W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vision-core@w3.org > July 2010

[minutes] 20100720 Core Vision Task Force

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:41:13 -0400
To: public-vision-core <public-vision-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1279759273.30379.286.camel@chacal>

                        Core Mission Task Force

20 Jul 2010

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/20-vision-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Plh, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra, Doug_Schepers, Mike, Sam

   Regrets
          Dave, JFA

   Chair
          plh

   Scribe
          shepazu

   <plh>
   [3]http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0714-core-mission/Overview.html

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0714-core-mission/Overview.html

   <plh>
   [4]http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0714-core-mission/activities.html

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0714-core-mission/activities.html

   plh: only core spec everyone agrees is core to web and w3c is
   HTML... after that, opinions differ
   ... I notice that Ashok didn't mark CSS as core, but when most
   people refer to HTML5, they are actually talking about CSS
   ... there are several other items which were mostly marked as core,
   like XML and SemWeb

   <plh> [5]http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0714-core-mission/core.html

      [5] http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0714-core-mission/core.html

   plh: the AB struggled with this slide, because it limits ourselves
   too much to browsers
   ... which is not most of our members
   ... "intended for the public web" was the most controversial
   ... "Relevant to data integration and search on a Web scale" tries
   to capture XML and SemWeb
   ... Mike had the view that the tech should concentrate on what's
   implementable in browsers

   MikeS: that's to reflect the view of many of our members

   <rubys> is <video> an example of MikeS's point?

   tlr: if you make a distinction between native implementation and
   plugins, you limit yourself to what a set of vendors choose to ship

   MikeS: it comes down to what we consider to be part of the Web
   Patform

   plh: that considers the platform to be client-side only

   tlr: another interesting part of the web platform is what search
   engines do with the content, like RDFa
   ... or microdata

   plh: ... or openid

   plh: some people were surprised that MMI didn't score better

   MikeS: MMI doesn't seem to have worked its way into browsers

   plh: it comes down to what W3C is trying to accomplish
   ... is it a web app environment? is it a data model?
   ... eGovernment and Semantic Sensors fall outside this task force,
   more focused on users
   ... MashSSL wasn't scored highly, maybe because we didn't know what
   it is
   ... how could we stop Web Services? how do we sunset technologies?
   ... Model-based User Interfaces was seen as too far out from the
   present

   tlr: is it the purview of another task force?

   Ashok_Malhotra: we should be looking toward the future in this Task
   Force

   plh: yes, we should look 10 years out, then see what we should be
   doing for the next 2-3 years
   ... MMI seems to lack integration with HTML

   <Zakim> tlr, you wanted to ask whether we have anybody here who's
   involved in that work

   shepazu: it's important to distinguish between the concept of
   multimodal interaction and the MMI activity

   plh: there was discussion in the AB about the messaging, and how
   relevant this would make the mission to many of our members
   ... we may have other reasons to work on certain activities

   tlr: the abstract criteria to do other work would be to 1) help push
   technology into the market and 2) getting feedback into those
   technologies

   plh: we need to make it clear that the work of this task force is
   not meant to be used for public messaging
   ... and we didn't look at what we aren't doing now, but should be
   ... we also need to revisit this periodically
   ... regarding HTML, I sometimes hear concerns about the quality of
   the spec... should we have more editors? what about testing?
   ... education may need some focus
   ... and outreach, should we change how we are putting our
   technologies out there
   ... this may change for different technologies... XML doesn't need
   outreach, but may need more testing
   ... What should happen to activities that are done or do not fit in
   Core?

   Ashok_Malhotra: can we discuss the XML activity?

   plh: yes

   Ashok_Malhotra: we have XML schema, XForms, and so forth... would we
   consider closing them down?

   plh: there are still members active in them

   Ashok_Malhotra: how can we maintain them with low overhead?
   ... should there be a different "state" for groups in maintenance
   mode? a single person monitoring the activity for changes and errata

   plh: there is the matter of patent policy and group membership
   ... and who should maintain this, staff or members?

   tlr: we should report back about how we consistently deal with
   sunsetting and maintenance that works in our existing framework

   plh: even finding chairs for maintaining activities is hard, people
   leave companies or move on
   ... we could keep a list open, then reform a group if there is a
   need to update it

   shepazu: sunsetting technologies is interesting, but I don't think
   it's to core mission of this task force

   plh: but it is part of it
   ... regarding webapps, we are seeing them everywhere, not only on
   the web (cameras, phones, etc.).... is that part of our core mission

   <tlr> likely regrets for next week; might be able to lurk in IRC

   plh: for next week, I'd like everyone to think about specific social
   web deliverables, and identity management... what areas should we
   get involved in?
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 00:41:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:47:24 UTC