Minutes from April 19 TAG Telcon

Available online at: 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes.html

And in pain text below.


-----------------

W3C
- DRAFT -
TAG
19 Apr 2012

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Jeni Tennison, Peter Linss, Henry Thompson, Ashok Malhotra, Jonathan Rees, Chris Lilley, Yves Lafon
Regrets
    Robin Berjon, Larry Masinter, Tim Berners-Lee
Chair
    Henry Thompson 
Scribe
    Peter Linss

Contents

    Topics
        3023bis
        admin
        media type reg draft
        Discussion about coordination between W3C and IETF around the Media Fragment URI spec
    Summary of Action Items

<scribe> ScribeNick: plinss

<scribe> scribe: Peter Linss

<ht> yves, you coming?

<ht> chris, are you going to dial in?

<ChrisL> sure
3023bis

CL: started work on a new draft with new editors
... haven't started the fragment stuff, wanted to check back first

<ht> It would be good to get even a preliminary Internet Draft of 3023bis out there

<ht> Ned Freed might otherwise reference 3023 from the media-reg RFC, which may last a long time

<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly

JT: I wanted to point Chris to the text going in to the media type registration draft
... item 4

<Yves> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-agenda.html

CL: that's somewhere between an opt in and inherit from the top

JT: if something is using +xml then any rules you put in have to be followed by anything that uses that
... you should be wary of being too strong

HT: we're going to circumscribe the areas where +xml makes definitive statements

CL: forcing re-registration is not going to work

HT: not clear if that's necessary

YL: forcing registration won't work but imposing a new thing may not be right either

HT: no precedent for having a discussion about frag ids at the generic level

CL: the set of registrations to update is pretty large

YL: We might aim just to get the small number of video types that are likely to be deployed widely to get on board
... And re-register just a few image types

CL: /jpg and /gif might be hard. . .

<ChrisL> although many image formats can be used, in practice jpeg, gif, png and svg

HT: thanks chris
admin

<Yves> I note that iana register contains entry for gif and png pointing to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt

regrets from Robin, Larry, Tim (at WWW2012)

HT: Noah will have to check with Robin about scribing next week
... past minutes unavailable
media type reg draft

<jar> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html

JT: wanted to get resolution from tag if happy with draft

<jar> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-05

<ChrisL> @yves - png has a separate registration

<ChrisL> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/image/png

<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html

JT: the initial proposal is about which section should be inserted and which taken out
... the other email gives final text on section about frag id considerations
... not incorporated yet

<Yves> chris, yes, I was just pointing to jpeg and gif here. The other ones (including SVG) have easy to spot registration entries

HT: that's consistent with what was there already
... if you don't want generic rules, don't use +xml
... what isn't here is what tim wanted
... don't lay claim to more real estate than you need to

JT: Tim said bare name frag ids should be really reserved

HT: not sure I agree with that

JT: these changes seem to be whats acceptable while giving a scope for best practice

HT: agreed

JT: guidance about real estate goes into separate document

YL: in ned's draft there was something about using + suffix
... should we explain the reason why that's a should and not a must

<JeniT> "Media types are encouraged to adopt fragment identifier schemes that are used

<JeniT> with semantically similar media types. In particular, media types that use a

<JeniT> named structured syntax with a registered "+suffix" MUST follow whatever

<JeniT> fragment identifier rules are given in the structured syntax suffix

<JeniT> registration."

JT: Ned already changed that to a must

YL: I agree with must follow
... the should was someplace else

<Yves> <<

<Yves> Media types that make use of a named structured syntax SHOULD use the

<Yves> appropriate registered "+suffix" for that structured syntax when they

<Yves> are registered.

<Yves> >>

<Yves> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-05#section-4.2.8

YL: maybe we should explain why using +suffix might not be right thing to do
... if you are using xml but don't want to use generic processing then you should not use +suffix

JT: I can take that to Ned

HT: I'd prefer to add a positive statement instead of a negative
... "as noted below wrt frag ids, using a + suffix syntax obligees you to constraints and processing rules form that spec, if inappropriate, then you should not use suffix"
... I'll take this forward on apps discuss list myself

JT: can we resolve that we're happy with this text?

HT: Re other issues, we agreed to keep our 'official' intervention to the fragid stuff, JT will pass some other points to HST for him to raise as he sees fit

<ht> .RESOLUTION: The TAG is happy with the proposed text regarding fragment identifiers at the end of Ned Freed's message of 17 April [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html]

<Yves> +1

<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html

<ht> .RESOLUTION: The TAG is happy with the proposed text regarding fragment identifiers at the end of Ned Freed's message of 17 April [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html], along with the other changes proposed by Jeni Tennison [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html] as amended by Ned Freed

RESOLUTION: The TAG is happy with the proposed text regarding fragment identifiers at the end of Ned Freed's message of 17 April [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0104.html], along with the other changes proposed by Jeni Tennison [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0098.html] as amended by Ned Freed
Discussion about coordination between W3C and IETF around the Media Fragment URI spec

HT: Yves, where does that spec stand?

<ht> Yves, you there?

<ht> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/

HT: I think we need a wider group for item 6

<ht> ACTION to Noah to schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

<ht> ACTION Noah to schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap, due 2012-05-01

<trackbot> Created ACTION-698 - Schedule discussion of how to take forward the TAG concerns with respect to managing fragment identifer schemes, inheritance and overlap, due 2012-05-01 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-04-26].

YL: Media Fragment spec. as such is not aggressive

JT: The new media type registration guidelines should make it easier to get it adopted by the types
... that ought to

HT: any other business?
... adjouned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]

Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 17:56:14 UTC