W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2011

Draft TAG minutes for telcon of 2011-03-17 are available

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:43:32 +0000
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bbp18pjzf.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:09 UTC