Re: Minutes from April 19 TAG Telcon

Thank you, Peter. One question for those on the call. I've been assigned:

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

Is there a reason it was delayed until 1 May? Any reason not to schedule 
this week? Thank you.

Noah

P.S. I added my name to the list of regrets for last week.

On 4/23/2012 1:55 PM, Linss, Peter wrote:
> 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 18:23:07 UTC