- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:43:32 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
online at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html
and below as text.
ht
- DRAFT -
TAG telcon
17 Mar 2011
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Dan Appelquist, Yves Lafon, Peter Linss (in part), Ashok Malhotra,
Larry Masinter, Jonathan Rees, Jeni Tennison (in part), Henry S.
Thompson
Regrets
Tim Berners-Lee, Noah Mendelsohn
Chair
Jonathan Rees (pro tem)
Scribe
Henry S. Thompson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]IETF Meeting in Prague
3. [7]IETF meeting on registries
4. [8]Copyright and deep linking
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
<scribe> Agenda: [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-agenda
Admin
Regrets for 24 March: tbl, hst
Scribe for 24 March: pl
<DKA> Minutes 10 March OK with me.
JR: RESOLVED: Minutes of 10 March approved
IETF Meeting in Prague
<Larry> IETF agenda is
[11]https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/agenda.html
<Larry> /me quotes: 4. Technical Session:
<Larry> "The Future of Applications"
Panel session moderated by Jon Peterson
Speakers:
Jonathan Rosenberg (Skype)
Harald Alvestrand (Google)
Henry S. Thompson (W3C)
Possibly more
[12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IAB_Prague_2011_slides.html
HST: Thanks to AM and NM for input
... I've included versions of the material they sent
... Plan to use a subset as appropriate
LM: You're supposed to be talking about the Future of APplications
... So change the title of the talk
HST: Will do
LM: Applications are going away, to be replaced by Web sites
... We may not like this, but it's happening
<DKA> +1 to LM.
LM: So Web Arch is application architecture
... Put this earlier
... to clarify why webarch is relevant to talk about the future of apps
YL: You can see the replacement happening both ways
<Larry> some sites might be replacing a web site of documents with a web
site of one application, but it's still "web architecture"
YL: Website has only one URL, all content is computed
... Web Arch is not cast in stone -- Web evolves, TAG tries to keep up
<Ashok> +1 to Yves' comment re. evolution
HST: Yes
LM: Remove 5 & 6 because I don't like what they say. For example I think
URIs don't have owners. Resources maybe
HST: Noted
HST: May be cut if time is short
LM: How relevant are they to the question before the panel?
... Slide 7 was true -- are those assertions true of Web Apps?
HST: Every single one needs to be re-examined
<DKA> Under slide 11, you might want to include a link to the joint
IAB/W3C/ISOC workshop on privacy from last year:
[13]http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/
LM: Historically there is an Arch of the Web of Docs
... Now we have to migrate that to the Arch of the Web of Docs and Apps
... Make that clear earlier
... That gives us a context for 5, 6, 7, #!, etc.
... Side-effect free? View source less helpful if it's all JS?
HST: Thanks, that's valuable as both source of fixes and as guidance for
rhetorical stance
<Yves> I would note that the issue about media types is a good example of
possible cooperation
<Larry> Maybe we should work either now or by email on what the design
issues are in moving from web of docs to web of apps... e.g., does "view
source" still work? Do redirect, cache and proxy still work with web
applications?
JR: Presentation is on 28 March
<Larry> slide 8: "how we see ourselves" "how we saw ourselves"
HST: I will not be on the call next week
AM: Wrt Privacy
... There's been a lot of discussion of this on the IETF privacy mailing
list
... There will be people there who know a lot about this -- more than we do,
pbly
HST: Happy to convey that we are the junior partners in this
... need IETF help
LM: The TAG is tracking more than leading
... W3C is running workshops
LM: We're asking for help in some cases, putative authority in others
LM: In contrast, slide 15 is our lead
<Larry> "a mess" isn't very informative
AM: What's the polite way of saying that?
LM: We have a work in progress, which tries to move this forward, so not "a
mess"
... This is an example of an evolution point
<Larry> it might be a mess, but it is natural
LM: Lead with W3C priorities, put TAG's second on slide 10
HST: Not sure
LM: Top-level goal is improving IETF/W3C engagement
... so the W3C goals are the highest-level agenda-setters
JR: HST, are we done?
HST: Yes
LM: This is thought-provoking, which is just right
... We can use this to organise how we think about organising our Web App
arch. work -- it gave me a new perspective -- anyone else?
JAR: Yes, that makes sense
IETF meeting on registries
LM: MNot noticed a change proposal from Mike Smith wrt content types for
<canvas> in HTML5, which proposes a registry
... Is the W3C gearing up to run more registries?
... Is this a way we should go for extensible vocabularies?
... There was a reason IANA moved registration management from one person to
a 'political' process
... Such tasks shouldn't be taken on lightly
LM: When we have web-based protocols that need an extensible vocabulary of
parameters
... and looking at ISOC's sponsorship of W3C
... IETF, ICANN and IANA are independent organisations -- is there
coordination needed here?
... Should W3C stumble in to running registries -- has the membership
committed to resourcing the indefinite provisioning of this service?
JR: In the IETF case, I thought new registry entries were declared by RFCs.
. .
LM: Not always. IANA has a contract to perform registry services, under the
direction of IETF.
... So if the IETF publishes an RFC which creates a registry, it has to
specify how registrations are managed
... It can be first-come, first-served, or managed by IETF, or devolved in
part to other organizations
... In some cases there is an appointed expert reviewer or panel of
reviewers, e.g. Graeme Kline for URI schemes
... But the RFC that covers URI scheme registration is being revised to
accommodate IRIs
LM: Registry steward looks after fairness, safety, ...
HST: So life is complex, these things ramify.
HST: Just because the XPointer scheme registry is simple to operate doesn't
mean it's always that way
LM: The ownership of the text/html media type semantics is an example of why
the process matters
... Mostly it doesn't matter, but when it does, there has to be a clear
story
... Sniffing isn't disconnected from this either
... Not sure W3C has taken on board all the potential complexity of running
a registry
YL: Consider image/svg+xml took a long time to be defined, only officially
registered a few months ago, but successfully in use for years
<DKA> I share your concerns, Larry.
YL: Move to have everything defined by RFC is not necessarily helpful
LM: There have been gaps in the processes, that needs to be resolved
[Jeni Tennison joins the call]
HST: Thinks TLR will be in Prague
LM: It would be good if someone from W3C staff who is up to speed on
registry issues was at [some meeting]
... What to do about the now-rejected link relation registry
... Anyone from HTML WG at the IETF meeting?
YL: I will check
HST: LM should maybe brief TLR
ACTION Larry to liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue
background
<trackbot> Created ACTION-539 - Liaise with Thomas Roessler about the
registries issue background [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-03-24].
ACTION Larry to try to arrange for Thomas Roessler to participate in the
meeting about Registries at the IETF meeting in Prague
<trackbot> Created ACTION-540 - Try to arrange for Thomas Roessler to
participate in the meeting about Registries at the IETF meeting in Prague
[on Larry Masinter - due 2011-03-24].
Copyright and deep linking
[Peter Linss joins the call]
JR: Links in the agenda for the background
... including discussion with Thinh Nguyen in December 2010:
[14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-minutes.html#item01
... DKA, what about ACTION-505?
ACTION-505?
<trackbot> ACTION-505 -- Daniel Appelquist to start a document wrt issue-25
-- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505
DKA: Shell document exists, needs content
... What is the audience, what is the point?
... The recent legal issue has put some energy behind it
... Guidance for a court? Focussed on difference between link and
transclusion?
... That needs action on people to contribute content
... I can do some, but not all
AM: Thanks DKA
... Typically the TAG writes on technical stuff
... this is not quite technical
... So what can we write, and for whom? We are not lawyers. . .
... Where is the TAG in this difficult controversial situation?
JT: I'm trying to draft something, as an aid to thinking this through
... We can contribute some terminology: how information moves, by fetching,
caching, etc.
... And what happens with it: linked, transcluded, etc.
... That could then be used and referred to be the people involved in the
legal discussion
JT: We could also give guidance/good practice to webmasters about putting
acknowledgements in to pages etc.
<Larry> I want it to move through "recommendation" stage, and turn into a
W3C (and IETF?) consensus document, to give more weight to it than just "TAG
as another group of experts"
HST: Last autumn I finished teaching a new undergraduate course, and in the
process of tidying up the public-facing version of the coursenotes I
realised that I wasn't sure exactly what the right way to handle images,
audio and video that I had shown the students. I went looking for guidance
on precisely the transclusion vs. explicit linking issue in this regard, and
found nothing. I even got into fairly obscure details, such as the fact that
although you might think using hovertext to credit a source was a good idea,
it doesn't work if you eventually publish via PDF, because the hovertext is
lost. So I am very much in favour of pulling together some Good Practices
guidelines
... My only quibble with JT's plan would be that in many cases, as in my
example, there is no webmaster involved, the scale is too large for them to
keep track, as many users self-publish within an instituational server
framework.
<JeniT> Sorry, by webmaster/web developer I meant author
LM: To be useful legally, but w/o legal opinions -- maybe we should look at
existing expert testimony
... to get some guidance as to what might be useful
<JeniT> Do we know where to find those?
LM: I feel pretty strongly that we need to take this through broader review,
by putting it on the REC track
... so it gets community review
JR: That's what Thinh said
... The minutes of that meeting are very useful
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Dec/0014.html
<Yves> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-minutes.html
JR: How do we coordinate with the rest of W3C?
AM: Maybe speak to Danny Weitzner?
YL: May be too busy, in gov't these days
JR: I can talk to Hal Abelson. . .
... Maybe the first thing is to let DKA and JL get something written and
that will let us
... get started
DKA: With respect to what can/should we be saying, I like JT's suggestion
that we start with terminology
... aimed at informing the legal community
... After the conversation with Thinh, I thought we had consensus on a bit
more than that
... In particular, something that is already out there in our [18]Deep
Linking finding:
Attempts at the public-policy level to limit the usage, transmission and
publication of URIs at the policy level are inappropriate and based on a
misunderstanding of the Web's architecture. Attempts to control access to
the resources identified by URIs are entirely appropriate and
well-supported by the Web technology.
DKA: Documenting the parts of WebArch that support that proposition are what
JT is suggesting
<JeniT> yes :)
HST, AM, JAR: +1
<Larry> i would like to separate out the opinion part from the definition
and architectural part, even in separate documents
ACTION Jeni helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about
(deep-)linking etc.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-541 - Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of
terminology about (deep-)linking etc. [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-03-24].
ACTION-541 due 2011-03-30
<trackbot> ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology
about (deep-)linking etc. due date now 2011-03-30
HST: REC track gives us all the coordination we need
LM: We haven't done many REC-track documents -- we might want to work harder
than W3C Process requires at the early stage
... to let people know what we're doing
... Part of that would be to solicit additional material
JR: Maybe see that as the doing the equivalent of chartering
<jar> well not exactly..
LM: We have to be careful about describing what we think we are doing
<JeniT> :)
LM: For the time being, that's a pointer to some requirements on the
Introduction to the document being drafted
JR: No-one wants to give legal advice, which is one reason why there is no
guidance wrt HST's problem
... THere are at least some non-legal issues, such as giving credit (as
opposed to licensing)
JR: where some advice could be given w/o serious repercussions
<Larry> we want to give advice which is useful in a legal context, but
doesn't itself make legal recommendations, since the technical issues are
balanced against societal and financial ones to come to a conclusion about
what is or should be legal or not legal
JT: So, aim to talk more about being a good web citizen/being responsible
... rather than making any legal claims
That fits with giving credit
<jar> +1 good citizen
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to argue against 'good citizen'
<Ashok> But will the good practice protect you legally?
LM: Balancing the technical facts versus societal goals
... A lot of societal goals are mixed in here, and they are much harder to
give advice about
... than getting the facts clear
LM: In particular there are access-control mechanisms, say passwords, by
which material can be
... barred to some and allowed to others
... Then you say something about conventions for using such mechanisms
... Those are facts
HST: Asks a complicated question about what "give me credit" really means
... as a way of asking how we could safely give guidance on how to give
credit
<jar> [19]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
JR: I was thinking more along the lines of what the form of a credit notice
should be, a la Chicago Manual of Style, in a social context such as
academia
... Even if something is in the public domain, you can still credit someone
JT: I'll work with DKA and we'll get something out
various: Thank you JR for chairing
<JeniT> +1
<DKA> thx!
JR: Adjourned
<DKA> +1
<DKA> +1 to great chairing and organizing, JAR
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([21]CVS
log)
$Date: 2011/03/18 14:34:30 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2011/03/17-tagmem-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-minutes.html#ActionSummary
10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-agenda
11. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/agenda.html
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IAB_Prague_2011_slides.html
13. http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/
14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-minutes.html#item01
15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505
16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Dec/0014.html
17. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-minutes.html
18. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking-20030911#conclusion
19. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
21. 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)
iD8DBQFNg2+UkjnJixAXWBoRAs4sAJ9n6YxkWNX77u4j4BLo7t9y0Fkx1ACbBzAn
8Ok1wFBxqB4iC8uN56QsiZM=
=UJar
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 14:45:28 UTC