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

Minutes of July 12 Telcon

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:08:32 -0700
Message-ID: <5001D1C0.6030603@oracle.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Minutes of July 12 telcon are at https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes.html
and as text below:

-------------------------------------------------------------

   [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

    This is version has not been approved as a true record of the
    TAG's meeting and there is some risk that individual TAG
    members have been misquoted. This transcript should typically
    not be quoted, except as necessary to arrange for correction
    and approval.

                                TAG Weekly

12 Jul 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Larry_Masinter,
           Henry_Thompson, Jonathan_Rees, Yves_Lafon,
           Jeni_Tennison, Peter_Linss

    Regrets

    Chair
           Noah

    Scribe
           Ashok, Noah

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Convene
          2. [6]Approval of Minutes
          3. [7]Summer Schedule
          4. [8]Actions We Can Close Without Discussion
          5. [9]ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66): Fragment Identifiers and
             Mime
          6. [10]Publishing and Linking
          7. [11]Pending Actions
          8. [12]Overdue Actions
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <Ashok>  scribenick: Ashok

Convene

    Discussion of Agenda

    <noah>  AM: publishing and linking?

    <masinter>  I'm fine if there are things to talk about, I just
    don't have a new version

    Ashok: Larry, this is a different thought related to Henry's
    latest mail

    <noah>  NM: OK, after fragids

    <JeniT>  "W3C TAG comments during IETF Last Call"

    Larry: Discussion of TAG comments on IETF draft was postponed

    <Yves>  Minutes say<discussion postponed>

    <masinter>  The IETF/W3C liaison call noted something about
    that, should we find out what they wanted to talk about?

    <noah>  I think we should link the draft and comments in
    question

    <ht>  Here is the entire minute from the last IETF-W3C liaison
    call:

    <ht>  "14. W3C TAG comments during IETF Last Call

    <ht>  Discussion postponed."

    <noah>  NM: So, there's some ambiguity of which comments as to
    ours they were discussing?

    <masinter>  The only comments the W3C TAG has made during an
    IETF last call, that I can think of, are the comments we made
    on the media type registration document

    <ht>  That quote is from
    [14]http://www.w3.org/mid/BFBD2017-3923-4C3F-8D27-04B4F53230F9@
    mnot.net

      [14] http://www.w3.org/mid/BFBD2017-3923-4C3F-8D27-04B4F53230F9@mnot.net

    <ht>  ... which is public

    <noah>  LM: Have we made any other comments than the one in
    question?

Approval of Minutes

    <noah>  [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/12-agenda

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/12-agenda

    <masinter>  wait wait, ...

    HT: There are places in Tuesday's minutes that need attribution

    NM: They were innocuous

    RESOLUTION: f2f minutes linked from the above are approved
    without change

    <noah>  Minutes of 21 June:
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/21-minutes

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/21-minutes

    RESOLUTION: Minutes from June 21 above are approved without
    change

Summer Schedule

    <noah>  Proposed schedule:
    [17]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0004.html

      [17] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0004.html

    <noah>  Integrated Likely regrets for summer:
    [18]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0001.html

      [18] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0001.html

    NM: Any problems?
    ... still tentative.

    <Yves>  Regrets for July 19

    NM: may cancel some calls later

    <noah>  Proposal:

    <noah>  July 12 Call

    <noah>  July 19 Call

    <noah>  July 26 NO CALL

    <noah>  Aug 2 MAYBE (depends in part on Larry availability)

    <noah>  Aug 9 Call

    <noah>  Aug 16 NO CALL (Noah unavailable)

    <noah>  Aug 23 Call

    <noah>  Aug 30 Call

    <noah>  Sept 6 NO CALL (Noah unavailable)

    <noah>  Agreed for now.

    NM: We will have a call next week, July 19, and I hope we will
    have a draft of Publishing and Linking from Larry for
    discussion

Actions We Can Close Without Discussion

    <noah>  ACTION-694?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-694 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work up simple
    intro to http+aes uri scheme and schedule discussion, possibly
    with PLH -- due 2012-08-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694

    <noah>  ACTION-724?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-724 -- Henry Thompson to investigate possible
    TAG efforts on URI scheme proliferation and extension points --
    due 2012-08-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/724

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/724

    <masinter>  It's also mentioned in the W3C/IETF liaison call

    <noah>  Close ACTION-694

    <trackbot>  ACTION-694 work up simple intro to http+aes uri
    scheme and schedule discussion, possibly with PLH closed

    NM: This scheme is no longer being pursued. Also, ACTION 724
    overtakes this

    Larry: If we're discussing this at all, we should focus on
    general questions about URI schemes

    <noah>  ACTION-729?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-729 -- Jeni Tennison to do new draft of
    fragids finding -- due 2012-07-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729

ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66): Fragment Identifiers and Mime

    <noah>
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-
    01.html

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html

    NM: We would like to publish this as a Working Draft

    JT: I made changes as in the minutes and the f2f
    ... made Best Practices linkable
    ... some rewording of Best Practices

    AM: I looked at the Active Content parts of the draft and they
    looked good to me

    HT: Para after Best Practice 7 has an editorial problem
    ... section reference is missing

    <ht>  Jeni, thank you for your work on this

    <JeniT>  Thanks ht :)

    NM: We hoped to engage the IETF with this and we got cryptic
    references that it's too late

    JT: We should publish as a WD

    <masinter>  Optimist: proceed as if it's possible that it isn't
    too late, without expectation

    <masinter>  +1 to FPWD

    <noah>  proposed resolution: Publish
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-
    01.html as a FPWD

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html

    <masinter>  Jeni may fix typos.

    RESOLUTION: Publish the Frag Id document as a FPWD. For the REC
    track.
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-
    01.html

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html

    <ht>  Item 15 from the previously mentioned liaison call minutes
    ([25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Ju
    l/0000.html) relates to the (no progress) state of 3023bis

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Jul/0000.html)

    <noah>  Product page:
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-28.html

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-28.html

    <noah>  Schedules:

    <noah>  1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for
    Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at
    June F2F

    <noah>  1 July 2012: First Public Working Draft

    <noah>  1 August 2012: Last Call Draft

    <noah>  1 October 2012: Proposed Recommendation

    <noah>  1 November 2012: Candidate Recommendation

    <noah>  1 December 2012: Recommendation

    NM: Schedule after FPWD seems aggresive ... shoukd we change
    this?

    HT: We should put it back at least a month

    <Yves>  +1 to at least a month

    <masinter>  Synchronize with TPAC ?

    NM: Perhaps LC draft just before our f2f and PR before TPAC
    ... Candidate Rec should come before Proposed Rec
    ... so we should change the schedule

    <masinter>  The main thing is that for TAG recs, the TAG isn't
    the implementors ... usually in a WG, the WG members are the
    implementors

    <masinter>  So we need a longer CR phase, but a shorter time to
    reach CR

    Discussion about whether this document needs to go to CR

    <masinter>  I like the idea of coming up with exit criteria. I
    think it's a good exercise for us

    +1 to Larry

    <masinter>  There's +xml and +json

    NM: Don't want to wait years for implementations

    <masinter>  I think we should do CR

    HT: The WG, in this case the TAG, to propose exit criteria

    <masinter>  We need an action item to propose exit criteria

    <masinter>  I think the exit criteria isn't what Noah is saying

    NM: One or more registrations would follow the recommendation
    in this draft

    <ht>  I note the following in a recently published Last Call:
    "no Candidate Recommendation version will be published, and
    that the next step for this specification will be to Proposed
    Recommendation—interested parties please take note and
    comment accordingly."

    Larry: We could look at processors and check if they follow our
    recommendations
    ... I would like to define exit criteria in terms of
    implementations

    <masinter>  All we need are implementors to agree

    <Zakim>  ht, you wanted to say I would rather not decide (or
    discuss further) this issue until we think we are ready for
    last call

    HT: Let's wait until we are in Last Call

    <masinter>  It's not premature to *start* the discussion, it's
    premature to finish it

    HT: Also wait until we see what kind of response we get from
    the IETF and from other folks

    <noah>  Schedules:

    <noah>  1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for
    Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at
    June F2F

    <noah>  1 July 2012: First Public Working Draft

    <noah>  1 August 2012: Last Call Draft

    <noah>  1 October 2012: Proposed Recommendation

    <noah>  1 November 2012: Candidate Recommendation

    <noah>  1 December 2012: Recommendation

    LM: We should discuss but not finalize exit criteria

    <JeniT>  1 August: FPWD

    NM: Could someone put a stake in the ground re. a revised
    schedule?

    <ht>  1 October: LCWD

    <ht>  1 March: REC

    LM: I would like us to look for community feedback at TPAC

    NM: We have 2 weeks between our f2f and TPAC
    ... some work could be done between the two meetings

    <masinter>  +1 to HT proposal

    +1

    NM: Do we need a f2f to tweak the final draft?

    HT: No need

    NM: How about:

    1 Oct LWCD

    1 March Rec

    <noah>  ACTION-729?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-729 -- Jeni Tennison to do new draft of
    fragids finding -- due 2012-07-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729

    <noah>  close ACTION-729

    <trackbot>  ACTION-729 do new draft of fragids finding closed

    NM: When can we have FPWD out?

    YL: Probably soon ... one or 2 weeks.

    <noah>  ACTION: Jeni working with Yves to publish FPWD - Due
    2012-07-31 [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01]

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-730 - working with Yves to publish
    FPWD [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-07-31].

    YL: Lets say July 31

    NM: If you can do it faster, great!
    ... Good work, Jeni

Publishing and Linking

    <noah>  scribenick: Noah

    AM: I was thinking about a couple of things: First, there was a
    line from one of the Web sites saying "you ought to be able to
    link freely, because that's what makes the Web the Web". People
    said, "the TAG can't say that, because it's a legal opinion"
    ... Then we got e-mail from Martin Duerst suggesting that,
    because linking is central to the Web, we ought to be able to
    figure out something to say along those lines.

    Mail from Martin:
    [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0006.ht
    ml

      [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0006.html

    AM: Henry also suggests that we should be able to discuss
    differences between linking and embedding. I'd like to go
    further, and talk about the consequences. We should say which
    is allowable.

    [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0021.ht
    ml

      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0021.html

    AM: I'm not quite sure what we can say about all this though.

    <scribe>  scribenick: Ashok

    <Zakim>  masinter, you wanted to talk about working on "policy
    affects architecture" rather than "architecture implies
    policy", even though others might make the backward inference

    <noah>  +1 to what Larry is saying.

    <noah>  In fact, strong +1 to what Larry is saying;.

    <JeniT>  +1 too

    <noah>  LM: We should work on how policy affects architecture,
    not vice versa

    <noah>  LM: We should perhaps point out especially the
    consequences when different jurisdictions adopt different
    policies

    LM: If policy treats linking and publishing as the same, then
    it has architectural impact, e.g., that you shouldn't link to
    someone who might change what the linked text says

    <Zakim>  ht, you wanted to focus on a weaker point, to do with
    educating peoples vocabularies, and hence intuitions

    HT: If we clarified that Linking and embedding are different
    that is very valuable

    <noah>  HT: If all we did was to clarify terminology and
    concepts regarding linking vs. embedding, that alone would be a
    significant service

    <noah>  HT: I'm more inclined toward getting out something that
    just tries to educate and inform about differences.

    HT: I would be happy just to clarify the differences

    <noah>  HT: If people as smart as Jimmy Wales get this wrong in
    public, that's a sign that there's a problem we could usefully
    address.

    <noah>  HT: Do less, and get it out.

    <JeniT>  the current draft makes a very clear distinction
    between 'inclusion' and 'links'

    HT: We do not have to say anything about copyright or law ...
    just clarify the differences

    <ht>  Jeni, right, that's what I have in mind

    <Zakim>  masinter, you wanted to talk about focus on
    jurisdictional difference

    LM: I have been working on a framework to thinking about Policy
    and how legislation and Policy are different in different
    jurisdictions

    <ht>  I also like, or would like, the idea of analogies, where
    we are pretty sure that they enable people to think about the
    consequences of e.g. the embed/link difference, by drawing an
    analogy between unacknowledged quotation vs. acknowledged
    quotation vs. citation

    <noah>  FWIW, I agree that regulations differing in different
    jurisdictions is a big problem, with architectural
    implications. I'm not convinced that cross-jurisdiction should
    be our ONLY focus.

    LM: In India, for example, they do not distinguish between
    Publishing and Linking

    <masinter>  It is the reason why 'architecture' has anything to
    say about legislation and policy, though

    NM: We can talk about jurisdictional differences
    ... we could alert people to architectural consequences of
    jurisdictional policies

    <masinter>  We wouldn't have invented the web at all, if there
    weren't any jurisdiction in which it was legal

    NM: Point out architectural consequences of policies with
    hypothetical examples
    ... Asks about future of this draft

    <noah>  ACTION-727?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR
    to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger version of the
    Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due 2012-07-10 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

      [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

    LM: Ashok and I will work together and I have taken the ball
    for the moment

    <masinter>  It's still Ashok with help from Larry

    <noah>  ACTION-727?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR
    and Larry to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger
    version of the Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due
    2012-07-17 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

    <jar>  Inter-jurisdictional differences are pretty much the same
    as change, over time, in laws (etc.) within a jurisdiction,
    yes?

    <noah>  Interesting point, Jonathan.

    Yes, Jonathan

    NM: We will discuss Publishing and Linking as our main topic
    next week

Pending Actions

    <noah>
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingrevie
    w

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

    <noah>  ACTION-686?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-686 -- Robin Berjon to try to find who is in
    charge of the current browser content sniffing clustermess, and
    see if there is a way of moving out of the quagmire -- due
    2012-05-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/686

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/686

    <noah>  Robin says: The person in charge is Adam Barth and the
    document is pretty much final — I see little support for
    changing this.

    <noah>  Robin Berjon, 7 Jun 2012, 16:24:19

    <masinter>  Finding on authoritative metadata , does it need
    review?

    <noah>  ACTION-709?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-709 -- Noah Mendelsohn to talk to Jeff&  W3M
    about TAG futures -- due 2012-06-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/709

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/709

    <noah>  ACTION-725?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-725 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Peter,
    to create big picture overview coming out of analysis of TAG
    effectiveness -- due 2012-06-21 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/725

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/725

    <noah>  close ACTION-709

    <trackbot>  ACTION-709 Talk to Jeff&  W3M about TAG futures
    closed

Overdue Actions

    <noah>
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort
    =owner

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

    <noah>  ACTION-689?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-689 -- Henry Thompson to work with Noah to
    draft a further request to the 3023bis editor from the TAG to
    include advice regarding what a particular +xml media type
    registration should do wrt fragid semantics along the lines in
    the discussion on media types and fragment identifiers at the
    f2f on 2012-04-04 -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689

      [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689

    <noah>  ACTION-681?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-681 -- Henry Thompson to hST to prepare TAG
    discussion of
    [39]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
    gs -- due 2012-04-30 -- OPEN

      [39] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs

    <trackbot>
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/681

      [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/681

    <noah>  HT: Subsumed and overtaken

    <noah>  close ACTION-681

    <trackbot>  ACTION-681 HST to prepare TAG discussion of
    [41]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
    gs closed

      [41] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs

    <noah>  ACTION-689?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-689 -- Henry Thompson to work with Noah to
    draft a further request to the 3023bis editor from the TAG to
    include advice regarding what a particular +xml media type
    registration should do wrt fragid semantics along the lines in
    the discussion on media types and fragment identifiers at the
    f2f on 2012-04-04 -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689

      [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689

    <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 2012-06-01 -- OPEN

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

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

    <noah>  HT: Schema group realizes they need to do something

    ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Jeni working with Yves to publish FPWD - Due
    2012-07-31 [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01]

      [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


-- 
All the best, Ashok
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 20:07:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 July 2012 20:07:14 GMT