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

Draft minutes of 2009-05-12 TAG weekly

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 07:51:33 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0905160451ree0c01bi1e657339dbe7974@mail.gmail.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Draft minutes (i.e. as yet unapproved) here:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/14-minutes

and in plain text below.

Jonathan

W3C
- DRAFT -
W3C Technical Architecture Group
14 May 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Jonathan_Rees, T._V._Raman,
Tim_Berners-Lee, Larry_Masinter
Regrets
    John_Kemp, Dan_Connolly
Chair
    Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
    Jonathan Rees

Contents

    * Topics
         1. Convene
         2. Approval of minutes of 4/2
         3. Administrative
         4. Agenda setting
         5. XML Schema 1.1 CR
         6. LanguageVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)
         7. Pending review items
    * Summary of Action Items

<scribe> Scribe: Jonathan Rees

<scribe> ScribeNick: jar

Date: 14 May 2009
Convene

we're missing HT

next telecon next week
Approval of minutes of 4/2

4/2: No objections

RESOLUTION: draft minutes of 4/2 approved (JAR to fix broken link)

ACTION on jar: fix bad link in 4/2 minutes

<trackbot> Noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

<scribe> ACTION: JAR to fix bad link in 4/2 minutes [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/14-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-267 - Fix bad link in 4/2 minutes [on
Jonathan Rees - due 2009-05-21].

tabled: approve minutes of 5/7
Administrative
Agenda setting

noah: Specific request to all tag members to review your open issues
and actions. Otherwise they come up every week and agenda preparation
is difficult.

raman: When will we finalize F2F agenda?

noah: I want for the agenda to come from all of you. Process should
start right now.

raman: There should be some particular deliverables to talk about
... e.g. At the end of the meeting we expect to decide "we will publish X"

<Zakim> raman, you wanted to ask, when do we finalize the F2F agenda?

noah: This is the perfect time to ensure a good agenda
XML Schema 1.1 CR

noah: Rick Jeliffe has longstanding concerns
... Frustrated with overall design direction, went and built
Schematron language, interested in Relax NG
... Schema 1.1 went to review, Rick sees this as a lost opportunity
... Felt the TAG should look into this
... TAG charter says issues can be raised in this way, but TAG must
vote to accept the issue
... if we don't pick it up, it will go to AC and director, who might
ask us to look into it
... Please consider over coming week whether this is something we should take up

ashok: What would the issue be, exactly?

noah: As TAG chair, I say it can be anything... what I think Rick
would want is for the TAG to help W3C to come to its senses
... Speaking as Schema chair now, I don't think this is the right time
to make this decision. This question came up at the time. I think the
W3C language is sort of ugly and redundant, but it is extremely widely
used.
... Relax NG is sort of like Lisp (if Schema is like C++). "You
shouldn't do that [revise Schema] because you should have designed
Lisp instead"
... Personal opinion is that W3C is doing the right thing by doing
1.1. The WG is extremely small [and tired], and it's not clear W3C
could take up the problem of a new design

raman: Given overlap of TAG and Schema WG, not clear TAG would be very effective

timbl: There are different communities; not clear XSD dominates in all of them

raman: XML Schema hasn't worked out very well. I'm skeptical that it
really dominates

ashok: Would a possible outcome be the creation of a new WG?

noah: [Hypothetically] the TAG could express an opinion

<Ashok> ... to profile XML Schema

timbl: Skeptical about preponderance of XSD usage, would like to see
some figures

noah: Any volunteers?

(silence)

masinter: Don't think the TAG can make progress on this issue. Important, but.

noah: OK, I've alerted everyone, we'll revisit next week, more info desirable.
LanguageVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41)

noah: Change description of issue to change 'xml' to 'language'? Does
this cause any problems?

ashok: Implication that it includes programming languages would be unfortunate

masinter: But we do need to talk about versions of javascript, which
is normatively referenced by HTML.

<masinter> and CSS, which is a language but not an XML language

noah: OK, assent to issue name change

<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0004.html

<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0028.html

"Versioning and HTML -- recap"

masinter: In previous TAG discussion I find discussion of 'modes'
... not much about ownership of MIME types, doctypes
... TAG has been talking about versioning for seven years
... I was hoping to collect pointers to places where these issues were discussed
... I thought my email might give an outline of what would be a useful finding

<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0063.html

<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0075.html

[April 25 email: general reasons why languages change]

masinter: add, restrict, clarify, restrict meaning, incompatible
... criteria for when you do/don't want to use a language indicator

<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0004.html

[the scribe urges you to look at these email messages.]

masinter: Is this reasonable?

noah: Many technical details that could be reviewed, but don't want to
back into another year of effort on versioning.
... options: 1. Larry has an outline, possibly a big and time
consuming project. 2. No, we've beaten our heads, doesn't feel right.
3. Continue to noodle, no commitment yet, monitor our comfort level

masinter: I'd like another option. Intense, time-limited, focused
effort that actually attempts to give HTML WG guidance before October.

raman: Problem with previous effort was starting abstract

noah: We have a F2F in about 5 weeks. The is an opportunity to make progress.
... Then there's summer, which is historically spotty. Then Sept F2F.
Let's make sure we're not fooling ourselves?
... What can we do by June F2F?

masinter: I would like to hear from others.
... June 2-17 not available

noah: I don't completely understand the particular HTML issues. It
would be interesting to analyze them
... Worried that nothing will happen for June due to LM unavailable,
and then nothing for October due to summer
... Will schedule telecon discussion as there is activity

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

noah: Versioning discussion seems wrapped up for now...
Pending review items

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open

Noah should schedule action-204 for next week.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/204 [JAR to talk with
MSM about web app security]

noah: interested in hearing about action-204
... Homework: Look at list of open actions. Figure out disposition of
each one. Maybe agenda items will result. Please.

raman: The same tool (tracker) is being used for two things: trivial
reminders, and substantial projects. This is a problem.
... Suggestion: In IRC, tag each trivial action with 'trivial'

noah: Chair will transition trivial pending-review actions to closed
at discretion.

ADJOURNED.

ARGH!!! rrsagent not invited!!

will deal. and you can be sure I won't forget next time...
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: JAR to fix bad link in 4/2 minutes [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/14-tagmem-irc]

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008-01-18 18:48:51 $
Received on Saturday, 16 May 2009 11:52:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT