with W3C members/staff closed

   <DanC> action-276 due 4 Aug

   <trackbot> ACTION-276 Take GeoPriv discussion with IETF forward in
   person in July due date now 4 Aug

   LM: I will report back in 2 weeks. Chg due date to Aug 4

   <DanC> ACTION-278 due 4 Aug

   <trackbot> ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to
   cover the "Google Calendar" case due date now 4 Aug

   Re. Action 278

   Re. Action 279

   <DanC> <ht> I want to remind myself when we come back to action 279
   that a) Safari/WebKit(maybe) and Mozilla will shortly ship CORS
   support but that b) There has been essentially no response to a
   large set of detailed set of security issues raised by Frederick
   Hirsch on 30 June

   NM: HT did this. This is pending review. Can we close

   <noah> DC: But, is there different action.

   <noah> ACTION-279 CLOSE

   Dan: Close this but is there another action that shd arise

   <noah> CLOSE ACTION-279

   <trackbot> ACTION-279 Draft a message to webapps chairs relaying TAG
   concerns around CORS closed

   NM: Shd we discuss in more detail on 8/6?

   <noah> Henry, you there?

   <noah> Can we give you new action to plan followup on lack of
   response on CORS?

   Noah: What if we assign new action to HT to help decide what to do
   in face of lack of response

   <scribe> ACTION: noah to follow up with HT re Action 279 next steps
   [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action03]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action03

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Follw up with HT re Action 279 next
   steps [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-30].

   Re. Action 280

   <DanC> ACTION-280 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-280 (with John K) to enumerate some CSRF scenarios
   discussed in Jun in Cambridge due date now next week

   Dan: No progress. New date

   Re. Action 284

   Noah: Make 284 due on Aug 25

   <noah> ACTION-284 DUE 25 Aug

   <trackbot> ACTION-284 Flesh out the Web Application
   ([23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html) outline
   with as many sentences as he can due date now 25 Au

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: noah to follow up with HT re Action 279 next steps
   [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: noah to tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial]
   [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to write to Geolocation WG saying "we have
   concern that the spec does not say enough about user privacy"
   [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action02]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action03
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action01
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action02

   [End of minutes]


-- 
All the best, Ashok
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 14:19:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:15 GMT