W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2011

Draft minutes of the 8-10 February 2011 TAG F2F Meeting are now available

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:31:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4D62BD99.7000701@arcanedomain.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Norm Walsh te <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Draft minutes of the 8-10 February 2011 TAG F2F meeting are now available 
at [1-3] and in text-only form below. The minutes are also linked from the 
agenda at [4]. Please revise or send suggestions for changes ASAP, and we 
will consider approving them on the call this Thursday.  Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-minutes
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/09-minutes
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes
[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda

=========================================================

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                       W3C TAG F2F Feb 8-10, 2011

Tuesday 08 Feb 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Noah Mendelsohn, Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees, Henry Thompson,
           Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Appelquist, John Kemp, Larry Masinter,
           Ashok Malhotra

    Regrets
           Yves Lafon

    Chair
           Noah Mendelsohn

    Scribe
           Jonathan Rees, Dan Appelquist

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Design of APIs for Web Applications
          2. [6]Web Applications: Security
          3. [7]scalabilityOfURIAccess-58: Scalability of URI Access to
             Resources
          4. [8]Web Applications: Client-side state
          5. [9]the IETF presentation...
          6. [10]Admin
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <jar> scribe: Jonathan Rees

    <jar> scribenick: jar

    Not convened yet, awaiting arrivals

    Convened

    intros

    jar: (intro)

    ht: (intro) sgml, xml , more recently status of uris in webarch

    dka: (intro) mobile web, privacy, social web

    timbl: (intro) DIG, privacy, policy, semweb UI

    ashok: (intro) standards, oasis, etc, rdb to rdf

    plinss: (intro) css, gecko, print as 1st-class citizen on web
    ... pre-css: object based editor on nextstep, design model. Digital
    Style Websuite

    noah: agenda review
    ... norm w is planning to spend all of wed. with us

    <ht> Noah, is this the number you used: email: LMM@acm.org
    (personal) masinter@adobe.com (company)

    <ht> tel: +1 408 536-3024

    noah: (re priorities session on thu) we had identified 3 areas,
    larry has created a 4th area of core technologies (mime, sniffing,
    etc)
    ... please think about tradeoffs

Design of APIs for Web Applications

    <DKA> DAP privacy requirements:
    [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/dap-privacy-reqs/#privacy-notice

      [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/dap-privacy-reqs/#privacy-notice

    dka: Looking at DAP group's document on requirements
    ... javascript apis that access things containing sensitive
    information - just about anyting
    ... camera, address book, calendar, orientation, velocity

    (pointing at table 'how each element is covered' with notice,
    consent, minimization, etc. rows)

    dka: what might the tag do to help promote privacy [control] on web?
    ... set of small, targeted docs that build on work of others (DAP,
    UCB, others)?
    ... look at existing docs, amplifying, put in specific web contexts.
    e.g. (for instance) Hannis (sp?) doc is general, DAP specific to
    DAP, connect them.

    projecting the API minimization note [URI in agenda]

    dka: come up with several examples of this idea in action
    ... want to sidestep Ashok's issue - about the Abelson et al. paper
    pointing out that user dialogs are silly, since they can't assess
    consequences

    Ashok: Abelson et al suggests to consider legal accountability as
    alternative

    dka: Vodafone privacy counsel said (at workshop) things are coming
    together on that front
    ... Minimization is not about this.

    timbl: Need global change in ethos regarding data use, independent
    of how they got it
    ... All these [tactics] need to be in the list

    dka: Looking for technical [tactics] that TAG might be able to say
    something about.
    ... image metadata capturing privacy intent?
    ... If you keep asking people about this, good results are unlikely

    timbl: What if you say: I want my friends to see my pictures. would
    be nice if software kept track of how/why friend got them, as
    reminder

    dka: Problem - technical jargon in dialog boxes ('GPS coordinates'
    ...)

    noah: You're saying the apps should be able to say: I don't need
    more info than xxx.
    ... What about malicious apps.

    dka: Remember this philosophical approach. We tend to get
    distracted. Need to find particular points to focus on.
    ... [Solve one problem at a time.]

    noah: ... But my experience is that most of the problems have to do
    with attackers
    ... and exploiters

    dka: Problem comes with attacker exploiting well-intended app. What
    to do to well-intended to make it less vulnerable to exploitation
    ... We need to be clear that even if you do [any particular thing],
    you won't have a privacy solution

    noah: Problem is interacting with untrusted services that I need to
    use.

    dka: The aggregate amount of info open to abuse is lower if you
    minimize. So several docs to chip away at specific things, not to
    provide comprehensive solution

    <ht> [13]http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/

      [13] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/

    <ht> is what JR is talking about

    <ht> LM and JK join the meeting at this point

    jar: security is just one way to support privacy... and need to do
    lots to get security. least privilege just one.

    ht: Dan's answer did address Noah's point. By specifying an approach
    that the platforms subscribe, you bound the damage that the bad guys
    can do. If they have less info, they can do less.
    ... You can reduce the bandwidth of any particular API call. This
    raises the barrier.

    dka: If the app only needs city location, but has to request fine
    grained location, ... is the right question being asked [or user,
    developer, app...?]

    noah: Document needs an intro that sets expectations

    masinter: Framing = it's warfare, we're minimizing the attack
    surface

    <ht> There is a HF/UI design/human engineering issue here which
    won't go away, but micro-capabilities do create a real opportunity
    to reduce your exposure, much as they make me tear my hair out as an
    implementor

    masinter: To say there's a way around a defense, is not an argument
    against the defense

    <noah> I also wanted to make the point that: dealing with access
    control (or legal means) that will prevent malicious apps from
    getting info they shouldn't have is crucial -- even if none of the
    solutions we have now have been shown to work very well (e.g.
    because users say "yes" to everything)

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to support DKA wrt NM's use case and to give
    the Mark Logic API parallel

    ht: I use two different xml database systems... the 'open' one has
    unix style object protection - file x RW
    ... the commercial one has about 60-70 capabilities. almost 1-1 on
    API calls, file x cap
    ... bigger effort to manage for both users and developers.
    ... you get high degree of control. Compare minimization. You have
    to get informed consent, but if it's granular enough you get
    questions that are specific enough to make sense

    dka: Resistance to normative requirements for UI design, esp. re
    privacy
    ... The minimization approach doesn't impose specific UI
    requirements. This might enable creative UI design

    johnk: There's always a useability tradeoff in security. E.g.
    facebook has tons of knobs
    ... but underneath there's a simple set of access control privs
    ... e.g. app needs to do something special to get email address
    ... This is a usability issue, a tradeoff

    dka: Re minimization, the approach stands, since it says nothing
    about the user interaction. [API and UI needn't slavishly
    correspond]

    <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to mention the FB API model

    noah: Proposal?

    <noah> I'm asking: what do you propose we do that will have real,
    useful impact for the community?

    dka: Useful output might be: Umbrella document. Privacy and webarch.
    Subdocuments, e.g. minimization.

    scribes - Tue JR / DA, Wed AM / ?, Th HT / ?

    masinter: Big discussion on privacy in larger community. Our
    schedule should coordinate with external events

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about participating in larger
    discussion

    masinter: What does API minimization have to do with HTTP?

    jar (under breath): there are HTTP APIs

    <masinter> my point is that if we're trying to decide what to do
    with some work that was focused in one group to generalize the
    principle in a way that it applies to all W3C work and not just to
    the work of one committee

    noah: DKA, can we get together and make a straw-man product
    proposal?

    masinter: E.g. can be a problem sending info in Accept: headers when
    it's not needed in order for server to do its job
    ... Trying to suggest how to expand this from a DAP point to a TAG
    point

    timbl: (masinter, you missed the beginning of the session)

    (break)

Web Applications: Security

    [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html

    jk: I was asked to frame section 7 of the webarch report on apps
    ... Wanted to echo [style of] Larry's MIME writeup
    ... If you start with browser/server/protocol, and trace history of
    the three with a security focus...
    ... start with just getting a doc.
    ... then more support in http. history in doc is well known but
    worth reviewing
    ... NN2 introduced cookies, and cookies needed origin

    <masinter> [15]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin

      [15] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin

    jk: Related to lost of security issues. State in protocol. Origin
    and document not linked securely.
    ... Why should you trust the DNS?

    timbl: It assumes there's a social connection between - and -. There
    was a trust model, it just wasn't cryptographically secure

    jk: These are layered protocols, that makes security harder. eg.
    DNSsec isn't bound to higher protocols

    ht: scripts??

    jk: Dynamically loaded scripts not subject to SOP

    noah: XML and JSON is good example - the weaker language was subject
    to tighter security controls - dumb

    ht: script with a source tag predates JSON. it was never subject to
    SOP ??

    <masinter> [16]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

      [16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

    timbl: Suddenly all these APIs have this extra parameter, the
    calling function ...

    <timbl> the function to be called by the injkected script tag

    jk: Cookies were easiest way to do session indicator. shopping carts
    and so on.
    ... AJAX was other driver
    ... XHR does use SOP, but using JSONP you can circumvent it
    ... apps send cookies from one place to another
    ... Trying to abstract away, to find security issues as opposed to
    implementation bugs. What issues are architectural in these examples
    ... One is, when doc contains multiple parts, contributed from
    different security domains

    noah: (When did we stop using the term 'representation'?)

    jk: If you don't mediate the interaction, e.g. using sandbox, bad
    things happen.
    ... e.g. runaway cpu time
    ... Silent redirects. Malicious site forwards, cookies sent to 2nd
    site -> clickjacking
    ... Authentication based on Referer: (i.e. referrer) header
    ... Servers depend on client to do the right thing, in particular
    proper origin processing
    ... Specs are difficult read, so there can be broken user agents.
    ... My advice: Server should not trust user agents. What are
    circumstances in which you can server can align with user

    timbl: We need to preserve the role of the user-agent as the agent
    of the (human) user.

    johnk: Yes, but we need to be a bit more nuanced. There shouldn't be
    inordinate trust in a class of agents. One should only need to trust
    an agent to a certain degree.

    noah: Users don't understand UAs well enough to be able to
    discriminate..

    <masinter> somehow I want to bring in
    [17]http://www.schneier.com/book-sandl.html'

      [17] http://www.schneier.com/book-sandl.html'

    timbl: That doesn't diminish the responsibility of UAs
    ... One of the the things the TAG does is to ascribe blame

    johnk: Who's responsible for a clickjacking attack? Software was
    behaving per spec

    masinter: Users are presented choices that they don't understand

    johnk: Not much you can do about that -

    masinter: don't require users to make decisions that they don't
    understand. design principle.
    ... optimize a match between what user wants and what happens.
    doesn't matter whether choices are simple or complex

    pl: You said simplicity might be better - maybe so at user level,
    not nec. across the system

    <masinter> complex choices are less likely to be understood, but
    simple choices might be a problem

    (scribe notes that henry suggested just the opposite. see above)

    jk: Cache poisoning might mean no link between IP and domain name...
    in fact no way to guarantee domain name ownership

    <masinter> want to talk about TAG work in context with
    [18]http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/

      [18] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/

    <masinter> Oct 2010 Submit 'HTTP Application Security Problem
    Statement and Requirements' as initial WG item. -- don't see that
    document

    jk: ssl... data not encrypted on hotspot

    timbl: Firefox 'get me out of here'

    jk: When you run web content, the content starts being rendered
    immediately - there is no install step. It just starts running

    ht: I've been manually virus checking every downloaded app. Can't do
    this with pages

    masinter: some antivirus sw modifies the HTTP stack

    noah: Also you lose the ability to make sticky decisions. Nextbus is
    an example of non-installed app but that you come back to repeatedly
    ... you keep getting asked for permssion to use location. annoying

    timbl: But most browsers do this well ?

    jk: Lack of tie-in between host naming and where you access the doc
    (where published)
    ... who is responsible for the content of the document?
    Nonrepudiation.

    timbl: You can sign the document until you're blue in the face ...

    noah: Doc is written by an expert, would be helpful if some of the
    examples were spelled out in more detail

    masinter: Security WG calls for a [...] document. Is what we're
    doing related to their work item?
    ... They have a bunch of specific documents, but nothing at this
    level

    jk: Their docs are very narrow

    masinter: No, look at their charter

    Oct 2010 Submit 'HTTP Application Security Problem Statement and
    Requirements' as initial WG item.

    masinter: Isn't this what we're doing?

    jk: The issue of mime sniffing. It became a good idea for the
    browser to ignore media type... problem is guessing user intent

    (slight aside)

    jk: So what would be desirable properties of security webarch?
    (reviewing doc)

    noah: please clarify use of 'web agent'
    ... 'tie' isn't evocative - what constitutes success? what system
    properties are we after?

    timbl: E.g. maybe avoid separation of authentication and
    authorization

    jk: App layer with signed piece of content, same key should be used
    in both levels of protocol stack (or at least related)

    timbl: WebID people have expereienced this need - converting keys
    between apps / layers - PGP to log in using ssh etc.

    ht: I'm having to use Kerberos - very inconvenient - when I ssh from
    laptop home I need a kerberos principal... way too much work... [so
    unification cuts both ways?]

    timbl: but kerberos isn't public-key
    ... The thing about connecting the two parts together is valuable

    jk: WebID is a case where it can't be done. User generates a cert,
    puts it in foaf file. Impossible to tie foaf description of me with
    me the person.

    masinter: can show 1 person wrote 2 things

    noah: Same issue as in PGP - you have to be careful when first
    picking up the key

    jk: what's the purpose of encrypting the assertion (in webid)?...
    ... 3rd bullet in properties section: We should be able to do what
    the original web design wanted us to do

    timbl: But doesn't CORS do this for us?

    jar: Controversial.

    <masinter> W3C TAG should be a participant in overall work on web
    security, including other work in IETF and W3C

    <noah> ACTION-417?

    <masinter> action-417?

    <trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
    due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

    <masinter> ACTION-417?

    <trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
    due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

    masinter: There's ongoing work. We should review it regularly and be
    seen as a participant. The way to do that is to publish a note, and
    announce, repeat. But be clear that we're not trying to take the
    lead.

    noah: But the action was to frame a section of our document...

    <masinter> The W3C chapter on security on the web could identify
    that there are some issues and point at other groups that are
    working on the problems

    <masinter> W3C TAG should have input on W3C activities decisions,
    and this should be a W3C activity, on "security and privacy"

    ashok: Let's close 417, start another one to write a note. If that
    becomes bigger/better, fine.

    masinter: In general the TAG should be more involved in setting up
    W3C activities.

    timbl: So far it's just been a series of workshops, not an activity

    ashok: Privacy at w3 is morphing

    masinter: Would like to see a note out before Prague meeting (end of
    March)

    <noah> noah: any objection to a proposal to close ACTION-417, and
    have John publish what he's got, slightly cleaned up, as a note with
    no formal status, but at a stable URI. Noah will help.

    <noah> Larry will help too, and would like this done in time for
    IETF in Prague.

    <noah> PROPOSAL: close ACTION-417, and have John publish what he's
    got, slightly cleaned up, as a note with no formal status, but at a
    stable URI. Noah will help.

    <noah> No objections.

    <noah> close ACTION-417

    <trackbot> ACTION-417 Frame section 7, security closed

    <noah> action John to publish
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
    cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html

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

    <noah> action Larry (as trackbot proxy for John) who will publish
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
    cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-515 - (as trackbot proxy for John) who
    will publish
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
    cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07 [on Larry
    Masinter - due 2011-02-15].

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to talk with Thomas Roessler about organizing
    W3C architecture work on security [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-516 - Talk with Thomas Roessler about
    organizing W3C architecture work on security [on Noah Mendelsohn -
    due 2011-02-15].

    <DKA> Scribe: Dan

    <DKA> ScribeNick: DKA

    [roll call]

    Noah: Ted is joining us.

scalabilityOfURIAccess-58: Scalability of URI Access to Resources

    Noah: [background] there are certain resources w3c publishes on its
    website - e.g. dtds...
    ... certain organizations were [fetching] these resources a lot.

    <ted> [25]summary Yves wrote of actions taken by W3C

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0016.html

    Noah: practical question: what can be done? Architectural question:
    what can be fixed in the architecture?

    <ted> [26]article on DTD traffic

      [26] 
http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic

    Noah: one angle proposed is : what would be the role of a catalog?
    You could tell people that certain resources won't change or won't
    change any time soon so they could build [their products] not to
    fetch these resources.
    ... Anything else from Ted?

    Ted: We've employed some different techniques - for certain patterns
    we've given http 503 after reaching a threashold. At peaks, we see
    half a billion a day. Starts to become a problem. Sometimes this has
    resulted in blocking organizations.
    ... if it's an organization that is a member then we pursue through
    the AC rep...
    ... this doesn't scale well.
    ... there are several big libraries - eg. msxml - they've put a fix
    in which has led to a sharp decline.
    ... Norm Walsh came up with a URI resolver in Java that would
    implement a caching catalog solution but this never made its way
    into Sun JDK.
    ... Sun has been bought by Oracle so now we are talking to Oracle
    engineers and they have been responsive. Trying to see if we can get
    something into next JDK.
    ... We had a fast response from Python.

    Noah: Do you ask these people to implement caching or a catalog?

    Ted: We suggest either. I like the caching catalog solution [from
    Norm].
    ... we educate, we block, we have a high-volume proxy front-end that
    distinguishes traffic...
    ... when we explain to people that this is not good architecture -
    receiving the same thing over the network 100000's times a day -
    they agree.
    ... we probably should be in the business of packaging and promoting
    the catalog. Henry has done some work on this.
    ... the idea we came up with - find the most popular ones based on
    traffic and we routinely package these up, have RSS feeds to alert
    to catalog changes, talk to Oracle, Microsoft, Python, etc... get
    some of the bigger customers out there to adopt the catalog.
    ... meta-topic (that the TAG is concerned with) is the scalability
    of URIs in general. There is a lack of directives to do rate
    limiting, to set boundaries, how to scale URIs... Could be useful in
    dealing with DDOS attacks.

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about RSS feeds fro updates to
    things with distant expiry dates.

    <masinter> who's here?

    Tim: We don't have real push technology available (apart from Email)
    but supposing we make a package [a catalog] and we send them out.
    Then an erratum comes in for something that has a 12 month expiry
    date. Do we need a revocation mechanism?

    Henry: I think there's an 80/20 point. Speaking as a user, I'm
    grateful for the shift from the 503s to the tarpitting.
    ... the delay of 30 seconds helps people to remind people to get the
    catalog.
    ... so that's a step forward. In response to Tim: the HTML DTDs are
    close to 80% of the problem, and they are legacy, they are not
    changing. If there were turn-key solutions for the tools that
    legitimately need those DTDs to validate - that made it easy for SAs
    to install the catalog that would cause the tools to find them, then
    I don't think there's an expiry problem.

    Tim: We have to consider the new and the old separately.

    <scribe> ... new systems could be designed differently. The total
    load on the server from the HTML dtd will go down over time.

    Tim: My proposal - the old is finite damage, in the future we can
    issue different systems. This connects to an alternative to catalogs
    - promote a version of http that is much more robust, which could
    help Ted and could also help with other situations where someone has
    been disconnected from the net (e.g. the recent situation in Egyot).
    The new http version could use a number of different algorithms
    (e.g. P2P) to find the resource you are after.
    ... so that the chance of finding a copy locally (of a DTD) would be
    quite high.
    ... after the Egypt situation, there's been a lot of interest in
    this.
    ... I'd love to have the TAG push that forward.

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to mention HTTP automatically morphing to
    P2P when under stress

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about what's required vs. what's
    desirable

    Noah: I think the role for the TAG is to talk about the problem that
    is not specific to particular resources like the html dtd. In
    previous times I've come across this problem, the response from some
    has been "well you should be running a proxy" - is that correct? And
    in some cases it is actually cheaper to make multiple http
    requests...
    ... so: we could clarify the responsibilities that people have to
    cache or to not cache.
    ... should we change the normative specs?
    ... [some will push bacl]
    ... for long term - we could break open this protocol http version
    2.

    Ted: Looking over the rfc-2616, the language is "should" around
    caching of http.
    ... it's optional and treated as such.
    ... lighter-weight implementations tend to be very barebones.
    ... I think promoting catalogs is the way to go - and we should work
    to get major libraries to include it, ship it, and have it enabled
    by default.
    ... I think the focus for the TAG should be in the meta problem. How
    to make URIs and web sites scale.
    ... Sites do get overwhelmed. There is no way to let consumers of
    this data know what is acceptable behaviour besides sending back a
    503.

    <masinter> should also note that HTML itself has gotten rid of DTDs.
    But isn't main problem giving out "http:" URIs in the first place?

    Ted: we see lots of sites experiencing similar problems.

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to speak up for the user

    Noah: I read it as a MAY in rfc-2616

    <noah> From RFC-2616 section 13.2.1:

    <noah> The primary mechanism for avoiding

    <noah> requests is for an origin server to provide an explicit
    expiration

    <noah> time in the future, indicating that a response MAY be used to
    satisfy

    <noah> subsequent requests.

    <noah> So, it's a MAY not a SHOULD.

    Henry: I'm concerned about the message we're sending to students
    "you should produce valid html, valid XML, etc..." and yet when they
    try to validate their documents they have to wait 30 seconds.
    ... because the web page has the public identifier.

    Tim: Why does the validator not cache it?

    Henry: Because the number of validators out there is quite large,
    and the free ones (while they support catalogs) but they don't
    distribute the catalog of DTS as part of their install.

    <ted> [libxml from the beginning shipped w a catalog]

    <masinter> valid HTML no longer has a doctype
    [27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4

      [27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4

    Tim: That can be fixed relatively easily - the DTDs can be wired
    into the code for things that aren't going to change any more.

    Henry: The crucial people you need to convince are the open source
    implementers.

    Noah: in many cases, when you dig into what needs to be fixed, it is
    not straightforward to change all the implementations...

    Henry: I am more worried about the people [students] who are the
    future of the Web. The people who use off-the-shelf free validator
    tools and get burned.

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to give strawman: specs were wrong, so
    asking people to run a proxy is really only to compensate for our
    failures

    Noah: should we undertake any work to help ted and/or ongoing work.

    Larry: I think it was a serious design mistake to put a URL in a
    document that you didn't want anyone to retrieve and not tell them
    that.
    ... all of these proxies are compensating for someone else's
    mistake.
    ... I'm worried it was a mistake in more than one way. The
    presumption was that if I send you a message with a pointer to a DTD
    there is some expectation that you'll get the same DTD that I meant
    you to get. But the lifetime of the message can be longer than the
    lifetime of the DTD.

    <Zakim> johnk, you wanted to note that waiting 30 seconds should be
    to encourage alternate behaviour

    Larry: We should think of the architectural design flaw here and
    make sure we don't do this again.

    <masinter> "there are no cool URLs, everything changes eventually"

    John: Pragmatically, tarpitting requests that are overwhelming your
    server seems like the right way to deal with it [counterpoint to
    Henry's statement]. They should learn that they are doing something
    wrong.

    <masinter> "the URL is already broken"

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask: is it a mistake?

    John: I'm worried we're going to overthink this, when education plus
    pragmatic tarpitting could be the right response.

    Noah: My inclination is close to John's. This is a big distributed
    file system. [The system should cope with this.]

    <timbl> We have to design for the scale free web an we should be
    able to have specific designs tailored to make the extreme case of
    the most popular document/DTD/etc work, but we should not let that
    blind us to the general needs o fthe long tail.

    Noah: what's implicit in what John is saying - these things are
    there to be dereferenced, in principle, you can look at these DTDs
    whenever you need to. The burden should be on the infrastructure to
    gracefully degrade and provide fair service. Tarpitting is a fine,
    proposed recommendation of best practice here.

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to long tail

    Tim: There are lots of DTD-like things out there. We need to be able
    to copy with various different scaling. We could provide some
    specific tailored response for these w3c issues. There may be
    similar things with some libraries...

    Noah: Let's say there 100,000 ontologies, getting a lot of traffic.
    Let's say if I work my way through 100,000 ontologies in a loop.
    Should I also be tarpitted?

    Tim: No.
    ... I won't want to mess up the fact that in general you should be
    able to dereference a dtd if you want to.

    Jonathan: I'd like to hear more from Tim about the economics.
    [Analogy:] there's a popular library book. A library buys a copy.
    There's a lot of demand for i so you have to get in line to get it.
    For physical goods there is an infrastructure to support this.
    ... Publishers can take care of it.

    Tim: For the case of harry potter, the book industry operates
    differently, because it's a different scale of usage.

    Jonathan: Transaction costs [on the web] are so much lower.
    Inexpensive social expectations.

    <masinter> One downside of using URIs for things other than href@a
    and img@src is that these scale issues arise. This has been an
    architectural principle, to use html: URIs for things that you don't
    really intend to be referenced. it's not the only downside

    <noah> I guess I just disagree that they should not be derefenced

    Jonathan: it's a question of economics in relation to social
    expectations. ... who pays for what.

    <noah> On the contrary, we've said that when you make things like
    namespaces, we want you to use tcp-scheme URIs precisely so that you
    CAN dereference them.

    <noah> Larry, these DTD references are like img src -- each of the
    references is from an HTML document.

    Larry: there has been an architectural principle for using URIs
    other than for HREFs and IMG SRC .. that architectural encouragement
    has some downsides. One of which is a scaling issue. You expect an
    IMG SRC to get as many retrievals as the document. And HREF to get
    as many requests as people clicking on it. So you can scale
    appropriately. DTDs, namespaces, ontologoes don't follow that model.
    ... The mismatch has led to a couple of problems.

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to disagree with Larry

    Larry: let's acknowledge the problem.

    Noah: [disagreeing on the different scaling model between DTDs and
    IMG SRC...]

    Ted: To Tim's point: a software engineer comes up with a brand new
    ontology, puts it on his web site, it becomes popular - he will have
    the same headaches and hassles as we do.

    Noah: If apache came pre-configured to handle the load would you be
    happy?

    Ted: Yes, for example, if apache told search engines "I'm busy right
    now please come back later" then that would be good. You can't
    express in http your pain threshold.

    Tim: TCP works really well because you stuff in as much as you can.
    It was designed at 300 baud times and it works at 300 gigabit times.
    ... You want to have negotiated quality of service.

    <masinter> speaking of Van Jacobson,
    [28]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking

      [28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to say that the problem was the W3C
    published a STANDARD that pointed to a http URI rather than
    something more permanent and to

    Larry: Van Jacobson - has an interesting project on content-centric
    networks that we might want to look into.

    [debate on whether DTDs are intended to be retrieved or not]

    Noah: Next steps...

    <noah> ACTION-390?

    <trackbot> ACTION-390 -- Daniel Appelquist to review ISSUE-58 and
    suggest next steps -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390

    Dan: I don't have an answer...

    <ted> ted: the # (2-3?) of connection limit per ip gets in the way
    of user experiences as well, making CDN more popular. as
    administrator i would like to improve a user's browser experience
    (faster load time) and allow in some cases more concurrent
    connections

    Noah: The simple answer is to [keep this on the back burner]. I need
    a proposal on what we should do and who does it.

    <ted> ted: i also want to encourage search engines to crawl me and
    do so efficiently when convenient for me

    Noah: I think we need a short finding on what people's
    responsibilities are regarding caching.

    Henry: I will reach out to [authors of XML parsers].

    <ted> s/ted: i also/[i also

    Tim: We should write what we want clients to do.

    <masinter> wonder if Henry could write up what he's asking and what
    they say or do?

    Henry: A good idea is - what Ted mentioned - an adaptive caching
    mechanism.

    Noah: We could talk about turing the MAY in rfc-2616 to a SHOULD.

    Larry: I am against that. I think it's the wrong place.

    Noah: When you have a piece of software that is in a position to
    detect repeated requests, you should cache.

    <ted> [if caching was less optional and more widely deployed on net
    popular resources would scale better and performance would be
    better]

    John: [supporting tarpitting]
    ... I think it should be cached in the open source code level...

    <masinter> (a) I don't think we can quickly come to a conclusion,
    but (b) Henry has agreed to ask tool authors to do something, (c)
    think we could endorse what Henry asks if the tool authors are
    willing to go along with it

    <johnk> Norm has written about this;
    [30]http://nwalsh.com/docs/articles/xml2003/

      [30] http://nwalsh.com/docs/articles/xml2003/

    [discussion of caching catalog and whether or not it's a catalog]

    <masinter> for example, "clear my cache" for privacy reasons might
    not clear the catalog

    Henry: the OASIS catalog is just a string-to-string matcher,
    matching HTTP URIs to loca disk copies.

    Larry: for privacy reasons you might want to say "clear my cache"
    but that wouldn't clear my catalog.

    Noah: What's implicit in john's proposal: separation of concerns.

    Tim: I hope you wouldn't expect clients to spot that tcp connection
    is going slowly...

    <masinter> there are several places to intercept this problem. The
    first is the choice of the URI scheme for DTD or namespace or
    ontology. Second is choice of server and server infrastructure for
    serving, when the URI scheme is "http". Third is design of client
    software, fourth is operation of client.

    Noah: the server is creating a network that is robust against
    traffic access pattern. Different clients will make different
    choices. A client might not need to change anything [in the case of
    e.g. tarpitting]. [if you are not time sensitive]

    Larry: Henry - I would like you to document what you tell [the
    implementors] and report back what they say.

    Dan: on the p2p topic - should we be doing something here?

    Henry: I don't know enough the next gen internet...

    Tim: I don't think that internet2 is reinventing http.

    <ted> [p2p has too much overhead (startup time to connect to peers)
    imho to be worthwhile for small resources. yves makes that point as
    well in his email]

    Noah: This seems like an area where if we succeed it will take a
    third of our bandwidth. Rather than inviting people from the p2p
    community, we should either back off and do small things OR get one
    or 2 people on the tag to do a survey of what's out there and report
    back at the next f2f.
    ... but we need people who want to put time into that.

    Henry: over the next 2-3 years we better start thinking about how
    much of webarch is going to survive [with the next gen internet].
    The interface between the tcp/ip layer and the http layer has
    thus-far been very clean. There's no guarantee that will be true
    10-15 years from now. The TAG needs to start thinking about how we
    (the We
    ... web) is going to survive.
    ... [clarifying] as the future becomes clearer, we need to start
    tracking it ...

    <Zakim> ted, you wanted to put that on rec

    Noah: I want to focus this on next steps.

    <ted> ted: ^^ comment on merits of caching. in practice as we've
    heard from noah the costs of maintaining caching proxies too high
    compared to bandwidth.

    <ted> ted: glad to hear larry's comment. get library developers to
    implement what ht suggests. i heard ht (and others) liked norm's
    caching catalog. would oracle implement it in jdk?

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to suggest Henry write that up

    test

    Ted: [ speaking in support of the caching catalog approach ]

    <Zakim> DKA, you wanted to remind people that just because there is
    a next-gen or internet2 activity doesn't mean that will be the
    future of the internet. :)

    <noah> NM: Ted, anything hi priorty you want the TAG to do?

    <noah> TG: Day by day, we're getting by. The catalog work would be
    helpful. What seems really useful is for the TAG to tackle the
    meta-issue.

    <noah> TG: Directives are potentially useful; peer-to-peer seems
    most applicable for large things.

    <noah> NM: Large or high volume?

    <noah> TG: P2P startup times are typically significant, so large
    resources.

    <ted> [and p2p could be intersting failover for http]

    <noah> NM: Floor is open for volunteers

    <noah> ACTION: Larry to help us figure out whether to say anything
    about scalability of access at IETF panel [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-517 - Help us figure out whether to say
    anything about scalability of access at IETF panel [on Larry
    Masinter - due 2011-02-15].

    <ht> trackbot, status?

    <ht> ACTION: Henry S. to report back on efforts to get undertakings
    from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs
    configured into their tools [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-518 - S. to report back on efforts to get
    undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned
    catalogs configured into their tools [on Henry S. Thompson - due
    2011-02-15].

    <noah> . ACTION Peter to frame architectural opportunities relating
    to scalability of resource access

    <ht> trackbot, action-518 due 2011-07-15

    <trackbot> ACTION-518 S. to report back on efforts to get
    undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned
    catalogs configured into their tools due date now 2011-07-15

    <noah> ACTION Peter to frame architectural opportunities relating to
    scalability of resource access Due: 2011-03-15

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-519 - Frame architectural opportunities
    relating to scalability of resource access Due: 2011-03-15 [on Peter
    Linss - due 2011-02-15].

    <noah> close ACTION-390

    <trackbot> ACTION-390 Review ISSUE-58 and suggest next steps closed

Web Applications: Client-side state

    <noah> ACTION-514 Due 2011-03-01

    <trackbot> ACTION-514 Draft finding on API minimization Due:
    2011-02-01 due date now 2011-03-01

    <noah> (that should have been fixed this morning)

    [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html

    Noah: I think this draft needs to make a few key points...

    Ashok: there is at the end a section on recommendations...
    ... sections 4, 5 and 6 are the heart of it.

    Noah: Can it be abstracted into a one or 2 sentence best practice?

    [ looking through section 4 and picking out BP statements ]

    <noah> I'm seeing as potential recommendations:

    <noah> As the state of the resource and the display changes, the
    fragment identifier can be changed to keep track of the state.

    <masinter> I think the wording would be better if recast a bit

    <noah> ...and...

    <noah> if the URI is sent to someone else the fragment identifier
    can be used to recreate the state.

    <masinter> "the application can be designed so that the fragment
    identifier 'identifies' the state"

    <noah> NM: What about "?" vs. "#

    Ashok: I have added one paragraph - in the google maps case which I
    think talks about that.

    <noah> AM: I added a para about that.

    <masinter> "the application can be designed so that the fragment
    identifier identifies or encodes the relevant transferable parts of
    the state"

    Jonathan: Isn't this a special case of "use URIs to name things"?
    There are things that happen when you click or do a manipulation in
    your UI. You can name that action with a URI (a hyperlink) or you
    can not name it with a URI. If you use a URI then you have a control
    you can move out of the page.

    Ashok: Yes.

    Larry: the application can be designed so that the fragment
    identifier identifies or encodes the relevant transferable parts of
    the state

    Ashok: Yes.

    Larry: in the case of a map application with a lot of state, then
    you want the app to be designed so that the URI contains the [part
    of the state that you want to be transferred to another client]

    <Ashok> Larry: You can design the app so that the frag ig identifies
    or encodes the state you want uniformly erferenced

    Larry: the part that you want to have uniformly referenced.

    Noah: let's suspend disbelief and assume that google maps used hash
    signs. The question is: state of what? [demonstrates using google
    maps]

    Ashok: What [gmaps

    Noah: there are a lot of http interactions under the covers...
    ... let's be careful about what is the transferable part of the
    resource...
    ... originally, [in the case of gmaps] an http request was made for
    the generic [34]http://maps.google.com document.
    ... scrolling through this map feels like scrolling through an http
    document.
    ... the question I want to raise: for this class of apps, you
    emphasise that there is a virtual document that is the map...

      [34] http://maps.google.com/

    Ashok: [points to text in:
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html#Inter
    actionState]
    ... we can work on this wording...

      [35] 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110208.html#InteractionState

    Tim: When you're looking at the map... It's interesting that you
    don't use the hash as you drive around... They do not use the hash,
    but they could...

    Ashok: the question mark tells you what to bring from the server.
    the has would not tell you that.

    Tim: they both would...

    Ashok: I disagree it could be done with the hash.

    Tim: What comes back on the response is a piece of javascript. The
    javascript then starts pulling in all the tiles.

    Ashok: if the only thing that comes back is javascript on the first
    get... [then it could be hash...]

    Noah: I think one of the attractions of this - is you don't have to
    do the distribution in the same way in all cases. If I use the hash
    sign and I us it in an email reader, the typical email client
    [wouldn't handle it correctly].
    ... [disables javascript and reloads the map from google maps; it
    works]
    ... You couldn't do that with the hash sign.

    Ashok: Your first access gets you the app plus some javascript...

    Noah: where does the word representation apply. In the case of
    gmaps, is it a representation when it is generated with javascript,
    client side?

    Tim: yes, it's a representation.
    ... lots and lots of web pages are filled in with javascript.

    Noah: Ok - it would be good to tell that story. Many web pages do
    this. There may be other ajax apps where you get different behavior.

    Ashok: I'll ask TV if he can tell us what goes on under the covers
    [of google maps].

    <johnk> example 3 talks about client URI generation -
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html

    Tim: History manipulation - to be able to change the behavior of the
    back button and change what's in the location bar - is in firefox 4.

    Ashok: [talking through section 6]
    ... Do these or don't these violate specs and what do / should we
    do?
    ... frag ids for html and xml... many media types don't define usage
    of frag ids..

    Larry: But we are specifically talking about http and html...

    Ashok: [last paragraph] - "active content"

    Larry: When you talk about URIs do you mean URIs in general, or just
    http URIs...?
    ... [you need to be specific.]

    Tim: I think we should make feel bad about using hash in this way.
    We should change the specs.

    Larry: We should fix the specs to match.

    Henry: I'm happier with doing this if we can say "because it's not
    incompatible" with the speced story.

    Larry: originally content was static. Fragment ids were pointers to
    static pointers. Now content is active...

    Henry: the interpretation of stuff after the hash should be client
    side...

    [broad agreement]

    Larry: it would be great if URIs worked [interoperated] between
    google maps and yahoo maps...

    Henry: Historically the spec told you that all you needed to know
    was the media type of the response, now it's more tightly coupled.

    <Ashok> The page tells you what the fragId is used for

    Tim: what's interesting about the maps space - it would be great if
    the user has independent control over what happens when you get a
    GEO URI... what service you want to use...

    John: Lat and Long have meaning in the real world. You also have the
    position on a map, which is different from the real space. The third
    part is the panning and zooming.

    Tim: all you need is the lat - lon.
    ... the user [should] just see lat, long.

    <ht> There has been a real change in where the responsibility for
    determining the meaning of the post-# strings lies

    <ht> Per the existing specs, it's global, and lies in the media type
    registration

    <ht> Per the practice under discussion, it lies with the [transitive
    closure of] the representation retrieved for the pre-# URI

    <ht> This is parallel to where the code comes from the _implements_
    the semantics: for the existing spec. story, it's in the UA from the
    beginning, because it's known at UA-creation time, because it comes
    from the media type spec.

    <ht> whereas for the new usage, it's in the retrieved representation
    itself

    John: I think this goes back to the coupling issue.

    Ashok: [back to the document] Section 7 - I didn't do anything with
    it - Yves says take it out...

    Noah: It feels like we haven't nailed the good practices and
    recommendation. There are some interesting bits here. I'd like to
    see them in support of some news [some concrete recommendations].
    Then we could see what other groups we need to coordinate with.

    [back up to section 4]

    <noah> Noah: Not happy with the word "operate" in section 4.

    [discussion on the wording]

    <noah> Noah: I think it's more like: the JavaScript uses the
    fragment identifier as well as other information to render the
    representation(?) of the resource.

    <noah> Noah: I think it's more like: the JavaScript uses the
    fragment identifier as well as other information to render and
    support interaction with the representation(?) of the resource.

    <noah> Noah: On "As the state of the resource and the display
    changes, the fragment identifier can be changed to keep track of the
    state." Yes, but we need to get clear on pros and cons of ? vs. #

    Dan: do you need to assume programmatic access to the
    history/address bar?

    <noah> TBL: The key point on # vs ? is that when you update the
    address bar, the page >will< reload. In the case of #, well, the
    right document is already loaded. In the case of ?, the tendency
    would be to reload the page.

    <noah> TBL: Right, and when the GET happens, you lose state.

    Noah: This finding has been slowly evolving. Need to hear from the
    TAG : we need to focus on it, get it to where people are happy and
    move ahead.

    +1 on its usefulness.

    Jonathan: I am not worked up about it. My focus tends to be on what
    does the stuff mean, independent on the protocols.
    ... I can't figure out who it would help or who would pay attention.

    Henry: The thing that caused me to wake up: the two people who have
    the most invested in the history saying "yes we should change the
    spec." [Larry and Tim] So the way we should change this spec is to
    have a set of guidelines and suggestions on what specs should
    change, how they should change and why it's OK.

    Larry: the media type registration needs to say (for active content)
    when and how those parameters are passed to the active content. We
    are extending something originally designed for passive content to
    change for active content.

    Henry: So this should be a story about how we think about media type
    registration in the space [active content] that we are now living
    in.

    Larry: ..make the frag identifiers useful for the potion of the
    state that you are interested in [uniformly referencing].
    ... We could start with the current document as a note and use that
    as a basis to add something to the mime-web document and maybe
    another document.

    Noah: the document either has to cut the advice out, or it needs to
    give advice in close to the style that we've done in findings. "Good
    practice: xxx , explanation"...
    ... or describe use cases.
    ... Ashok I think that work needs to be done before publishing it as
    a note.

    Larry: I'm OK with it. The context is a discovery...

    Dan: I think that sounds like the right approach - reformatting /
    expanding some of the recommendations and publishing it as a note.

    John: I think it makes sense to document things we'd like to see
    happen.
    ... highlighting that kind of usage is good. But I worry that it's
    getting a bit wooly.
    ... I told Raman when I reviewed this document that he could pull
    out 2 things - the same things referenced in section 4 of the
    current document.

    Ashok: I think we can make this [section 4] better.
    ... If people think that after that we can publish this as a note,
    great. Following that, if you want something smaller - one page,
    about spec recommendations, then we can pull that out.

    Noah: that could be as simple as giving someone an action...

    <masinter> action-508?

    <trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report
    regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due:
    2011-01-03 -- due 2011-02-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508

    <masinter> action-500?

    <trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG
    participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

    <noah> Leave ACTION-481 as is

    <noah> ACTION-508?

    <trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report
    regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due:
    2011-01-03 -- due 2011-02-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508

    <noah> LM: Ashok's document should be a stable reference.

    <noah> ACTION-508 Due 2011-02-22

    <trackbot> ACTION-508 Draft proposed bug report regarding
    interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due: 2011-01-03 due
    date now 2011-02-22

    <masinter> action-508 should say that the problem is that #XXXX are
    parameters to acdtive content

the IETF presentation...

    Larry: What is the boundary between "the web" and the "rest of the
    Internet"?

    ISSUE-500?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-500 does not exist

    <masinter> issue-500?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-500 does not exist

    <masinter> action-500?

    <trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG
    participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

    <Yves> [re: Ashok's document on fragments, I'll send further
    comments/help working on it]

    [debate on what is implied by the quote from the IAB]

    <Ashok> Thanks, Yves!

    Noah: The TAG has decided to say yes to participating on the IETF
    panel in Prague.

Admin

    Noah: Once again, welcome to Peter.
    ... Minutes of the 20th - approved?

    Minutes of the 20th are approved.

    Noah: Note that TPAC is happening November in Santa Clara.
    ... we would normally meet sometime in may timeframe. there is an ac
    meeting in bilbao, spain in may.
    ... so - open to suggestions.
    ... we could meet in Cambridge again...

    Tim: 11-12-13 of May in London...?

    Noah: Doesn't work for me.
    ... Who else is going to the ac meeting?
    ... 9-11 in the UK?

    Larry: Week of the 9th I am completely booked.

    Noah: Week after the AC?

    [week of the 23rd]

    [not good for Tim]

    Noah: Week of June 6?
    ... 7-8-9 of June?

    Tim: Yes could do it - would have to be in Cambridge.

    Noah: Formal proposal - 7-9 June in cambridge Mass for next TAG f2f
    meeting.

    +1

    Noah: Should we talk about September?

    Henry: I would be happy to host.

    +1 to edinburgh in September.

    <noah> ACTION: Settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15 F2F Due
    2011-05-31 [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]

      [41] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04

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

    <noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet at MIT 7-9 June

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15
    F2F Due 2011-05-31 [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]

      [42] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-520 - Settle London vs. Edinburgh for
    Sept. 13-15 F2F Due 2011-05-31 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
    2011-02-15].

    <noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet in the UK 13-15 Sept, either
    Edinburgh or London, TBD see ACTION-520

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Henry S. to report back on efforts to get undertakings
    from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs
    configured into their tools [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Larry to help us figure out whether to say anything
    about scalability of access at IETF panel [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15
    F2F Due 2011-05-31 [recorded in
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to talk with Thomas Roessler about organizing W3C
    architecture work on security [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Settle London vs. Edinburgh for Sept. 13-15 F2F Due
    2011-05-31 [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]

      [43] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
      [44] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
      [45] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action05
      [46] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
      [47] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action04

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [48]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([49]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/02/21 19:02:35 $

      [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/



=========================================================

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                       W3C TAG F2F Feb 8-10, 2011

Wedmesdau 09 Feb 2011

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Noah Mendelsohn, Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees, Henry Thompson,
           Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Appelquist, John Kemp, Larry Masinter,
           Ashok Malhotra, Norm Walsh

    Regrets
           Yves Lafon

    Chair
           Noah Mendelsohn

    Scribes
           Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Dan Appelquist

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Agenda review
          2. [5]HTML-XML-Divergence-67: HTML / XML Unification
          3. [6]HTML Prefixes, Namespaces and Extensibility
          4. [7]XML HTML task force
          5. [8]Metadata Architecture
             (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html)
          6. [9]Persistence of references
          7. [10]tag meeting in June
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <Ashok> scribenick: Ashok

Agenda review

    <scribe> scribe: Ashok

    <DKA> First draft of "product" page for privacy drafts:
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PrivacyFriendlyWeb.html

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/PrivacyFriendlyWeb.html

HTML-XML-Divergence-67: HTML / XML Unification

    <ht> [13]http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml

      [13] http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml

    <ht> [14]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

      [14] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

    <johnk>
    [15]http://appliedlife.blogspot.com/2009/08/markup-languages-family-
    tree.html - I did this when I was reading the HTML5 spec last year

      [15] 
http://appliedlife.blogspot.com/2009/08/markup-languages-family-tree.html

    Noah: Norm is chairing the XML/HTML unification taskforce
    ... Issue-120 on HTML is on distributed extensibility
    ... there is also an issue on RDFa prefixes

    Norm: We consituted the taskforce with a mixture of XML and HTML
    folks

    <noah> Norm's blog entry on the state of play in the HTML/XML
    Unification subgroup:
    [16]http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml

      [16] http://norman.walsh.name/2011/02/08/html-xml

    Norm: strted to figure out what the problem was ... didn't get very
    far
    ... then started on usecases

    <ht> [17]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

      [17] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

    <noah> Use cases wiki: [18]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

      [18] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

    Norm: We can discuss the usecases

    LM: They are usecase categories
    ... you say XML Toolcahin but there are many flavors of Toolchains
    with different requirements
    ... I don't see roundtripping

    Norm: Roundtripping was something we talked about but did not make
    it as a usecase

    LM: Some may not think some of these use cases are important ...
    relating them to successful use may be very helpful

    ht: Kai Scheppe from Deutsche Telekom AG talked about how XHTML had
    been very helpful
    ... discusses another commercial usecase

    <masinter> i think our feedback that going down to get more concrete
    examples that would increase credibility

    ht: Such commercial usecases would be useful

    <masinter> HTML is not good for data scraping....

    ht: Many colleagues scrape data and waste lots of time with HTML ...
    XHTML is much better for them

    LM: (discusses use case details) -- for example analysis and
    extraction, looking for keywords, summarization

    Noah: Norm, could you talk about the mindset of the group and where
    it is going

    <masinter> different detailed use cases have different
    requirements...e.g., "scraping" might have performance requirements,
    while those of "processing" care about fidelity

    <masinter> round-tripping has even higher requirement for fidelity
    beyond import + export

    Noah: Says group members ready to leave
    ... if we refine usecases that may convince some people to stay and
    work on the issue

    LM: We need to solicit additional requirements from more real (esp
    commercial) users

    Norm: Roundtripping may be a new usecase

    LM: usecase is starting with HTML, doing some XML processing abd
    then enitting HTML

    Tim: The common DOM does not work because you don't add new TBody
    elements

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about scripts

    LM: Using an XML Toolcahin to produce HTML -- new usecase

    <noah> TBL: If the task force just nourishes and maintains the
    concept of polyglot, that would be very userful

    Norm: The HTML folks were quick to reject the Polyglot spec as too
    brittle ... too strict about angle brackets etc.

    <noah> Norm: Polyglot is perceived as fragile for the same reasons
    as any XML, I.e. too strict about perfect syntax

    <masinter> (note "race to the bottom" from ht)

    <noah> Noah: I don't buy that, because I think the #1 use case for
    polyglot is for people who are using XML tool chains or are happy to
    produce "perfect" syntax, but whose users require content served
    text/html...

    <noah> ...so, they want a spec that tells them just what they can
    and can't put into that perfect syntax and have it work right when
    served text/html

    ht: Argument is that producing polyglot is hard, so once someone
    starts using a single language everyone goes to that -- race to the
    bottom

    <masinter> "I think "use XML toolchain to produce HTML" is the most
    common use case in the industry, and that polyglot is likely the
    most appropriate direction for them

    LM: Task force might recommend changes to HTML spec, e.g., options
    for API to the DOM ... e.g. not failing in some way
    ... or include some guidance about what not to use

    ht: That's the polyglot document

    LM: No, it can have unbalanced brackets but does not use some
    features

    Norm: I think there is a single DOM

    <noah> New use case wiki page (very rough):
    [19]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08

      [19] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08

    <masinter> document.write is a leading example

    Tim: For many people the DOM is an API ... supports the same methds

    Noah: XML and HTML processors working on the DOM

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to talk about race to the top

    ht: There is html in conversation and the html out conversation

    Tim: It is easy to produce polyglot documents ... avoids
    document.write
    ... run it thru tidy ... if you produce polyglot you gaet 2 sets of
    people using it ... html folks and xml folks
    ... so there will be a 'race to the top'

    Noah: Sympathetic to polyglot

    <masinter> polyglot is useful for use cases that weren't in the set
    of use cases written up

    Noah: useful for simple cases ... what about using external
    libraries, etc.
    ... these may use document.write
    ... so does Polyglot apply in these cases

    <masinter> "document.write" isn't the entire set of things that are
    "HTML specific DOM operations", but it's a good poster child for it

    Norm: The vast majority of Web docs are using string concatenetaion
    and they don't want to run tidy

    LM: People may be discounting Polyglot because they are not looking
    at right usecases

    Noah: Added usecase 8

    <masinter> the task force should be looking at creating a document
    that is acceptable to the W3C and web community... their local
    agreement is ok

    Noah: Should we invest in improving the Polyglot document

    Norm: I thought the Polyglot document went as far as it could

    LM: There is a large community of people with toolchain who needs to
    satisfied

    Norm: The taskforce will produce a report and that will be reviewed
    ... I was unable to persuade people to make technical changes

    Noah: Talks about the taskforce and peoples motivations

    <masinter> A good faith participation in a task force would be to
    agree on a problem statement for the task force.

    larry: What is the task?

    Norm: It proved to be difficult to state the problem
    ... so people moved on to usecases

    LM: Now that you have usecase are you going to try and define the
    prooblem again

    Noah: The tone of the taskforce has been constructive

    LM: My experience is that when you are at loggerheads, bring in more
    people
    ... bring in people who need the solution

    Noah: Will the real users come to the taskforce and explain their
    usecases?

    LM: Document in the report where there is not consensus and why

    Norm: Usecase number 4 is most bizzare

    <masinter> the XML -> (XML/HTML polyglot ) -> XML or HTML tool chain

    <masinter> and the use case of "scraping" as a kind of consuming

    Noah: Some folks claim no changes are needed ... HTML is the answer
    and XML is not helpful

    Norm: I think taskforce has gone as well as it could
    ... no usecase has convinced the HTML folks that they need to change

    Peter: What changes are you thinking of

    <noah> NW: Even the script hack can be useful.

    <noah> TBL: What's the script hack?

    <noah> NW: <script type="application/xml"> plus a shim that finds
    that stuff in the DOM and parses the XML

    <noah> NW: The XQuery folks are actually doing this.

    <noah> NW: On good days, you can almost imagine this is acceptable.

    <noah> [20]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04

      [20] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04

    Noah: For running XQuery in the browser

    LM: The thing that will cause change is serious users

    Norm: Now that many browsers ship with XHTML support you can just
    use XHTML

    Noah: People have different perspectives ... worried about different
    users

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to make the XSLT-in-the-browser poiint

    ht: I'm concerned that people say that the XML to HTML problem is
    the same as anything to HTML

    <masinter> xml & xslt use case is important

    ht: so why do we have XSLT in the browser
    ... Use script tag to put not HTML stuff in HTML

    <masinter> XML as constituted part

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask about FBML

    ht: what is the real substantive value of XML as how data gets on
    the web

    Tim: Asks about FBML ... adds tags to HTML

    JohnK: Facebook says they are deprecating it in favor of CSS,
    Javascript

    <johnk> FBXML:
    [21]http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/fbml/

      [21] http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/fbml/

    Tim: Talk about lack of modularity in CSS

    <masinter> many IETF specs use XML for interchange, and need
    presentation... would like to make sure those use cases are
    represented

    Dan: Activity streams and other social network speca are XML-based

    <masinter> XML + XSLT might be more important than XHTML?

    Norm: XML has failed only in the client otherwise very useful and
    widely used
    ... some pressure to move to JSON

    <DKA> Ostatus specification I mentioned:
    [22]http://ostatus.org/sites/default/files/ostatus-1.0-draft-2-speci
    fication.html

      [22] 
http://ostatus.org/sites/default/files/ostatus-1.0-draft-2-specification.html

    <DKA> To be brought in as an input into
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/

    <masinter> (1) task force should agree to "change proposals" to HTML
    spec that encompass the proposed solutions as "best practice",
    perhaps by making reference to task force report.

    <DKA> Leveraging (XML) activity streams spec:
    [24]http://activitystrea.ms/

      [24] http://activitystrea.ms/

    <masinter> (2) question about XML + XSLT vs. XHTML in priority

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to answer Henry

    Noah: I don't think XSL will come and go because of the taskforce
    ... many apps would break

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that perspective, "best
    practice" recommendations are important

    <noah> Noah: to be clearer, what I said is that XSLT won't go away
    in the browsers for the right reasons, I.e., it would break lots of
    existing deployed software if it were removed.

    <noah> Noah: maybe or maybe not there would be enough future value
    to motivate keeping it if there weren't such compatibilty issues,
    but I believe it will stay if only for compatibility, at least for
    awhile. Just my opinion..

    LM: You will come up with best practices. These should be pointed to
    by the HTML spec

    Norm: Do you think there is stuff in HTML spec that contradicts what
    the taskforce says? That would be interesting.
    ... and much tougher area

    LM: Perhaps your charter should be: look at usecases and recommend
    best practices

    Norm: I think I can get the taskforce to agree to that

    <timbl> (Suppose you parse XML to a JS object not a dom .. how close
    is XML to JSON anyway? you have to decide whether element contents
    are going to be null or a string or list (mixed content)) Certainly
    the problem of mapping to RDF is a common problem, and a common
    mapping language would probably work.)

    <ht> The XMLHttpRequest CR draft
    [25]http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#document-response-entity-bo
    dy does still 'privilege' XML, as parsed per the XML specs

      [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#document-response-entity-body

    Break for 20 minutes

HTML Prefixes, Namespaces and Extensibility

    Noah: Describes background of issue -- decentralized extensibility
    in HTML
    ... they held a survey for WG membership but TAG also sent a note

    <noah> HTML WG held a survey, TAG input at
    [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0033.html

      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Oct/0033.html

    <noah> HTML WG Chairs' decision:
    [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0085.htm
    l

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0085.html

    Noah: They decided to do nothing

    The note says they looked for evidence that decentralized
    extensibility was important and did not find enough

    scribe: they will look at new evidence

    <noah> The main decentralized extensibility issue is
    [28]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

      [28] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

    <noah> There is also
    [29]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120 on prefixing,
    especially for RDFa

      [29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120

    scribe: they say use RDFa without prefix mechanism

    Noah: Back to issue 41

    Working thru mail from HTML WG re. the decision

    Noah: We discussed all the proposals and decided to back the "like
    SVG" proposal

    ht: It is a qualified version of the Microsoft proposal

    Tim: Re. Uncontested Observations. We did not argue for removal of
    existing extensibility points
    ... existing extensibility points have serious architectural
    limitations
    ... <object> is horrible ... would not use this to add a new form of
    bold

    LM: Users do often understand relation between prefixes and
    namespaces ... some may find this confusing

    Dan: Maybe we should pick our battles with HTML WG
    ... put on our energies into the taskforce

    JohnK: Not useful to go thru the email point by point
    ... we want ability to add attributes with prefixes without any
    approval

    Tim: Some people argue that if you add a namespace that is bad
    ... they don't have a model of special user communities of browser
    users

    JohnK: Asks whether architectural arguments are not self-evident

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about process

    Could we just list these arguments

    LM: I see no point in TAG responding to HTML WG at this point
    ... we can advise the Director how to respond to the appeal
    ... better to let the HTML document get to Last Call

    <johnk> johnk's specific potential architectural issues "What we
    mean when we say distributed extensibility

    <johnk> arguments for:

    <johnk> * that it should be possible for anyone to define their own
    markup

    <johnk> extensions (and the syntactic/semantic "meaning" of said
    extensions)

    <johnk> without permission from anyone else

    <johnk> * that we should encourage these extensions to be publicly
    (not

    <johnk> "proprietarily") available without the permission of the
    HTML WG

    <johnk> counter-argument: encourages proprietary extensions to HTML?

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about possible response

    LM: It is in their charter "encouraged to find extensibility
    mechanisms"

    <masinter> "he HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to
    permit independently developed vocabularies such as
    Internationalization Tag Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into
    HTML documents. Whether this occurs through the extensibility
    mechanism of XML, whether it is also allowed in the classic HTML
    serialization, and whether it uses the DTD and Schema modularization
    techniques, is for the HTML WG to determine."

    Noah: Worth looking at how much decentralized extensinility in the
    spec

    <noah>
    [30]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requireme
    nts

      [30] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requirements

    Noah: I think it allows decentralized extensibility
    ... what it does not have is a mechanism to avaid name collisions
    ... I believe that if I come up with a new element I cannot put it
    in a namespace

    but it can write a doc about the element and I can use it and it
    will appear in the DOM

    scribe: I can use Javascript on this DOM node

    Noah: So, you do have distributed extensibility .... what you don't
    have a mechanism for preventing collisions

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to support the pick our fights proposition

    Noah: So, if we can agree on that we can criticize that

    <masinter> and also [31]http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp125

      [31] http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp125

    ht: I agree with Dan and Larry in saying that there is no point in
    pursuing the opportunity for pushback that is in this note

    <noah> Noah: you also are, and I can see the arguments on both sides
    of this, losing the ability to "follow your nose" to find the
    pertinent specs when some random document is encountered, and that
    document uses applicable specs. You can't in general find the specs
    from the document.

    <noah> Noah: with namespaces, whatever their other problems, you
    can.

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about
    [32]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs-05

      [32] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs-05

    LM: We could respond to IETF document on extensibility ... brings in
    a broader perspective

    <noah> Hmm, Larry says HTML is a protocol "sort of". Well, yes sort
    of, but I'm more familiar with the "protocols & formats
    formulation". HTML is more a format, and I don't think the
    versioning considerations for formats are in general the same as for
    protocols.

    LM: we could look at their arguments and see if they apply to HTML
    ... some new evidence to bear on the process
    ... Another related document

    Procedures and Processes for Protocols Extensibility Mecahnisms

    Noah: Looks like 4775 is recomending Registries

    Discussion about registries

    scribe: and whether they help ot hinder distributed extensibility

    <noah> From: [33]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4775

      [33] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4775

    <noah> " An extension is often likely to make use of additional
    values added

    <noah> to an existing IANA registry (in many cases, simply by adding
    a new

    <noah> "TLV" (type-length-value) field). It is essential that such
    new

    <noah> values are properly registered by the applicable procedures,"

    <masinter> the power struggle is part of it "who has control"

    <masinter> but the power struggle is confounded by the technical
    issues

    Discussion of how extensibility really works

    LM: HTML decision narrow ... there were no acceptable proposals

    Tim: We are trying to provide a solution for the little guy ... URLs
    are easy to mint

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to do a logistics & time check

    <masinter> action-120?

    <trackbot> ACTION-120 -- Dan Connolly to review of "Usage Patterns
    For Client-Side URL parameters" , preferably this week -- due
    2008-03-20 -- CLOSED

    <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/120

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/120

    Tim: create little community of browser users

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention the Accessibility parallel

    <masinter> issue-120?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-120 does not exist

    ht: Since HTML WG have resolved Issue 41 this can wait
    ... you can send mail asking if we can wait on 120

    LUNCH

    <ht> In terms of thinking about advising the Director as we come up
    to a Process milestone at which objections wrt DistrExtens may be on
    the agenda, Tim's point about standing up for the little guy
    reminded me of a possible parallel with I18N and Accessibility --
    Director's Review is the point at which unrepresented consituencies
    are considered

    <ht> Candidate small languages for use in distr. exten. : XForms,
    XMP, FBML (Facebook Markup Language, now deprecated), CML (Chemical
    Markup Language), [Music?]

    <Norm> There is a music markup language, Michael Kay brought it up
    as an example

    <ht> I think the plugin support is already there

    <masinter> scribe: masinter

    <scribe> scribenick: masinter

XML HTML task force

    ht: What is goal of his activity?

    noah: goal is to help this task force be successful

    norm: want to go through use case in more detail
    ... if there are specific use cases that aren't satisfied,
    especially interesting

    showing [35]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_01

      [35] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_01

    ht: how many such parsers are there?

    norm: I believe there are 2 or 3. Henri in Java, Sam in Ruby,
    someone else....

    ht: when I looked a few months ago, there was no tool that did what
    I needed, which were 'error recovery'
    ... this "Solution" is at least misleading. "Truth in advertising"

    larry: Henry said he found NONE. If there is NONE, it might mean
    that it is impossible. A solution that requires something
    'impossible' isn't a solution.

    noah: if parsers are needed, then ones that are needed will get
    built.

    johnk: there isn't enough need from stand-alone parsers, such as
    they are extractable from browsers.

    tim: I rewrote problem statement, and edited it into the
    "Discussion" tag

    (looking at [36]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_01)

      [36] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_01)

    <johnk> johnk: it hasn't yet been determined that there is enough
    need for a standalone HTML5 parser such that there is a clear need
    to separate it from other software (such as browser)

    tim: I took out some of the derogatory comments that were garbage
    ("race to the top" vs. "race to the bottom")
    ... I would like a ringing endorsement of polyglot to come out of
    this task force.

    norm: that isn't polyglot... the mapping of HTML into XML because
    there is an XML document that has the same DOM as the HTML

    tim: the requirement to accept polylot on the priority

    larry: there are really at least three very sub-categories here
    (HTML -> XMLO tool chain)
    ... (1) extract, analyze (2) round-trip (3) ...

    norm: Use case 2: (looking at
    [37]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_02)

      [37] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_02)

    tim: you need to put something in the examples to make it clear that
    this is not "XHTML" but XML in general, e.g., docbook

    norm: not sure that this is a real use case, not a lot of enthusiasm
    for this

    (looking at [38]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_03
    now)

      [38] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_03

    larry: in #2, separate 'browser' from 'non-browser'

    Examples are things like documentation

    larry: copy/paste and clipboard thing is a separate use case

    tim: I'm impressed that copy/paste from web to email works
    ... table from web page into mail message and it works

    norm: I expect the techniques that it will let that work
    ... oxygen does a whole bunch of work to make that work

    tim: thinking about the RDF case... you get a piece of HTML in the
    middle of RDF so that works
    ... if you do any form of escaping, in general there is no
    expectation that if you put some escaped CDATA in the XML that it
    has any meaning, and no expectation... this happens in RSS

    norm: of the two, the escaped text is far less effective
    ... I noticed in the Twitter API that the identity of the submitter
    is escaped HTML

    tim: Microsoft's odata ("almost linked data") when you get a feed
    it's an RSSFeed

    ht: ((missed example))

    <Norm> In Atom, HTML markup is sometimes escaped and sometimes not,
    using a type attribute to distinguish between them.

    <ht> Is it expected that this will work: <object
    type="application/xml" data="data:,<hello
    xml:lang='en'>world</hello>" /> ?

    noah: couldn't introduce a new tag other than 'script'

    henry: in polyglot, need CDATA in script, if you need polyglot and
    use <> in script

    or use data:application/xml,<hello ....

    now looking at [39]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04

      [39] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_XML_Use_Case_04

    (discussion of XML5 document)

    norm: XML community could take this up....

    noah: discussion of robustness principle
    ... you should have the same burden to be conservative in what you
    said

    dana: observation: people use string concatenation to produce HTML
    because to do otherwise wouldn't be satisfactory for performance
    reason... that's the implicit reason, and they are prone to error

    tim: related use case: jQuery. jQuery allows you to parse .navigate
    + something that looks like xquery (it isn't xquery but looks like
    it, or css selectors) + insert things (looks like HTML), there is no
    reason that it actually could use implicit tags on close tags, they
    could do all kinds of things, the critical thing is to get the code
    to all fit on one line or one page
    ... in cases where people are stuffing strings in... for things that
    stuff in little bits of syntax (Turtle example), in those cases, it
    is a nice situation where xml tools could ive people an ability in
    their scripting

    (have been looking at
    [40]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_05)

      [40] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_05)

    now looking at [41]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_06

      [41] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_06

    "dead use case", a lot like use case 1

    no one was prepared to stand up to do this

    larry: separation between situations where things render, vs. things
    are auxiliary data

    [42]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_07

      [42] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_07

    noah: what some subgroups don't like is "stop on first error"
    ... this goes on to the describe relative state of play in the
    various code
    ... the document pretty much just says "documents that are not well
    formed" are just not well-formed. so the relevant mappings aren't
    there. That "shortcoming" could be rectified
    ... all of that is to be determined

    larry: this is a kind of social engineering through spec writing
    that is difficult to accomplish without consensus on the goal and
    agreement to abide by it. Social engineering is to get senders to be
    conservative in what they send by having some conservative receivers
    that they are likely to test against.

    noah: perception that the technology has died, and dthat the social
    engineering has had a negative impact on the success

    larry: have to get agreement to do social engineering in the first
    place, and that the goal of having conservative senders is an
    important goal

    noah: is it really doing the fixup you want or not?
    ... have the specs enable you to turn off when you want to
    ... how often or with how much noise or smoke would be a debate
    you'd have to have
    ... main application was for exchanging mission critical data, which
    would be an error

    ht: in the first two years, the idea that we were building XML for
    machine-to-machine communication was not on the forefront. It was
    about getting information in front of humans, and the 'error
    handling' was there was because the arms race of forgiving viewers
    was harmful
    ... the motivation was to end the "arms race" of fixup by saying "no
    one will do fixup"
    ... that's opposite of what we're doing now, which is to say
    "everyone will do the same kind of fixup"

    noah: could go to the community to see if there are some XML fixups
    that would be useful

    ashok: ask the user, flag it, how aggressive a fixup, mash HTML5
    fixup

    peter: I have no problem with relaxing some of the rules of XML, but
    I wouldn't like to go all the way of tag fixup, such as happens in
    HTML. Leave XHTML being an XML application with all of the XML
    rules.
    ... all you're doing is allowing people to write bad XML

    noah: will more people use this if we do this?

    tim: too much of a pain typing the quotes around the attributes...
    some of those things where there is absoluetely no ambiguity,
    perhaps we could relax the rules.

    noah: we should go only as far as possible to get widespread
    adoption, vs. abandonment.

    larry: 7 isn't really a use case, it's a proposed solution looking
    for use cases. my claim is that the proposal doesn't actually seem
    to solve any known problem

    looking at about [43]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08

      [43] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_XML_Use_Case_08

    norm: this wasn't there earlier, should have been, because task
    force talked about it. "Right" answer is that XML tools should grow
    an HTML output method

    (Larry points out again that 'round trip' is more than 'consume and
    produce' because round trip may have more requirements for
    preservation )

    <DKA> Scribe: Dan

    <DKA> ScribeNick: DKA

    Norm: You're not likely to be cdata in script elements.
    ... it doesn't work if you use script elements...

    Henry: A normal xml serializer would never use cdata sections...
    ... In all the use that many of us make of xmlspec dtd - you must
    use output-mode=html - because this produces <p></p> when you have
    empty paragraphs. Because if you produce <p/> this [messes up most
    browsers.]

    <scribe> Scribe: masinter

    <scribe> ScribeNick: masinter

    noah: Norm, have you gotten useful feedback from us?

    norm: I got useful feedback. I'll go back into the minutes, lots of
    cases for making use cases more detailed. No one has said I've gone
    off in all the wrong direction....
    ... the trajectory the task force is going to land, I have no idea
    what to do next....

    <noah> LM: I think our role here is to figure out what the TAG
    should do given where the taskforce stands.

    <noah> LM: I think part of our role is to help those who have a
    stake in XML to be more easily heard in this process. A lot don't
    feel they've been heard. These use cases are the vehicle.

    <noah> LM: I can see that doing more can be frustrating, but I
    believe that someone has to do a lot more.

    <noah> NW: I'm not at all unwilling to do more work, I do keep
    asking >what< you want me to do.

    <noah> LM: I would ask Roy... (discussion tails off)

    <noah> LM: Roy has an XML toolchain, and his review might be
    interesting.

    <noah> NW: I'll break out the use cases and try to figure good
    candidates to provide feedback on each.

    <noah> NM: You could somewhat publicly ask people for review.

    <noah> NW: Prefer to do it after the report's a bit cleaner -- I
    don't want to be responsible for people misunderstanding the wiki in
    its current form

    (discussion of process)

    dka: in spirit of providing feedback, worth saying "kudos for doing
    this", amazing you've managed to make the progress you have

    <noah> DKA: Major kudos to Norm for doing what is in many ways a
    thankless job. There's a lot of good progress here. I support
    publishing as a TAG note or something like that, once baked.

    dka: Not only a browser group, to consider 'what changes should be
    considered for XML as well', we need to really believe that, to
    think about how this stuff could be put into place

    norm: James did microXML and John Cowan has picked this up and is
    producing this group. Liam did agree to put something in XML Core
    that they may would add something into their charter revision about
    this.
    ... XML5 is an attempt to say how XML as it exists might work
    better, while MicroXML might be 'how to make XML smaller'; things
    like "namespaces aren't special"
    ... maybe James was thinking there might be some movement from the
    HTML side.

    noah: how relevant will this be practically?

    norm: microXML might be interesting, would like to know more what
    problems it solves

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say something more about templating

    ht: in terms of looking for concrete use cases, the phrase
    "templating" does describe some tooling that I've observed ...
    (XForms is a partial example of this), a successive refinement
    approach to producing web pages.
    ... there are some architecures out there that work that way... it's
    a mixture of HTML and proprietary markup, that push it through (not
    a pipeline, an interate-to-fixed-point processing step) until it
    gets to the point where there is nothing left but XHTML....

    there is a requirement that HTML5 make it not any harder to produce
    (polyglot) HTML output that way than it is today

    there are a lot of systems that now support IE6....

    ht: maybe it is already the case that polyglot HTML5 is not harder
    than producing XHTML 1.1 polyglot

    <ht> One example of this is the Factonomy (www.factonomy.com)
    Framework

    <jar> on break now.

    <jar> [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html

      [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html

Metadata Architecture
([45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html)

      [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/metadata-arch.html)

    issue-63?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Metadata Architecture for the Web -- open

    <trackbot> [46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63

      [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63

    action-282?

    <trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on
    metadata architecture. -- due 2011-04-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

      [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

    jar: slide 6.... not getting consensus
    ... RDFa, tooling might be different, all the deployed stuff will be
    called into question
    ... slide 7 interoperability issue: same name used for two different
    things
    ... another example, 'wants'

    ht: facebooks 'likes'... one person likes the page, one person likes
    the screwdriver

    jar: creative commons 'licenses' is clearly a problem, 'likes' or
    'wants' are less
    ... slide 9.... new uri scheme, foaf...
    ... slide 9 second line shows 6 alternatives for notation

    <ht> (Discussion about RDF about="" and the status of Same Document
    Reference)

    <ht> [48]http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4

      [48] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4

    <noah> Hmm, from
    [49]http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4

      [49] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-4.4

    <noah> "When a same-document reference is dereferenced for a
    retrieval action, the target of that reference is defined to be
    within the same entity (representation, document, or message) as the
    reference; therefore, a dereference should not result in a new
    retrieval action. "

    <noah> That doesn't quite say: "The null reference identifies the
    same resource as the URI used to retrieve the document." Sort of an
    odd construction. Why? Does this matter?

    JAR: I think the best way to get consensus around this is to take it
    to REC track.... is this a task force thing? is it an objective?

    <ht> Because not all s-d-rs are null references

    tim: this broke out on the linked open data list

    <noah> I'm not hung up on the null part, I'm hung up on the "target
    is defined to be within"

    <noah> That doesn't say what the URI(s) identify.

    <ht> Right -- the 'within' is there because the target of "#foo" is
    not the target of the base URI

    <noah> Yes, but it doesn't mention the resource, it mentions the
    representation, which is very odd.

    tim: linked open data list has many people who have joined recently.
    Looking at that, there was some real pain expressed ... when you are
    producing linked data for a bunch of abstract things, it's a pain to
    have to do 303 all the time, and using hash wasn't satisfactory
    ... two things to do, "Hash is beautiful", or "add a 208"

    <noah> Why don't usually say that a URI identifies something within
    the representation, except in very unusual edge cases.

    <ht> Yes, that reference/resource distinction is not well-respected
    here

    jar: the TAG should engage on the linked open data list, or invite
    them to discuss it on the TAG list

    <Norm> Hashes are problematic if the number of items in the document
    is very large.

    <noah> (We do in particular cases where the media type spec says it
    does.)

    <ht> Let's look at HTTP-bis

    <noah> But if it's not well respected, then what does the above
    mean?

    <noah> More to the point, does it matter that we straighten this out
    in the context of the discussion that JAR is leading?

    <ht> No

    <ht> I don't think

    <noah> Hmm. OK.

    jar: is the tag willing to engage in good faith process intended to
    get editor's draft

    <ht> This is the answer, noah: "When a same-document reference is
    dereferenced for a retrieval action"

    <ht> retrieval actions _are_ about representations

    ashok: there are other stakeholders
    ... I would like "those guys" part of the discussion

    noah: I think Jonathan means "Recommendation"

    <ht> I agree that "is within" is bad -- it should have used wording
    that said "is related to in the same way that a full use of the
    baseURI plus #... if any is related"

    <noah> JAR: right Noah, I'm proposing a formal W3C Recommendation
    produced using the full W3C process

    noah: we had agreed to push this forward as a Rec, and then dropped
    the ball?

    (scribe uncertain what the topic is)

    ht: we have precedent for issuing documents on the rec track. We
    should do that with the content Jonathan is presenting to us.

    tim: question is, are there alternatives for solving the problem?

    jar: there are three alternatives: engage on LOD, do an
    architectural rec, form a new working group

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to figure out where we stand with
    [50]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
    track recorded in [51]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc]

      [50] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/
      [51] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-521 - Figure out where we stand with
    [52]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
    track [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-16].

      [52] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/

    <noah> ACTION-521 Due 2011-03-01

    <trackbot> ACTION-521 Figure out where we stand with
    [53]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
    track due date now 2011-03-01

      [53] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/

    <noah> HT: We should do an architectural rec.

    larry: if the topic is as broad as JAR's presentation, i would favor
    a new working group

    <noah> LM: What about a new working

    tim: the TAG could do a focused 'nut' of the core element of
    httpRange-14

    noah: the right thing to do would be to set off on the road of doing
    that in the tag
    ... if this worth the effort at all, set off down the road to engage
    the right community, have to watch IP issues
    ... that's the place where they or we would go on

    ashok: should this be a separate mailing list?

    noah: at some point we should put out an announcement, hey we're
    working on this

    <noah> Noah: Jonathan, are you willing to actually play the
    leadership role in taking this down a REC track.

    <noah> JAR: Yes, if the group is willing to provide reviews, or at
    least stay out of the way.

    JAR is showing draft which might become a rec

    larry: I would be more comfortably with a working group with a
    charter around metadata architecture, partly because i know people i
    would like to get to participate, who would not follow a www-tag
    discussion

    tim: (re jar slide 15) WebArch covers this

    jar: someone else holding Nadia responsible for someone else using
    Dirk's URI referentially
    ... slide 16, (why these questions are useless)
    ... slide 17: segue to persistence

    <noah> ACTION-201?

    <trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW
    discussions -- due 2011-01-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [54]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

      [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

    <noah> ACTION-201?

    <trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW
    discussions -- due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [55]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

      [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201

    <noah> ACTION-201 Due 2011-03-07

    <trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date
    now 2011-03-07

Persistence of references

    <noah> ACTION-478?

    <trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a first draft of a
    finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree
    from Oct. F2F Due: 2010-01-31 -- due 2011-01-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [56]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478

      [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478

    <noah> [57]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/20-minutes#item01

      [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/20-minutes#item01

    jar: if you take the problem as a reference to a document, that
    reliably refers to some document, and you want it to work 100 years
    into the future....
    ... ... and you want that computational agent to be able to resolve
    it

    ht: ... and the tree was an analysis of the failures?

    jar: several functions: publisher producing the document; one who
    assigns identifier; one who archives the document for a long time;
    one who looks up a reference
    ... the 19th century view is that the description is written out in
    natural language (publisher, title, author, date), but "not machine
    friendly"
    ... if they're actionable, then someone can track these down

    ht: the reliability of the citeseer parser for database is 70%
    ... datapoint... that's just correctly identifying what the parts
    are

    <timbl> ... just parsing a reference

    jar: Hybrid approach... is the hybrid approach good enough?

    <Ashok> LM: dont like the term 'human-friendly' here

    larry: (2) Hybrid is between (1) and all the rest

    LM: "Not a URI" means a structured reference
    ... note there was early IETF work on "URC" which was
    attribute/value pairs for identiying

    jar: if you write a URI, you have to have some faith that the scheme
    registrations are reliable

    larry: date + URI (not embedded in a duri)

    jar: (going through steps)
    ... "update all web clients" is a miracle

    tim: you could install plugins in your client

    lm: "not actionable" is "not actionable today"

    tim: people will provide ways of resolving

    ht: i own a couple of the domain names necessary for 'info' to be
    dereferenced

    larry: note there were urn resolution protocols

    jar: lsid was another example, it was never maintained

    larry: xmp.iid and xmp.did in
    [58]http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/Dynami
    cMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19

      [58] 
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/DynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19

    jar: whether the http: scheme as specified is suitable for this
    purpose
    ... in the case where persistence matters, you can trust the domain
    owner

    topic?

    larry points to [59]http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

      [59] http://larry.masinter.net/9909-twist.pdf

    <noah> Jonathan is discussing:
    [60]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/intervention.html

      [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/intervention.html

    jar: was on the phone two weeks ago with Dan Connolly on "ownership"

    larry: Jefferson's Moose book has an interesting history about top
    level domain ownership
    ... see [61]http://jeffersonsmoose.org/

      [61] http://jeffersonsmoose.org/

    noah: (discussion about security, DNS cache poisoning, etc.)

    larry: you've identified several different roles, and each node in
    the tree needs to be evaluated around impact to those roles... may
    need to also add 'bad guys' and other players

    <ht> Re the earlier aside about info:, when I explored this and its
    proposed (partial?) resolution mechanism, I discovered a) a
    dependence on certain sub-domains of the info TLD and b) the fact
    that several of these were either un-'owned' or in non-appropriate
    hands. Since then I have 'owned' lccn.info and oclcnum.info, having
    unsuccessfully tried to get Stu Weibel to take them on

    <ht> My registration of them expires again in a few months. . .

    jar: what matters is the person who writes a URI, and the person who
    wants to read the document, and everything else is infrastructure

    larry: archivist is necessary and sufficient.... that is, if there
    are no archives, having long-term identifiers aren't very useful; if
    there is an archive, then whatever they are doing can be used for
    long-term identifier

    ht: this might turn into a requirement for infrastructure

    jar: hypothesis: it would make a difference to make the DNS root
    manager to admit that some part of the DNS space had some kind of
    persistence characteristic, or contractually held to

    tim: one way to abandon DNS is to set up an alternative root

    jar: then you have to convince the entire world to use that
    alternate root. There is no communication between Alice and Bob to
    indicate that they use that alternative root, unless you use another
    URI scheme

    tim: if it's just insurance, you could make a file, and distributed
    by bittorrent...

    jar: what if ICANN agrees that '.arc' is agreed to be (something)
    ... what else do i need to add to this story for the next draft

    ht: I need to take the old document to see if the risks it
    identifies and the goals are all covered here

    jar: there are lots of ways of bailing out of this?

    ht: information sicence communities have different attitudes to doi

    tim: what's interesting, what you want is security in the long term,
    having more than one solution in parallel is interesting

    jar: i imagine some kind of metadata lo

    [62]http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/Dynami
    cMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19

      [62] 
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/DynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19

    <ht> LM: Put a GUID in the document, and let search be the retrieval
    mechanism

    <ht> JAR: Vulnerable to spoofing

    <ht> HST: Use a checksum

    <ht> LM: Right, use MD5 as the GUID

    <ht> HST: What does the URI look like

    lm: every administrative system ends

    jar: the binomial system has had, in 250 years, only 10 disputes

    (discussion of conflicts over defining documents for species)

    noah: (banking systems -- there's a method of correcting anything
    that is wrong)

    jar: my point is that there are systems that are relatively free of
    authority, that are outside of any system of authority

    <ht> I note that the pblm with using a checksum is that it violates
    a fundamental principle of archiving, which is to keep your content
    usable by rolling it forward

    <ht> In the old days, that meant from paper to microfilm to
    microfiche

    <ht> now it means electronic format evolution

    <noah> ACTION-478?

    <trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a first draft of a
    finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree
    from Oct. F2F Due: 2010-01-31 -- due 2011-01-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [63]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478

      [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478

    <jar> masinter said " I don't think a system can be simultaneously
    X, Y, and scalable"

    lm: administrative, scalable, and stable
    ... the bigger it is, the more likely it is it will fail sooner

    <noah> ACTION-478?

    <trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a second draft of
    a finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree
    from Oct. F2F Due: 2010-01-31 -- due 2011-01-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [64]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478

      [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478

    <jar> masinter, you have just restated zooko's triangle
    [65]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko's_triangle

      [65] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko's_triangle

    <lm> jar, no, zooko's triangle is 'secure, memorable, global' and
    that's a different set of things

    <lm> jar, mine is: "requires administration" and "scalable" => "not
    reliable"

    <jar> bitcoin might show a way to escape it (I'm told... need to
    research this)

    <noah> ACTION-478 Due 2011-03-22

    <trackbot> ACTION-478 Prepare a second draft of a finding on
    persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from Oct.
    F2F Due: 2010-01-31 due date now 2011-03-22

    <noah> ACTION-477?

    <trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry S. Thompson to organize meeting on
    persistence of domains -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [66]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

      [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

    <noah> HT: Leave it, still working on it.

tag meeting in June

    <noah> RESOLUTION: The June F2F will be in Cambridge 6-8 June 2011

    adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to figure out where we stand with
    [67]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec
    track recorded in [68]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc]

      [67] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/
      [68] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-tagmem-irc

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [69]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([70]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/02/21 19:02:46 $

      [69] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [70] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/



=========================================================

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                       W3C TAG F2F Feb 8-10, 2011

Thursday 10 Feb 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Dan Appelquist, Tim Berners-Lee, John Kemp, Peter Linss,
           Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Jonathan
           Rees, Henry S. Thompson

    Regrets
           Yves Lafon

    Chair
           Noah Mendelsohn

    Scribes
           Henry S. Thompson (morning), Tim Berners-Lee (afternoon),
           Noah Mendelsohn (fallback)

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review of Agenda
          2. [6]TAG Priorities for 2011
          3. [7]Client-side Storage
          4. [8]Review of TAG activity
          5. [9]IETF Meeting in Prague
          6. [10]Issue Tracking
          7. [11]assembling the minutes
          8. [12]Pending review actions
          9. [13]EXI
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Review of Agenda

    NM: [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
    ... Action item review is just checking that we've got the right
    things on the schedule in the near term
    ... Open issue review is quite different, intended to check that we
    haven't let things fall between the cracks, or that we are carrying
    things we don't need to

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda

TAG Priorities for 2011

    NM: [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#priorities
    ... Good for us to review each year where our effort is going, and
    how we are going to get it done
    ... and be sure we have a shared notion of our priorities
    ... I'd like to get more than one person on the hook for at least
    some tasks, to share the work back and forth in some way
    ... Looking back, we set ourselves some priorities:
    Tracking/influencing the HTML work -- hard situation, but we did a
    number of things here and I think we did what we set out to do
    ... We also committed to a Web App Arch effort, since two years, but
    I don't feel that we've made as much progress here as I'd hoped --
    we need to look hard at this to see whether we should modify or even
    drop our goal
    ... Third goal was Metadata, an umbrella for many SemWeb issues

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#priorities

    JR, LM: No, Metadata is much narrower than that, it is about
    documents only

    TBL: +1 to keeping Metadata narrowly focused

    NM: We've also done good work, largely due to LM's efforts, on a
    number of core web infrastructure issues, including IRIs and media
    types

    LM: I'm actually concerned how little progress on IRIs lately

    NM: On the organizational front, we're trying to structure the
    management of our work via Tracker Products

    For example,
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html

    NM: Tracker has Issues, Actions and Products
    ... Actions can be associated with Issues or Products
    ... See the [18]Guide to TAG Process

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html

    NM: Please note that there are two 'Product' pages, one under
    2001/tag/products and one under Tracker

    NM: Tracker is just not flexible enough to be able to connect issues
    and products

    [Discussion about mechanism, not minuted]

    NM: Intent is to have a small number of Products

    NM: Need properties for a product: Goals, success criteria,
    deliverables with dates, schedules, TAG members assigned, related
    issues.

    <timbl> We could do it in RDF if we had a RDF export from Tracker of
    course

    NM: API Minimization is our first example:
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
    ... Goals and Success criteria are the core of these
    ... Made concrete by deliverables
    ... Example ACTION: ACTION-514

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html

    LM: I think maybe we need two categories of Products
    ... 1) Specific documents or other outputs;
    ... 2) Things which are more like some of our Issues, e.g. Track the
    HTML work

    NM: Yes, but can we just try your case (1) for now

    TBL: Mechanisms are your business as chair, the focus is on the
    content, that's where our energy should go
    ... But, having said that, my inner hacker has already built an
    ontology for issue/product/... management for the Tabulator
    ... I could do more hacking and give you everything you want
    ... In practice lets go ahead as you propose
    ... But in the background, maybe you and I should try to do
    something better

    Tutti: Crack on

    NM: Regardless of mechanism, do we agree to focus our effort
    management on setting goals and success criteria, with dated
    deliverables

    <jar> It would be nice if (1) product name could be changed (2)
    products can be classified somehow (active, complete, etc) (3) notes
    could be added to product pages

    LM: We do other things -- coordination with the IETF

    <masinter> want to track the larger theme of W3C/IETF coordination
    at architectural level

    LM: This is a larger theme

    NM: For me that's an Issue, about how to coordinate with other
    bodies

    LM: It's not a management issue, it's a technical issue -- what is
    the relationship of Web Arch to Internet Arch
    ... What's critical for a Product is Success criteria
    ... And I think we can identify and evaluate progress for this
    effort, so it can be a Product

    TBL: Wrt Success criteria, include documentation of important
    properties of the system which need to be preserved

    NM: Other things can have ways to identify and evaluate progress, I
    want to keep Products for things with deliverables

    <timbl> [20]http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wf/flow#Task <-- the
    high-level concept of task

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wf/flow#Task

    DKA: With respect to TAG priorities, there's also the W3C 2011
    Priorities and Milestones document
    ... [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011#Summary

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011#Summary

    NM: This reminds me that there are two ways to come at our planning:
    internally-driven and externally-driven

    DKA: In particular, are we missing anything from Jeff Jaffe's list?

    NM: So take a tentative pass at what we are already spending time on
    ... and then see if there's anything we're missing
    ... at which point we will know if we're over-committed

    LM: It's great to see a W3C priority list of technical topics
    ... I'd like to respond to it
    ... So this is higher priority for me than reviewing our current /
    past efforts

    HST: The chair is asking for help in getting to that, by first
    clarifying the status of our existing commitments

    NM: Here's another Product: HTML/XML Unification

    [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/???

    <masinter> I think the "big theme" here is: architectural coherence
    of the W3C protocol and format work. And that XML / HTML is a lead
    element, because so much of W3C work is based on XML and yet HTML
    consistency with it is at issue and that the TAG could look at
    whatever the "task force" produces in this context. The goal should
    not be "Unification" but "coherence" and "support for workflows and
    use cases" and there are various sub-products, around IRIs and URI
    schemes....

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to build Tracker product page for HTML/XML
    Unification [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01]

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-522 - Build Tracker product page for
    HTML/XML Unification [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

    LM: The big theme here is architectural coherence between W3C RECs
    ... I wouldn't want to track this as Unification, because that's not
    the goal even for XML vs. HTML
    ... I don't think that goal stands up

    NM: I hear you as observing that there's a higher theme that this
    specific Product fits into
    ... and I think we can do that, we can have Themes
    ... The name comes from the history -- is the key point the
    abstraction of a higher level

    LM: Either this fits in one of the high-level things the JJ laid
    out, or something else
    ... in this case, something else, which is a particular TAG
    responsibility

    NM: I hear this, and will try to find a way to organize our thinking
    at this level

    LM: Pass for now

    HST: [proposed minor agenda restructuring]

Client-side Storage

    [24]ISSUE-60: Web Application State Management

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60

    AM: speaks to
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/ClientSideStorage.pdf
    ... I need guidance on how to take this forward

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/ClientSideStorage.pdf

    <masinter> This underlying architectural issue relates to "Powerful
    Web Apps", "Data and Service Integration" and "Web of Trust": web
    applications are more powerful if different applications can share.
    But they have to do it in a secure way that also maintains user
    privacy.

    AM: The fundamental issue is how to manage the inevitable intrusion
    of the Privacy/Security issue into any discussion of client-side
    storage:
    ... 1) Ignore it, and just do the storage thing;
    ... 2) Try to do the integration.

    AM: The answer is different depending on whether we see the
    deliverable here as stand-alone, or as part of a larger document
    where Security is being taken care of

    TBL: The document talks mostly about cookies, but there are a large
    number of new technologies, e.g. sqllib, which are at least as
    important going forward

    <masinter> Security sections could move to
    [26]https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters based on
    [27]http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p11.pdf

      [26] https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters
      [27] http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p11.pdf

    TBL: And as you talk about privacy in that context, it becomes a
    question about what 'agent' (software, site, person) can get access
    to what

    AM: You're going beyond data

    TBL: No, just data raises these issues, say I have an RDF store on
    my phone, and an app written by an airline is running in a container
    from a third party and wants access to that data. . .
    ... At worst we end up all having to have our own copies of all the
    privacy-implicated software, to ensure our data doesn't get away

    TBL: So this discussion has to be forward-looking to address not
    just what's here now, but what's coming soon

    <masinter> "In 2011, W3C expects to charter a Web Application
    Security Working Group for work on specific technologies to enable
    more robust and secure Web Applications." from
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011 under "Privacy and Security"

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

    JAR: Normal engineering practice should be followed, to look first
    at the requirements, without jumping too soon to the technology
    (e.g. cookies)
    ... You started out with "need....", which are requirements, and
    then jump to security -- but that's a requirement too
    ... It's like building a LISP interpreter, if you leave memory
    management to the end, you end up with a buggy implementation

    AM: Right, so you're saying add security as a requirement, early

    JAR: Only then do you look at solutions
    ... and try to match requirements to aspects of solutions

    LM: There is a commitment at W3C level to charter a Privacy and
    Security WG

    <noah> Actually, the slide just said privacy, and I think that's
    what I heard him ask about. That's why I got confused when we kept
    talking about security.

    LM: And that group is a candidate recipient for this work

    AM: I thought it was a Privacy IG that was on the way
    ... and that's not quite the same

    LM: W3C has committed to chartering a Web Applications Security WG
    ... In JJ's document

    <noah> From: [29]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

    <noah> In 2011, W3C expects to charter a Web Application Security
    Working Group for work on specific technologies to enable more
    robust and secure Web Applications.

    <noah> (public document)

    AM: So, yes, when that happens, feeding in to it makes sense

    NM: On the separate vs. together point (storage vs.
    Privacy&Security)
    ... indeed per JAR sometimes it's dangerous to factor
    ... but not sure that's true here
    ... Suppose you did just focus on storage, w/o talking about P&S

    <masinter> "Client side state" doesn't really have anything to say
    unless there is some 'memory' or 'communication' of client side
    state

    NM: What would the Product page look like if you did that (thought
    experiment)?
    ... If you can't even do that, we've learned something
    ... And if you can, then we can look at the P&S factoring question
    as such
    ... Thinking about the Product page should be really helpful

    AM: I want to come back to the "one large document" question

    JAR: That's not what I said. . .

    NM: If we want to do a large document, it's a long way out
    ... So even if we are aiming for a merged form, the work has to go
    ahead as if it were going to stand on its own

    LM: Different perspective -- we're not designing an implementation
    -- there are already a number of design patterns for Client-side
    state, and they differ

    LM: they have different relevant properties to the requirements
    ... Here are seven different design patterns; here are their
    properties, here's why some address requirement X, Y, Z better/worse
    than others

    <masinter> "seven" plus or minus four

    NM: Assuming this is a separate document, what are the top three
    questions it will answer for the community?

    AM: Give me three weeks

    NM: OK, let's suspend judgement on the long-term future of this work
    until we see your response

    <masinter> are there books or papers on web application design, that
    cover client side storage, use of cookies, local storage, etc?

    AM: We asked the WebApps guys who are writing these specs, where are
    your use cases?
    ... And they didn't have much of a concrete reply

    <noah> ACTION: Ashok (with help from Noah) build good product page
    for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered
    on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02]

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-523 - (with help from Noah) build good
    product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions
    to be answered on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [on Ashok
    Malhotra - due 2011-02-17].

    [Break until 1045]

    [resume from break]

Review of TAG activity

    NM: I've been reviewing the open actions, to try to abstract what
    the set of Products are in principle
    ... So that we can create the ones that are missing
    ... Quick scan of the Tracker Products:
    2001/tag/group/track/products
    ... Agreed that we are not currently working on the Versioning
    Product

    <noah> ACTION: Noah close versioning product [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03]

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-524 - Close versioning product [on Noah
    Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

    LM: Some of that work is going forward under other headings, e.g.
    the mime info work

    NM: What is this WebApp Access Control product?

    JR: Ask JK

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to check with John before closing
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access
    control [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04]

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
      [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-525 - Check with John before closing
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access
    control [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to do first draft product stuff for MIME and
    related core web mechanisms [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05]

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-526 - Do first draft product stuff for
    MIME and related core web mechanisms [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
    2011-02-17].

    NM: We have a total of 45 open actions

    LM: I want to push [36]Action 519 to be even bigger, on the relation
    of standards to operational requirements
    ... Big ISPs come to IETF, not to W3C, so this is important with
    respect to our presentation to the IAB

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/519

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to make sure we make progress on [37]ACTION-519
    and [38]ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF meeting,
    talk to be ready by mid-March [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06]

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/519
      [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/517
      [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-527 - Make sure we make progress on
    ACTION-519 and ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF
    meeting, talk to be ready by mid-March [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
    2011-02-17].

    NM: Diving in to [40]Action-521, do we want to press forward with
    taking Disposition of Names in a Namespace to REC: 4 not sure, 2
    against, 1 to push it to Core, 0 to do it
    ... Remind NM to propose next steps and/or discussion on this
    ... Relieved not to find too many "Oops, we've let this slip"
    responses or "Oops, there's a big iceberg under here"
    ... Open for discussion, let's propose edits to the list of Products
    ... Additions or deletions

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/521

    <Zakim> ht, you wanted to say Products don't exhaust our work

    <Zakim> jar, you wanted to take apart 'important'

    LM: Change HTML 5 review to Open Web Platform Architecture
    ... At the TPAC plenary, the MS rep proposed a number of
    HTML5-related arch. issues
    ... and I've gotten a list from Julian Reschke

    <masinter> and from several other people

    HST: Is Persistence a Product

    NM: Should we be doing that -- think about where this stands?

    LM: I don't think it is one of the top priorities aligns with the
    guidance we're getting

    <masinter> I'm looking at [41]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

      [41] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

    TBL: We are responsible for long-term issues, which no-one else will
    worry about

    NM: I read JJ's list as a "be sure to cover this", not "and nothing
    else"

    HST: We owe it to the people who raised the persistence question to
    work on it, and I think addressing why people don't trust 'http:'
    URIs is a fundamental arch. question.

    NM: Goals and success criteria

    HT: We have two draft documents in different stages: 1) my somewhat
    stale but valuable Dirk and Nadia design a naming scheme and 2)
    Jonathan's checklist document
    ... I think each of those speak to a different community, and
    suggest different deliverables directed at different goals.

    <masinter> the reason why I'm reluctant to put this is a priority is
    that I'm afraid i have some real disagreements about the nature of
    the problem and the directions to address them.

    HT: Potential goal #1: address the architectural origins of the
    vulnerability of Web names.
    ... Potential goal #2: identify best practices for the use of Web
    names in contexts where some form of persistence is goal.

    <scribe> ACTION: Henry to create and get consensus on a product page
    and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01
    [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07]

      [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-528 - Create and get consensus on a
    product page and tracker product page for persistence of names Due:
    2011-03-01 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2011-02-17].

    <timbl> due date: 3011-01-01 -- test that the action URI still works

    ACTION-528 Due 2011-03-01

    <trackbot> ACTION-528 Create and get consensus on a product page and
    tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01 due
    date now 2011-03-01

    <masinter> "persistence" requires both technical and social
    institutions to coordinate. We should look at successful social
    institutions and those in trouble.

    <masinter>
    [43]http://www.archive.org/post/337580/internet-archive-needs-your-h
    elp

      [43] http://www.archive.org/post/337580/internet-archive-needs-your-help

    DKA: Offline web: widgets, app cache, cf. JJ's Web Apps and mobile
    devices bullet

    DKA: There is a workshop being organized by Matt Womer in this area

    NM: This overlaps with Client-side state

    DKA: This is about packaging
    ... not (just) storage

    NM: Should we discuss making this a product?
    ... OK, will do

    <noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule telcon discussion of a potential TAG
    product relating to offline applications and packaged Web [recorded
    in [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08]

      [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-529 - Schedule telcon discussion of a
    potential TAG product relating to offline applications and packaged
    Web [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

    NM: All of mobile?

    DKA: No, mobile and the offline web -- packaging the web

    <Ashok> Interacts with Client-Side Storage

    JAR: Saying something is important is not very useful, unless
    someone is signed up for it
    ... Maybe we should do a gap analysis: a matrix where we have
    supply-side -- what would each member be inclined to do, left to
    themselves, vs. demand-side: what have JJ and/or our community asked
    us to do
    ... and we look for the blank spaces
    ... And we don't yet have enough information yet to actually build
    that matrix

    NM: That's a goal for us, yes

    <masinter> alignment between W3C working groups, and with IETF and
    with previous specs and .... is after all what TAG was originally
    chartered for

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about 'underlying architecture'
    as possibly a higher TAG priority than Jeff's list, which applies to
    W3C as a whole

    <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about a goal in which social
    institutions are changed in order to achieve persistence.

IETF Meeting in Prague

    <noah> Henry and Larry will be there.

    AM: Talk or panel.

    LM: See [45]ACTION-500. There is a panel, with representation from
    lots of the IETF community. Panel description is copied in the
    action.

      [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

    LM: Not yet determined between Henry and me who will actually be on
    the panel.

    ACTION-500?

    <trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG
    participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

      [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

    AM: You probably only get 15 minutes?

    LM: At most, could be 10.
    ... We should use this mainly to "show the flag", indicate where
    major points of interest are, etc.
    ... They've written what they think the issue is for them.

    HT: It's in some sense better we don't have a longer slot, which
    would lead to us reading our laundry list.
    ... The appropriate question we need to think of here today is, what
    do we want to project about the TAG itself?

    LM: We are in the process of establishing our priorities based on
    what the community needs from us. Some people at the IETF meeting
    are likely to be, unfortunately, not W3C members.

    NM: Um, our TAG community is the Web and Internet community, not
    just the W3C.

    LM: Oops, you're right, that's what I meant.

    NM: We listen to everyone, on www-tag, by inviting people to join
    meetings and calls, etc.

    HT: The IETF is appealingly a crypto-anarchist commune with a long
    history.
    ... They are phenomenally successful.
    ... Larry and I should probably send email to www-tag asking for
    input, then get telcon time.

    LM: Henry, hows about you draft a talk for review, with my help?

    HT: I'll produce say, 5 slides, for review on call in two weeks.

    <masinter> what is the tag, what the tag works on, what things are
    we thinking about in W3C, what things are we thinking about in the
    TAG in particular

    <scribe> ACTION: Henry to draft slides for IETF meeting, with help
    from Larry Due 2011-02-22 [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09]

      [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-530 - Draft slides for IETF meeting, with
    help from Larry Due 2011-02-22 [on Henry S. Thompson - due
    2011-02-17].

    NM: Suspended for lunch

    Philippe Le Hégaret joins the meeting

    Discussion of action items

    NM: Larry asked me to add a link to RFC5226 to the agenda.

    <noah> [48]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226

      [48] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226

    <noah>
    [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0004.html

      [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0004.html

    DQA: I note IE9 has Geolocation.

    <masinter> there was another link
    [50]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs

      [50] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs

    Larry:re [51]ACTION-511

      [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511

    LM: we have had a lot of discussion of registries
    ... perhaps as reaction to IANA, feeling that registries were
    ... a bottleneck in the system, that we should use URIs to be
    decentralized.

    LM: Still, there are protocols, protocol and language elements where
    we don't use URIs.
    ... But, if it isn't a URI, then how do you find out what it means?

    <plh> --> [52]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/ XPointer
    Registry

      [52] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/

    LM: Does IANA still manage it? But IANA is unresponsive and
    cumbersome? Should we use a wiki page, [HTML WG suggestion]?
    ... I was trying to frame the issue with MIME type registries.

    <plh> --> [53]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
    Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Spec

      [53] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html

    LM: Many issues are around what the mime type means when it evolves,
    having to do with versioning.
    ... There are technical and social issues. Power: who controls the
    registry? Who controls what properties things should have
    registered?
    ... People disagree on the contents of the registry
    ... I pointed to [54]RFC2434, now [55]RFC5226 .

      [54] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434
      [55] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226

    LM: I also saw a good IANA document in progress on extensibility
    from the point of view of protocol design, in which registries are
    one way.

    <masinter> [56]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs

      [56] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs

    PLH: I pasted in various links, including to the XPointer registry.
    ... This registry is hosted by W3C.

    HT: The XPointer spec didn't have unqualified names, but people
    complained that getting URIs in to bind every name was ridiculous.
    Please let us defined some short names which we can own, and we did,
    and so we have a URI-based registry mechanism.

    <plh> [57]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/range

      [57] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/range

    HT: the way you tell what short names mean or are available is you
    concatenate with a URI.

    PLH: This was very lightweight, lightweight review process too.
    ... We demand a link to a spec but no other review.

    HT: Just a way of mapping short names into URI space on a first
    come, first served basis.

    LM: What does CSS do with vendor prefixes?

    Peter: Nothing formal -- we have recently started keeping a list.

    NM: Is it just a convention?

    <timbl> ... You register just the -moz- not the -moz-* names.

    PL: No, more than that. The spec requires a syntactic convention for
    use of anything that is either not in the spec, or not advanced to a
    certain point in the spec development.

    TBL: Do you standardize thinks like -*-roundedcorner?

    PL: No, just -*-

    TBL: As a CSS user, having many different names was a pain for
    Rounded Corners.

    Peter: That was necessary as the different vendors did it
    differently.

    Larry: We were having registries, so we are not really following out
    URI architecture. Can IANA be fixed? Is the problem IANA?
    ... People say the problem is not IANA but tracking what IANA is up
    to.

    <plh> -->
    [58]http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027 HTML
    ISSUE 27

      [58] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027

    TBL: For example, the text/n3 mime type is still pending
    ... after years

    Larry: if you look at the docs establishing how IANA works, they
    don't determine the process ... that is established for each
    registry anew. I refined the URI scheme registry process, there is
    still unhappiness with it.

    LM: I would hate for W3C to reinvent this wheel and rediscover all
    the problems

    PLH: This is related to infamous HTML WG Issue 27 (see link above)
    ... (all HTML WG issues are infamous)

    PLH: One proposal is to have a registry at W3C

    <masinter> proposal W3C run rel:
    [59]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW
    3C

      [59] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW3C

    PLH: Mark Nottingham has done work on a IANA registry. Ian Hickson
    tested it and declared that it was not working.
    ... there is a counter-proposal which just uses a wiki page.
    ... This was escalated to the WG as issue 27.

    <masinter> [60]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

      [60] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

    <noah> [61]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

      [61] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

    <noah> ISSUE 27: @rel value ownership, registry consideration

    Larry: We should discuss whether and why and how W3C runs registries
    -- it should not be decided just by a local WG, as it is a long term
    commitment, and much more than the design of a technical spec.

    PLH: Without requirements, you can't

    PLH: It took years to get image/svg+xml took years to get
    registered.
    ... Even though it was in use for years.

    <plh> -->
    [62]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg08
    275.html Approval of image/svg+xml Media Type

      [62] 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg08275.html

    Larry: People brought this up as a poster child of why it didn't
    work ... but they didn't in fact respond to IANA's comments about
    what was missing from the application

    <masinter> there's also been a long recent discussion about +json
    and +zip; and +xml is an issue

    TBL: We had a story with text/n3+rdf type where we used the W3C/IETF
    liaison meeting to track. Per that discussion we removed the +rdf.
    ... They said we would have to produce a stable document, which we
    did some years ago, so for me text/n3 is another poster child for
    the problems.

    <plh> --> [63]http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/ N3

      [63] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/

    TBL: The confusion is compounded because there are people out there
    using the now deprecated +rdf form, but there's nothing to point to
    saying, "here's what you should do".

    <masinter> Maybe W3C should have an IANA shepherd who knows how to
    work IANA and helps people through the process, that would be better
    than running W3C registry..

    <plh> for n3, I'm probably the bottleneck

    TBL: There's also no tracker for the application review process for
    mime types. You can't tell where things are in the process, what the
    problems are, or even that there is a registration pending.
    ... So, one suggestion is that we should not only run a registry at
    W3C, but that we should run a tracker.

    LM: You could run a tracker for IANA
    ... The IETF tools team has built tools for many groups, and perhaps
    has just not gotten to IANA

    LM: The IETF tools team has been building tools for IANA but not
    that one yet.

    PLH: The technical issues we have to resolve, and they can take
    years
    ... The charset attribute, and then content-encoding, the
    discussions exhausted the energy of the applicants.

    Larry: My experience has been very positive: you tell the truth you
    get approval. With text/html Dan Connolly and I updated it... I also
    did application/pdf.
    ... I was involved with gopher's mime types
    ... What can take years has been miscommunication.

    <plh> -->
    [64]http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00981.html MIME
    Type Review Request: image/svg+xml November 2004

      [64] http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00981.html

    TBL: I sympathize with the requirements they have for, e.g. MIME
    registry, but I've found that the HTML experience of having two
    specs (I.e. the HTML spec plus the media type registration), was not
    good. We've now fixed that by ensuring that the spec shall pass
    muster as a registration document, and IANA will please accept that.
    ... That now is the case, which is good.
    ... Therefore, my view is that the right path for SVG would have
    been that all the stuff like charset should have been caught and
    fixed as part of the W3C CR process reviews.

    <Zakim> jar, you wanted to mention journals e.g. PLoS One

    JAR: This is not happening in a vacuum -- there have been registries
    before IANA
    ... It isn't just who runs it, it is what properties it has:
    ... What criteria of acceptance, professionalism of management, what
    tracking technology,... the publication of a scholarly journal is an
    analogous process, [foo???] example.

    LM: We use registries for extensibility, where the spec points to a
    given specific registry, an the standard defined the criteria for
    the registry, so that the standard will still work. If someone tries
    to register a term which violated the design, then it is rejected.

    <masinter> maybe this is an important criteria for registries --
    that the protocol design shouldn't rely on the registrar review to
    maintain invariants

    Tim: Example -- HTTP headers always, per [65]RFC822, have a comma
    -as an equivalent to a new header line - the cookie header spec in
    error used it differently and it was not caught.

      [65] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822

    Larry: The spec puts an onus on the good people running the registry
    to make sure that good things happen.

    LM: In some cases in the past, the spec did not tightly bound what
    extensions could do, and we relied on the registrar to enforce good
    practice.

    TBL:Hmm. I'm sure Larry is right about the history, but it seems
    preferable to me that the spec should say what extension points can
    do, and the the registrar merely enforce that

    <masinter> [66]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
    Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Spec

      [66] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html

    PLH: We have a media type registry at W3C

    PLH: Since M Duerst left w3t, I have been maintaining the big table
    at the bottom
    ... This table has been there for 8 years
    ... The old way of registering a media type is to just write an RFC,
    but a few years ago, with Martin's help, IETF allows other
    organization's specs to be used in the IANA registration.

    <plh> -->
    [67]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#RegStatus
    Status of Internet Media type registrations

      [67] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#RegStatus

    TBL: Is N3 in the table?

    PHL: No, my fault. Kick me.

    TBL: Will do.

    PLH: I accept total responsibility for making sure that it is
    ... Many of these media types are here but not in the IANA registry.

    Larry: How many of these have been requested?

    PLH: If you look at the "Plans" column.

    TBL: I suggest that the states be defined in an ontology

    PLH: "Need IETF types review" means that W3C has yet to ask for that
    review.

    [discussion of W3C process]

    PLH: We have those steps to help working groups go through those
    processes.
    ... We can end up with things which just hang there

    HT: What is the problem we are trying to fix now?

    PLH: The problem with SVG was getting is registered in 2010 after
    asking in 2004, with it being used in between.

    PLH: For me the problem is that we requested an SVG media type in
    2004, that only got formal approval in 2010, and it was used without
    registration for 6 years.

    HT: OK, stipulate a problem with that registry, the TAG issue
    appears to be about registries in general.

    HT: Sounds like a bug in that registry -- lets suggest that they
    implement a tracker. That could be fixed. Automating the registry
    wouldn't necessarily help that. The XPointer scheme registry has a
    rule that the URI works and tells you the status the moment you have
    requested registration, but that's a management decision, not a
    technical one.

    Larry: It would be nice to give IANA a heads up before the request
    -- an intent to register. You could post that they intend to
    register it.

    Tim: propose that the IANA system should surface all the info in
    PLH's table

    <masinter> [68]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html

      [68] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html

    <masinter> but if OASIS and ISO and other organizations want to
    register values, shouldn't they also be visible to W3C members?

    Larry: There is a place for lightweight registries, e.g. MIME types,
    that many organizations can contribute to.
    ... W3C should try to fix IANA before running around it.
    ... We should volunteer to help them, and find a good way to
    integrate the web architecture of the registry with the Internet
    Architecture people.
    ... With specific technical details, for example there are issues
    about the MIME types conflicting with the sniffing documents.

    Noah: Do we want any more work on this?

    Larry: PLH is on the front line, who is being asked to run
    registries. As the TAG we can help out with arch issues.

    PLH: The immediate issue is [69]issue 27, which is related to rel=""

      [69] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

    NM: To clarify, I was asking whether we needed to schedule or track
    work that's beyond what we're already doing

    PLH: The next step is if there are counter-proposals in the HTML WG.

    PLH: Potentially, the TAG might have a position to offer to the HTML
    WG

    TBL: I'm not sure I'm hearing anyone around the table complain about
    anything.

    JAR: There are RFCs which point to the IANA registries.

    <masinter> [70]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

      [70] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

    JAR: We don't want two registries.

    TBL: Right, not two registries, and we want a good relationship with
    IANA. We do need something that will produce RDF.

    JAR: Um, that can be a tarpit. I've already tried to convince IETF
    on that.

    <jar> well, not on exactly that, but on something closely related
    having to do with link relations and 200 status

    TBL: There are, e.g. ontologies that list each of the HTML headers.
    People are producing ontologies that are 1:1 with the IANA
    registries. What's crucial is to deal in URIs that you can
    dereference to find out what you've got.
    ... IANA spent a long time working in plain text not HTML, a long
    time using ftp vs. http, they've slowly moved. I fear we might be
    talking a long time to make the move on conneg that returns RDF.

    <masinter> I think people ascribe to "IANA" things that are really
    within their own control

    <plh> -->
    [71]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW
    3C#Positive_Effects Effects of a registry at W3C

      [71] 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RelRegistryAtTheW3C#Positive_Effects

    <masinter> there's no reason why W3C can't run a service for doing
    something with IANA registered terms, for example, by adding to the
    registry a set of "registered value retrieval services"

    TBL: Meanwhile, there are cases where you want to pick up
    information etc. about a new media type dynamically, while browsing.

    NM: Trust issues aside, you could even dynamically pick up handlers,
    e.g. to render a new image type.

    TBL: Indeed, a very interesting rathole, but not now.

    <timbl> The relationship between a MIME type and a typical file
    extension is important for security -- you must not store a file in
    a file system so that it looks as though it has a different MIME
    type, as that is a security hole.

    ACTION-511?

    <trackbot> ACTION-511 -- Larry Masinter to send email framing TAG
    work on registries -- due 2011-01-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [72]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511

      [72] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511

    PLH: Henry Sivonen suggests a very lightweight system for rel
    values, similar to the XPointer registry.

    Larry: I think i hear enough technical and architectural issues and
    I am thinking of writing a finding about it.

    <noah> ACTION: Larry to write draft document on architectural good
    practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19 [recorded in
    [73]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10]

      [73] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-531 - Write draft document on
    architectural good practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19
    [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-02-17].

    ----------------------------------------------

Issue Tracking

    NM: What does "open" mean of an issue?
    ... For those we are not working on actively , we should categorize
    them.
    ... We should close the ones which have been overtaken by events.

    NM: re [74]Issue-7

      [74] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/7

    <noah> ISSUE-7: (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
    XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
    a body?)

    <trackbot> ISSUE-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
    XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
    a body?) notes added

    Is this still relevant?

    Larry PING attributes ping a server to show you took a link

    Larry: It might be in the WHATWG spec still.
    ... but not in the W3C spec.
    ... This battle has been fought.

    LM: We should worry about the W3C spec.

    NM: Disagree, at least in principal. If any organization is
    promoting widespread use of something we consider inappropriate,
    that's potentially of concern to the TAG.

    TBL: Yes, but we have to pick our battles.

    HT: What about the original XForms issue.

    HT: Is XForms actually using GET? Many of those who use it use POST
    not GET, and that is how XForms architecture is designed to work.
    ... I didn't realize there is a tension there.

    <masinter> I defined MIME type multipart/form-data in
    [75]http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2388.html

      [75] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2388.html

    HT: But XForms uses POST just in order to have an XML body.

    Larry: Lets close this without prejudice.

    TBL: Let's close it without prejudice

    NM: Fine with me

    <timbl> TrackBot, Close ISSUE-7

    <trackbot> ISSUE-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
    XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
    a body?) closed

    RESOLUTION: We will (re)close ISSUE-7, without prejudice with
    respect to HTML ping being good/bad

    close ISSUE-7

    <trackbot> ISSUE-7 (1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in
    XForms(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?GET plus
    a body?) closed

    <ht> It appears that @ping has been removed from HTML5[W3C], remains
    in HTML[WHATWG], but is not receiving much (any?) implementation
    [76]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0136.htm
    l

      [76] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0136.html

    <ht> This is from HTML WG issue 1
    [77]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1

      [77] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1

    ----------------------------------------------

    [78]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20

      [78] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20

    ISSUE-20: What should specifications say about error handling?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-20 What should specifications say about error
    handling? notes added

    HT: If this is being pursued it would be in the XML HTML TF

    <noah> Last status change was: connecting with "HTML 5 review"
    product a la [79]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda

      [79] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda

    HT: Propose this has been overtaken by events.

    HT: I think this is overtaken or subsumed with respect to/HTML.

    LM: Those are specific instances, but there's a broader concern
    here.

    Larry: Those are specific instances -- we have though a general
    question of conservative/liberal, error handling etc. here.
    ... Like, if you dictate what happens exactly with every error, are
    they still errors?

    HT: On a scale of 1..10, that concern is for me a 2
    ... in terms of its importance to the TAG.

    <noah> [80]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Dec/0044

      [80] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Dec/0044

    Noah: Look at the history. We closed in in 2003 - Chris L in 2003 --
    the TAG closed it in 2003
    ... In 2008, on Dec 9, we re-opened it specifically about HTML5 Tag
    Soup.
    ... So HT's comment does indeed carry the day.

    Tim: Suggest open, work happening in XML HTML task force.

    <masinter> mark it as "PENDING REVIEW"?

    <noah> Added note to ISSUE-20: Reviewed status of this at 10 Feb
    2011 (8-10 Feb) F2F. Decided to leave this open for now, pending
    better understanding of where the XML/HTML Unification Task force is
    going with related issues.

    ----------

    Noah: What about [81]Issue-24

      [81] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24

    Larry: Lets leave it open

    Noah: [82]Issue-25 Deep Linking -- any actions

      [82] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

    DKA: I made a very sketchy draft I made -- needs discussion

    Noah: Stays open, you have an action for it.

    <DKA> [83]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/rightToLink.html

      [83] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/rightToLink.html

    JAR: [84]Issue-31 was re-opened for UMP.

      [84] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31

    Noah: [85]Issue-31 stays open. [86]Action-344 now is associated with
    it

      [85] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31
      [86] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/344

    <masinter> issue-31?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Should metadata (e.g., versioning
    information) be encoded in URIs? -- open

    <trackbot> [87]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31

      [87] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/31

    <DKA> [88]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-WICD-20070718/

      [88] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-WICD-20070718/

    Noah: We close this as no objections heard

    <masinter> issue-33?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Composability for user interface-oriented XML
    namespaces -- open

    <trackbot> [89]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/33

      [89] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/33

    <noah> RESOLUTION: Closing ISSUE-33 because CDF is gone, and any
    concerns about SVG, MathML, etc. in HTML are being tracked
    elsewhere.

    <noah> close ISSUE-33

    <trackbot> ISSUE-33 Composability for user interface-oriented XML
    namespaces closed

    ------------

    <masinter> issue-34?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- XML Transformation and composability (e.g.,
    XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) -- open

    <trackbot> [90]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34

      [90] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34

    Issue-37?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Definition of abstract components with
    namespace names and frag ids -- open

    <trackbot> [91]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/37

      [91] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/37

    <masinter> issue-39?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- Meaning of URIs in RDF documents -- open

    <trackbot> [92]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/39

      [92] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/39

    <noah> "The community needs:

    <noah> A concise statement of the above architectural elements from
    different specs in one place, written in terms which the ontology
    community will understand, with pointers to the relevant
    specifications."

    JAR: I wondered about opening an Issue for Harry Halpin's concerns.
    The problem with doing # or 303.

    timbl: Let's not re-define issues under the same number, that's
    fraud :-)

    <noah> ACTION: Jonathan to propose changes to status of issue-39 &
    issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H. Halpin's
    concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 [recorded in
    [93]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11]

      [93] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-532 - Propose changes to status of
    issue-39 & issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H.
    Halpin's concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 [on Jonathan
    Rees - due 2011-02-17].

assembling the minutes

    <noah> Day 1: Dan

    <noah> Day 2: Larry

    <noah> Day 3: Henry

    [BREAK]

    Noah: Now going through action items

    <noah>
    [94]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner

      [94] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner

    Noah: Now going through action items

    Action-505?

    <trackbot> ACTION-505 -- Daniel Appelquist to start a document with
    respect to issue-25 -- due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [95]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505

      [95] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505

    DKA: Do we need a TAG finding here?

    Noah: Take us to the point where we are ready for discussion.

    DKA: I need someone to help me on this

    JAR: We could talk.

    <noah> At Feb 2011 F2F, Jonathan agrees to give Dan a bit of help.
    Next goal is for them to take us to the point where we are ready for
    telcon discussion.

    <noah> ACTION-505 Due 2011-03-01

    <trackbot> ACTION-505 Start a document with respect to issue-25 due
    date now 2011-03-01

    Action-507?

    <trackbot> ACTION-507 -- Daniel Appelquist to with Noah to suggest
    next steps for TAG on privacy -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [96]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/507

      [96] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/507

    DKA: We didn't come up with a product page for the over-arching
    product on privacy.

    Noah: The product page is to define work the TAG will do.

    action continues.

    <noah> ACTION-460 Due 2011-03-08

    <trackbot> ACTION-460 Coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on
    privacy policy due date now 2011-03-08

    <noah> ACTION-480 Due 2011-03-01

    <trackbot> ACTION-480 Draft overview document framing Web
    applications as opposed to traditional Web of documents Due:
    2010-11-01 due date now 2011-03-01

    <noah> ACTION-116?

    <trackbot> ACTION-116 -- Tim Berners-Lee to align the tabulator
    internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules
    [97]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
    either as needed. -- due 2011-02-11 -- OPEN

      [97] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules

    <trackbot> [98]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116

      [98] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116

    JAR: Tim took this on himself, up to him whether to proceed

    TBL: OK, maybe this is overtaken by events

    Agreed on Feb 10 2011 at F2F Jonathan will move this to become an
    AWWSW action

    close ACTION-116

    <trackbot> ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with
    the vocabulary in the rules
    [99]http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to
    either as needed. closed

      [99] http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules

    ACTION-510?

    <trackbot> ACTION-510 -- Tim Berners-Lee to write a note conveying
    the TAG's concerns re: the microdata -> RDF URI mappings in the
    HTML5 microdata draft Due: 2011-01-20 -- due 2011-01-13 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [100]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/510

     [100] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/510

    ACTION-510 Due 2011-03-09

    <trackbot> ACTION-510 Write a note conveying the TAG's concerns re:
    the microdata -> RDF URI mappings in the HTML5 microdata draft Due:
    2011-01-20 due date now 2011-03-09

    ACTION-355?

    <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
    AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
    Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [101]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

     [101] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355

    ACTION-504?

    <trackbot> ACTION-504 -- John Kemp to make sure ACTION-355 links all
    significant writings including use cases. -- due 2011-01-27 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [102]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/504

     [102] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/504

    note that 504 is linked to 355

    JK: Unclear whether anyone is interested.

    NM: We could do a product page. Could be one with resource assigned
    and dates, or could be a partial product page, with blanks for
    assigned resource and dates

    JK: Originally, the idea was to fill out a piece that is called out
    as missing in AWWW, I.e. to cover non-HTTP interactions.
    ... I think that was Noah's original suggestion

    JAR: At least, let's not let this get lost

    <timbl>
    [103]http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/getting-started.ht
    ml

     [103] http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/getting-started.html

    close ACTION-504

    <trackbot> ACTION-504 Make sure ACTION-355 links all significant
    writings including use cases. closed

    ACTION-416?

    <trackbot> ACTION-416 -- John Kemp to work on diagrams in "From
    Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material -- due
    2011-03-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [104]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/416

     [104] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/416

    JK: That's in Ashok's Web App document. I've made no recent
    progress.
    ... What to do whether you will work on future Web applications
    document. Ashok now has control of the pertinent document.

    NM: Ashok, do you have an action associated with that.

    <johnk> [105]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/WebApps.html

     [105] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/05/WebApps.html

    <johnk> ACTION-417?

    <trackbot> ACTION-417 -- John Kemp to frame section 7, security --
    due 2011-01-25 -- CLOSED

    <trackbot> [106]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

     [106] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/417

    [107]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480

     [107] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/480

    close ACTION-416

    <trackbot> ACTION-416 Work on diagrams in "From Server-side to
    client-side" section of webapps material closed

    ACTION-508?

    <trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report
    regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps Due:
    2011-01-03 -- due 2011-02-22 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [108]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508

     [108] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508

    LM: Discussed Tues.

    ACTION-531?

    <trackbot> ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to write draft document on
    architectural good practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19 --
    due 2011-02-17 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [109]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531

     [109] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531

    ACTION-515?

    <trackbot> ACTION-515 -- Larry Masinter to (as trackbot proxy for
    John) who will publish
    [110]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html, slightly
    cleaned up, with help from Noah and Larry Due: 2011-03-07 -- due
    2011-02-15 -- OPEN

     [110] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/security-web.html

    <trackbot> [111]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/515

     [111] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/515

    ACTION-525?

    <trackbot> ACTION-525 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check with John before
    closing [112]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
    WebApps access control -- due 2011-02-17 -- OPEN

     [112] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2

    <trackbot> [113]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525

     [113] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/525

    ACTION-529?

    <trackbot> ACTION-529 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon
    discussion of a potential TAG product relating to offline
    applications and packaged Web -- due 2011-02-17 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [114]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/529

     [114] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/529

    close ACTION-513

    <trackbot> ACTION-513 Do F2F agenda closed

    ACTION-501?

    <trackbot> ACTION-501 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up on whether
    GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per
    site/app etc [self-assigned] -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [115]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501

     [115] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501

    ACTION-379?

    <trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML
    language reference has been published -- due 2011-02-08 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [116]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

     [116] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379

    ACTION-379 Due 2011-03-09

    <trackbot> ACTION-379 Check whether HTML language reference has been
    published due date now 2011-03-09

    <masinter> why isn't this document listed in
    [117]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

     [117] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

    ACTION-344?

    <trackbot> ACTION-344 -- Jonathan Rees to alert TAG chair when CORS
    and/or UMP goes to LC to trigger security review -- due 2011-02-15
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [118]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/344

     [118] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/344

    Leave for now, moving ahead.

    ACTION-532?

    <trackbot> ACTION-532 -- Jonathan Rees to propose changes to status
    of issue-39 & issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H.
    Halpin's concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 -- due
    2011-02-17 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [119]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/532

     [119] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/532

    ACTION-381?

    <trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian
    with [120]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2011-02-11 --
    OPEN

     [120] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

    <trackbot> [121]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381

     [121] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381

    ACTION-509?

    <trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG
    regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due
    2011-01-29 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [122]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509

     [122] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509

    JAR: I've been working with Manu Sporny

    ACTION-509 Due 2011-03-15

    <trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting
    the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-03-15

    ACTION-509 Due 2011-02-15

    <trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting
    the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-02-15

    ACTION-477?

    <trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry S. Thompson to organize meeting on
    persistence of domains -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [123]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

     [123] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477

    ACTION-33?

    <trackbot> ACTION-33 -- Henry S. Thompson to revise naming
    challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion -- due
    2011-01-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [124]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33

     [124] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33

    ACTION-33 Due 2011-03-08

    <trackbot> ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to
    Dec 2008 F2F discussion due date now 2011-03-08

    ACTION-440?

    <trackbot> ACTION-440 -- Henry S. Thompson to ask Hixie what is
    meant in this [section 9.2] by "retrieving an external entity" and
    could some clarification be added. -- due 2011-02-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [125]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440

     [125] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440

    ACTION-440 Due 2011-02-22

    <trackbot> ACTION-440 Ask Hixie what is meant in this [section 9.2]
    by "retrieving an external entity" and could some clarification be
    added. due date now 2011-02-22

    ACTION-23?

    <trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Henry S. Thompson to track progress of #int
    bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG
    -- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [126]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

     [126] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

    HT: Reviewed state of this, saw something on the XML Schema mailing
    list implying done, but found closed in error.
    ... The bit we care about still hasn't been, I'm still monitoring.

    ACTION-23 Due 2011-05-01

    <trackbot> ACTION-23 track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML
    Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG due date now
    2011-05-01

Pending review actions

    ACTION-421?

    <trackbot> ACTION-421 -- Henry S. Thompson to frame the discussion
    of EXI deployment at a future meeting -- due 2011-01-21 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [127]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/421

     [127] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/421

    HT: I was asked to find out the deal on deployment.
    ... Sent a note to the list and got an answer from John Schneider.
    Please schedule discussion.

    ACTION-511?

    <trackbot> ACTION-511 -- Larry Masinter to send email framing TAG
    work on registries -- due 2011-01-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [128]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511

     [128] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/511

    LM: I took another ACTION-531, close ACTION-511

    close ACTION-511

    <trackbot> ACTION-511 Send email framing TAG work on registries
    closed

    ACTION-512?

    <trackbot> ACTION-512 -- Noah Mendelsohn to do F2F local
    arrangements -- due 2011-01-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [129]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/512

     [129] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/512

    close ACTION-512

    <trackbot> ACTION-512 Do F2F local arrangements closed

    <scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule TAG discussion of !# (check with
    Yves) [self-assigned] [recorded in
    [130]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12]

     [130] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-533 - Schedule TAG discussion of !# (check
    with Yves) [self-assigned] [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

EXI

    HT: There are 2 implementations linked from [131]the WG home page, 1
    proprietary, 1 open source. Three implementations are reported in
    the [132]implementation report, but not identified.

     [131] http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/#implementations
     [132] http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/implementation-report/

    We are adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Ashok (with help from Noah) build good product page
    for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered
    on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in
    [133]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Henry to create and get consensus on a product page
    and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01
    [recorded in
    [134]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: Henry to draft slides for IETF meeting, with help from
    Larry Due 2011-02-22 [recorded in
    [135]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to propose changes to status of issue-39 &
    issue-57, and perhaps opening new issue relating to H. Halpin's
    concerns about 200 responses Due: 2011-02-22 [recorded in
    [136]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11]
    [NEW] ACTION: Larry to write draft document on architectural good
    practice relating to registries Due 2011-04-19 [recorded in
    [137]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah close versioning product [recorded in
    [138]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to build Tracker product page for HTML/XML
    Unification [recorded in
    [139]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to check with John before closing
    [140]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps
    access control [recorded in
    [141]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to do first draft product stuff for MIME and
    related core web mechanisms [recorded in
    [142]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to make sure we make progress on ACTION-519 and
    ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF meeting, talk to
    be ready by mid-March [recorded in
    [143]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule TAG discussion of !# (check with
    Yves) [self-assigned] [recorded in
    [144]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule telcon discussion of a potential TAG
    product relating to offline applications and packaged Web [recorded
    in [145]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08]

     [133] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action02
     [134] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action07
     [135] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action09
     [136] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action11
     [137] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action10
     [138] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action03
     [139] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action01
     [140] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
     [141] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action04
     [142] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action05
     [143] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action06
     [144] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action12
     [145] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/10-minutes.html#action08

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [146]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([147]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/02/21 19:02:12 $

     [146] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [147] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 19:32:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT