- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:23:28 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Available online at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html
and below as plain text.
ht
- --------------
- DRAFT -
TAG telcon
17 Dec 2009
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Dan Connolly, John Kemp, Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, Noah
Mendelsohn, Jonathan Rees, Henry S. Thompson
Regrets
Tim Berners-Lee, T. V. Raman
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn:
Scribe
Henry S. Thompson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]Metadata in HTML5
3. [7]HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification
4. [8]ACTION-283 on Larry Masinter: Update document on version
identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion - due 2009-12-10 -
pending review
5. [9]ACTION-309 on Henry S. Thompson: draft input to HTTP bis draft
re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion - due 2009-12-09 - pending
review
6. [10]draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec
discussion
7. [11]ACTION-359 on Noah Mendelsohn: Communicate TAG resolution to
HTML WG - due 2009-12-17 - pending review
8. [12]ACTION-358 on Noah Mendelsohn: Schedule discussion of 'usage of
'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...'
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Admin
NM: F2F minutes review anyone?
DC: Look good
JK: I've looked at 8 and 10
NM: I propose to postpone these until January
<DanC> -1
HST: I would like to publish
NM: Any objections to approving?
JR: Could we say go ahead if no objections in a few days?
NM: RESOLUTION: Minutes will go out unless Chair hears objection by Monday
21 Jan
NM: Obviously I will fix minor bugs, only delay for substantial pblms
<DanC> +1 NM is welcome to edit as he sees fit
NM: Action to Larry to send 3 December minutes
LM: I need help with the originals
HST: I will send you a draft
<DanC> action-215 due 22 Dec
<trackbot> ACTION-215 Send minutes of 3 Dec TAG teleconference to www-tag
for review due date now 22 Dec
NM: No telcon 24 or 31 December
... Next telcon 7 January 2010
... Moving next f2f to 24--26 March
... based on change in TAG f2f
LM: IETF is meeting week of 22 March
... Progress on URI work, I really need to be there
<masinter> [14]http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF77
NM: Would you come if we stuck with the old dates?
LM: I am not sure about the 22 week
NM: 17-19 would still work?
LM: Yes
<masinter> yes, 17-19th is better, i just realized the IETF conflict for
21-26
<johnk> I don't mind either way
HST: Do you have firm confirmation from TV that he will come?
NM: I think so. . .
DC: And what about TBL?
... I would rather not make this decision today
HST: I thought TBL had one day pblm
... in the week of the 22nd
... Doodle poll?
<jar__> it's capability-based
<jar__> :-)
NM: No resolution
<DanC> close ACTION-346
<trackbot> ACTION-346 Collect March 2010 W3C Team day info closed
<scribe> ACTION: Henry to put up Doodle poll [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-365 - Put up Doodle poll [on Henry S. Thompson -
due 2009-12-24].
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll
input [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-366 - Bring f2f date proposal to group based on
poll input [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-24].
action-366 due 6 January
<trackbot> ACTION-366 Bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input
due date now 6 January
Metadata in HTML5
<DanC> (the WG doesn't close bugs; the editor does.)
LM: I'm not sure the original TAG submission is actually on record wrt the
poll which is now underway
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask the chair to say what he knows about TBL and
TVR's availability for the proposed dates and to ask LMM if change proposals
in both ways are on the table and
The relevant HTML issue is [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
<DanC> I want the poll, not the issue
DC: Change proposals in both directions on the table?
LM: Yes, in both directions
<masinter> [18]http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
<DanC> [19]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/
<masinter> and
[20]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results
NM: Q2 is objections to proposal to split; Q3 is objections to proposal to
keep
... This looks like an internal exercise on the part of the HTML5 WG
... arising from our concern
... So we could just wait
... Or we could/should make a comment
HST: I think we were being asked to comment
DC: Only members of the HTML WG can comment
HST: OK, I was wrong
DC: What's gotten missed?
LM: The points in the rationale for the bug we raised
DC: Which ones?
LM: [points from [21]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220]
<DanC> there's a para with "high profile content management system"
DC: I think those are covered
NM: Anyone other than LM like us to do anything here?
<DanC> and "Added Benefit of modularizing Microdata"
HST: Yes, I do -- I want 8220 read into the poll
<DanC> (you want 8220 in the question or in a response?)
HST: No, I want it entered as an objection to the 'keep' option
NM: But we already filed the bug -- we can use that to come back in
<DanC> (ah. as a response. I can get that into the team input to the poll)
DC: So now I understand HST wants this in the response
... I can get it in the W3C Team response
HST: I would prefer not to dilute the team response with the TAG's points
NM: So we need someone in the WG
LM: I'm willing to let this go -- NM has convinced me
NM: Are we comfortable with that?
HST: What I would like is for NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220
bug as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata
in"
<masinter> 1+ to chairs & archive
<DanC> in particular, www-archive@w3.org ; it predates the public-
convention
DC: Copy to www-archive?
HST: sure
<scribe> ACTION: NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input
to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to
www-archive@w3.org [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-367 - Ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug
as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata
in", cc to www-archive@w3.org [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-12-24].
HTML 5 Language Reference / Authoring Specification
NM: we got email from Maciej
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0087.html and
replied [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0088.html
... I thought Maciej's response was weak wrt Mike Smith's draft, so pushed
back on that front
... LM also pushed back a bit
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0095.html
... Any action needed now?
DC: I think we've gone too far
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to say that i'm ok with letting this go
DC: We should just look at what they now do
LM: I'd like to see it on a schedule or list of deliverables
DC: What list? Their charter?
LM: Not clear
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to back NM's response wrt Mike Smith's doc
NM: I'm sympathetic to LM's point -- if a WG takes on a commitment to
produce a WD and take it to Last Call, there is some implied commitment to
put effort into that
... Not a Charter change, I think it's already covered
... But I would like to see a public commitment to do the work, with success
criteria
<DanC> (basically, I now where maciej lives; if he doesn't give us what we
ask for, I know how to start the discussion about why not.)
HT: My reading of what Maceij said made a firm and binding commitment to the
author view, which was one of the things we asked for. There was no
commitment on the Mike Smith draft, and I think it was appropriate to push
back.
HST: We didn't get what we asked for
NM: I think the requests crossed
<DanC> (what we asked for is last call on the html 5 reference; how could we
have gotten that already? sigh.)
HST: I don't think we should micromanage the WG
NM: What about the first request, wrt the authoring view -- are you happy?
HST: Yes, I think that commitment was adequate
NM: Anything further we should do?
<masinter> "plus the fact that it was actively maintained and reviewed by
itself for quality"
LM: If you agree with my concern about the authoring view, . . .
... I agree that the editor has agreed to move stuff if it's misclassified
... but what's missing is any commitment from the HTML5 WG to review the
result for quality
... But I am willing to drop this
NM: Me too, reluctantly
<DanC> (we just dealt with ACTION-359 so I'll close it.)
<DanC> close ACTION-359
<trackbot> ACTION-359 Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG closed
ACTION-283 on Larry Masinter: Update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
Cambridge June discussion - due 2009-12-10 - pending review
LM: New input from JR on version identifiers
... My inclination is not to update the existing doc.
[26]http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html, but write a new one
that's shorter
... I'm also waiting for input from HST on XML-compatibility guidelines
... As long as you're careful to distinguish implementations from
specifications
... and implementations evolve faster than specs do
... then the utility of VIs is limited
<DanC> (tracker, note we're touching on ISSUE-41)
<noah> I'm not sure I buy the "version of implementations" point, at least
as a typical idiom
LM: because it doesn't map to implementations reliably
... But 'limited' doesn't mean 'none'
NM: So you're suggesting closing 283 and opening a new one?
<DanC> -1 "schedule" actions. please just actions to do technical work;
they'll naturally get scheduled.
LM: Suggesting closing 283 and scheduling short discussion for guidance
before I decide whether to take a new document forward
<DanC> a pending review action is implicitly an action for the chair to
schedule discussion.
NM: Is your existing email sufficient?
<masinter> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0094.html
DC: Could we review whether HT minuted LM's analysis correctly above?
<johnk> P&C = [28]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/ (from
Larry's email)
<masinter> i think the minutes are OK so far, the email says more
LM: So given that what users want VIs for is to identify implementations,
they don't work in the case cited
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask for clarification on the implementations
versioning
NM: I don't quite understand where you're trying to go with implementation
versioning
... I think we need to be clear about the role of senders and receivers
<DanC> (examples are great; let's go slow enough to get them recorded)
NM: Suppose we had stability for a while wrt version 3
... and now innovation has set in
NM: We had code written which was generating instances of that version of
the language
NM: And there were agents which implemented that version of the language to
process documents
<DanC> I can go with "name implementations" as a paraphrase for "name
receiver understandings"
<jar__> it's an ontology ... hierarchy of classes whose members are
implementations
<DanC> I wrote it as an ontology.
<DanC> my ontology for this stuff:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
'formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t. recent TAG
versioning terminology'
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that, in the cases where
implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not
useful in producer/consumer communication.
LM: Even in that lossy situation, there is still value for VIs in the
production context
<noah> I think the problem is that we're not being clear on what is being
identified. In many cases, people grab pieces of different specs, knowing
full well which they're grabbing from
<DanC> tx for writing it down, LMM. I see the key point: "in the cases where
implementations evolve faster than specfications, version indicators are not
useful in producer/consumer communication."
LM: And sometimes, when there's an incompatible change, there can be utility
even in the producer-consumer communication
... context.
LM: So that could all be an update to what we say in AWWW about VIs
<noah> I tend to be anti-VI in general.
<masinter> Danc, are not *as* useful
<DanC> I just copied/pasted what you wrote, masinter . but ok, *as* useful.
<masinter> DanC, I was correcting myself, the utility in producer/consumer
communication is limited to the unfortunate situation where it's necessary
to introduce incompatible changes
<DanC> gotcha, lmm
DC: I am somewhat positive about this, but not sure updating AWWW is the
most effective route -- I like blog articles these days
NM: Languages evolve in multi-faceted ways -- sometimes it's chunky, when
there's agreement to move from V3 to V4
... When you talk about implementations evolving, that's masking that fact
... because some impls are innovating wrt the video tag, and some other
impls are innovating somewhere else
NM: In that kind of situation, you onlyneed VIs if there are conflicting
interpretations somewhere
NM: as long as it's all "this tag is supported, or it isn't" then there's no
need
... Differentiating the production pipeline from the producer-consumer
connection doesn't really get at that issue
NM: I'm not sure it helps
<DanC> (trying to get consensus on this doesn't seem like a good use of TAG
discussion time; I'd much rather see LMM write it up as he sees it and let
NM either comment on that or do a separate piece.)
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to disagree with NM about 'needing
multi-dimensional version indicators'
LM: Multi-dimensional VIs? Where I'm going is that you only need VIs for
specifications
... If you need a VI for "version 3 plus the video tag from Apple impl. of
xxx and the other tag from foobar impl of ..."
LM: then you need to write a spec. that says that, and you can have a VI
... I'm only trying to find a minimal utility claim: there is value for VIs
for published specs.
... Maybe there are other use cases, but that's the one I care about right
now
<masinter> My belief is that you only need version indicators in the
language to indicate versions of specifications. And if there is a need for
a version indicator for something, you would have a spec for it
<DanC> (I guess I should turn
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136intoa
blog article; wish I'd done it a while ago.)
<noah> Larry says: you only need VIs for specs. My (noah's) position is: you
need VIs whenever the same content might mean different things, or when
tools or consumers want early warning
NM: I'm pointing to another important case, which is when there's a conflict
between two interpretations, i.e. if the documents are ambiguous
[scribe is not keeping up]
<masinter> Noah, there may be other uses for which you might also want
version indicators to help with, but they don't, or can't, in the situation
where languages evolve independently outside of standards
LM: So I hear you asking for VIs in cases where they are needed, but it's
hard to see how to get them
<DanC> +1 we've made some progress and are reaching diminishing returns;
please sketch actions
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask NM to write up what he said
NM: The IRC log will have to do
DC: I will write up my ontology in this space
<DanC> ACTION Dan write up version change ontology as blog item
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
<trackbot> Created ACTION-368 - Write up version change ontology as blog
item[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136[on
Dan Connolly - due 2009-12-24].
<jar__> +1 to LM's new story, too.
LM: So no value in the email?
HST: No, I like it, please write it up
<masinter> ok, i wanted enough discussion to get feedback
<DanC> action-368 due 1 Mar 2010
<trackbot> ACTION-368 Write up version change ontology as blog item
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136duedate
now 1 Mar 2010
<masinter> action-283?
<trackbot> ACTION-283 -- Larry Masinter to update document on version
identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion -- due 2009-12-10 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
<DanC> close action-283
<trackbot> ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t.
Cambridge June discussion closed
<DanC> . ACTION Larry write a shorter document on version indicators
<DanC> ACTION Larry write a shorter document on version indicators
<trackbot> Created ACTION-369 - Write a shorter document on version
indicators [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-12-24].
ACTION-309 on Henry S. Thompson: draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing
based on 8 Dec discussion - due 2009-12-09 - pending review
<masinter> action-309?
<trackbot> ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to draft input to HTTP bis draft
re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion -- due 2009-12-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309
<johnk> I'll note that I (this morning) bumped the dates on all of my
agenda-linked actions until the 7th
<johnk> (of Jan)
draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8 Dec discussion
HST: My new proposed input is at
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
<masinter> +1 like Henry's text
<DanC> +1 "don't always meet their obligation to provide correct headers
<noah> Propose: "don't always meet their obligation to provide correct
Content-type headers"
<DanC> and +1 "...configuration issues..."
DC: Not happy with the "servers don't supply correct ..."
NM: Agree with DC
<masinter> I'd be happy to have the TAG send it with just a note saying that
we'd like them to review it
<jar__> I don't like "obligation"
<masinter> i don't like Noah's rewording
<johnk> Propose: "provide Content-type headers which do not correctly
identify the content sent"
JAR: I prefer HST's wording
<masinter> johnk's is good
<DanC> +1 "...headers which do not correctly..."
<masinter> provide a content-type header, to be accurate
<noah> suggest s/alter/increase/ the security exposure
<jar__> "correct" is a weasel word, and I like it that it is
<jar__> +1 Johnk
<DanC> +1 send on behalf of the TAG as ammended
NM: Any objections to adopting JK's proposal
<jar__> +1 TAG
[none]
NM: replace 'alter' with 'increase'
HST: Agreed
<DanC> +1 send on behalf of the TAG as ammended x2
HST: Propose to send this from me on behalf of the TAG
<jar__> +1
<johnk> +1
NM: RESOLUTION: HST to send a revised-as-amended version of
[37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG
<scribe> ACTION: Henry HST to send a revised-as-amended version of
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-370 - HST to send a revised-as-amended version of
[40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-12-24].
<DanC> close action-309
<trackbot> ACTION-309 draft input to HTTP bis draft re sniffing based on 8
Dec discussion closed
ACTION-359 on Noah Mendelsohn: Communicate TAG resolution to HTML WG - due
2009-12-17 - pending review
DC: Been closed
<DanC> ACTION-356 due 12 Jan 2010
<trackbot> ACTION-356 Work to schedule followup meeting on xmlnames next
week due date now 12 Jan 2010
<DanC> [41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html
<DanC> "proposals are due January 16, 2010"
<DanC> thread continues
[42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/0025.html
ACTION-358 on Noah Mendelsohn: Schedule discussion of 'usage of 'resource' vs
'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...'
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note I also submitted a bug/change proposal
DC: [asks people to read the email at
[43]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html]
... Polling the group
NM: I'm not spun up
LM: I've already pushed back on this issue
<noah> Could someone paste a link to the HTML 5 usage that's causing
concern?
JAR: I'm sympathetic to the proposition "there is no such thing as what you
[Julian Reschke] call a resource" -- Ian Hickson, in
[44]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/1133.html
JAR: We've used this word for a long time, it confuses things to use it in a
contradictory way
DC: I expect that if TBL were here he'd say the Hypertext web doesn't need
this distinction
AM: There's been alot of stuff written about this
... It would be useful if we could agree and write something small
<noah> +1 to being very careful, agree with HT
<masinter> [45]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
<masinter> "The result is also at odds with reality (since some resources
have no representation and content-negotiated resources may have many)."
<masinter>
<jar__> Ian "There is no such thing as what you [Julian] call a resource" -
Dan & Jonathan sympathetic
<noah> That's the bug report, but where's the HTML 5 text that's causing
concern. Quick search of the HTML 5 draft doesn't reveal it to me.
<noah> Which HTML 5 section are we discussing?
<DanC> lots of them, noah; one of hixie's msgs to www-archive says which
HST: Trying for a "yes and" response -- I liked what Rhys Lewis was trying
to do before we lost him
<masinter> Noah, it's spread throughout the document, there was someone from
Oracle who did an analysis
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to note that HTML should normatively reference
IRI spec which also uses 'resource' and 'representation'
LM: I made some arguments in this bug report
[46]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
<DanC> (oh. we have like *1* minute left. didn't hear that somehow.)
LM: One important point is that you are going to have to read other
documents to implement anything on the web
... and understand them
... and they use these words differently
... The bad news is that fixing this is a big and messy job -- these terms
are spread out throughout the HTML5 draft
<DanC> noah, when is our next meeting?
<jar__> I think the harder problem is that no one likes "representation",
really... it forces you to buy into REST/AWWW
<noah> Section 2.1.1 has title "resources", but seems to define the terms
"supported" and "Mime Type". I'm a bit at sea. Is that implicitly the
definition of resource as advertised?
<DanC> ooh... good point... "resources which have multiple resources" is
goofy.
LM: A concrete problem is that there are resources with no representation,
and resources with many: if you have only one word, you can't address this
at all
NM: We will have to come back to this
JK: We need both concepts, we have to do whatever we have to do to fix that
NM: Adjourned until 2010-01-07
<jar__> I like "document" for Ian:resource and awww:Representation ...
+1 to JAR
<jar__> ... but timbl likes "document" = awww:Resource ...
OK, I am about to start quoting FRBR, watch out :-)
<DanC> FRBR is good stuff.
<DanC> ACTION-363?
<trackbot> ACTION-363 -- Jonathan Rees to inform SemWeb CG about market
developments around webfinger and metadata access, and investigate
relationship to RDFa and linked data -- due 2010-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/363
<DanC> jar's TAG actions
[48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/38732
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry HST to send a revised-as-amended version of
[49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html to the
HTTP bis list on behalf of the TAG [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to put up Doodle poll [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: NM to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input to
the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to
www-archive@w3.org [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to bring f2f date proposal to group based on poll input
[recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02]
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [54]scribe.perl version 1.134 ([55]CVS
log)
$Date: 2009/12/18 19:16:16 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-agenda.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2009/12/17-tagmem-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item00
6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item01
7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item02
8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item03
9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item04
10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item05
11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item06
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#item07
13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#ActionSummary
14. http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF77
15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01
16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02
17. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
18. http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
19. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/
20. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results
21. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03
23. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0087.html
24. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0088.html
25. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0095.html
26. http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html
27. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0094.html
28. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/
29. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
30. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
31. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
32. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
33. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
34. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
35. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309
36. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
37. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
38. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
39. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04
40. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
41. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html
42. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/0025.html
43. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0070.html
44. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/1133.html
45. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
46. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
47. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/363
48. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users/38732
49. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0068.html
50. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action04
51. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action01
52. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action03
53. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/17-minutes.html#action02
54. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
55. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLK9awkjnJixAXWBoRAvjNAJ91AhQWGc8B0T8Tw3+LaFnZ/p4JiQCePJPy
mS5ymD4Wts3phJM4codT3k0=
=A7/J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 19:24:58 UTC