W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Draft TAG minutes of the 20-dec-2012 meeting

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:06:07 -0500 (EST)
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1301231004530.22036@wnl.j3.bet>
Available at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-minutes

and below in text format:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

               Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

20 Dec 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Masinter, plinss, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra,
           Noah_Mendelsohn, noah, Rigo, Wendy, Yves, TimBL

    Regrets
    Chair
           Noah

    Scribe
           Yves

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Minutes of previous teleconference
          2. [6]Publishing and linking on the Web
          3. [7]actions
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: Yves

    <trackbot> Date: 20 December 2012

Minutes of previous teleconference

    RESOLUTION: minutes approved

    <noah> [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/13-minutes are
    approved

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/13-minutes

Publishing and linking on the Web

    <noah>
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb
    -20121015.html

      [10] 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-20121015.html

    Ashok: I wanted to thank Rigo, Thomas for their comments, I'm
    quite open to comments; if it means that we need to rescind the
    document, so be it.

    tlr: as I wrote, the document tries to do lots of things for
    lots of different people, there is value in exploring the
    topics of this documents

    what I would recommend is to find an author for the specific
    goal of rewriting the document with one audience (policy makers
    has my preference)

    larry: I'm not convinced yet that we can't create a document
    for multiple audiences

    I would like Thomas to elaborate on why it's not possible

    wendy: putting several audiences in the same document bring
    some techno-determinism.

    it is stronger to not allude to the law but demonstrate
    technically some outcomes and reach policy conclusions that
    might trigger clarification of the law

    <masinter> "code is law"

    <masinter>
    [11]http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html

      [11] http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html

    <noah> I think the intention is not to say: "the policy must
    follow the technology". I think the intention IS to say:
    "please be aware of how hundreds of millions of copies of
    software that people use today actually work"

    <masinter> Wendy, are you're advising us not to say things that
    you think are true but just shouldn't be said?

    <wseltzer> masinter, I'm suggesting that the document would be
    stronger if it omitted the references to law

    <masinter> Wendy, why would it be stronger? for whom? Why is
    what it says weak?

    <wseltzer> masinter, because once it starts down the advocacy
    path, it's easily dismissed as *mere* advocacy

    noah: I don't want to completely avoid terms like "copying". I
    think it's OK to say: "here are the things the Web actually
    does as it operates. If some law were to outlaw "XXX" then we
    would likely have to turn off all proxies on the Web, and
    performance would tank."

    <noah> I thought our goal was to set out terminology that would
    be useful to those working in the legal domain.

    Larry: I don't understand why it would be stronger if laws are
    not referenced, as the goal is to remain technical

    <masinter> i just think the results wouldn't be as useful

    tlr: I wasn't saying that writing a document for multiple
    audience is impossible, just that this document is not doing
    that effectively

    <masinter> i can believe it isn't there

    <noah> tlr: ...and I think addressing one audience will be
    easier than addressing many

    tlr: the question is where the TAG can make a difference for
    the good on that topic and for which audience
    ... using simpler language and being away from legal
    implications
    ... right now the document is untargeted and doesn't work for
    any audience

    Ashok: I'm puzzled by those comments. THe audience is people
    who make laws and make policies. There are no legal analysis in
    the document, just wording saying that there are legal
    disputes, for examples

    timbl: embedding or linking is different and socially
    different. Clarifying that for the press, policy makers, etc...
    will help not making mistakes with using "linking"

    <wseltzer> *how* are embedding and linking different?

    tlr: the document identifies an audience, it doesn't work for
    that audience, and some parts of the documents are clearly
    written for different audiences

    like the definition of linking in HTML is way too complicated
    for lawyers, it seems written for technologists

    <masinter> i like having motivating examples, though. i'd want
    to leave the background section because most people don't
    understand there are such issues

    noah: the background section might go deeper than necessary for
    legal issues, while the intro stays at a fairly high level,
    could we do something with Thomas' comments?

    squeeze section 2

    <masinter> i'd rather elaborate or preface what we have

    tlr: your foundation seems to be explaining difference between
    linking and embedding to lawyers

    <rigo> [12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecs_Content_Model

      [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecs_Content_Model

    <rigo> for reuse

    noah: the comments about technical details depends on the
    technicality of the audience, which vary

    wendy: the premise is that linking and embedding are different,
    in which sense they are different? it might be difficult to
    infer from the markup the intent of the user

    <noah> NM: I'm asking how much savy we should assume on the
    part of our audience. Clearly some lawyers have very little
    technical knowledge, yet Judge Posner apparently hacks Java.
    I'm assuming that lawyers who work on Web policy can be assumed
    to have at least a vague notion of the role of HTML on the Web.

    timbl: this have nothing to do with intent, as you can tell
    what you want is your intent. If you use an iframe, and make a
    link there is an underlying intent

    <wseltzer> but not everyone who uses the protocol knows or
    agrees with those intents

    <noah> The HTML5 spec says of iframe "The iframe element
    represents a nested browsing context." Seems pretty vague to
    me.

    <noah>
    [13]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-conte
    nt-0.html#the-iframe-element

      [13] 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#the-iframe-element

    rigo: if you look at the document, and compare to what Tim just
    said, the conclusion is that what Tim said is useful, but the
    document doesn't say that.
    ... also we need to assess the intent between user clicking, a
    robot following a link.
    ... I have identified 8 goals in that document, one of them is
    the copyright issue. This issue alone is at the root of the
    creation in policital groups

    Larry: the goal was to try to represent the consensus of the
    web community

    if the W3C endorse a document that explains how the web works,
    that has more value than any random statement.

    Also the document is not explaining the meaning of life, so
    rigo's comment is strange

    <masinter> is the statement wrong, or just 'not enough' ?

    <masinter> Rigo "Legislation that governs the possession and
    distribution of unlawful material (such as child pornography,
    information that is under copyright or material that is legally
    suppressed through a gag order) often needs to exempt certain
    types of services, "

    <tlr> "often needs"

    <tlr> on what basis does it need to?

    <noah> FWIW, I'm inclined to let this discussion go for awhile,
    but pretty soon we'll have to start thinking about how we move
    forward.

    <Ashok> Thomas, would more detail help in the example sentence?

    <rigo> 5.1.6 Licensing

    <noah>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb
    -20121015.html#licensing

      [14] 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-20121015.html#licensing

    <rigo> Websites indicate a license that describes how the
    information within the website can be reused by others.

    <rigo> Just as with HTTP headers, robots.txt and sitemaps,
    there can be no technical guarantees that crawlers will honor
    license information within a site.

    <noah> " Websites indicate a license that describes how the
    information within the website can be reused by others.

    <noah> Just as with HTTP headers, robots.txt and sitemaps,
    there can be no technical guarantees that crawlers will honor
    license information within a site. However, to give well
    behaved crawlers a chance of identifying the license under
    which a page is published, websites should: "

    timbl: rigo, can you give a concrete example?

    <noah> Tim, I think I've quoted the licensing bit that Rigo's
    talking about in the IRC log just above

    rigo: in the publishing area, there can be business models
    attached to it, and some business models may requires some
    tehcnologies and obstacles

    <masinter> what does 5.1.6 say about policy?

    <masinter> there seems to be some concern about things being
    out of scope "for the TAG to say"

    tlr: in 5.1.6 the "should" list could be the subject of debates

    another example is offline applications, where it's not really
    about obscuring following links

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about long term thrashing

    <masinter> i needed detailed examples to understand the
    high-level comments

    noah: we receive comments, iterate, and produce new versions.
    at long as it converge it is good. Looks like we are thrashing
    here

    <masinter> we removed all of the "best practices", although
    they're still there if you view source

    it is likely that even after processing all those comments we
    would receive the same kind of comments

    <masinter>
    view-source:[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLin
    kingOnTheWeb.html and look for <div class="practice">

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb.html

    rigo: some people, including in the TAG underestimate the
    complexity, difficulty, etc... of explaining even a single
    issue to policy makers

    rigo:The main critique from me is: trying to do too many
    things, each of which if done right would take much more work
    than you probably would think.

    <masinter> i think the detailed description of the interaction
    of policy and technology probably belongs in a working group,
    and that this is more of a survey of issues

    rigo: e.g. could focus on bits such as "difference between
    embedding and linking". That alone would be substantial work if
    done right.

    <tlr> masinter, a survey of issues doesn't belong on the
    recommendation track

    Larry: I think we intended more of a survey...hearing you say a
    survey doesn't belong on REC track. Not sure, maybe.

    larry: we started more with a survey in mind. I hear that the
    survey does not belong to the REC track

    <masinter> i think we have a couple of choices of where to go

    ashok: we expect to have more reviews of that document, so we
    shouldn't hurry up

    tlr: it would be very useful to give clear expectations "what
    the TAG want to achieve with that document"

    the low-level point is that the LC announcement was not sent to
    the chairs ML

    <masinter> I think we got down this road because we were asked
    if we could bring some clarity with respect to screwy legal
    decisions.

    <masinter> we

    <masinter> we've gotten several different suggestions on how to
    move forward

    <masinter> saying less, fixing errors, pick one of several
    audiences

    <wseltzer> [leaves, thanks]

    noah: needs guidance on how to proceed, rewrite, rescind,
    etc...

    <masinter> Want to hear from Jeni & Dan, who did most of the
    initial work

    <masinter> yes

    timbl: how about having thomas, rigo or wendy work with the
    editors?

    <Ashok> +1 ti

    <masinter> maybe a task force?

    noah: if we have a focus that can attract their interest, then
    sure

    <tlr> I'm happy to agree to being a reviewer.

    <Ashok> great!

    <masinter> 1+ to working with a small group to work on one
    section

    <rigo> I identified the following goals in the document:

    noah: does it include refocusing?

    ashok: maybe

    <rigo> - Daniel Glazman's issue: "you can't link to my site"

    <rigo> - censorship and the web (various appearances thereof)/
    illegal and harmful content

    <rigo> - social meaning of linking

    <rigo> - deep linking problems and access control

    <rigo> - copyright, robots.txt and search engines

    <rigo> - youth protection

    <rigo> - linking

    <masinter> . ACTION: tim to recruit task force to work on one
    section?

    tlr: is one goal to explain the technicality of linking, or the
    social aspect of linking?

    <noah> I think the TAG's competence is more toward explaining
    technical details that are in fact important. So, I'd err on
    the side of low level, with the goal that it be competent to
    lawyers, not programmers.

    <rigo> Law enforcement might require that a site owner keep =>
    eDiscovery (big issue in US at the moment)

    tlr: I started to review section by section the document, but
    it didn't help as the main issues was the one I highlighted
    first, the goal and the audience

    <masinter> what does the web community need? To remove
    uncertainty

    tlr: I could send a detailed review, but the document should
    not be fixed by focusing on details

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to get back to the fundamentals

    larry: we were asked to address concerns about regulatory
    governance not matching the technology

    <rigo> still more: reuse material => DRM

    <tlr> you pick a specific audienc

    <tlr> you pick specific topics

    <tlr> you pick specific messages

    <tlr> you write them up in a way that works for that audience

    larry: I didn't hear from the commentor how to respond to the
    need of the web community

    <masinter> this is a place where governance doesn't match the
    technology, or matches awkwardly, how can we help bring the web

    <masinter> this isn't intended to be a statement by the TAG,
    it's intended to be a statement by the web community, as
    represented by W3C, and as originated by the TAG. That's the
    reason for going to REC rather than Finding

    <tlr> side note, the material about "re-users" doesn't make
    much sense in the context it shows up in.

    [re-statements of comments made earlier]

    <rigo> I find actors and agents very useful!

    <tlr>
    [16]http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-056-en.pd
    f

      [16] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-056-en.pdf

    <masinter> what's the group that produced that?

    tlr: the document above is descriptive on issues about
    content-blocking

    not prescriptive

    <tlr> (just as an example for a well-written technology meets
    policy document)

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to suggest a task force

    <masinter> Noah, you asked for discussion about next steps, so
    i gave a process answer

    <noah> Process answer is fine, but I'm hoping the process will
    focus real soon on a set of goals that people believe are
    achievable either soon, or incrementally.

    Noah: the TAG needs to assess if it is a good use of our time

    <masinter> alternative next step: uncomment the "findings" and
    publish as "NOTE"

    <masinter> suggest that W3C "should" take this up but not in
    TAG

    <masinter> thanks indeed

    <Ashok> Larry, did you mean uncomment the best practices?

    noah: let me know if we need to discuss this on jan 3rd, it
    will be on the f2f agenda

    <noah> ACTIOn-753?

    <trackbot> ACTION-753 -- Larry Masinter to do first draft of
    technical issues list for Jeff -- due 2012-10-22 --
    PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/753

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/753

    <noah> close ACTION-753

    <trackbot> ACTION-753 do first draft of technical issues list
    for Jeff closed

actions

    <noah> ACTION-766?

    <trackbot> ACTION-766 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond to e-mail
    on AWWW "typo" saying TAG did not agree that a change was
    needed -- due 2012-11-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot>
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/766

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/766

    <noah> close ACTION-766

    <trackbot> ACTION-766 Respond to e-mail on AWWW "typo" saying
    TAG did not agree that a change was needed closed

    ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([20]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-01-23 15:01:47 $
      __________________________________________________________

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

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01
Check for newer version at [21]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/i agree/i can believe/
Succeeded: s/document should not focus/document should not be fixed by f
ocusing/
Found Scribe: Yves
Inferring ScribeNick: Yves
Default Present: Masinter, plinss, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelso
hn, noah, Rigo, Wendy, Yves, TimBL
Present: Masinter plinss Thomas Ashok_Malhotra Noah_Mendelsohn noah Rigo
  Wendy Yves TimBL
Agenda: [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-agenda
Found Date: 20 Dec 2012
Guessing minutes URL: [23]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items:

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-agenda
      [23] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-minutes.html

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.



    End of [24]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

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







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

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 15:06:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2013 15:06:12 GMT