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

Re: Minutes from TAG call of the 24th

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:39:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMKth8cKPdP6VVmLqX6MSyBhYbxA6N9mh8BukZ-y7a=d6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
DRAFT minutes at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/24-minutes.html

and in plain text below.

Best
Jonathan

__________________________________


   [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.

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

24 May 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/24-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Tim_Berners-Lee, Ashok_Malhotra, Larry_Masinter,
          Noah_Mendelsohn, Jonathan_Rees, Jeni_Tennison

   Regrets
          Yves_Lafon, Henry_Thompson, Robin_Berjon

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Jonathan Rees

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]Approve minutes of prior meeting
         3. [7]Administrative items
         4. [8]Vendor prefixes
         5. [9]Pending review action items
         6. [10]Overdue action items
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: Jonathan Rees

   trackbot, start meeting

   <trackbot> Date: 24 May 2012

   <scribe> scribenick: jar

Convene

   regrets from Robin for today

   <noah> No regrets for next week

Approve minutes of prior meeting

   <noah> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes

   RESOLUTION: approve
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes as record of
   that meeting

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes

Administrative items

   noah: F2F - think about taking on vendor prefixes

   <noah> ACTION-697?

   <trackbot> ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare for
   discussion of CA infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) -- due
   2012-05-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697

   lm: I'm not going to do a lot more right now on DANE, doesn't
   seem much the TAG can do

   <noah> close ACTION-697

   <trackbot> ACTION-697 Prepare for discussion of CA
   infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) closed

   <noah> . ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA
   infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01

   <noah> ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA
   infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01
   recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-710 - keep an eye on issues relating
   to CA infrastructure weakness, including DANE [on Larry
   Masinter - due 2012-09-01].

   <noah> ACTION-690?

   <trackbot> ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on
   Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-05-05 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690

   <noah> ACTION-672?

   <trackbot> ACTION-672 -- Jeni Tennison to work with PLH to
   create W3C-sponsored registry of HTML extensions, and get that
   referenced from HTML media type registration, per
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.ht
   ml -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html

   <trackbot>
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672

   <noah> I thought the ball was in my court to mark the product
   page approved

   jt: Re fragids and mime types, I did a product page, needs to
   be revised per comments

   nm: I thought we had approved the product page & that NMM was
   supposed to do clerical work. Happy with product page

   <noah> Jeni will mark product page as "not draft".

   <noah> close ACTION-690

   <trackbot> ACTION-690 sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers
   and Mime Types closed

   jt: I've done an initial draft that's currently with Larry. I
   can take an action to provide it for F2F

   lm: I'll try to get back to you [JT] by this weekend, otherwise
   just go ahead and publish

   nm: On the master work plan page we sometimes pull out 1-2 next
   steps, pls check that

   jt: Re action 672, let's talk about that when it's done

   nm: I will do a local arrangements page for the F2F

   Regrets LM for 3rd day of F2F

   <Ashok> +1

Vendor prefixes

   lm: Because it was a narrow enough use case, and the community
   was making progress, this seemed interesting
   ... There are differences of opinion as to whether old stuff
   *should* go away ever [to force updates]
   ... The question is whether the CSS experience could apply in
   other situations
   ... Interesting proposal to put dates in vendor prefixes.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say that I think vendors are
   thinking in different terms

   plinss: I don't think Apple has publicly said they're never
   going to drop things, seems flexible
   ... Mozilla, Opera have been aggressive about dropping prefixes

   nm: Difference between architecture and market pressure [?] -
   difficult to deal with market pressure issues in the TAG

   lm: I think it's part of designing standards and extensibility
   regimes. It's important what vendors say, not just what they
   do.
   ... Authors aren't in the room, so we need to look for a trip
   point, and in this case it's the browsers

   nm: But vendors can't predict how things will go, so won't want
   to make any promises. Users want to deploy quickly and then
   never rev

   lm: I disagree. Don't think there's lock-in. There's no point
   in having a deployment plan unless people agree to abide by it

   <noah> I do understand what you're saying. I'm just skeptical
   that vendors will do what you want them to do.

   lm: I'm getting mixed messages. What you really want is that
   when a standard version comes a long, the prefixed version will
   go away. That means vendor needs to announce intent to remove
   nonstandard version, when standard arrives
   ... What I was hoping for was that at least some browsers would
   have some visual indication of obsolete or soon to be obsolete
   features

   pl: Some of them do this in their developer views

   <noah> The message I'm hearing is: many "customers" write their
   pages once, and then kill the funding or the teams that would
   be capable of rewriting them to change the spelling of things
   like CSS prefixes. The economic incentive for them to do that
   2nd step isn't there.

   nm: Look at how people fund these projects. Right now they use
   vendor prefixes. Then they move on. What I heard is that the
   team has disbanded by this time. So this would mean decisions
   not to use the features in the first place

   lm: The use case was when there was a design team that wants
   continued work
   ... There has to be lead time, so people are prepared
   ... How can we strengthen the will to move on

   nm: SOmething the TAG can do?

   lm: Right now the deployment plans are locked inside places
   that are hard to find

   nm: Peter, how is CSS working on this issue?

   pl: We see most of the problem as education. Initiative to
   teach comes from the community, we try to correct them

   <masinter> i thought we could document the issues around
   deployment plans, and point out best practices about how to
   design extensibility methods

   <masinter> that's more general than CSS; we might look at why
   it is easier because of the "cascading" of style sheets

   nm: So what can we do. Isn't CSS already doing a lot

   pl: One way the TAG could help CSS is re proposal from Florian.
   I think his proposal would be harmful, and it would be useful
   if the TAG had an opinion on it

   <masinter> TAG could evaluate Florian's proposal and other
   alternatives?

   <masinter> if we worked on this, it should be rec-track

   lm: Is this is the kind of thing we work on, we should get wide
   community approval, head for Rec track. But from a perspective
   that doesn't tie it to CSS
   ... Cascading makes this unique

   <masinter> is this a lesson for XML-ER?

   nm: We've tried to crack distributed extensibility nut many
   times. Agree that focus here is good. Feels like next step
   should come from CSS WG

   <masinter> for example, if this extensibility method doesn't
   apply to XML, is there a refocus of XML dealing with
   un-recognized elements to make it more extensible?

   nm: Worried about umpteenth frontal assault on issue

   lm: Looking at specific cases is a good way to deal with
   general cases (Polya How to Solve It)

   tbl: Not a good time for TAG to generalize, good to look at
   cases

   <masinter> i'm a big fan of Polya -- here is a specific
   instance where a solution is tractable. The universal problem
   was too hard, but we might make progress on this one

   nm: Should we do anything else re Florian's proposal?

   <masinter> i think one of the big questions is whether "old
   stuff goes away" -- is it, or is it not, reasonable to assume
   that once a usage becomes significant it will never get
   dropped?

   jt: Didn't PL just say it would be helpful for the TAG to
   evaluate Florian's proposal?

   <masinter> i'd like to see the extensibility mechanism in CSS
   documented

   <masinter> in a way that actually corresponds to what CSS WG
   thinks the policy is

   lm: I'd like to see the CSS deployment policy to be written up,
   in one place. I don't think there is a document that describes
   the policy
   ... I'm reluctant to compare a proposal to the current policy,
   in the absence of a document describing the current policy

   pl: It would be sensible for the WG to do this

   lm: Peter, what do you want to do?

   pl: I'm not necessarily endorsing the current policy, just
   wanting to comment on Florian's proposal

   <noah> ACTION: Peter to report on CSS WG plans for documenting
   policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of
   vendor-prefixed identifiers - Due 2012-06-11 [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-711 - report on CSS WG plans for
   documenting policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of
   vendor-prefixed identifiers [on Peter Linss - due 2012-06-11].

Pending review action items

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

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

   <noah> ACTION-541?

   <trackbot> ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to
   produce draft on technical issues relating to copyright/linking
   -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541

   <noah> JT: We agreed to bump

   <noah> ACTION-541 Due 2012-08-01

   <trackbot> ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce draft on
   technical issues relating to copyright/linking due date now
   2012-08-01

   <noah> ACTION-610?

   <trackbot> ACTION-610 -- Jeni Tennison to draft initial cut at
   [22]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats -- due
   2012-04-17 -- OPEN

     [22] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats

   <trackbot>
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/610

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/610

   <noah> ACTION-610 Due 2012-05-29

   <trackbot> ACTION-610 Draft initial cut at
   [24]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats due date
   now 2012-05-29

     [24] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats

   <noah> ACTION-677?

   <trackbot> ACTION-677 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact HTML WG
   co-chairs to ask about timing for output of Encrypted Media TF
   -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/677

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/677

   <noah> Reply from Maceij Stachowiak:

   <noah> The current status is:

   <noah> - The Task Force has been proposed, but not yet created

   <noah> - We posted a Call for Consensus on a proposal to create
   the Task Force

   <noah> - There have been numerous objections, statements of
   support, and considerable discussion

   <noah> - On request, and based on the amount of discussion, the
   Call for Consensus has been extended until at least April 18th,
   and may be extended further.

   <masinter> close, don't see any follow-ups

   nm: I did this one. Anyone want followup?

   <noah> close ACTION-677

   <trackbot> ACTION-677 Contact HTML WG co-chairs to ask about
   timing for output of Encrypted Media TF closed

   <noah> ACTION-682?

   <trackbot> ACTION-682 -- Jonathan Rees to suggest to TAG
   sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review -- due
   2012-04-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682

   <noah> JAR: Mark Nottingham said sections in question will
   likely be changed. This may not be the time to comment.

   <masinter> there was also an objection that it wasn't really in
   scope for the HTTP document or IETF

   <noah> ACTION-682?

   <trackbot> ACTION-682 -- Jonathan Rees to suggest to TAG
   sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review -- due
   2012-07-10 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682

   <noah> ACTION-687?

   <trackbot> ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for
   opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB
   about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to
   expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due
   2012-05-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687

   <noah>
   [29]http://www.w3.org/mid/4FA063B3.4080507%2540arcanedomain.com

     [29] http://www.w3.org/mid/4FA063B3.4080507%2540arcanedomain.com

   <noah> Proposal from Noah (25 April):
   [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.ht
   ml

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.html

   <noah> Larry's note:
   [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0207.ht
   ml

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0207.html

   <noah> "I suggest the tag ask the AB more generally about the
   process for insuring our resolution affects the rec process. At
   what point are sppecs required to have stable references, and
   what are the explicit exception guidelines?"

   lm: Henry said he wanted to review the old advice he drafted.
   We agreed to let QA document stand for now, but that we should
   pick it up at some point [?]

   <noah> ACTION-669?

   <trackbot> ACTION-669 -- Henry Thompson to review
   [32]http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and
   see whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving
   specs Due: 2012-08-01 -- due 2012-06-01 -- OPEN

     [32] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice

   <trackbot>
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/669

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/669

   lm: That's the one
   ... Suggest adding to that action something about tracking down
   the process question too
   ... Link to the emails too in that note?

   <noah> close ACTION-687

   <trackbot> ACTION-687 Look for opportunities to discuss putting
   forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed
   reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of
   scope creep etc. closed

   JR: the emails are linked from 687 in tracker

Overdue action items

   nm: Especially looking for actions that lead into the F2F

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

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

   nm: A high proportion of these are owned by people not on call

   <masinter> action-606

   <noah> Larry: ACTION-685

   <masinter> action-543

   jr: My actions related to f2f: 704, 201. Action in progress not
   related to F2F: 695

   <noah> ACTION-693 was raised in the context of storage, I
   think.

   <noah> ACTION-606?

   <trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
   concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
   discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
   2012-05-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

   <noah> ACTION-585?

   <trackbot> ACTION-585 -- Larry Masinter to meet with Yves prior
   to the IETF document to review this
   draft-freed-media-type-regs-00. -- due 2011-07-28 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot>
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/585

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/585

   jr: Planning to work on 201 soon but probably not ready for F2F

   <noah> ACTION-543?

   <trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to
   MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded
   in media type -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

   <noah> ACTION-704?

   <trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni
   and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on
   httpRange-14 -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704

   <noah> ACTION-201?

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of
   AWWSW discussions -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN

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

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

   <noah> ACTION-693?]

   <noah> ACTION-693?

   <trackbot> ACTION-693 -- Robin Berjon to draft scope and goals
   for the Patterns/Pitfalls work in local/remote storage synch --
   due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/693

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/693

   <noah> ACTION-606?

   <trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
   concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
   discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
   2012-05-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

   <noah> ACTION-606?

   <trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
   concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
   discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
   2012-05-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

   <masinter> what input on I18N and normalization does the TAG
   want?

   <masinter> this is on comparison & normalization?

   lm: I'm interested & willing to talk about unicode
   normalization. Hard to tell whether this is about CSS selectors

   pl: Selectors is just one of many places. Question is early,
   late, very late normalization

   <masinter> i run into this with IRI docs

   <masinter> if we're going to talk about unicode normalization,
   i'd want to cover IRIs too then

   <Ashok> +1 to Larry

   lm: If we're going to talk about unicode normalization, the IRI
   issues need to be in scope
   ... want to put the IRI comparison document in scope

   nm: The action doesn't mention CSS, it's the I8n WG

   lm: A month ago I18N WG committed to reviewing the IRI
   documents

   nm: I just want to know if this is to be a F2F session

   pl: Reluctant to ask them for a document without TAG commitment
   to work on this [?]

   nm: I don't think their effort will be wasted

   am: Didn't we get something from Addison outlining what the
   issues were?

   <masinter>
   [43]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison

     [43] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison

   <masinter> and
   [44]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01#sec
   tion-5.2.2 in particular

     [44] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01#section-5.2.2

   nm: Can I delegate to Peter the decision about how to talk to
   I18N and whether to schedule a F2F session?

   <noah> . ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
   session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29

   lm: If we decide to talk about it, I'll help prepare, but have
   no particular opinion on whether to talk about it

   <noah> . ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
   session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29

   <noah> ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
   session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-712 - Help us decide whether to have
   F2F session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [on Peter
   Linss - due 2012-05-31].

   <noah> ACTION-606?

   <trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
   concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
   discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
   2012-05-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

   <noah> ACTION-606 Due 2012-06-12

   <trackbot> ACTION-606 Invite I18N and other concerned groups to
   provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the
   TAG regarding unicode normalization due date now 2012-06-12

   <noah>
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=ow
   ner

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

   nm: We'll be talking about the high priority items for sure,
   just trying to find other things we ought to talk about at the
   F2F, that we might have forgotten about

   <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 2012-05-29 -- OPEN

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

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

   <noah> This is about the proposed acct: URI scheme
   [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012May/0097.ht
   ml

     [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012May/0097.html

   nm: Tim, last week we had a F2F planning session, and the
   agenda looked thin. So I scheduled today's discussion of
   pending and overdue actions

   <noah> ACTION-543?

   <trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to
   MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded
   in media type -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

   <noah> ACTION-543 relates to what Jeni's doing right?

   <noah> LM: Right.

   lm: When I saw 543 I thought it was about Jeni's draft
   ... Just change the title

   <noah> ACTION-543?

   <trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to
   Fragid draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in
   media type -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

   <noah> ACTION-606?

   <trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
   concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
   discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
   2012-06-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606

   <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. 2010 F2F -- due 2012-04-24 -- OPEN

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

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

   <noah> JAR: Working on it, but not for F2F

   <noah> JAR: Maybe should talk to Larry

   <noah> ACTION-478 is a MAYBE for the F2F

   <noah> ACTION-478 Due 2012-07-10

   <trackbot> ACTION-478 Prepare a second draft of a finding on
   persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from
   Oct. 2010 F2F due date now 2012-07-10

   <masinter> meaning now = 'the associations which you wish to
   have persist'

   <noah> ACTION-704?

   <trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni
   and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on
   httpRange-14 -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704

   <noah> ACTION-704 Due 2012-05-29

   <trackbot> ACTION-704 with help from Jeni and Henry to try to
   identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 due date
   now 2012-05-29

   <noah> ACTION-695?

   <trackbot> ACTION-695 -- Jonathan Rees to check with Thomas
   Roessler on whether security review of CORS is coming up in
   W3C/IETF liaison -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/695

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/695

   <noah> JAR: I have pinged him.

   <noah> ACTION-695 Due 2012-05-29

   <trackbot> ACTION-695 Check with Thomas Roessler on whether
   security review of CORS is coming up in W3C/IETF liaison due
   date now 2012-05-29

   <noah> NM: 695 is happening?

   <noah> JAR: Yes.

   <noah> ACTION-201?

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of
   AWWSW discussions -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN

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

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

   <noah> ACTION-201 Due 2012-06-02

   <trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due
   date now 2012-06-02

   <noah> ACTIOM-650?

   <masinter> i had a interesting convo (cc'd www-archive) on
   issue-57 and think the distinction between communication &
   semantics perspectives is key

   <noah> ACTIOM-650?

   <noah> ACTION-650?

   <trackbot> ACTION-650 -- Jonathan Rees to review what
   provenance WG is doing with an eye to application to privacy
   issues -- due 2012-04-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [57]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/650

     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/650

   <noah> ACTION-650 Due 2012-08-01

   <trackbot> ACTION-650 Review what provenance WG is doing with
   an eye to application to privacy issues due date now 2012-08-01

   <masinter> culminating on
   [58]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/003
   5.html

     [58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/0035.html

   ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA
   infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01
   recorded in [59]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
   session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [recorded in
   [60]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Peter to report on CSS WG plans for documenting
   policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of
   vendor-prefixed identifiers - Due 2012-06-11 [recorded in
   [61]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [62]scribe.perl version
    1.1 ([63]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/05/29 12:37:22 $

     [62] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [63] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 12:39:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 12:39:43 GMT