W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2012

DRAFT minutes 2/9/2012

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:03:12 -0800
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D06A897885A@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/09-minutes.html


                               - DRAFT -
              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

09 Feb 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/09-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ashok, Jonathan_Rees, JeniT, Masinter, DKA, ht, noah

   Regrets
          Yves

   Chair
          Noah

   Scribe
          Larry

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]agenda review
         2. [6]approval of minutes
         3. [7]administrative items
         4. [8]Action-563, note to Jeff
         5. [9]XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG
         6. [10]web application storage
         7. [11]pending review items
         8. [12]Overdue actions
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 09 February 2012

   scribenic: Larry

   <scribe> scribe: Larry

   <JeniT> I might not be able to make next week

   Future regrets, Jonathan 2/23

agenda review

   <ht> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

approval of minutes

   <noah> Minutes of the 19th of January:
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/19-minutes

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/19-minutes

   RESOLUTION: minutes of 19 Jan approved

   <noah> Minutes from Feb. 2:
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of 2/2 approved

administrative items

   no news on these

Action-563, note to Jeff

   <noah> ACTION-563?

   <trackbot> ACTION-563 -- Noah Mendelsohn to arrange for periodic TAG
   key issues reports to Jeff per June 2011 F2F Due 2011-10-15 -- due
   2012-01-31 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/563

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/563

   <noah> Proposed text:
   [18]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0012.html

     [18] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0012.html

   <DKA> I largely agree with Robin's comments.

   <DKA> I suggest removing the reference to Flash as it's a red
   herring.

   <DKA> (IMO)

   <noah> Robin offers revised text:
   [19]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0023.html

     [19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0023.html

   <DKA> I would suggest an intro paragraph.

   Larry: shorter is better than longer
   ... i think Robin's is shorter, and removing an irrelevant sentence
   from it would make it shorter still, which is good.
   ... I also think we should delete the sentence about SSL and privacy
   and SPDY because it's controversial and not helpful.

   <DKA> "The Web has become an application deployment platform for
   'desktop' devices. It has been held back from this role by the rise
   of proprietary app formats and closed app stores. As a result, much
   content and many user experiences are being locked into proprietary
   formats and applications and are not part of the Web. This is
   clearly a threat to the open Web. What can be done to make the Web
   the preferred development and deployment environment for these types
   of applications?"

   <noah> Remove the whole sentence, or just the phrase about Flash?

   The whole sentence, the discussion about proprietary vs. "open" is
   interesting but complex

   <noah> (Quoting from Robin's email) "This is primarily due to the
   fact that, as it was with Flash for over a decade, it is faster to
   ship a proprietary feature than the same one through a specification
   with multiple interoperable implementations."

   Larry: we can raise the issue without taking a stand on a complex
   issue

   <noah> I actually think the interesting point is that many
   proprietary features are introduced in conjunction with hardware
   changes and/or proprietary back-end (cloud) infrastructure (e.g.
   Siri)

   Larry: It's an interesting discussion that i'd love to have but we
   haven't had
   ... There's an interesting question about development of featurees
   in an "open" way
   ... "Standards follow innovation"

   noah: we could put weasel words

   Larry: "This is primarily due to " => "This may well be due to "

   noah: I think what's happening in the mobile space is much deeper.
   People are building hardware/software/server stack and developing
   it, and then bringing it to the standard.
   ... part of what made Siri interesting was the proprietary noise
   cleanup that's implemented in proprietary hardware in the CPU chip.
   And that what happens in the open space is going to be a generation
   behind.

   dka: in fact, what's happening in mobile is different. On the
   desktop innovation was moving to the web, but the innovation in
   mobile (and tablets) is moving into apps

   <jar> noah: Anything we do on the web is going to be a generation
   behind. DKA: But on mobile all the innovation is happening in web.
   (?)

   dka: device APIs and touch events working group... this is part of a
   good story, mitigation of the threat is happening already

   <noah> Therefore, it's hard to standardize audio cleanup unless the
   underlying capability becomes widespread.

   Larry: change of opinion, i'm ok with shipping Robin's text as is.

   <noah> We agree without objection to remove the pharse: "as it was
   with Flash for over a decade," from "This is primarily due to the
   fact that, as it was with Flash for over a decade, it is faster to
   ship a proprietary feature than the same one through a specification
   with multiple interoperable implementations."

   Discussing proposed new intro text:

   "The Web has become an application deployment platform for 'desktop'
   devices. It has been held back from this role on mobile and tablet
   devices by the rise of proprietary app formats and closed app
   stores. As a result, much content and many user experiences are
   being locked into proprietary formats and applications and are not
   part of the Web. This is clearly a threat to the open Web. What can
   be done to make the Web the preferred development and deployment?"

   Larry: -1

   <noah> -0.5

   <noah> Noah: I hear agreement to include Robin's text in place of
   mine, minus the phrase on Flash

   <noah>
   [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0012.html

     [20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0012.html

   <plinss> I have an additional item for the list. Sending in email to
   the member list due to bad audio on this call.

   Larry: I propose removing "Also, the use of SSL for all SPDY
   interactions offers the promise of improved privacy on the Web, but
   also raises architectural questions relating to caching, certificate
  management, etc. "

   <jar> +1

   <noah> Jonathan, is that +1 to removing?

   <jar> t (yes)

   <DKA> +1

   <noah> I thought we heard that, while SSL will not be >required<, it
   will usually be needed in practice to get through existing proxies.

  <jar> whether true or false, the privacy comment is controversial,
   and doesn't add anything significant to the note to Jeff. just flush
   it

   <noah> "Existing deployments of SPDY depend on SSL for tunneling
   through existing proxies, and therefore raises architectural
   questions relating to caching, certificate management, etc"

   <noah> "Existing deployments of SPDY depend on SSL for tunneling
   through existing proxies, which raises architectural questions
   relating to caching, certificate management, etc"

   <DKA> could be "e.g. related to caching"

   Larry: i'm not sure "depend on" is accurate

   <noah> "Existing deployments of SPDY use SSL for tunneling through
   existing proxies, which raises architectural questions relating to
   caching, certificate management, etc"

   <DKA> +1

   <JeniT> +1

   <noah> +1

   <jar> +1

   <noah> Any objections?

   <noah> None

   <noah> We'll make that change.

   <noah> Additional item from Peter:
   [21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0025.html

     [21] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Feb/0025.html

   larry: I like the topic, but i don't think it's narrowly applied to
   CSS as much as it is that the battle for distributed extensibility
   continues

   <noah> Proposed topic: Proliferation of proprietary properties

   Larry: Proposed topic: "Distributed extensibility and CSS vendor
   prefixes at issue"

   <noah> Mozilla and Opera are currently making plans to implement
   support for -webkit- prefixed CSS properties in their respective
   browsers. They feel they are being driven to this due to the large
   amount of mobile web content that only provides -webkit- prefixed
   properties despite the availability of equivalent prefixed
   properties on Gecko and Presto.

   <noah> if browser vendors begin implementing other browser's
   proprietary properties, the entire standards process is in danger of
   getting usurped. This also puts the plan to apply vendor prefixes in
   another areas (such as JavaScript) at risk as the primary purpose
   for having vendor specific prefixes is being bypassed.

   <noah> There is some hope that the CSS working group can make
   progress in limiting long-term deployment of proprietary extensions
   that would be better standardized, but prospects for success aren't
   entirely clear.

   Larry: We're still trying to manage 'distributed extensibility', and
   the method CSS was using is now (also) under threat.

   <ht> "We're still trying to manage distributed extensibility, but
   the mechanism the CSS WG was using is now under threat"

   <ht> I really like that sentence of Larry's

   <noah> From the top:

   <noah> We're still trying to manage distributed extensibility, but
   the mechanism the CSS WG was using is now under threat"

   <noah> Mozilla and Opera are currently making plans to implement
   support for -webkit- prefixed CSS properties in their respective
   browsers. They feel they are being driven to this due to the large
   amount of mobile web content that only provides -webkit- prefixed
   properties despite the availability of equivalent prefixed
   properties on Gecko and Presto.

   <noah> if browser vendors begin implementing other browser's
   proprietary properties, the entire standards process is in danger of
   getting usurped. This also puts the plan to apply vendor prefixes in
   another areas (such as JavaScript) at risk as the primary purpose
   for having vendor specific prefixes is being bypassed.

   <noah> There is some hope that the CSS working group can make
   progress in limiting long-term deployment of proprietary extensions
   that would be better standardized, but prospects for success aren't
   entriely clear.

   <noah> The CSS working group may make progress in limiting long-term
   deployment of proprietary extensions that would be better
   standardized, but prospects for success aren't entriely clear.

   <noah> Proposed topic: "Distributed extensibility and CSS vendor
   prefixes at issue"

   <noah> at issue?

   <noah> Proposed topic: "Distributed extensibility and CSS vendor
   prefixes"

   Larry: +1 ship it

   <noah> Should we adopt this as an additional section?

   <JeniT> +1

   <noah> Agreed without objection.

   noah: send this note, on behalf of the TAG to Jeff?

   <DKA> Rock it.

   <noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG agrees that Noah should send the note
   to Jeff on behalf of the TAG

   <JeniT> +1

   <noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG agrees that Noah should send the note to
   Jeff on behalf of the TAG

   +1

   <noah> Agreed that Noah will ask Jeff, for this one and in general,
   what level of distribution he'd prefer.

   larry: in general these should all be public since the discussion is
   public
   ... i think this is a good precedent

XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG

   <noah> ACTION-23?

   <trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Henry Thompson to track progress of #int bug
   1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG --
   due 2012-01-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

   <noah> scribenick: noah

   HT: Since day 1, the Schema Rec has said "if you want to identify
   datatype X", use a URI of the form URI-for-schema-namespace#X. RDF
   has been doing this.
   ... It was observed (probably by Noah), that doing this is suspect
   if there aren't anchors for those URIs
   ... So far, 'taint there.

   <jar> we should do it as RDFa, with rdfs:comment properties

   HT: I thought 6 or 7 years ago I knew what to do to fix it. I had a
   proposed alternative namespace document, in the form of an HTML
   document, with an anchor for each name.
   ... Didn't happen for unintersting reasons.
   ... I recently tried to get focus from the Schema WG. The editor did
   some work. It was pointed out to me two weeks ago on the TAG call
   that adding the anchors makes things worse, not better, because it
   suggests that the URIs refer to elements, not datatypes. A bad
   thing.
   ... Didn't get to do all my homework, but would like to ask
   Jonathan. The TAG has long standing advice that says: you should
   publish a document at the namespace URI.

   I think we encourged RDDL, no?

   <scribe> scribenick: noah

   HT: Two part question:
   ... 1) Does the TAG believe that namespace documents should be
   served with a 200 or a 303

   <jar> ht: if the URI identifies a namespace, should its namespace
   doc be served at that URI with a 200?

   HT: 2) If with a 200, should we include directly or indirectly RDFa,
   to establish triples for the bindings.

   JAR: Namespaces seem very similar to RDF graphs. I wouldn't worry
   about the 200. Probably should use RDFa.

   <scribe> scribenick: Larry

   jar: I think namespaces are very similar to RDF graphs. We might not
   need to invent any vocabulary for it, they should just used RDFa.

   ht: I expect we need two triples for each URI, one saying "is
   defined by" [some anchor in the schema spec, and one saying "is a
   datatype". I know how to say "is defined by", and how to say "is a",
   but how do I say "datatype"? JAR replies: rdf:type how to say 'is
   defined by'. jar: rdf:type ?

   jar: I'm looking at the model document

   jeni: I think it is rdf:datatype

   <JeniT> [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype

     [23] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype

   larry: why is this a TAG topic?

   <JeniT> rdfs:Datatype

   <jar> larry, there were 2 questions. The comparison to rdf graphs
   was in answer to #1. RDFa was in answer to #2.

   noah: the TAG has had opinions for a long time on how to put
   namespaces on the web

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask Jar a clarificaiton, once this
   discussion dies down

   noah: JAR, you started "Namespaces are a lot like RDF graphs". You
   then said "I wouldn't ... about 200"
   ... you might need rdf+xml or turtle
   ... in this case, we're saying return an HTML document with a 200,
   that the semantics were "this URI refers to a document, the
   fragments in it within anchors within the document, and by the way,
   the document may return RDF triples"

   jar: your conclusions go way further than the specs warrant

   ht: the proposal is not to include anchors in the HTML

   jar: I'm saying use RDFa

   <jar> not anchors

   larry: can they use microdata?

   noah: if no one else feels this is broken

   ht: please put this back in the 'Due' pile, but the last call on Rec
   is soon

   <noah> ACTION-23?

   <trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Henry Thompson to track progress of #int bug
   1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG --
   due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

   <jar> define it using RDFa only for now, not as anchor. later we can
   figure out whether we agree with Manu Sporny about about= + id=

   <noah> Reopening and setting date at Henry's request. Need to be
   aware of XSD going to Rec.

   ht: that was useful, will go back and work on this for next week

web application storage

   <noah> Two weeks ago we said:
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/26-minutes#item04

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/26-minutes#item04

   <noah> ex: if you are creating something locally and it will be
   exported, what is the linking story there?

   <noah> let's continue in two weeks, when Ashok and Robin will be
   there

   noah: With this topic, we don't seem to start off where we left off,
   this one has been struggling to get started for a while

   <jar> jenit, you are right, rdf-mt has rdfs:Datatype as a subclass
   of rdfs:Class (which is a subtype of rdf:type ??ΓΆβ¬Β¦), so that's
   the one to use

   noah: next topic, Web APplication, should awit for Robin

pending review items

   <noah> ACTION-568?

   <trackbot> ACTION-568 -- Noah Mendelsohn to draft note for Jeff
   Jaffe listing 5 top TAG priorities as trackable items. -- due
   2012-01-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/568

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/568

   Larry: +1 close Action 568

   no objection to closing 568

   <noah>
   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Aug/0030.html

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Aug/0030.html

   <noah> close ACTION-568

   <trackbot> ACTION-568 Draft note for Jeff Jaffe listing 5 top TAG
   priorities as trackable items. closed

   <noah> ACTION-599?

   <trackbot> ACTION-599 -- Noah Mendelsohn to close out HTML5 review
   product -- due 2011-12-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/599

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/599

   <noah>
   [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tag-announce/2011Dec/
   0001.html

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tag-announce/2011Dec/0001.html

   <noah> close ACTION-599

   <trackbot> ACTION-599 Close out HTML5 review product closed

   <noah> action-651?

   <trackbot> ACTION-651 -- Noah Mendelsohn to announce closing of Web
   App State Product Due: 2012-01-17 -- due 2012-01-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/651

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/651

   <noah> ACTION-651?

   <trackbot> ACTION-651 -- Noah Mendelsohn to announce closing of Web
   App State Product Due: 2012-01-17 -- due 2012-01-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/651

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/651

   <noah> Closing announced in email to www-tag and public-tag-announce
   on 15 January 2012

   <noah> close ACTION-651

   <trackbot> ACTION-651 Announce closing of Web App State Product Due:
   2012-01-17 closed

   <noah> ACTION-663?

   <trackbot> ACTION-663 -- Noah Mendelsohn to verify with Harry Halpin
   the TAG's plan to "keep an eye" on CA issues, and solicit his and
   TLR's help in keeping us informed Due: 2012-01-31 -- due 2012-01-31
   -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/663

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/663

   <noah> Sent this:
   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0106.html

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0106.html

   <noah> close ACTION-663

   <trackbot> ACTION-663 Verify with Harry Halpin the TAG's plan to
   "keep an eye" on CA issues, and solicit his and TLR's help in
   keeping us informed Due: 2012-01-31 closed

   jar: I plan to put out a draft on UDDP over the weekend

   ashok: fine

   noah: if you want something you want discussed and on the agenda,
   please let noah know

Overdue actions

   <noah> ACTION-632?

   <trackbot> ACTION-632 -- Ashok Malhotra to frame issues around
   client-side storage work -- due 2012-02-07 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632

   <noah> ACTION-632 Due 2012-02-14

   <trackbot> ACTION-632 Frame issues around client-side storage work
   due date now 2012-02-14

   <noah> ACTION-647?

   <trackbot> ACTION-647 -- Ashok Malhotra to draft product page on
   client-side storage focusing on specific goals and success criteria
   Due: 2012-01-17 -- due 2012-02-07 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/647

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/647

   <noah> close ACTION-632

   <trackbot> ACTION-632 Frame issues around client-side storage work
   closed

   <noah> ACTION-647 Due 2012-02-14

   <trackbot> ACTION-647 Draft product page on client-side storage
   focusing on specific goals and success criteria Due: 2012-01-17 due
   date now 2012-02-14

   <noah> ACTION-611?

   <trackbot> ACTION-611 -- Larry Masinter to draft initial cut at
   [36]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols -- due 2011-12-29
   -- OPEN

     [36] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols

   <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/611

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/611

   <noah> NM: Propose we adjourn. We can discuss in e-mail either
   reinvesting in helping W3C with architecture pages and/or improving
   the presence of the TAG on the Web

   <jar> +1

   <noah> NM: We are adjourned. Thank you.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 05:03:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:45 GMT