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

Draft minutes for TAG telcon 2011-07-14

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:04:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1107200903330.31700@wnl.j3.bet>
Draft minutes from last week's call are now available at:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/07/14-minutes.html

See below for the text version:

W3C
- DRAFT -
TAG Telcon
14 Jul 2011

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
     Noah Mendelsohn, Ashok Malhotra, Peter Linss, Jeni Tennison, Jonathan 
Rees, Henry Thompson, Larry Masinter, Dan Appelquist, Yves Lafon
Regrets
Chair
     Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
     Yves Lafon

Contents

     Topics
         approval of minutes
         administrative items
         HTML5 Review: Normative status of HTML5 Web Authoring 
Specification
         ISSUE-35 (RDFinXHTML-35-27): Microdata / RDFa relationship
         ACTION-545: Privacy
         RFC 3023bis and IRI
         overdue actions
         pending review actions
         HTML/XML unification
     Summary of Action Items

noah: can someone chair next week?

chair for next week: DKA

regrets from noah next week

need to assess if we need to cancel july 28 meeting or not

<jar> possible regrets from me for the last 1/2 hour of the 21st. will 
have to see
approval of minutes

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/23-minutes

RESOLUTION: minutes of june 23 approved
administrative items

<noah> TPAC: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/

TPAC registration is open

plan not done yet, but likely to be as usual, be there if you can, no 
mandatory attendance, meet on monday morning and friday afternoon (or 
monring if travels get in the way).

Norm Walsh announced the new draft of the HTML/XML TF report, not yet 
final for us to review

<Larry> On the HTML/XML task force, there's been some question about the 
scope of the task force... 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jul/0008.html

<Larry> should we discuss the task force scope if there is disagreement 
about what they're supposed to do.

<Larry> "In that regard I think it would be helpful if the TAG offered 
more information on the problem that this TF is in fact expected to solve. 
"

scope of the TF will be discussed at the end of this call or next week's 
call if agenda is full

F2F is EDI, people might start travel plan.

ht, do you have an ETA for a page about EDI accomodations?

ht: will try to do that next week
HTML5 Review: Normative status of HTML5 Web Authoring Specification

discussion started in Mandelieu about language spec vs user-agent spec

resolution at that time was to publish a projection of the main spec now 
called 'edition for web authors'

<Larry> Re HTML5 edition for web authors, the advice "Readers are 
encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system 
of the HTML WG." is good short term but will of course need to change at 
"Rec" status, but it's a fine interim position. My main concern is that 
web authors and creators of authoring tools really review the language 
spec seriously for completeness and coherence and consistency

<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html

<noah> "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 
specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on 
normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents 
disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full 
HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report such 
discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG."

are you happy with this resolution ?

<noah> I am fine with it.

<JeniT> looks fine to me

<Larry> really it's about robustness principle (conservative in what you 
send, liberal in what you produce), and the authoring spec should be the 
conservative counterpoint to the liberal user agent

<Yves> +1

<plinss> works for me

<jar> +1

<Larry> i'm fine with the resolution as it is, but we still need to 
monitor robustness

<ht> Sigh -- not what I would prefer, but I can live with it

<DKA> That is fine with me.

<Larry> well, we have a 'robustness' goal, and the resolution is 
consistent with that although not by itself sufficient

<noah> proposed RESOLUTION: The TAG finds the resolution proposed in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html to be 
acceptable, and we thank the HTML WG

<Larry> that's fine

<noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG finds the resolution proposed in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html to be 
acceptable, and we thank the HTML WG

<noah> ACTION: Noah to inform HTML WG of satisfaction with authoring spec 
resolution [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-582 - Inform HTML WG of satisfaction with 
authoring spec resolution [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-07-21].

<Larry> if you wanted to say something about robustness etc. i wouldn't 
mind, but it's asking too much

<Larry> i think it's fine to separate it
ISSUE-35 (RDFinXHTML-35-27): Microdata / RDFa relationship

<noah> TAG note: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0136.html

<noah> HTML WG opens bugs 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13100 and 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13101

<Larry> i think the risk is lack of sincere participation... "We'd rather 
just stonewall"

noah: it seems that some people read TAG's note as "wait for the TF", 
that's not how we want the TF to be perceived, this should be a W3C TF not 
a TAG one

<Larry> Is there a common theme in the XML/HTML task force and the 
RDFa/Microdata task force? We're asking for communities to work 
together.... analyze the use cases, come up with a coherent analysis....

<noah> Not sure, Larry. I personally feel that the HTML/XML TF wound up 
acknowledging that there was so much existing deployment of rigid XML 
specifications, and complex HTML implementations, that in fact little 
could be be done.

ashok: what do we think the TF will come up with? fearing that nothing 
useful might get out of it.

<Larry> If there are two mechanisms the task force should review use cases 
of workflows that start with one and end up with the other, how do they 
work? If there are incompatibilities, are there changes to one or the 
other or both that would reduce the incompatibilities?

<noah> In the case of RDFa and Microdata, I would hope we're at a stage 
where, on the merits, there are much better opportunities to come together 
in practice. Whether people of good will are going to come together to 
fine out is of course TBD.

<Larry> If we decide to let both proceed *AS W3C Recommendations*, 
shouldn't the differences, impact on the workflows, inconsistencies be 
documented, so that people who are voting for both understand the costs 
associated with what they're voting for?

jeni: the initial question is "is there a competition between rdfa and 
microdata, and are people wanting to change the syntax they use" ie: is it 
worth spending time to unify the two approaches

if not, then document the differences and different use cases

and if yes, discussed based on bugs people encounter when deploying both 
rdfa and microdata, ie: leading to improvements that would also help 
unification

<Larry> There's some move to look at SVG/canvas/CSS as another of these 
issues: overlapping technologies with awkward workflows moving from one to 
the other, and how can transfers of things like color and transparency and 
layering and gradients be moved from one to the other

<Larry> e.g., could one define a version of XHTML where element names are 
upper case as a way to improve interop of scripts that compare element 
names

noah: deployment of rdfa and microdata is still early, so modifying should 
be still posible while with the amount of html/xml deployed it was far 
more difficult for the html-xml TF
ACTION-545: Privacy

<Ashok> http://www.w3.org/2011/track-privacy/report

ashok, privacy-related wg charter is out, it talks about DNT

<noah> Ashok, are you comfortable with TLR's advice?

<Ashok> # Blocking mechanisms: Domain Blocking,HTTP header,DOM Property, 
DoNotTrack Cookies Alissa Cooper paper: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cooper-web-tracking-opt-outs-00. # Do we 
need a response header? # Different rules for first-party and third-party 
sites? # Granularity of permissions/restrictions: binary, by category, 
black-list, white-list # How does user specify his choices?

<Ashok> Blocking mechanisms: Domain Blocking,HTTP header,DOM Property, 
DoNotTrack Cookies

<Ashok> Alissa Cooper paper: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cooper-web-tracking-opt-outs-00.

<Ashok> Do we need a response header?

<noah> Seems to me like the only way to introduce something like this 
really robustly is to have a "mustUnderstand" feature in HTTP -- that's 
not there.

<noah> Therefore, any site can just ignore a DNT header, right?

<Ashok> Different rules for first-party and third-party sites?

<Larry> I think the TAG should be talking about higher-level issues... 
like "where is the threat analysis"

ashok: subtle shades as third-party sites might act as first-party and so 
on

Larry: don't want to review things that will be worked by WGs, we might 
need to look at the issues at a higher level

<Ashok> Granularity of permissions/restrictions: binary, by category, 
black-list, white-list

<Ashok> How does user specify his choices?

ashok: users are not good at describing, or not wanting to describe what 
they want for privacy.

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter-draft

ashok: charter is very wide and non-specific

<Larry> I think the working group should be charatered to do a threat 
analysis to establish requirements, and that RFC 3694 is a good model of 
what a "threat analysis" might look like

<noah> ACTION-550?

<trackbot> ACTION-550 -- Daniel Appelquist to with help from Noah to plan 
TAG work on privacy, leading to session at F2F, next step is contact with 
TLR -- due 2011-05-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/550

<noah> ACTION-566?

<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, 
organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-06-14 
-- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566

<noah> close ACTION-550

<trackbot> ACTION-550 With help from Noah to plan TAG work on privacy, 
leading to session at F2F, next step is contact with TLR closed

<noah> ACTION: Ashok (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed 
W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-583 - (with help from Dan) organize TAG review 
of proposed W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 
[on Ashok Malhotra - due 2011-07-21].

<noah> ACTION-566?

<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, 
organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-06-14 
-- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566

<noah> ACTION-566 Due 2011-07-19

<trackbot> ACTION-566 Contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint 
discussion on privacy with IAB. due date now 2011-07-19

<noah> ACTION-556?

<trackbot> ACTION-556 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with HTML WG chairs 
as to why http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/author/ is not normative -- due 
2011-06-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/556

<noah> close ACTION-556

<trackbot> ACTION-556 Follow up with HTML WG chairs as to why 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/author/ is not normative closed

<noah> ACTION-581?

<trackbot> ACTION-581 -- Noah Mendelsohn to include discussion of 
Authoring Spec status resolution 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html in 14 
July 2011 Agenda [self-assigned] -- due 2011-07-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/581

<noah> close ACTION-581

<trackbot> ACTION-581 Include discussion of Authoring Spec status 
resolution 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html in 14 
July 2011 Agenda [self-assigned] closed

<noah> close ACTION-573?

<noah> ACTION-573?

<trackbot> ACTION-573 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send Jeni's note to HTML WG, 
RDFa, and W3C staff on Wed 22 June 2011 if there are no objections 
received by the 21st Due 2011-06-22 -- due 2011-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/573

<noah> close ACTION-573

<trackbot> ACTION-573 Send Jeni's note to HTML WG, RDFa, and W3C staff on 
Wed 22 June 2011 if there are no objections received by the 21st Due 
2011-06-22 closed

<noah> ACTION-575?

<trackbot> ACTION-575 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Jun/0082.html as edited Due 
2011-06-24 -- due 2011-06-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/575

<noah> close ACTION-575

<trackbot> ACTION-575 Send 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Jun/0082.html as edited Due 
2011-06-24 closed
RFC 3023bis and IRI

<Larry> I see quite a bit of progress in IETF IRI working group lately

<noah> ACTION-577?

<trackbot> ACTION-577 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule 3023bis discussion of 
processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June 
discussion, when Larry is available DueL 2011-07-12 -- due 2011-06-30 -- 
PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577

<Larry> IRI working group meeting at IETF in quebec

<noah> ACTION-577?

<trackbot> ACTION-577 -- Henry Thompson to prepare 3023bis discussion of 
processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June 
discussion, when Larry is available -- due 2011-07-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577

<Larry> suggest discussion should focus on TAG input to IRI working group 
meeting?

<Larry> next week is OK, 28th is during IETF

Larry: supplying TAG input to the upcoming IRI WG meeting at next IETF 
would be very good

ht: indeed

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

henry will frame what will be discussed next week re: IRI and rfc3023bis

<noah> ACTION-440?

<trackbot> ACTION-440 -- Henry Thompson to ask Hixie what is meant in this 
[section 9.2] by "retrieving an external entity" and could some 
clarification be added. -- due 2011-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440
overdue actions
pending review actions

<noah> ACTION-440?

<trackbot> ACTION-440 -- Henry Thompson to ask Hixie what is meant in this 
[section 9.2] by "retrieving an external entity" and could some 
clarification be added. -- due 2011-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440

see thread at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jul/thread.html#msg57

noah: we should up the priority of everything related to html5 review

<noah> ACTION-350?

<trackbot> ACTION-350 -- Henry Thompson to revise 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on 
feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion -- 
due 2011-08-10 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350

<noah> ACTION-404?

<trackbot> ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 
rel-ownership -- due 2011-04-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404

<noah> ACTION-508?

<trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report 
against HTML5 media type registration regarding interpretation of fragid 
in HTML-based AJAX apps -- due 2011-04-19 -- OPEN

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

<Larry> i should do this and haven't

<noah> NM: Last call comment from ACTION-508?

<noah> LM: Yes.

Larry, all we need to have is that the definition points out that the 
fragid might be interpreted

I may submit a bug

LM: leave 508 up for me to submit the bug

<noah> ACTION-508 Due 2011-07-19

<trackbot> ACTION-508 Draft proposed bug report against HTML5 media type 
registration regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps 
due date now 2011-07-19

<Larry> I don't think this is controversial

<noah> ACTION-557?

<trackbot> ACTION-557 -- Larry Masinter to draft note for chairs list on 
TAG interest in hearing of architectural issues and comments relating to 
HTML5...draft to be sent to tag@w3.org -- due 2011-06-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/557

<noah> close ACTION-557

<trackbot> ACTION-557 Draft note for chairs list on TAG interest in 
hearing of architectural issues and comments relating to HTML5...draft to 
be sent to tag@w3.org closed

<noah> ACTION-560?

<trackbot> ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call 
Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2011-06-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560

<noah> ACTION-460 Due 2011-07-21

<trackbot> ACTION-460 Coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on privacy 
policy due date now 2011-07-21

<noah> ACTION-572?

<trackbot> ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 -- due 
2011-07-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572

Noah: large part of next week's call should be on those html5 topics

also don't forget to make progress on products

<Larry> I submitted http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13257 
bug 13257 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
HTML/XML unification

Larry: some question about the goals of the HTML/XML TF, what are we 
expecting ?

<Larry> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jul/0008.html

<Larry> I wrote: "While I don't expect a task force to necessarily solve 
the problem given it, I do expect, if the conclusion is that the problem 
given the task force cannot be solved, for the task force to explain 
clearly, cogently, concisely (without too many references to jump through 
or an expectation to have participated in years of discussion) why the 
problem cannot be solved. I don't think the HTML/XML task force draft 
report does that

<Larry> yet. "

Noah: use cases were the things people wanted to get better compatibility 
on

issues when proposing solutions are deployment or spec incompatibility 
issues

<Larry> I don't think the task force report explains where the problems 
are now... the cost/benefit analyses aren't in it

Larry: I would like to have the TF document why solution are not workable 
without reading 15 years of backlog

Noah: please send that comment to Norm

<jar> impossibility proofs are usually several orders of magnitude harder 
than possibility proofs

ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ashok (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed 
W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to inform HTML WG of satisfaction with authoring spec 
resolution [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/07/20 12:50:51 $


-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 13:04:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:39 GMT