Text-only version of TAG F2F minutes of 24 June 2009

A text-only copy of the minutes from the second day of the TAG's F2F 
meeting in June, 2009 is attached.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/24-minutes.html

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142


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

                               - DRAFT -

                     W3C TAG Face To Face meeting

24 Jun 2009

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc


          jar, johnk, timbl, jk, noah, masinter, ht, dc



          timbl, masinter, Ashok


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Mobile Web
         2. [5]Metadata Access and Formats
         3. [6]Versioning and HTML
         4. [7]Web Arch for Applications
         5. [8]tag administration issues
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

Mobile Web

   <masinter> Date: 24 June 2009

   <masinter> ScribeNick: timbl

   (discussion of deployment of smart phones, vs SMS capabilities)

   Noah: Do people just expect them to get IP and use the web, or will
   they stay with SMS?

   jk: Well, phones last, with repeair services, for a long time in
   developing countries.

   HT: Even my phone does some web, and its level is well deployed in
   developing countries.

   NM: I would have thought that a little bit of graphics would make it
   much easier to make an intuitive, say, banking application, compared
   to just using SMS (which of course they do.)

   Tim: The SMS limitation of 140 character seems to have taken off
   with microblogging

   Noah: The person who built twitter was before that fascinated by the
   communication (by SMS) between bicycle delivery people in New York.

   jk: XMPP is very interesting in the mobile space.
   ... Hybrid bi-directional protocols become more friendly than old
   ... These things are being integrated in HTML5, and things like
   Comet which allow long-lived connections between things like a
   mobile phone and effecive a pub/sub service.
   ... Again, not clear how many of these issues are actually limited
   to the mobile world.

   Larry: It is mobile-related in the sense that the mass of deployment
   is changing dramatically, so there are many more mobile phones than
   ... As the performance increases, that dominance will rise
   ... Most people on the web will be mobile users talking to the coud
   not PC users.
   ... We should not then only focus on the desktop/laptop architecture
   or we will miss this.
   ... I think mobile is a lot of what is fuelling HTML5 and WebApps

   jk: Comet is HTTP long-polling .... connecting up to a server so
   that effectively small messages can be sent from server to client.

   <DanC_lap> (is anybody on the TAG watching the new list on comet
   etc.? hybi is it?)

   <johnk_> [10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29

     [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29

   <johnk_> [11]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

     [11] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

   NM: For a bank, for example, most of the time I get a web site for
   laptop use, but a native app for an iPhone. So we have this move for
   lots and lots of applications.

   Larry: If I am Fidelity, have a big back-end, I want to make it
   available from wherever people are. I want to adapt it at the last
   moment to the user. If necessary, I will build a native app.

   NM: But it is a pain to wrote a different app for each platform.
   ... The market seems to be suggesting that the web is not good
   enough for these domains.
   ... That is why we really need good webapps, so that we build one
   web and they build one web application.

   (discussion of web applications that are just bookmarks)

   Larry: I think the motivating force for web applications is
   mobile... the goal is to blur the line between an app and a

   Noah: On the iPhone, you can now use gmail when completely offline,.
   All your gmail information is downloaded into local storage from the
   web... but you can't get at the contact list because of the

   Jonathan: (Doesn't work for me.)

   Noah: So the need now is for an API for getting at the local contact

   <DanC_lap> (hmm... iPhone as gaming platform is getting pretty
   interesting. I wonder whether to bring that up here/now.)

   <johnk_> [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report#Concrete -
   device APIs currently in W3C charter

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report#Concrete

   jar: There is pressure to make separate phone apps for newspapers,
   banks, etc, and I suspect it is because of deficiencies in APIs.
   This will be fixed as it was for desktop applications ... It was
   made it easier to install desktop apps. For browsers it will get
   ... Our job is to think: what might go wrong as that rolls out?
   ... If we see some danger in incompatability between, say access to
   contact lists, we must work to prevent problems, where market
   pressure does not help.

   Ashok: I don't think it will take the same number of years .. it
   will be faster.

   <Zakim> johnk_, you wanted to mention what I see as the two possible
   architectural issues

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about security

   jk: From everything I have written down, here are two arch issues:
   Merging of pub/sub XMPP events into the protocol, and security and
   privacy in a world where you have HTTP server running on your phone
   ... closely connected to an individual and serving private data.

   NM: The people who develop mobile devices have been more paranoid
   about keeping the platform secure than the browsers. Even the native
   iPhone apps have lock-down sandbox model.

   <johnk_> correcting the "you have something which is the equivalent
   of an HTTP server running on your phone" to "you have something
   which is the equivalent of an HTTP server running on your phone"

   NM: This sandboxing gives a much stronger assurance that e.g. my
   contact list won't get stolen or trashed. This will be an important
   factor for the deployment of web apps.

   Larry: The history of the mobile industry and its interaction with
   the web has been rocky.
   ... WAP, CHTML, and attempts to build a separate infrastructure
   instead of working with the existing standards groups ...

   jk: (Sometimes mobile not well listened to)

   Larry: There was not an effective way of working together; we should
   make sure there is in future.
   ... With security and privacy, market forces are not as good drivers
   as with features.
   ... With features, you can deploy 20 and the market will select the
   ones you need.
   ... With security and privacy, the consequences of getting it wong
   is very delayed. So the market does not select things properly. So
   we the TAG should put more effort into those things.
   ... there has been a lot of handwringing but I think IETF has put a
   lot of work in here.
   ... We should understand the history and background in this area
   before we work in it.

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to note software installation is more
   about "yes, you can run your code on my behalf" than downloading
   bits... and wonder how much of the market the W3C

   DanC: Talking about sandbox models. With client-side caching this is
   more about users saying "yes you can get access to this"
   ... Keeping the bits is not what is important, but getting and
   caching the permissions is important.
   ... Gears, or HTML5 data access are used.

   Noah: You get a SQL-lite database on your phone just from visiting
   the gmail site, without giving them permission to use space on the

   <masinter> ((monetization policy is a motivation for separate apps,
   as well as the top level 'app' bookmarks))

   <noah> As I understand it, Google has written a GMail client that is
   mostly portable from Android to iPhone (more to come), but is using
   Gears on Android, and Safari HTML5 store on iPhone.

   <DanC_lap> [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/

     [13] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/

   danc: On Android, there is a set of control bits for each
   application. Note that the widget spec is related to this, just went
   to Last Call.

   TimBL: Isn't it a goal to make desktop and web app installation to
   become equivalent and connect directly?

   <Zakim> johnk_, you wanted to mention the HTML5 discussion

   <DanC_lap> (I can't find the list of permissions in the widgets
   spec; help?)

   jk: There are two very important identities - the user and the
   company which made the app.

   timbl: Don't assume the company is active as the user's agent.

   jk: Is HTML5 the format we will use for new user interfaces? Or will
   there be completely different interfaces -- like voice interfaces --
   which may need very different languages.

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to discuss what parts there are of what we
   think of as installation. Access to data, accecss to resources -
   memory, disk, cpu, screen space, attention,

   Noah: BREAK

Metadata Access and Formats

   Noah: We have four issues around this
   ... 57,62, 63, 54 (See the Agenda)

   Larry: I have been tardy in opening a new issue-63, I was thinking
   about how to frame it.

   Noah: Let us deal with all 4 issues in this session.

   Ashok: I think we should separate the access and the format.
   ... On the access front, there is no new news, though Eran and Mark
   Nottingham has promised us a new draft.

   jar: LRDD

   <noah> JR: Current drafts are linked from our agenda

   <Ashok> New drafts expected from Eran Hammer-Lahav

   <jar> Eran and Mark are preparing new drafts, but they're not ready
   yet. So we can't talk about them yet.

   <noah> Email from Jonathan (linked from agenda):

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0060.html

   <noah> That email has links to drafts

   Ashok: On the access part, we should just wait.

   <noah> AM: On metadata access, I think we should wait

   Ashok: For the format part, I leave it to Jonathan.

   Larry: I have the idea that we might have an architecture for
   metadata which might describe the relationship of semantics for URIs
   and resources and semantic web assertions about resources, and the
   ways in which specific protcols might contain features which might
   advise you about other metadata, so that, for example, HTTP and HTML
   are just instances of more general classes of things.

   When I thought abou framing the metadata issue, it was to to try not
   to tie the idea to HTTP specifically.

   Larry: I think we can make progress on that idea independently of
   the way of accessing metadata specifcially.

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to talk about relation to nose-following

   jar: To address that, I agree with Larry, that quite a lot of this
   is architectural rather than tied to some specific protocol.
   ... There is the "self-describing" or nose-following, web.
   ... that is very close to the Linked Data movement, which has
   developed its own protocol for browsing the web for data about
   anything, not just data about documents.
   ... One idea which runs through this is .. are we talking about
   third party metadata, or just about second party metadata?
   ... The first party might be browser, the second party the
   publisher, third party the reviewer?
   ... We should say that one can get data from many different sources.
   Ther are trust, authority issues.
   ... This is not just HTTP -- many other naming schemes, like LSID
   for example, have systems for getting metadata about things.

   <Zakim> johnk_, you wanted to ask why metadata is different than

   jar: I wanted to mention the HTTP 303 Redirect case, as an ad-hoc
   protocol which has emerged from the Linked Data story.

   <jar> TBL: want the tag to support the Link: header

   <jar> ... doesn't want anything to threaten that

   <masinter> doesn't understand why we need the TAG to support the
   Link header and wants Tim to motivate that

   <jar> jk: How is metadata any different from data [in the way it's

   <jar> timbl: What its access control is, how to edit it, all sorts
   of things you want to know about an IR... we need this

   <jar> timbl: Enables new functionality. A growing area.

   <masinter> are you convinced the Link header meets the requirements
   for all of those applications?

   <jar> timbl: doesn't want to get too philosophical about this -
   top-down is dangerous

   <jar> ... important for the TAG to do because it's glue. A little
   thing that will have a big effect.

   <masinter> for example, is link header really the right way to
   deliver access control information?

   <jar> noah: How urgent?

   <masinter> is prospective sending of 'Link' header a requirement for
   sending access control information for applications that don't care
   about access control?

   <masinter> for example

   <jar> timbl: We need to make sure the Link: draft gets reviewed,
   make sure it gets moved along through process

   <jar> ... Also we need to make an architectural recommendation

   <jar> masinter: I'm not convinced of the goal.

   jar: I brought the link header draft to the TAG.

   <jar> (noah had asked about the history of the issue)

   <noah> Proposed ACTION to Ashok: Keep an eye on progress of Link
   header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems.

   Larry: I am not sure with the phrasing of the action that the HTTP
   Link header should be followed.
   ... We do we need this? for ACLs? maybe we shouldn't use it?

   jar: We could work on use cases.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about authority

   <masinter> i believe the requirement is important. I'm not sure the
   requirement is well articulated, and I'm even less certain that the
   proposed mechanism satisfies the requirement.

   ht: I liked what someone said about the suggestion that we need an
   architecture for the data - metadata relationship.

   <noah> ACTION: Ashok to Keep an eye on progress of link header
   draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62). Due 8-1-2009
   recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-281 - Keep an eye on progress of link
   header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62). Due
   8-1-2009 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2009-07-01].

   <jar> ht: Authority is fundamental to any metadata architecture

   ht: Authority is fundamental to metadata in a way that it is not
   fundamental to the ordinary web. [sic]

   <DanC_lap> action-281 due 1 Aug

   <trackbot> ACTION-281 Keep an eye on progress of link header draft,
   report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62). Due 8-1-2009 due date
   now 1 Aug

   <jar> ht: Link: is a response-header, not an entity-header ... this
   makes the authority chain clear

   <masinter> I agree the issue about authority is fundamental to
   metadata architecture; not sure if it is more or less important to
   ordinary web, but we understand web authority better

   <jar> ht: this is different from putting it in the content

   <johnk_> +1 to Larry - not sure how this isn't an issue for the
   "ordinary web" too

   <jar> ht: The server and the page provider are different principals
   in this scenario

   ht: If you get a document and the document contains link elements,
   then the authority chain is clear, but if I get an HTTP link in my
   case at Edinburgh then I don't necessarily have anything to do with

   <jar> john: another confused deputy problem

   <jar> dan: No, it's not, just a bug

   <masinter> how to distinguish between HTTP header metadata and
   entity content metadata and the relative authority of them is an
   architectural question

   <masinter> ((wonder if there's some 'cascading' along with 'CSS'
   that are cascading metadadta authorities))

   <jar> timbl: We haven't talked about how delegation works inside a
   web site.

   <jar> ... This would be a new piece of work.

   <masinter> ((wonders if appropriate to talk about XMP))

   <jar> ht: But when we start to talk about metadata, it starts to
   become much more important (it = the question of who the authority

   <masinter> ((relationship to content type sniffing?))

   <masinter> ((WebDAV has protocol for managing 'metadata', doesn't

   <jar> timbl: To build a system that treats Link: and <link> as
   having different trust models compared to the data, would be to
   assume stuff about the internal social workings of the site as
   publishing agency

   I realize Tabulator does absorb both, and does track the difference
   in provenance, but does trust them to the same extent.

   <johnk_> The "link header" is already a framework for links, not
   just about the Link HTTP header

   ashok: Let us get the Link header standardized so people can ge
   things going.

   <masinter> ((want to put in a pitch for embedded metadata))

   <jar> ((embedded is always better than Link: **all other things
   being equal**))

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to put in a picth for embedded metadata

   <noah> NM: Do we need to follow up on use of HTTP redirection in
   addition to link header?

   ((You owe me $2M **all other things being equal**)) :-0

   <noah> AM: Don't think there's more we need to do at this time.

   <jar> I would put trust, authorization, authentication in a bucket
   with access. maybe broaden the issue.

   Larry: I think there is a question in the metadata architecture,
   what do we recommend to people, for the priority of embedded vs
   linked vs third party metadata ...

   <jar> -- Eran has an answer to this.

   Larry: People have the possibility of dealing with metadata from
   multiple sources.
   ... We'd like two agents with the similar trust model to arrive at
   the same concludion.
   ... So if you use a link header, for example, does this mean you are
   overriding the other embedded data?
   ... I know a lot about embedded metadata, spend the last couple of
   years working on it, and on the metadata for compound objects built
   out of many other objects.
   ... When I come to thinking about metadata, the authority issues are
   more prominent for me than with the web in general.
   ... In lots of the web, I think authority is a second priority.
   ... Authority on the web is more obvious for the data.
   ... Content type sniffing is wrong and dangerous here as everywhere.
   ... Is there a place for cascading, where i can override some but
   not all of ithe data.

   <jar> [jar would like to modify his previous remark, far above,
   about entity-headers. i think ht was talking about the entity-body,
   not the entity-headers.]

   LArry: I also would put into the architecture the various places
   wher metadata could be found.

   <Zakim> johnk_, you wanted to mention text/plain and Link header

   <masinter> ((or else put the metadata in the link itself))

   jk: One use case is for plain text documents which don't have the
   ablity to carry metadata. The link header is part of what Eran is
   writing up as something much bigger.

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to talk about archiving of <link>-containing
   documents vs. Link: and to say that the link:/<link> distinction is
   important (in a practical sense)

   jar: It would be illustrative of the tension betwen link element and
   link header if you can focus on this question.
   ... I came to the conclusion that there are different entities
   making these statements. Yes, one might not want to think about it,
   but it does make a difference.
   ... You may archive an old verion of the ocument at a new URI.
   ... You rev it because the link elment is wrong.
   ... One thing you might say in archived metadata would be correct
   metadata stating that that the link element is wrong.
   ... On serious archival situations, this has the potential to be
   ... This is useful to just note they are coming from different

   <johnk_> Making decisions about authority requires the ability for
   the recipient of the data to be able to reasonably authenticate the

   <noah> TBL: There are lots examples where different people are
   responsible for that information. Sometimes one or the other is easy
   to access.

   <jar> Re <link>/link: conflict we have three 'answers' on the table:
   Tim/Dan, HT/JAR, and Eran. Eran says sources *must* agree

   <noah> TBL: The situation where you archive specifically because
   something was in error is a bit of a problematic path to explore.

   <jar> timbl: LM, it's interesting that you think authoritativeness
   of metadata is more important than authoritativeness of data

   <masinter> I don't

   <noah> TBL: Responding to Larry, I note that you are more concerned
   about the "authoritativeness" of metadata than of the data. I can't
   support that distinction. Both are important.

   <masinter> Actually, "authority" is metadata.

   <noah> TBL: Lots of data on the Web, such as banking, drug data,
   etc. is itself important.

   <noah> TBL: We can ask some useful questions: 1) how can I get
   metadata specifically from the source of the data and 2) how can we
   access (publish? -- not sure which Tim emphasized) 3rd party

   <noah> TBL: How does Henry find out that Dan has "tweeted" about
   him? One answer: twitter.com sends an email saying "look who tweeted
   about you"

   <jar> careful: metadata attached to the URI is not necessarily
   metadata attached to the resource (i.e. metadata and resource might
   have different "owners")

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to respond on archived documents

   <johnk_> noting content-centric networking work of Van Jacobson in
   this area -

     [16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking

   Noah: (Yes, archiving something and saying is is incorrect is a
   fringe issue)

   Danc: (yes, -- suppose you archive an old price list -- you don't
   want people to believe it -- this isn't a metadata issue only)

   Larry: "Authority is metadata". You can think of authority as
   metadata [sic]

   <johnk_> see content-centric networking, again ;)

   Larry: the mechanism by which one dicovers and reasons about
   authority is in general metadata.

   <jar> how authoritative is the metadata? -- that would be

   jar: I don't know how the TAG could be involved in metadata formats.
   ... W3C has been promoting a particcular way of doing it, base of
   ... The punctuation has been provided by RDF, and the W3C story is
   that communities will get together and make thei own vocabularies.

   <masinter> ((should W3C endorse Dublin Core?))

   jar: W3C has for example recently done SKOS, but it does not have to
   happen within W3C in general.

   <DanC_lap> 22 Jun: WebKit destined to get its own content sniffer

     [17] http://sideshowbarker.net/2009/06/22/webkit-sniffer/

   <masinter> ((media annotation is working on vocabulary))

   jar: Every database you go to has a different vocabulary for
   bibliographic data.. maybe people will fix [this] if it is a

   <Zakim> johnk_, you wanted to now mention content-centric
   networking, link to the capability discussion yesterday

   <jar> embedded metadata is always better than out-of-doc *all other
   things around metadata being equal*

   jk: In this conent-centric networking concept (Ted Nelson and Van
   Jaconson), they are trying to tackle this, and there is a link to
   the capability issue
   ... in that the separation of data and metadata is a security issue.

   <masinter> ((PDF/A ISO 19005 uses embedded metadata using XMP))

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk to metadata formats

   Larry: On vocabularies, these are related to formats.

   <DanC_lap> (I think the POWDER spec ended up endorsing DC... or was
   it FOAF)

   Larry: Vocabularies: should W3C endorse Dublin Core? (I was called
   the "Naysayer of Dublin")

   <jar> lm: embarassed to say I voted "no" on all dublin core
   attributes, but since recanted.

   <jar> lm: it would be worth looking at w3c groups working on

   Larry: I think the Video Annotation people are working on vocabs for
   audio and video

   <raman> calling zakim

   Larry: I have worked on XMP, which has three parts, the format, the
   vocab, and the method of embedding the format in an arbitrary

   <noah> Raman, we're talking about metadata. I'll dial now.

   Larry: The format is a non-current profile of RDF. It is however
   well deployed.
   ... There are other vendors using it.

   <noah> Raman: please note that the agenda at
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda has been updated.

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda

   <noah> I expect we'll break for lunch shortly.

   Larry: There are ways of embedding it in most media formats. There
   are some formats for which that is a problem, which leads to other
   ways of linking.

   <noah> Raman: After that, we'll be discussing a significant proposal
   for TAG focus on AWWW for Applications. We will start refining a
   proposed Table of Contents. Should be around 1:15 PM our time, so
   10:15 AM your time, OK?

   <jar> timbl: Being unable to squish it into the content is not the
   reason it's good to use a Link header.

   <masinter> TimBL: Link header overrides embedded metadata even if
   it's present, it's more current, more authoritative.

   <jar> ... e.g. the server may just know better. May have access to
   list of versions, etc.

   <noah> Also, Raman, though it's not in the agenda yet, I'm planning
   to have our last session (4:15 our time) be the TAG logistics
   session. Scheduling future meetings and summer telcons.

   An example of something medata with link header is

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2007/ont/unit

   <Zakim> timbl4, you wanted to say HTTP level data is sometime a
   first resource because it really is authoritative.

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to talk about W3C doing vocabularies

   <masinter> [20]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mediaont-10-20090618/

     [20] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mediaont-10-20090618/

   <masinter> "Ontology for Media Resource 1.0"

   <jar> timbl: W3C staff is asking how much W3C should be involved in
   ontology development

   <jar> ... provide an environment? stimulus? process? tools?

   <jar> timbl: What is the level of agreement between dspace, fedora,
   eprints (re bib format)?

   <jar> dan: ... re vcard & html5 ...

   jar: As a consumer, I think it would be really nice to have some
   agreement on some basic vocabularies, such as in bibliographic data.

   <jar> ... but it's not different from any other standardization

   Noah: I have necome awrae of the tendency of the TAG to get to a
   state in which we have become aware of the fact that it might kinda
   be useful to do something.

   Larry: I have an action to open up an issue, and this discussionhas
   been very informative.

   Noah: I will need to understand what the TAG should do in this area.
   Shoiuld we look at whether W3C should get into ontology

   <masinter> standards provide for extensibility but also a "common
   base" that everyone agrees that, no matter what else they did.

   <noah> LM: I will, in my framing of the issue, try to set out
   options for what if anything the TAG should actually do about this.

   <masinter> Three issues: access, format, vocabulary

   jar: I haven't been sure before about what the TAG could do, but now
   I feel we should have a metadata architecture. It is also something
   I find it very easy to justify working on as it is key to Science

   <jar> & trust/authority too

   Noah: Would this be useful use of TAG time?

   [general positive rumblings]

   RESOLUTION: We want to start work on metadata in general, including
   access and formats.

   <scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to draft a finding on metadata
   architecture. [recorded in

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-282 - Draft a finding on metadata
   architecture. [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-07-01].

   <masinter> would include working groups working on vocabularies,
   link access, RDF/A

   <masinter> audience should

   Ramin: We should know who the audience is for this, and how we are
   going to have an impact with the work.

   <jar> raman: Who is the audience? How will we have apositive impact?
   make sure that's answered

   Jar: I can think of a number of people who would eat this up.

   <jar> action-282 due 2009-08-31

   <trackbot> ACTION-282 Draft a finding on metadata architecture. due
   date now 2009-08-31

   <ht> _Proofs and Refutations_

   <ht> by Imre Lakatos



   <masinter> scribenick: masinter

Versioning and HTML

   <Ashok> Noah: I'm being encouaged to consider the HTML5 draft.

   <Ashok> ... how can we influence the draft?

   <scribe> ScribeNick: Ashok

   <noah> I agree with the suggestion that we should focus on how to
   positively impact the HTML work.

   Noah: If I said I'm pessimistic, we will not have influence on HTML
   work, would someone push back?

   <raman> calling zakim

   LM: It is a good general discussion; even if we do not have
   influence on HTML5, it may influence other WGs.

   <noah> Will dial. Note that agenda has again been revised, due to
   last minute change in Tim's availability. See posted agenda.

   <raman> all by myself on zakim

   LM: we shoud approach from POV that, if they are right, how would we
   modify the versioning finding?

   <noah> Raman, see note above on schedule change: now discussing

   LM: Also possible we may have a positive effect on HTML5 itself.

   JK: I agree w/Larry

   <noah> TBL: We should explain that HTML 5 is using a different

   TimBL: It would be OK for TAG to agree with our TAG-SOUP conclusions

   Noah: LM is talking about version identifiers

   HT: Tim is also talking about version id's

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to support the proposition wrt the narrow

   Raman: Does the exception apply also to Web Apps? Where does it end

   ht: +1 to emphasize certain aspects of what Larry said. This is a
   narrowly scoped proposal.
   ... pros and cons of the space in which the decisions about version
   id's fall
   ... we will end upo with costs and benefits
   ... there is no single best practice... that's the point

   Noah: We did some work on XML versioning
   ... now moving to HTML space ... specifically about version

   LM: Consistently in HTML WG when general priciples are raised the
   questions comes back "can you justify this is a good principle"
   ... we need to explain why version id's are a good idea or not

   Noah: Proposal --- to do a balanced analysis of pros and cons of
   version id's and who would be influenced by it

   Dan: That's a pretty high bar but 'yeah'

   <masinter> suggest removing 'balanced'

   LM: As balanced as we can be

   Dan: the challenge I see is to do the macroeconomic analysis well

   <masinter> I think, for example, that we will need a framework for
   talking about versioning and APIs

   Noah: I would like to do some teaching on this
   ... please notice these points of confusion

   JR: This is interesting to me because this is a puzzle. If I learn
   something I would be interested in telling someone else.
   ... it seems valuable and seems hard.

   <masinter> Ashok: Noah is looking at this from the filter of past
   versioning work, and that didn't work out very well. Ashok thinks
   this is different, more specific.

   Ashok: This is different ... only for HTML and only the version id

   Noah: So do we start some work in this area?
   ... seems like we have consensus to do so.

   <johnk_> what is the role of


   Noah: Larry, what steps would you propose?

   LM: Yesterday I went thru the outline of the document we wrote. It
   would be good to go thru it again and get feedback on it and then
   plan what to do about the document.

   Noah: We said we would work on version id's. The document
   title/abstract is very broad.

   LM: Our success criteria shd be if we answer whether there shoud be
   a doctype in HTML5.
   ... I think we will come up with something broader.
   ... Look at last sentence of second para.
   ... I accept the discussion should be narrower

   JK: The start of the doc provides context. The rest is about version

   LM: The intro promises more than the document delivers and what we
   are interested in. We should edit the title.

   JR: What about the other issues re. versioning?

   Noah: The language versioning issue remains open.
   ... David Orchard will publish his doc under his own name.
   ... and we would go quiet about versioning for a while.

   JR: Asks about other versioning issues like distributed
   extensibility and the attitude of WGs about extensibility

   LM: Let's focus on version id's first ... and for HTML5.

   (reviewing versioning document)

   LM: The terminology section we talked about yesterday. There was
   some discussion about how to go about talking about what a language
   ... HTML5 says a language is what people use not what's written in
   the spec.
   ... this is an important distinction.

   Dan: I would rather not see an upfront terminology section. I would
   rather define the terms in context.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss specifications vs. languages

   <masinter> i think that's editorial (whether there's an up-front
   terminology section).

   LM: Needs to say which language is being versioned

   Noah: I'm not fond of this phrasing about what language is.
   ... language is a set of texts and what the texts mean

   LM: What's missing is the distinction between language and dialects
   ... how languages are used.
   ... Languages apply to a community that agrees to speak it
   ... ((Discourses on languages and their implementations, an versions

   JR: I think that's very important. I was using a single word for
   languages that are specified and languages as they are spoken.

   LM: Languages have constraints and permissions
   ... implementations have behavior.

   Noah: Its useful to separate the spec of language from what
   implementations do.

   <masinter> i think it's important to talk about 'communities' of

   <DanC_lap> (one of the reasons I hate up-front terminology
   discussions is that they result in this sort of
   let's-discuss-everything-at-once discussions. a list of terms and
   their definition is the end of the game, not the beginning.)

   Noah: describes Purchase Order languages
   ... there are different users with different uses in mind
   ... these could be spelled out in different specs

   LM: We don't share assumptions
   ... communities are communities of implementations
   ... there are constraints and permissions exhibited by language
   specs, and behaviors exhibited by implementations

   Noah: Example: HTML language and 2 browsers -- traditional and voice
   ... there will be a 3 specs: langauge spec and 2 implementation

   <masinter> ((noah asks for distinction between spec, implementation
   spec, implementation))

   Noah: pl. explain how you would tell that story

   LM: I am separating implementation from an implementation spec. You
   cannot 'define' an implementation except by the implementation

   <johnk_> I think (but don't know) that Noah meant that there were
   two kinds of spec in this example - language specification, and
   implementation class specification.

   <noah> Yes, and in particular, one should try to avoid leakage of
   implementation specifications into language specifications (at least
   most of the time)

   <johnk_> implementation specification, or implementation /class/

   LM: ((describes an example of implementation spec and discusses
   refining specs that would have a narrower domain of applicability))
   ... Part of issue with HTML5 is that level of specificity is
   detailed enough to make you wonder if it does not inappropriately
   specify behaviour of other agents

   Noah: They would say that hidden within this is an author spec

   <masinter> it isn't hidden

   Noah: I don't understand their lack of recognition of other agents

   LM: The charter says to produce a spec that applies to all agents;
   behavior of compliant browers is specified, and other agents want to
   be compatible with browsers
   ... Calling it anything other that a technical spec of HTML would be
   to insult it.

   <noah> Raman, if youi're curious, we're still waiting for Tim to

   <masinter> question about distinction between language
   specifications having constraints and permissions, while communities
   of language implementations have behaviors

   HT: This is a useful distinction berween spec and implementation
   ... I was thinking that all interactions are 1 producer to one
   consumer. Or 1 producers and many consumers.
   ... rare to have many producers and 1 consumers.

   <masinter> a specification is an attempt to document or propose
   constraints and permissions to communities which agree on behavior.

   HT: in HTML very small number of consumers ... say 4

   Noah: disgrees saying users are people in front of the screen

   HT disagrees


     [24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention the cardinality of consumers point

   Noah: Argues that users are humans not browser vendors
   ... Assume you are right. What do we conclude from that?

   HT: I want to go back and see if this understanding changing

   LM: IE on Windon Windoes and IE on Mac etc are differents agents. So
   many more than 4 users

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to give way by an order of magnitude, maybe
   two, but not much more

   HT: OK. It's in the hundereds not in the millions

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to suggest 'critical mass of the
   market' as a way to distinguish "4 major browsers" from the long
   tail of tools. The long tail can't wag the dog ;-)

   Noah: Do microformats change the equation?

   <masinter> level of interoperability is an important concept

   LM: I will take an action to respond to feedback on this document

   Noah: Start a finding?

   <DanC_lap> ACTION: Larry update document on version identifiers
   w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion [recorded in

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Update document on version
   identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion [on Larry Masinter -
   due 2009-07-01].

   Noah: on version identifiers

   <DanC_lap> action-283 due 24 July

   <trackbot> ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
   Cambridge June discussion due date now 24 July

   LM: Moving on with the document
   ... I want to get more history on doctype

   Dan: I don't think DOCTYPE is an interesting design. Only design is
   version attribute on HTML5

   <jar> jar's advice to LM: please treat consumers and producers more
   symmetrically. my comment "why constrain only consumer behavior" was
   an experiment and now i think it's better formulated as constraints
   (or behavior or practices) on both producer and consumer.

   LM: What are in-band global version identifiers; try and postulate
   possible version changes that may happen for HTML 6 and a
   game-theoretic consequences of having the version Id's for HTML6
   ... cost/benefit tradeoffs

   Noah: Summarizes
   ... we decided to move forward with this work with focus on version

   JK: So we shd review doc and send comments?

   LM: Yes

Web Arch for Applications

   Noah: We added this based on yesterday's discussion

   <masinter> Noah: Tim said: we have an arch for web of documents.
   What is the architecture of the web when you're sending and running
   applications locally?

   <DanC_lap> scribenick: masinter

   Noah: Is this something we want to bite off -- does this become a
   new chapter of AWWW? Does it influence the current document, etc?
   ... first concentrate on content. Let's imagine what we're going to
   do is add another section of the AWWW

   Put together what a table of contents would be. From that we can
   debate whether this is a good focus for the TAG's work.

   <DanC_lap> "Draft Standard  24 June 2009"

   <DanC_lap> --

     [26] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/

   <noah> [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html

   ((Discussion about title and name of what we're working on))

   TimBL: HTML5 is a really strong priority for TAG to look at it
   ... If TAG members to see things wrong with HTML5 we should say
   something about it. Otherwise "bad things happen because good people
   don't act on it"

   ((discussion of the 'iCalendar' issue, for example))

   <noah> Updating live copy of TOC @

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html

   <noah> timbl: Can we spend 1/3 of our energy on HTML, 1/3 on Web
   application architecture, and 1/3 on other things?

   Noah: proposes we look at Web applications architecture, then come
   back and answer this question
   ... Proposed table of contents again

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html

   Question is whether TAG will take this on as a major work, of the
   same scope as AWWW?

   What are the parallels to the 'regular web' and how are things
   different or not?

   Ashok: point out HTML5 has a database interface (which he thought
   they had no business spelling out, thought it would be in the form
   of SQL calls.)

   <Zakim> johnk_, you wanted to suggest we need to come up with a
   unified statement that encompasses the laundry list curently written

   Ashok: We ought not go in and follow working group, not sure we
   should interfere.

   jk: if I look back to the original webarch, we extracted general
   principles, resources & representation, we said "Use XML" and gave
   good practices
   ... I'm saying a little more: what is the unified statement we'd
   make about this laundry list of specifications; is there anything we
   can say about JavaScript and CSS and HTML5?

   ht: somehow Noah's TOC document got away from the whiteboard
   ... i think it's important enough that it's worth trying to do it
   ... primary energy of those behind HTML5, people's sense of how they
   want to use the web and the net is a distributed application
   platform, but not suprisingly it's not going very well

   ((discussion about WebAPPS vs. HTML5))

   <noah> Raman, do you want to be on the queue

   ht: all we might wind up doing is try to give guidance to HTML5 for
   webapps arch

   danc: trying to find history of calendar stuff, found offline
   ... ((discussing offline storage & webapps vs. html5))

   jar: has typed in everything on the board and organized

   <DanC_lap> TVR: this all made sense until we started talking about
   it being separate from HTML 5;

   <DanC_lap> ... these are all tangled up, as Henry said

   <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to note HTML WG's separate WD on
   database API and to note
   [30]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-offline-webapps-20080530/ and to
   promote "...no business..." to an

     [30] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-offline-webapps-20080530/

   jar: when this discussion about CORS was going on, that ended when
   Anne came to an impasse

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about HTML 5 vs. what we do

   Noah: perhaps he's piling on. We have to go into this that part of
   our job is to influence HTML5. But we should try to set out is to
   set out principles and advantages in a way that people would have
   trouble disagreeing with.
   ... for example, with URI finding 'if you use a URI for everything,
   you'll be able to link to a URI'
   ... doing that when informed by HTML5 is fine.
   ... People have not disagreed about whether you get some advantages
   or disadavantages with a certain pattern, they've disagreed about
   whether the advantages are important.
   ... What's going through my head is that really undertaking this the
   way Tim said is a big focus for us.
   ... What I hear is somewhere between positive and real enthusiasm.

   Raman: if you start out to be a multi-year exercise, we will fail.

   Noah: how do we build something like this? Often the way we've used
   findings are details or summary.
   ... keep working on the outline, do that in the form of findings and
   ... maybe in parallel and appoint an editor or two.

   masinter: suggestion to take each of the topics and write up 'what
   is the question', and use that as a way of motivating discussion.

   Noah: put that up as a live outline. as people discover new things

   ((discussion about whether it's a wiki or cvs or form))

   jk: it would help if we could write up a statement that says: "web
   applications already exist, they are things that are delivered from
   a server by a client", what happens? Most of these issues revolve
   around mash-ups?

   <noah> Tim earlier said: Can we spend 1/3 of our energy on HTML, 1/3
   on Web application architecture, and 1/3 on other things?

   jk: Mash-ups are an example of an area where the issues are most

   ((discussion about state and multi-parties applications between JK
   and TimBL))

   <raman> lunch beckons. I'm off

   ((Discussion about offline apps vs. Comit and plumbing and issues
   around that.))

   TimBL, JK, Noah

   Noah: How much of our traditional terminology applies? E.g., web
   server on phones?
   ... Want to push back, throw out ideas for how we organize things.
   ... Question about this organizing findings and notes, unified
   document as a whole not sure
   ... continue working on drafts and findings we've already heard
   ... take a list like this (the TOC), tune it up; under each one, try
   to catalog what the issues, pain points, and opportunities, build up
   over time.

   <johnk_> it would help if we could write a statement that says "web
   applications already exist - traditionally they have been delivered
   by an (HTTP) server and rendered by a (browser) client. Today, web
   applications often have multiple communicating parties, and the
   client often acts as more than a rendering agent. What are the
   architectural issues?"

   Noah: at various times we will decide

   Jar: our charter is to produce architectural recommendations, not
   ... it's been 5 years, we should be working on one

   <johnk_> ((by the way, not too wedded to the statement I've made,
   but would like to be able to make clarifying statement of some kind
   for this work))

   danc: building a web application, got into permission problems.
   cross origin was most difficult element for ordinary programmer

   ht: (side note) range of conflicting responses to our message to
   Art. various players have responded.

   Noah: how to fill in this outline? would like to wrap this section?
   ... will get people assigned to this
   ... I will come back to get the next round of work, writing down
   briefly a few line items with a few sentences or a paragraph.

   <scribe> ACTION: jonathan to flesh out the outline with as many
   sentences as he can [recorded in

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Flesh out the outline with as many
   sentences as he can [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-07-01].

   Noah: after break we will work on schedule

   group picture

   <DanC_lap> jar, re 1st party etc.

     [32] http://www.downes.ca/post/38498

   <johnk_> re: 3rd parties

     [33] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third_party

   <jar> I had been saying "second-party metadata" meaning metadata
   coming from the origin (or the URI or the resource or the
   representation). Dan has corrected me and I will henceforth call it
   "first-party metadata"


tag administration issues

   <noah> Raman, we are discussing f2f scheduling

   <ht> TV, you there?

   <DanC_lap> we discussed summer telcons; noah has notes

   <ht> Formal proposal to move 22-24 Sept TAG to 23-25 TAG

   <DanC_lap> PROPOSED: to move Sep meeting to 23-25 Sep

   <ht> Amy, any reason not?

   <amy> s

   <ht> 22 Sept is One Web Day

   <DanC_lap> so RESOLVED.

   Nov 2-6 in Santa Clara TPAC

   <amy> the group would have to split days between Star (not the room
   you're in) to Kiva (the one you're in now)

   <DanC_lap> ah. I think we can deal with that, Amy

   <amy> ok, if you like the room you're in, I can get you that for two
   of the three days

   <DanC_lap> cool. thanks.

   <noah> Amy, we have voted to reschedule for 23-25 Sept. Would you
   please move rooms.

   <noah> Thank you!

   <amy> ok, I confirm the rooms are moved

   <amy> same basic procedure. I'll get catering, let me know if you
   need a bridge/phone and any parking

   <amy> i can send info on nearby hotel rates (w/ the MIT rate) if you
   need later

   <DanC_lap> ACTION: Noah make sure TPAC logistics are straight
   recorded in [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Make sure TPAC logistics are
   straight [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-01].

   <DanC_lap> LMM: HTML WG meets Thu TPAC week

   <DanC_lap> action-285 due 30 July

   <trackbot> ACTION-285 Make sure TPAC logistics are straight due date
   now 30 July

   <timbl> [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/

   discussion about schedule, not worth minuting


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ashok to Keep an eye on progress of link header draft,
   report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62). Due 8-1-2009
   recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to draft a finding on metadata architecture.
   recorded in [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: jonathan to flesh out the outline with as many
   sentences as he can [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Larry update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
   Cambridge June discussion [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah make sure TPAC logistics are straight [recorded
   in [40]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc]

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/24-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([42]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/07/21 20:50:04 $

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

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 20:46:01 UTC