W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Revised draft minutes of call 28 January 2010

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:56:23 -0800
Message-ID: <4B7C1FB7.7080309@oracle.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
The minutes look fine. But I'm sorry I missed the discussion on privacy.
There is the following comment
dka: there was a meeting. The browser vendors, Google, and our opinions 
were that it was inappropriate things to put privacy hooks into the API
... the input from the EFP and GeoPriv working group was taken very 
seriously by the group chairs, and there was a lot of text put into the 
document. I wasn't a direct participant but I was mentoring someone who 
was, and my understanding was there was a lot of outreach. Still we got 
a formal objection.

I wonder if DKA could elaborate on the reasoning behind the decision.

Frederick also made a couple of good points in his mail which may be 
worth a brief discussion
if we open this up again.

All the best, Ashok


Larry Masinter wrote:
> Sorry this took so long to get out. 
>
>
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
>
>
>   Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
>
>
>     28 Jan 2010
>
> Agenda <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/28-agenda>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-irc>
>
>
>     Attendees
>
> Present
>     Raman, Masinter, Jonathan_Rees, noah, DanC, HT, DKA
> Regrets
>     TimBL, JohnK
> Chair
>     Noah Mendelsohn 
> Scribe
>     Larry Masinter
>
>
>     Contents
>
>     * Topics <#agenda>
>          1. 1. Convene <#item01>
>          2. 2. Approval of minutes from 21 Jan <#item02>
>          3. 3. Administrative items <#item03>
>          4. 5. W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs and
>             Services <#item04>
>          5. 4. ACTION-351 Workshop on persistence <#item05>
>          6. 6. Authoritative metadata <#item06>
>          7. 7. TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site <#item07>
>          8. (new) Resource vs. Representation <#item08>
>          9. 8. "Speaks for" formalism <#item09>
>         10. 12. Pending Review Items <#item10>
>     * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <DanC> trackbot, start meeting
>
> <trackbot> Date: 28 January 2010
>
> <jar> Scribe: Larry Masinter
>
> <jar> scribenick: masinter
>
>
>       1. Convene
>
> Next Meeting: Noah notes his tag work is backing up; he is tempted to 
> cancel next meeting, but will leave meeting scheduled and hoping John 
> can scribe.
>
>
>       2. Approval of minutes from 21 Jan
>
> *RESOLUTION: approval of -> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes minutes of January 21*
>
>
>       3. Administrative items
>
> Noah: prioritizing agenda: good news in that there is work happening. 
> difficulty getting balance.
> ... request: TAG members active in a discussion, please step up and 
> moderate discussion to reach conclusion, summarize different 
> positions, etc.
>
>
>       5. W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs and Services
>
> <noah> Email from Frederick Hirsch: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0014.html
>
> <noah> The DAP WG is only beginning to consider the privacy topic and 
> would appreciate all help it can obtain from anyone that can help us 
> achieve a good practical result in a reasonable time. Our initial 
> starting point will be to examine the decision of the Geolocation 
> Working Group in more detail. [...describes a proposal...] While we 
> intend to look at each of the assertions made in that resolution and 
> see if and how they would apply to our own set of APIs, we would very 
> much welcome the TAG’s perspective on that resolution
>
> <scribe> scribenick: noah
>
> LM: There was significant unhappiness with geolocation resolution, and 
> I think we should say it's not a good precedent.
>
> DKA: When I sat in on the first working group meeting as an observer, 
> not sure I can concur
>
> LM: Don't concur there was unhappiness?
>
> Noah thinks LM meant "the TAG was unhappy"
>
> LM: There was a letter from IETF, and formal objections from Cisco and 
> Center for Privacy and Freedo
>
> DKA: I spoke to the area director for IETF recently.
>
> <DanC> "the TAG was unhappy" needs a pointer to records. I'm pretty 
> sure the TAG hasn't decided anything in this space
>
> noah: Right, Dan. My recollection is that we had discussion of the 
> unhappiness of TAG members. I also think we did send an email, but not 
> sure "unhappiness" quite characterizes what that email said. Can't 
> find reference now. Can anyone?
>
> <scribe> scribenick: masinter
>
> dka: there was a meeting. The browser vendors, Google, and our 
> opinions were that it was inappropriate things to put privacy hooks 
> into the API
> ... the input from the EFP and GeoPriv working group was taken very 
> seriously by the group chairs, and there was a lot of text put into 
> the document. I wasn't a direct participant but I was mentoring 
> someone who was, and my understanding was there was a lot of outreach. 
> Still we got a formal objection.
>
> <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask whether this decision predates those 
> objections
>
> danc: Did the Geolocation decision (see the email we've been reading) 
> come before the IETF letter, or vice versa?
>
> DC: Trying to figure out if the asserted "unhappiness" is cause or effect
>
> dka: i think it was last call, and it was not a single decision in the 
> GeoLocation working group resolution
>
> (discussion about chronology)
>
> <DanC> I concur with "don't generalize"
>
> LM: What i am trying to say is that the GeoLocation decision was 
> reached after much discussion which seemed to be localized to a single 
> decision about a single API to access a single bit of information: 
> geographic location. Because this was so finely argued and the 
> compromise reached after much discussion and contextualized, the 
> Device API working group should not use this decision as a precedent.
>
> <noah> Larry mentioned this note from me: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0102.html , agreed 
> with reasons why issues for Geolocation may not generalize, even if we 
> posit that the geolocation solution was OK for that.
>
> dka: there was some politics around the responses
>
> <Zakim> noah, you wanted to get back to Frederick's request
>
> danc: Frederick Hirsch seems to be happy with the email exchange, are 
> we done?
>
> noah: gets back to question. His note says:
>
> <noah> From Frederick's note: "Our initial starting point will be to 
> examine the decision of the Geolocation Working Group in more detail. 
> This decision was *not* to include privacy rules as part of the API. 
> That decision is documented with the following Geolocation WG resolution:
>
> noah: what he's saying that we're taking this as a possible starting 
> point. Some of us weighed in and the TAG discussed it.
> ... we could more formally say something as the TAG, given the 
> concerns, the TAG wishes to signal real reservations
>
> LM: I met at the IETF in Stockholm with IETF area directors and WG 
> chairs. They were concerned. Part of that discussion was that 
> compromise might be reached in this case, but it should not be taken 
> as a good prededent.
>
> <DanC> (Noah, is what you're saying in your msg? 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0046.html )
>
> <Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss technical solution
>
> noah: I have suggested several times: if you're not going to put it in 
> the API, show that your API has sufficient extensibility mechanism, 
> possibly those that allow you to decide whether extensions are 
> present.... and show how this can be used. (noah explains details of 
> how this can be written).
>
> naoh: I'd be unhappy if the document did not at least talk about that.
>
> dka: on the issue of what we tell Frederick, it's appropriate to say 
> that you should not take this as a precedent. There are some specific 
> technical reservations that Google, Opera and Mozilla have to the kind 
> of approach that Noah is suggesting, that essentially boil down to 
> something that is non-enforcable
>
> noah: worth noting, but shouldn't resolve this
>
> <DanC> (stronger than "not enforceable"; as I recall, it was 
> "misleading")
>
> noah: Want ask DanA with help from Larry to draft a short response 
> that you think the TAG should send.
>
> <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to try "Don't take it as precedent" today
>
> larry: agrees to review what DKA writes
>
> <DanC> trackbot, status?
>
> <scribe> *ACTION:* Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to 
> the point. Larry to review. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Draft response to Fredrick, short and 
> to the point. Larry to review. [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-02-04].
>
> note: Daniel in tracker is DKA
>
>
>       4. ACTION-351 Workshop on persistence
>
> ht: We've been talking off and on since last summer's F2F about 
> persistent domain names as one component of the reservations people 
> have about using URIs for persistent identifiers
> ... 100 years for now if W3C doesn't exist and MIT screws up, W3C 
> documents won't be available at their well-known address. We've 
> discussed many solutions, including new IANA top level domain, or 
> creating some public body to insure the persistence of these domain 
> names. At our discussion in December consensus was we shouldn't take 
> this on, and that we should hold a workshop.
> ... have spoken to director of Digital Curation Centre
>
> <DanC> Digital Curation Centre at University of Edinburgh 
> <http://www.dcc.ac.uk/>
>
> ht: might be in June
> ... procedural questions:
> ... do we agree to sponsoring such a workshop
> ... and to colocate a TAG meeting in Edinburgh in June
>
> <noah> What does sponsoring involve? Money? Our good name?
>
> (discussion about scheduling and conflicts)
>
> <DKA> I'm happy with Edinburgh in June.
>
> <DKA> ...or I would be happy to host the TAG meeting in London around 
> this time as well...
>
> <lmm> Note 1999 workshop: 
> http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/program.html
>
> <DanC> workshp should be at least 1.5 days
>
> <scribe> (continued discussion of scheduling)
>
> LM: I would argue against the workshop as a priority
>
> noah: could be independent of having a TAG meeting at all
>
> <jar> The TAG doesn't need to be involved, but it ought to be
>
> noah: you asked that we 'sponsor' this?
>
> ht: be one of the two organizations that is holding the meeting
>
> larry: I wonder about XRI and persistence as another constituency
>
> noah: change action back to open with new due dates
>
> danc: wants this to be W3C workshop and not TAG
> ... stop discussion for now
>
> ht: let's talk about this offline (to DanC)
>
> larry: I'm not interested enough to do more as TAG
>
> <ht> HST has updated http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/351
>
>
>       6. Authoritative metadata
>
> (postponing because JK not here)
>
>
>       7. TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site
>
> <noah> Ian sent a note asking if TAG want to contribute to new W3C Web 
> Site content: "Another of the 7 areas is "Web Architecture" [3]. We've 
> not yet had the opportunity to flesh out the introduction pages that 
> are linked from there. Right now, the titles of those intros (drawn 
> from Webarch):
>
> <noah> Architecture Principles
>
> <noah> Identifiers
>
> <noah> Protocols
>
> <noah> Meta Formats
>
> <noah> Protocol and Meta Format Considerations
>
> <noah> Internationalization (already done by Richard Ishida)
>
> noah: That structure reflects the WebArch document.
> ... We talked about this at an early meeeting but didn't find the 
> resoures to do it
>
> <noah> I also said I thought not just any resource will do. We need 
> people who can write for some particular audience(s), write it well, etc.
>
> LM: Who does the work?
>
> DC: We do.
>
> <jar> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
>
> noah: this is where people come to talk about the web. Would the TAG 
> like to help the W3C tells the story
> ... if we could allocate the person-months of writing skill etc.
> ... seeing these things done well is person-weeks or person-months
>
> <jar> masinter: another approach is to start with what they have and 
> improve it
>
> <DanC> "This intro text is boilerplate for the beta release of 
> w3.org." -- http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols
>
> larry: I'm willing to help, but more on the order of hours rather than 
> weeks
>
> noah: whatever they do, we'll review it?
>
> danc: let individuals volunteer
>
> <jar> ACTION jar to spend 2 hours helping Ian with 
> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Spend 2 hours helping Ian with 
> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ [on Jonathan Rees - due 2010-02-04].
>
> raman: this should allow comments; saying we will do it ... (makes it 
> one-way communication)
>
> <jar> action-381 due 2010-02-11
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-381 Spend 2 hours helping Ian with 
> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ due date now 2010-02-11
>
> <noah> ACTION-381?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian 
> with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2010-02-11 -- OPEN
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381
>
> <noah> Looks good to me.
>
> <DanC> (I concur, larry, that findings don't communicate stuff well... 
> though I have advocated using the blog genre; I'm not opposed to using 
> the buckets as well or instead.)
>
> larry: i'm wondering whether we should focus on the web site vs. 
> working on findings and web arch and findings.
>
> noah: the charter says how we are supposed to publish results
>
> LM: Even if this means updating TAG charter
>
> <scribe> *ACTION:* larry to review Web Arch web material and make 
> proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Review Web Arch web material and make 
> proposals for changes or TAG action [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-02-04].
>
>
>       (new) Resource vs. Representation
>
> <noah> Discussion from last week: 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#item04
>
> <DanC> action-378?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re 
> resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR -- 
> due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378
>
> LM: htmlwg was going to close the issue, but i asked that it stay open 
> to allow the TAG to volunteer to produce a change proposal
> ... they don't need us to produce the proposal by tomorrow, just for 
> someone to commit to producing one that meets the criteria for change 
> proposals.
>
> DC: I made some progress. Between me and Noah we didn't get it on the 
> agenda for today. I could work on it, but promising dates is hard.
>
> NM: Implicitly, not for tomorrow?
>
> LM: By tomorrow, we just need a committed date.
>
> DC: Maybe we can pick a date.
>
> LM: How about March 31, after our next F2F?
>
> DC: Wonder if they'll accept that.
>
> LM: Well, the concern expressed was that Roy couldn't even start for 4 
> months.
>
> (discussion of 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0811.html) 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0811.html%29>
>
> noah: proposed action, the TAG will by march 31, deliver definitions 
> plus sample text showing use of those terms in a couple of example 
> sections
>
> <DanC> -1 definitions
>
> danc: this is an editorial exercise, and my opinion, now, is that 
> using definitions and samples isn't a good way to go
>
> I suggest we make a commitment to produce, by March 31, a change 
> proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change 
> proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue
>
> <DanC> I can go with that proposal, as it's silent on definitions
>
> <noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a 
> change proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change 
> proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue
>
> <DKA> +1
>
> <DanC> action-378?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re 
> resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR -- 
> due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378
>
> action-372?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-372 -- Larry Masinter to tell the HTML WG the TAG 
> encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and 
> endorse his request for more time. -- due 2010-01-20 -- CLOSED
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372
>
> NM: Does ACTION-378 cover it for now?
>
> DC: Yes
>
> *RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a change 
> proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change 
> proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue*
>
>
>       8. "Speaks for" formalism
>
> DC: Did the examples I sent work for you, Larry?
>
> <DanC> "Larry and everybody, Do the examples in this make sense? " -- 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0105.html
>
> See: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html
>
> DC: Don't know is OK.
>
> LM: I'll take an action for next week to review.
>
> <scribe> *ACTION:* larry to review DanC's email [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Review DanC's email [on Larry Masinter 
> - due 2010-02-04].
>
> <noah> DC: Hmm, action is pending review.
>
> <DanC> action-368?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-368 -- Dan Connolly to write up version change 
> ontology as blog item 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 -- due 
> 2010-03-01 -- OPEN
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/368
>
> <DanC> ^ an action related to language versioning terminology
>
>
>       12. Pending Review Items
>
> <DanC> close ACTION-371 (edit)
>
> <DanC> close ACTION-375
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-375 Schedule discussion of TAG contributions to W3C 
> Web Site (self-assigned, TRIVIAL) closed
>
> <DanC> close ACTION-371
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-371 Schedule TAG discussion of DAP WG query on 
> policy (self-assigned) closed
>
> <DanC> ACTION-163 due 1 Mar
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog 
> due date now 1 Mar
>
> <DanC> . close ACTION-231
>
> <DanC> ACTION-232?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Henry S. Thompson to follow-up to Hausenblas 
> once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg -- due 
> 2010-02-03 -- OPEN
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232
>
> <DanC> close ACTION-231
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" 
> stuff in HTTP spec closed
>
> <DanC> action-232 due 29 Jan
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of 
> HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now 29 Jan
>
> <DanC> action-232?
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Larry Masinter to follow-up to Hausenblas 
> once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg -- due 
> 2010-01-29 -- OPEN
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to Authoritative 
> Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of 
> sniffing -- due 2010-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308
>
> LMM: adam barth updated mime sniff last week
> ... i haven't reviewed
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Henry S. Thompson to track HTML WG progress 
> on their bug 8154 on polyglot documents -- due 2010-01-21 -- 
> PENDINGREVIEW
>
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326
>
>
>     Summary of Action Items
>
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to 
> the point. Larry to review. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* larry to review DanC's email [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* larry to review Web Arch web material and make 
> proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
>
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
> version 1.135 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 16:58:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT