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

minutes of 06 october 2011 teleconference

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1110120817320.6035@wnl.j3.bet>
Draft minutes are at:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/06-minutes.html

and in text version below:

W3C
Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
06 Oct 2011

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
     Larry Masinter, Dan Appelquist, Jonathan Rees, Ashok Malhotra, Yves 
Lafon, Jeni Tennison, Noah Mendelsohn, Peter Linss
Regrets
Chair
     Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
     Yves Lafon

Contents

     Topics
         Approval of minutes
         TPAC
         Web Application Architecture: Javascript vs. REST APIs for
         Fragment ID Semantics and MIME Types
         Privacy
         Pending review actions
     Summary of Action Items

Regrets for next week: Jeni

next scribe: Larry
Approval of minutes

<jar> Corrections for Wednesday

<jar> Topic need "y" ("discovery")

<jar> Change "of" to "therefore"" after "proposition"

<jar> "expect ion" should be "expectation"

<jar> misspelling "prirotize"

approval of f2f minutes, last week we got some correction requests

<Larry> i'm willing to let them go ;)

<jar> one other: "will be out-competed" said by Harry Halpin, not me

RESOLUTION: minutes of the Edinburgh 13-15 Sept F2F approved, subject to 
editorial changes (see above)

last week minutes: any comments?

Ashok: some typos but ok

RESOLUTION: minutes of last week telcon approved
TPAC

TPAC is coming up, any preference for morning or afternoon for TAG 
meeting?

(monday and friday)

no preference, so up to the chair

<Ashok> I will be at TPAC ... I was not on your list from last week

Note also that the HTML/XML TF is moving forward

Preparation for the upcoming TAG election. It will be discussed during 
TPAC

<Larry> As long as Ian and Jeff are discussing waht they want th e TAG to 
do, I'm happy

Larry proposed that the dinner slot could lead to something more 
substantive, but it might be a busy time, so we might suggest a BoF

<noah> YL: I did check with SPDY folks, no answer yet

=> due date bumped by one week

<noah> ACTION-615 Due 2011-10-13

<trackbot> ACTION-615 Check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct 
at TPAC due date now 2011-10-13

<noah> DKA: Deep linking breakout is confirmed.

DKA: I expect that rigo will join us for the session on friday, will 
confirm as soon that I know

noah: is the breakout confirmed or not yet?

DKA: yes

jar: it might be possible that one cc attorney could be interested by this 
breakout session

<Larry> we can invite experts? or schedule a break-out session ?

<Larry> maybe we could propose breakouts on specific TAG topics, like 
copyright, early normalization

<DKA> 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/SessionIdeas#Publishing_and_Linking_on_the_Web

Larry: I wonder about poposing breakouts on other topics, like on html, 
privacy etc... it this a way of engaging communities?

<Larry> specifically about topics that the TAG has discussed, since we 
have something substantitve to start with

DKA: from the wiki page, it's an open space process, there are 28 slots 
then an lection process

<JeniT> There are already a couple of breakout proposals on privacy 
already

DKA: proposal can be merged if they are similar. I don't think there will 
be more than the 28 available slots

<Larry> well, "permanance", "versioning", things TAG has discussed and 
that TAG members there one or more of us could lead a discussion about

DKA: for deep linking, it might be better to invite people we want to talk 
with for a specific session, and keep the breakout to reach other people

Noah: if TAG members want to propose sessions... but don't overcommit by 
having conflicts between sessions

<Larry> I'd especially want to look for things where community input might 
give us some direction on what we should do

<Larry> hmm, like on MIME and the Web, MIME types, sniffing, etc.
Web Application Architecture: Javascript vs. REST APIs for

client-side resources

<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0002.html

<noah> "Does the TAG have any additional advice or suggestions on the 
WebIDL/Javascript versus HTTP/REST architectural approach,"

there were discussions on js api being too biased for that or not

<noah> "noted some potential issues, including lack of adequate support 
for publish-subscribe paradigm, issues related to caching, issues related 
to appropriate URI definition for local resources, and the potential cost 
of indirection [5]."

<Larry> The main thing I'd look for is an architecture where the 
distinction between local and network resources is orthogonal to the 
interface for the data

<Larry> Ashok and I were talking about this for client storage vs. cching

Ashok: js will be lots faster than doing REST stuff in accessing the 
camera.

<Larry> This is an interesting point for calendars, for example, where you 
might have a local calandar or a network calander

jar: they might use the slower approach if things are not provided 
natively by the js access (like security or privacy)

<Larry> it's really orthogonal

noah: it depends on the kind of optimizations you want to do

larry: there are things like data storage, local or remote, cache etc... 
it was a good idea to have the interface independent of the fact that 
storage is local or remote

you want the data interface to be the same, regardless of how the data is 
accessed (locally or not)

<Larry> there's a data interface and an administrative interface

jar: the webarch doc already says that things should be identified by URIs

<Larry> i think webarch isn't enough, it's not only "identify" it's 
"access in the same manner"

noah: it is one side of the trade off, on one hand we have identification, 
but there is also performance.

file: // uris are different than http:// uris, as file:// is localhost, so 
there is a need to identify the local camera, but do I want to use a local 
URI or a global one?

noah: do you want to propose to discuss with the DAP working group during 
TPAC?

<noah> ACTION: Noah to contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP 
meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-tagmem-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-616 - Contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint 
TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs [on Noah Mendelsohn - 
due 2011-10-13].

<Larry> i think we could invite Frederick to talk to us even not at TPAC?

Noah: the proposed response is to say that there might be indeed some arch 
questions, and we should discuss at TPAC

<noah> ACTION-613?

<trackbot> ACTION-613 -- Daniel Appelquist to organize deep linking 
breakout at TPAC -- due 2011-10-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/613

<noah> close ACTION-613

<trackbot> ACTION-613 Organize deep linking breakout at TPAC closed

<noah> ACTION-593?

<trackbot> ACTION-593 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of 
JavaScript vs. REST Client APIs [self-assigned] -- due 2011-10-01 -- 
PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/593

<noah> close ACTION-593

<trackbot> ACTION-593 Schedule discussion of JavaScript vs. REST Client 
APIs [self-assigned] closed

<noah> ACTION-514?

<trackbot> ACTION-514 -- Daniel Appelquist to draft finding on API 
minimization -- due 2011-10-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/514
Fragment ID Semantics and MIME Types

<noah> ACTION-509?

<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG 
regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- 
PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509

<noah> Jonathan's email: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0014.html

jar: Henry is the only one to have spoken on this, so we should work on it 
together

<jar> I said "or Jeni", scribe didn't get it...

jar: not sure how urgent it is (wrt RDFa's LC comments)

but it would be a "nice to have"

<jar> rdfa wants to advance the draft ASAP... but they have been saying 
that for several months... I think they are stalled on something else. so 
there is no specific deadline, just "please soon or else you won't be able 
to give input"

<JeniT> this relates to the fragids and mime types draft which Henry and 
Peter are (I think) working on

Noah: do you prefer to go over email, or schedule telcon time when Henry 
is there?

jar: telcon

noah: let's plan that for next week
Privacy

<noah> ACTION-608?

<trackbot> ACTION-608 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of 
TAG goals on privacy -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/608

<noah> That one came from F2F overflow

<noah> ACTION-583?

<trackbot> ACTION-583 -- Ashok Malhotra to (with help from Dan) organize 
TAG review of proposed W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 
2011-07-26 -- due 2011-08-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/583

<noah> ACTION-566?

<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, 
organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-07-19 
-- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566

<noah> close ACTION-608?

Ashok: the WG started, so let's close my action

<noah> AM: Working group started, no need for charter review

<noah> close ACTION-583

<trackbot> ACTION-583 (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed 
W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 closed

<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter.html

<noah> ACTION-566 Due 2011-10-11

<trackbot> ACTION-566 Contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint 
discussion on privacy with IAB. due date now 2011-10-11

ashok: is there anything else we should be doing in the privacy arena?
Pending review actions

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

509, just discussed

<noah> ACTION-521?

<trackbot> ACTION-521 -- Noah Mendelsohn to figure out where we stand with 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec track -- 
due 2011-08-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/521

long ago, the TAG worked on the following document:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/

short document, ending with good practice

<jar> no brainer

to summarize, if a ns is defined about some animals, is it ok to add new 
ones several years later?

should you provision for that in the first spec?

<noah> Finding: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html

Note that this is already a finding

if we say it's a only finding, we should close the rec track doc (by 
publishing a Note?)

the question is "so should it be a full REC or not?"

jar: did that finding had any effect on namespaces that has been defined 
since then?

<Larry> this isn't in scope for this discussion, but i wonder about this 
recommendation having any meaning. You can say wahtever policy you want 
for the future, but how does that prevent a new rec from overriding an old 
one anyway?

noah: not that I recall

Yves: not in the spec I tracked

jar: so is publishing this document as a REC will change this?

<JeniT> webarch already has the good practice "An XML format specification 
SHOULD include information about change policies for XML namespaces." 
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-doc-ns-policy

<jar> "Specifications that define namespaces SHOULD explicitly state their 
policy with respect to changes in the names defined in that namespace."

<Larry> I think this is in the space of extensibility policies

<plinss> rec

<Larry> no rec

<JeniT> no rec

<DKA> no rec

<noah> no rec

<Ashok> no rec

no rec

<Larry> i'd want to see something mroe generally on extensibility, rather 
than narrowly on XML namespaces

peter: REC has more weight than findings, so I'd like to see TAG 
publishing more RECs

<Larry> I'm reacting to the "things W3C should stop doing" google+ thread 
which included XML

<noah> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ will be taken off 
the REC track. This does not settle the question of whether the TAG should 
put more emphasis on RECs in general.

<noah> RESOLUTION: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ 
will be taken off the REC track. This does not settle the question of 
whether the TAG should put more emphasis on RECs in general.

<noah> close ACTION-521

<trackbot> ACTION-521 Figure out where we stand with 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec track 
closed

<noah> ACTION Noah to work with Yves to take 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ off the Rec track 
Due 2011-11-15

<trackbot> Created ACTION-617 - Work with Yves to take 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ off the Rec track 
Due 2011-11-15 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-10-13].

<noah> ACTION-537?

<trackbot> ACTION-537 -- Daniel Appelquist to reach out to Web apps chair 
to solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good 
practice) relating to interaction -- due 2011-07-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537

(proposal to close it)

<JeniT> I agree with Dan

the TAG is putting down work on interactions by closing this action

<noah> close ACTION-537

<trackbot> ACTION-537 Reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on 
framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating to 
interaction closed

<jar> bye

Noah: note that we will have a call next week

ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting 
at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-tagmem-irc]

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/10/12 12:15:58 $



-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 12:19:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC