Draft minutes of W3C TAG Teleconference of 18 Dec 2008

Unapproved draft minutes of the 18 Dec 2008 W3C TAG teleconference are  
available at [1] and in plain text below.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/18-minutes.html

TAG Weekly
18 Dec 2008


See also: IRC log

     skw, Jonathan_Rees, Norm, DanC.a, noah, DaveO
     TimBL, Raman
     Stuart Williams


     * Topics
          1. Convene, review records and agenda, plan next meeting
          2. ISSUE-27 (IRIEverywhere-27)
          3. Self-Describing Web
          4. ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41)
          5. ISSUE-30 (binaryXML-30)
          6. Dec FTF Meeting Records
          7. Any other business
     * Summary of Action Items

<scribe> scribenick: jar

norm: Next meeting 8 Jan, I assume - will scribe then

skw: Raman is on holiday for about a month. Not expected today.
Convene, review records and agenda, plan next meeting

<DanC> +1 approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/04-minutes

skw: Propose to approve minutes --
... Meet on the 8th.

<DanC> +1 meet again 8 Jan

RESOLUTION: Approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/04-minutes
ISSUE-27 (IRIEverywhere-27)

<DanC> . http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/tip/tinker.html

danc: Take a look at this page = "URI Syntax Tinkering"
... (reads through the page)

Idea (HTML5): patch 3986 by adding characters to the unreserved  

danc: idea: Derive a parser from the URI spec, implement weird  
processing before, demonstrate equivalence. [see tinkering document]
... "Try it"

<DanC> (?:

danc: "Try it" section is step 1 out of 5 steps.
... Spaces before and after, I believe, work.

<DanC> add this

<DanC> / %00-%20

<DanC> to get

<DanC> unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / %00-%20

jar: doesn't work in FF 3.0.3, for me at least

danc: (finishing up review of the tinkering document) Step 1 done.  
Have gotten partway into step 2.

<DanC> action-188 due 8 Jan 2009

<trackbot> ACTION-188 Investigate the URL/IRI/Larry Masinter possible  
resolution of the URL/HTML5 issue. due date now 8 Jan 2009

noah: Where are we going with this?

danc: Success is a different layering of the specs.
... The current HTML5 spec says you should create a modified version  
of the URI spec.
... The alternative is to munge the input in a certain way, then use  
the URI spec as written.

noah: Looks to me like they're redefining the letters "URI"

danc: No, they're redefining the letters "URL"

<DanC> http://www.whatwg.org/status-2008-12

noah: So you're not proposing to change "URL" to something else - to  
let that acronym stand in HTML5?

<DanC> " - uri to ietf (maybe danc as editor?)"

danc: yes, thinking about such a change

[NOTE TO MINUTES EDITOR: Minutes are wrong; but perhaps corrected by  
Dan's edit.]
Self-Describing Web

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/DSC_3861_001.jpg

skw: Wanted to give TAG a chance to discuss whether changes proposed  
by Tim are changes the TAG would like the finding editor to make.

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/DSC_3862_001.jpg

noah: How about if I just do the "obvious thing"?

<DanC> action-209?

<trackbot> ACTION-209 -- Noah Mendelsohn to attempt to address  
critical concerns from end of 11 Dec self-describing web discussion --  
due 2009-01-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/209

<DanC> action-207?

<trackbot> ACTION-207 -- Jonathan Rees to try to wordsmith to get rid  
of 'Semantic Web' and submit for review -- due 2008-12-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/207

noah: There were a few actions assigned to others, e.g. some to Jonathan

<DanC> (there's one other action on noah; there are no others re self- 
describing web)

jar: (ouch ... that action was due today)

noah: I want to go straight to something that should be able to  
command consensus

action-207 due 6 jan 2009

<trackbot> ACTION-207 Try to wordsmith to get rid of 'Semantic Web'  
and submit for review due date now 6 jan 2009

noah: To minimize thrashing, let's try to finish up this document ASAP.

skw: When will TAG election results be available?
ISSUE-41 (XMLVersioning-41)

<DanC> action-165 due 8 Jan 2009

<trackbot> ACTION-165 Formulate erratum text on versioning for the web  
architecture document due date now 8 Jan 2009

(discussion tabled awaiting actions)
ISSUE-30 (binaryXML-30)

noah: Has this action been discharged / stalled?

<skw> "DO: I think NM has made some progress, I request to be released  
from this, too much load elsewhere" [Stuart Williams]

DO: We were to say approximately "Dear EXI WG, we look forward to your  
answer to the notes the TAG sent you previously."

skw: Has anyone else noticed or read the evaluation report http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-exi-evaluation-20080728/ 
  ? Has it influenced your opinions?

<DanC> (aha... found it... http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-tagmem-irc ...  
action-176: part of the trail http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/10/tpac )

<DanC> (I don't need Noah to run this by the TAG; I'm happy for him to  
send it on my/our behalf)

noah: They want to just move ahead, want to know TAG's blocking  
... I will draft something, and send it to DO cc the list.

DO: I hope the TAG going forward will stand by the feedback it gave a  
couple years ago.

noah: Speed story fuzzy, compactness is good; intuitively the speed  
story won't be bad.

DO: is it worth having two XML serializations?

<Zakim> skw, you wanted to ask about the EXI evaluation report at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-exi-evaluation-20080728/

noah: I remain nervous about it. 5 years ago was too early to do  
binary XML. By now I hope the XML community has a better idea of good  
practice and will be able to handle EXI. [scribe's liberty]

skw: We had said that the measurement report (circa July 2006) was  
hard to digest; the newer evaluation report presents the results in  
more compact and clearer manner.
... [Measurement Report: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-exi-measurements-20060718/ 
... [Evaluation Report: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-exi-evaluation-20080728/ 

noah: I thought they said the work was finished w.r.t. size but not  
speed, and that a speed report was forthcoming

DO: Tim wanted a space/speed scatterplot

<DanC> ACTION-176 due 8 Jan 2009

<trackbot> ACTION-176 draft comments on EXI w.r.t. evaluation and  
efficiency due date now 8 Jan 2009

noah: Will try to get to this in the next few days

<DanC> ACTION-176?

<trackbot> ACTION-176 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send comments on EXI  
w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency -- due 2009-01-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176
Dec FTF Meeting Records

skw: Has anyone had time to review this?

danc: When ready, we should post [pointer to minutes] to public-tag- 
announce. Also AB would like to hear our periodic report.
... We could use some specific topics in some kind of public  
communication, e.g. safe javascript
... How about we approve minutes contingent on 1-2 particular people  
OK'ing them?

<DanC> I did publish the photo in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/09-f2f-agenda

<DanC> (somebody resized it; nifty)

<DanC> ok, so critical path is noah, norm, dan

norm: (volunteers to read f2f minutes)

jar: will do outstanding small edits today

danc: public-tag-announce is for minutes

<DanC> "public-tag-announce (archive, RSS feed) is used for  
announcements from the TAG of minutes, ... " -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/

noah: Third day is IRC logs run through the script - not missing  

danc: Common sense would say yes.

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/09-f2f-agenda

(investigation concluding that Henry's 3rd day minutes are under  

RESOLUTION: Dec F2F minutes approved contingent on approval from Noah,  
Norm, and Dan

<DanC> http://www.whatwg.org/status-2008-12
Any other business

danc: Ian gave an update to incoming HTML5 cochair Sam Ruby.

<DanC> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081211#l-43

<DanC> <Hixie> MikeSmith: so i met with lisa

<DanC> <Hixie> MikeSmith: she's open to us splitting off the protocol

<DanC> part of websocket, the content-sniffing section, the uri

<DanC> section, and a brief definition of the Origin header, and

<DanC> submitting them as four tentative IDs

<DanC> <Hixie> (the api part of web socket would go into a separate  
w3c draft)

<DanC> <Hixie> MikeSmith: assuming there's no objections, i'll start

<DanC> looking at doing that in early january

(Lisa Dusseault?)

<DanC> http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html

<DanC> "Applications Area (app)

<DanC> Lisa Dusseault, Open Source Applications Foundation "

danc: Lisa is an IESG member.
... Lisa had raised concerns about websockets. Good that she's talking  
directly with Ian H.

<DanC> most likely time is Tue 6 Jan 16:00 BOS

danc: An IETF/W3C liaison meeting is coming up...

skw: What's content sniffing discussion about - what does it have to  
do with IETF?

danc: It impinges on HTTP.
... No chance of changing legacy software, so best solution is to  
document what is actually deployed.

noah: What are chances of being able to tell the "conservative in what  
you send / liberal in what you consume" story?

danc: Barth did a very cool data collection exercise
... he also might be editing the Origin: spec

<DanC> Content sniffing data from Chrome Dan Connolly (Friday, 24  

<DanC> ^ adam barth's work

<DanC> (you're welcome to tell the meeting and hope it gets to the  
relevant places, but if you're asking me to convey this, Noah, I'm  
saying "no, can't add that to my list, but you're welcome to attend  
the IETF/W3C liaison telcon")

noah: Content-type counts. (full stop) If you're receiving, the story  
is longer.

jar: (I interpret Noah as saying: To be a compliant sender, you have  
to mean Content-type. But a defensive receiver will have to be more  
generous, since so many senders are not compliant.)

<noah> What I tried to say was: calling the call "sniffing" suggests a  
focus on receivers only; I think that if anything is to be said, it  
needs to tell a story about when it is or isn't OK to send anything  
other than text as Content-type: text/plain, and when it is or isn't  
ok as a receiver to infer the presence of anything other than text  
from Content-type: text/plain. Sniffing sounds like a spec...

<noah> for receivers only.

danc: The worst nightmare in standardization: What happens when an  
emergency [phone] call is processed.
... W3C is working on geolocation, so your cell phone can transmit  
location to web apps.

<DanC> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/486/

danc: But you can't do this without a privacy infrastructure.

<DanC> "IETF RAI and APP concerns about location privacy "

danc: Concerns about phone/location privacy are on the upcoming  

TO MINUTES EDITOR: work "geopriv" into the transcript somehow.

skw: Merry Christmas to all.

(general assent)

Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/01/06 18:09:38 $

Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 16:42:34 UTC