- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:35:23 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
online at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html
and below.
ht
- --------------
- DRAFT -
TAG telcon
13 Jan 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Tim Berners-Lee, John Kemp, Yves Lafon, Ashok Malhotra, Larry
Masinter, Noah Mendelsohn, Henry S. Thompson (in part)
Regrets
Peter Linss, Jonathan Rees
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribes
Tim Berners-Lee, Henry S. Thompson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Approve last week's minutes
2. [6]Repurposing the Hash Sign for the New Web
3. [7]IETF Presentation
4. [8]Pending Review Action Items
5. [9]Overdue action items
6. [10]AOB
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
AM: regrets for next week
Approve last week's minutes
NM: We have minutes from last week's call:
<noah> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-minutes
<noah> RESOLVED: the minutes of 6 January 2011 (
[13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-minutes ) are approved
AM: I have read the TAG draft status report
... looked ok
NM: After a few days, can I take silence to be assent?
<noah> RESOLVED: Noah to publish status report status report on 17 January
if no objections are received in email, will update version of mime-web-info
to 02
NM: We need to plan the face-face meeting. Please help in the next 2-3weeks
<Larry> new version of mime-web-info-02
<Larry>thelink[14]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info
will give the "latest"
LM: this should go in the report
Repurposing the Hash Sign for the New Web
<noah> Draft is at:
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/HashInURI-20101231.html
NM: The document seems much improved.
... The title of the finding needs to be rethought as it is not all about
fragids.
... It needs to go further to actually give the reader a good sense of which
technique to use.
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to talk about requirements for redefining "#" that
I don't see identified
LM: I am looking for some things in the document:
... I'd like to understand how it works for non-HTTP URI schemes.
... Is it only tied to HTTP?
... Also, how does it apply to fragids which are used with not Javascript,
but active content?
... Particularly, more than the anaylis of HTTP and HTML -- how much applies
to other situations
AM: I would have to think about it
... it isn't obvious.
NM: I did think the thing was funny as a TAG finding, as it mostly says look
most of what I am describing here conflicts with the way the web works ..
but your conclusion at the end is that [...]
... Not sure what the conclusion is as to whether this stuff is good to do
and we should change the specs, or whether it should be discouraged -- in
fact you seem to encourage it
AM: There is a section on the non-conformance.
<Larry> there's an analog with the mime-web-info document: identify the
problems with current specs and recommend changes to specs so that practice
& specs are not in conflict. I'd rather see this as "What has to change"
rather than "who to liase with".
NM: Yes, a nice part. Chap 3, "Rec best practices", leaves the implication
that one should violate the RFC?
[HST joins the call]
AM: What I was hoping was talk about on the call was Chap 3 vs. the RFC
... since this is delicate
NM: We'll do that next week, OK
LM: I recommend we focus on what specs have to change
... how to get docs and practice into sync
AM: A comment has come in wrt Media Fragment work, which I'll add to the doc
... And also JAR wanted to talk about the RDFa situation
... which likewise we'll add, but I need JAR's help
NM: In Lyon, LM suggested that when we're working over a period of weeks on
something, we should make clear exactly what the deliverable we have in view
is
... So we need, perhaps at the f2f, to get there wrt this work
<Larry> Note that the draft-masinter-mime-web-info document also talks about
fragment identifiers in MIME registrations
<Larry> action-481?
<trackbot> ACTION-481 -- Ashok Malhotra to update client-side state document
with help from Raman Due: 2010-11-30 -- due 2010-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/481
NM: Let's keep using this action, and bump the date
IETF Presentation
LM: I think we're too far away from something of interest
... I was more optimistic in November
... What would interest the IETF is the interaction between WebApps and
Security, Privacy, . . ..
... We haven't gotten to that level
... To do organisational framing, more groundwork would be required before I
would be ready to talk about this in Prague
... We should have a product, but making it be a presentation is the wrong
level
... The product we need is a definition of our relation with IETF, at the
level of the relation between WebArch and InternetArch
... We're doing better than in the past in terms of coordination
... But w/o that larger context, driving the conversation up from the bottom
with the WebApps topic
... doesn't work
<ht> +1
AM: I'm disappointed, without disagreeing
TBL: When we present TAG work, a T-shaped approach is OK -- broad and
narrow, diving in in a few places
<Larry> I think we need a 'product' but the product is a coordination of Web
Architecture with Internet Architecture, and starting with Web Applications
is OK, but I think the product needs to be larger
TBL: mixtures of levels is OK
<Larry> Perhaps a 12-slide talk of which web applications are the last 6...
but need the first 6 too
TBL: In this case, we could use WebApp as a dive-deep example
LM: Yes, but I need the general part too!
NM: Did you (LM) say that introducing the work of the TAG was too high
level? Whereas TBL said that was OK if we drilled down in one case?
... I do understand that you think WebApp is not ready yet
<Larry> tag/iab is in the context of W3C/IETF, which is in the context of
Web/Internet
NM: So I'm willing to close Larry's short-term actions, and open my action
up to a larger goal, but TBL seemed to push back
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to put a different interp. on LM's point
<Larry> Product is how we coordinate WebApps in TAG and "WebAPps in IAB" in
the context of TAG and IAB in the context of W3C and IETF which is the
context of Web and Internet.
HT: I heard Larry differently. I think he took the goal of the presentation
to be: engage the audience in joint work going forward. Without a degree of
background having been established for divying, he wasn't ready to do that.
... I didn't hear that he was unhappy with "introduce the TAG", which was
Noah's proposal.
NM: Nope, it was what Noah heard of Tim's proposal
LM: There are many levels at which we could approach the interaction
question
... All the way 'down' from InternetArch vs. WebArch
... through both organisational and technical divisions
... to WebApps as a specific topic
... Thinking about talking about WebApps as such w/o getting that set of
levels at least a bit clearer doesn't feel right
NM: What next?
LM: Your action (ACTION-499) enlarged to look at the InternetArch and
WebArch makes sense to me, and I'll help with that
... ... and suspend ACTION-497 and ACTION-500
NM: If that means no presentation in Prague, we need to tell Alexei that
LM: I will tell him
... ... by next week
NM: We could focus on this at the f2f, maybe turn the corner?
LM: We could invite the relevant app area directors to call in to the f2f?
NM: OK
... OK, we'll work together on a new, shinier 499
... you will bump 500 and talk to Alexei
... and we'll review the situation at the f2f
<noah> close ACTION-497
<trackbot> ACTION-497 Prepare us for a teleconference with IETF-IAB on
possible prague IETF presentation. closed
Pending Review Action Items
<noah> Pending review actions:
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> close ACTION-464
<trackbot> ACTION-464 Coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC closed
<noah> close ACTION-468
<trackbot> ACTION-468 Invite Thinh to telcon where Tim will be available to
discuss "forbidding of hyperlinking" closed
LM: Wrt ACTION-479, there is a new draft
NM: So I need to schedule review -- next week, or longer?
LM: Next week
<noah> close ACTION-479
<trackbot> ACTION-479 Ping Thomas again on Dec. Privacy workshop closed
<noah> close ACTION-490
<trackbot> ACTION-490 Noah and others(?) going to privacy workshop to report
back to the TAG? closed
<noah> close ACTION-494
<trackbot> ACTION-494 Reach out to Device APIs chair to see about joint TAG
session closed
<noah> close ACTION-496
<trackbot> ACTION-496 Update Guide to TAG participation on intent to set
specific deliverables for each discussion closed
<Larry> action-498?
<trackbot> ACTION-498 -- Noah Mendelsohn to report results of HTML5 WG
consideration of conformance for extensions (their ISSUE 140), get TAG to
prepare change proposal if necessary -- due 2010-11-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/498
<noah> close ACTION-498
<trackbot> ACTION-498 Report results of HTML5 WG consideration of
conformance for extensions (their ISSUE 140), get TAG to prepare change
proposal if necessary closed
<noah> close ACTION-503
<trackbot> ACTION-503 Publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs
health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010
closed
Overdue action items
<noah> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
<noah> ACTION-341?
<trackbot> ACTION-341 -- Yves Lafon to follow up with Thomas about security
review activities for HTML5 -- due 2010-11-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/341
<noah> ACTION-341 Due 2011-01-25
<trackbot> ACTION-341 Follow up with Thomas about security review activities
for HTML5 due date now 2011-01-25
<Larry> note websec working group
[21]https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/
<noah> ACTION-404?
<trackbot> ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership
-- due 2011-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404
LM: There is a new WebSec group at the IETF
<Yves> [23]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters
LM: If there are security concerns wrt HTML5, those issues should be
signalled to the WebSec group
... They are already looking at e.g. cross-site issues
... Good news wrt community cooperation, I think
<noah> ACTION-475?
<trackbot> ACTION-475 -- Ashok Malhotra to write finding on client-side
storage, DanA to review -- due 2010-10-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/475
<noah> ACTION-475 Due 2011-03-21
<trackbot> ACTION-475 Write finding on client-side storage, DanA to review
due date now 2011-03-21
AOB
LM: I have started pushing the TDB and DURI documents again, and this has
stimulated some discussion
<Larry> [25]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri
NM: Do you want TAG involvement in this?
LM: Asking if it's important for TAG to do
LM: It's a stable document now
HT: Unless the F2F schedule gets really full, I think this is worth one
session.
NM: How would you scope the session?
HST: It's related to persistence
... and the health of the web
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask for a report from TBL to be scheduled at some
point
HST: I wanted to ask TBL to report, informally and at his convenience, on
the progress of the XML-HTML initiative
NM: I have in fact invited Norm Walsh to join us at the f2f, for just such a
purpose, as he is chairing the group
LM: RDFa is being rechartered
LM: and since architecture recapitulates organizational structure
... should the new RDFa charter be broadened to cover metadata on the web?
... i.e. other kinds of embedded metadata
<Larry> should RDFa charter include more about scope of media annotations,
microdata, etc.
<noah> Hmm. Seems that giving it such a broad remit could be a recipe for
nothing getting done.
<Larry> what is the API for accessing metadata, and more general
TBL: A related issue has arisen, which is the RDFa WG is planning (?) to
work on an RDFa API, and that might or might not be subsumed by/related to
an RDF API
<noah> ACTION-282?
<trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on metadata
architecture. -- due 2011-04-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
TBL: so the question of where that happens, and who drives it, as well as
the technical question of the nature of the relation between the two (if
there are two) APIs, probably need to be clarified before the charter is
baked
LM: I have another concern wrt registries, which I'll bring up on email
LM: in the area of preferring URIs to registries, but there are still a lot
of registries at IANA, and people are not happy with them
... Maybe worth framing as a TAG topic
NM: We could have this as a f2f topic if you could help frame it.
<noah> ACTION: Larry to send email framing TAG work on registries [recorded
in [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-511 - Send email framing TAG work on registries
[on Larry Masinter - due 2011-01-20].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to send email framing TAG work on registries [recorded
in [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#action01]
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([30]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/01/14 13:25:58 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-tagmem-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#ActionSummary
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-minutes
13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-minutes
14. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info
15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/HashInURI-20101231.html
16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/481
17. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
18. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/498
19. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/341
21. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/
22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404
23. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters
24. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/475
25. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri
26. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
27. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#action01
28. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-minutes.html#action01
29. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
30. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
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 from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFNMFEbkjnJixAXWBoRAhRuAJ9bLxUrx/Jkto14347x9jpMjM/mOACfXuop
30fuKfIo2P65ENIt/Sssyv8=
=smyQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 13:36:03 UTC