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

Re: Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 21 January 2010

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:10:16 -0500
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB8DDAA02.FF794CBD-ON852576B8.000A3C1E-852576B8.000BA033@lotus.com>
Tyler Close wrote [1]:

> 1. The TAG does not dispute any of the arguments made in my web-key
> paper <http://waterken.sf.net/web-key>.

Jonathan Rees responded [2]:

> "The TAG" is a bunch of people and as a group they have formed no
> consensus. 

[responding as chair] I think the spirit of Jonathan's reply is correct. 
The TAG sometimes takes a formal position on the sorts of questions you 
are raising, but we have not done so in this case: the TAG as a group has 
not so far expressed an opinion one way or the other on the "arguments" 
made in the web-key paper.  I will say, informally, that I think we have 
found it thought provoking, and so very useful in at least that sense. 
Still, we may yet, as individuals or as a group, decide to raise concerns 
with some or all of it.

> But from Thursday's discussion it seems quite clear that
> Noah disagrees with your paper. 

[responding as an individual TAG member]  That's wasn't literally true, if 
only because at the time of our meeting on the 21st I had not in fact read 
Tyler's paper in detail.  I have since read it.   There are significant 
aspects of it that I do agree with and find helpful, but unfortunately, a 
significant number of aspects that I disagree with, or at least that 
trouble me.  Right now I'm busy trying to wrap up TAG agendas, and am 
somewhat buried in my day job, but I do hope to provide a more detailed 
response within a few days.  [as chair] We have a lot of other items on 
our agenda for this week, so we won't schedule it for telcon discussion; 
perhaps next week on the 4th.  [as individual]  With luck, I'll have a 
response by then.

> Whatever the benefits of web-keys, he [Noah]
> doesn't think URIs should *ever* require protection or carry
> authority, and given where he starts I'm not sure how your paper could
> have much effect.

[individual] That's probably a bit stronger than my position, but I would 
rather hold off getting into details until I can write a more considered 
response.  You are certainly right that I have serious reservations as to 
whether the Web as normatively specified provides appropriate protections 
for the transport and storage and display of such URIs (I'm aware that 
these points are discussed to some degree in the paper).  I also have some 
other concerns, such as whether use of fragids is appropriate per the 
pertinent specs.  Again, I'd rather set down those pros and cons more 
carefully before inviting debate on my position in particular.

Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0087.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0088.html

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 02:17:52 GMT

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