- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:08:32 -0700
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Minutes of July 12 telcon are at https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes.html
and as text below:
-------------------------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
This is version has not been approved as a true record of the
TAG's meeting and there is some risk that individual TAG
members have been misquoted. This transcript should typically
not be quoted, except as necessary to arrange for correction
and approval.
TAG Weekly
12 Jul 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Larry_Masinter,
Henry_Thompson, Jonathan_Rees, Yves_Lafon,
Jeni_Tennison, Peter_Linss
Regrets
Chair
Noah
Scribe
Ashok, Noah
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]Approval of Minutes
3. [7]Summer Schedule
4. [8]Actions We Can Close Without Discussion
5. [9]ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66): Fragment Identifiers and
Mime
6. [10]Publishing and Linking
7. [11]Pending Actions
8. [12]Overdue Actions
* [13]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<Ashok> scribenick: Ashok
Convene
Discussion of Agenda
<noah> AM: publishing and linking?
<masinter> I'm fine if there are things to talk about, I just
don't have a new version
Ashok: Larry, this is a different thought related to Henry's
latest mail
<noah> NM: OK, after fragids
<JeniT> "W3C TAG comments during IETF Last Call"
Larry: Discussion of TAG comments on IETF draft was postponed
<Yves> Minutes say<discussion postponed>
<masinter> The IETF/W3C liaison call noted something about
that, should we find out what they wanted to talk about?
<noah> I think we should link the draft and comments in
question
<ht> Here is the entire minute from the last IETF-W3C liaison
call:
<ht> "14. W3C TAG comments during IETF Last Call
<ht> Discussion postponed."
<noah> NM: So, there's some ambiguity of which comments as to
ours they were discussing?
<masinter> The only comments the W3C TAG has made during an
IETF last call, that I can think of, are the comments we made
on the media type registration document
<ht> That quote is from
[14]http://www.w3.org/mid/BFBD2017-3923-4C3F-8D27-04B4F53230F9@
mnot.net
[14] http://www.w3.org/mid/BFBD2017-3923-4C3F-8D27-04B4F53230F9@mnot.net
<ht> ... which is public
<noah> LM: Have we made any other comments than the one in
question?
Approval of Minutes
<noah> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/12-agenda
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/12-agenda
<masinter> wait wait, ...
HT: There are places in Tuesday's minutes that need attribution
NM: They were innocuous
RESOLUTION: f2f minutes linked from the above are approved
without change
<noah> Minutes of 21 June:
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/21-minutes
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/21-minutes
RESOLUTION: Minutes from June 21 above are approved without
change
Summer Schedule
<noah> Proposed schedule:
[17]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0004.html
[17] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0004.html
<noah> Integrated Likely regrets for summer:
[18]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0001.html
[18] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0001.html
NM: Any problems?
... still tentative.
<Yves> Regrets for July 19
NM: may cancel some calls later
<noah> Proposal:
<noah> July 12 Call
<noah> July 19 Call
<noah> July 26 NO CALL
<noah> Aug 2 MAYBE (depends in part on Larry availability)
<noah> Aug 9 Call
<noah> Aug 16 NO CALL (Noah unavailable)
<noah> Aug 23 Call
<noah> Aug 30 Call
<noah> Sept 6 NO CALL (Noah unavailable)
<noah> Agreed for now.
NM: We will have a call next week, July 19, and I hope we will
have a draft of Publishing and Linking from Larry for
discussion
Actions We Can Close Without Discussion
<noah> ACTION-694?
<trackbot> ACTION-694 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work up simple
intro to http+aes uri scheme and schedule discussion, possibly
with PLH -- due 2012-08-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694
<noah> ACTION-724?
<trackbot> ACTION-724 -- Henry Thompson to investigate possible
TAG efforts on URI scheme proliferation and extension points --
due 2012-08-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/724
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/724
<masinter> It's also mentioned in the W3C/IETF liaison call
<noah> Close ACTION-694
<trackbot> ACTION-694 work up simple intro to http+aes uri
scheme and schedule discussion, possibly with PLH closed
NM: This scheme is no longer being pursued. Also, ACTION 724
overtakes this
Larry: If we're discussing this at all, we should focus on
general questions about URI schemes
<noah> ACTION-729?
<trackbot> ACTION-729 -- Jeni Tennison to do new draft of
fragids finding -- due 2012-07-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729
ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66): Fragment Identifiers and Mime
<noah>
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-
01.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html
NM: We would like to publish this as a Working Draft
JT: I made changes as in the minutes and the f2f
... made Best Practices linkable
... some rewording of Best Practices
AM: I looked at the Active Content parts of the draft and they
looked good to me
HT: Para after Best Practice 7 has an editorial problem
... section reference is missing
<ht> Jeni, thank you for your work on this
<JeniT> Thanks ht :)
NM: We hoped to engage the IETF with this and we got cryptic
references that it's too late
JT: We should publish as a WD
<masinter> Optimist: proceed as if it's possible that it isn't
too late, without expectation
<masinter> +1 to FPWD
<noah> proposed resolution: Publish
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-
01.html as a FPWD
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html
<masinter> Jeni may fix typos.
RESOLUTION: Publish the Frag Id document as a FPWD. For the REC
track.
[24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-
01.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html
<ht> Item 15 from the previously mentioned liaison call minutes
([25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Ju
l/0000.html) relates to the (no progress) state of 3023bis
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Jul/0000.html)
<noah> Product page:
[26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-28.html
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-28.html
<noah> Schedules:
<noah> 1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for
Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at
June F2F
<noah> 1 July 2012: First Public Working Draft
<noah> 1 August 2012: Last Call Draft
<noah> 1 October 2012: Proposed Recommendation
<noah> 1 November 2012: Candidate Recommendation
<noah> 1 December 2012: Recommendation
NM: Schedule after FPWD seems aggresive ... shoukd we change
this?
HT: We should put it back at least a month
<Yves> +1 to at least a month
<masinter> Synchronize with TPAC ?
NM: Perhaps LC draft just before our f2f and PR before TPAC
... Candidate Rec should come before Proposed Rec
... so we should change the schedule
<masinter> The main thing is that for TAG recs, the TAG isn't
the implementors ... usually in a WG, the WG members are the
implementors
<masinter> So we need a longer CR phase, but a shorter time to
reach CR
Discussion about whether this document needs to go to CR
<masinter> I like the idea of coming up with exit criteria. I
think it's a good exercise for us
+1 to Larry
<masinter> There's +xml and +json
NM: Don't want to wait years for implementations
<masinter> I think we should do CR
HT: The WG, in this case the TAG, to propose exit criteria
<masinter> We need an action item to propose exit criteria
<masinter> I think the exit criteria isn't what Noah is saying
NM: One or more registrations would follow the recommendation
in this draft
<ht> I note the following in a recently published Last Call:
"no Candidate Recommendation version will be published, and
that the next step for this specification will be to Proposed
Recommendation—interested parties please take note and
comment accordingly."
Larry: We could look at processors and check if they follow our
recommendations
... I would like to define exit criteria in terms of
implementations
<masinter> All we need are implementors to agree
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say I would rather not decide (or
discuss further) this issue until we think we are ready for
last call
HT: Let's wait until we are in Last Call
<masinter> It's not premature to *start* the discussion, it's
premature to finish it
HT: Also wait until we see what kind of response we get from
the IETF and from other folks
<noah> Schedules:
<noah> 1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for
Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at
June F2F
<noah> 1 July 2012: First Public Working Draft
<noah> 1 August 2012: Last Call Draft
<noah> 1 October 2012: Proposed Recommendation
<noah> 1 November 2012: Candidate Recommendation
<noah> 1 December 2012: Recommendation
LM: We should discuss but not finalize exit criteria
<JeniT> 1 August: FPWD
NM: Could someone put a stake in the ground re. a revised
schedule?
<ht> 1 October: LCWD
<ht> 1 March: REC
LM: I would like us to look for community feedback at TPAC
NM: We have 2 weeks between our f2f and TPAC
... some work could be done between the two meetings
<masinter> +1 to HT proposal
+1
NM: Do we need a f2f to tweak the final draft?
HT: No need
NM: How about:
1 Oct LWCD
1 March Rec
<noah> ACTION-729?
<trackbot> ACTION-729 -- Jeni Tennison to do new draft of
fragids finding -- due 2012-07-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729
<noah> close ACTION-729
<trackbot> ACTION-729 do new draft of fragids finding closed
NM: When can we have FPWD out?
YL: Probably soon ... one or 2 weeks.
<noah> ACTION: Jeni working with Yves to publish FPWD - Due
2012-07-31 [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01]
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-730 - working with Yves to publish
FPWD [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-07-31].
YL: Lets say July 31
NM: If you can do it faster, great!
... Good work, Jeni
Publishing and Linking
<noah> scribenick: Noah
AM: I was thinking about a couple of things: First, there was a
line from one of the Web sites saying "you ought to be able to
link freely, because that's what makes the Web the Web". People
said, "the TAG can't say that, because it's a legal opinion"
... Then we got e-mail from Martin Duerst suggesting that,
because linking is central to the Web, we ought to be able to
figure out something to say along those lines.
Mail from Martin:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0006.ht
ml
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0006.html
AM: Henry also suggests that we should be able to discuss
differences between linking and embedding. I'd like to go
further, and talk about the consequences. We should say which
is allowable.
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0021.ht
ml
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0021.html
AM: I'm not quite sure what we can say about all this though.
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about working on "policy
affects architecture" rather than "architecture implies
policy", even though others might make the backward inference
<noah> +1 to what Larry is saying.
<noah> In fact, strong +1 to what Larry is saying;.
<JeniT> +1 too
<noah> LM: We should work on how policy affects architecture,
not vice versa
<noah> LM: We should perhaps point out especially the
consequences when different jurisdictions adopt different
policies
LM: If policy treats linking and publishing as the same, then
it has architectural impact, e.g., that you shouldn't link to
someone who might change what the linked text says
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to focus on a weaker point, to do with
educating peoples vocabularies, and hence intuitions
HT: If we clarified that Linking and embedding are different
that is very valuable
<noah> HT: If all we did was to clarify terminology and
concepts regarding linking vs. embedding, that alone would be a
significant service
<noah> HT: I'm more inclined toward getting out something that
just tries to educate and inform about differences.
HT: I would be happy just to clarify the differences
<noah> HT: If people as smart as Jimmy Wales get this wrong in
public, that's a sign that there's a problem we could usefully
address.
<noah> HT: Do less, and get it out.
<JeniT> the current draft makes a very clear distinction
between 'inclusion' and 'links'
HT: We do not have to say anything about copyright or law ...
just clarify the differences
<ht> Jeni, right, that's what I have in mind
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about focus on
jurisdictional difference
LM: I have been working on a framework to thinking about Policy
and how legislation and Policy are different in different
jurisdictions
<ht> I also like, or would like, the idea of analogies, where
we are pretty sure that they enable people to think about the
consequences of e.g. the embed/link difference, by drawing an
analogy between unacknowledged quotation vs. acknowledged
quotation vs. citation
<noah> FWIW, I agree that regulations differing in different
jurisdictions is a big problem, with architectural
implications. I'm not convinced that cross-jurisdiction should
be our ONLY focus.
LM: In India, for example, they do not distinguish between
Publishing and Linking
<masinter> It is the reason why 'architecture' has anything to
say about legislation and policy, though
NM: We can talk about jurisdictional differences
... we could alert people to architectural consequences of
jurisdictional policies
<masinter> We wouldn't have invented the web at all, if there
weren't any jurisdiction in which it was legal
NM: Point out architectural consequences of policies with
hypothetical examples
... Asks about future of this draft
<noah> ACTION-727?
<trackbot> ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR
to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger version of the
Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due 2012-07-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727
LM: Ashok and I will work together and I have taken the ball
for the moment
<masinter> It's still Ashok with help from Larry
<noah> ACTION-727?
<trackbot> ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR
and Larry to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger
version of the Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due
2012-07-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727
<jar> Inter-jurisdictional differences are pretty much the same
as change, over time, in laws (etc.) within a jurisdiction,
yes?
<noah> Interesting point, Jonathan.
Yes, Jonathan
NM: We will discuss Publishing and Linking as our main topic
next week
Pending Actions
<noah>
[33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingrevie
w
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> ACTION-686?
<trackbot> ACTION-686 -- Robin Berjon to try to find who is in
charge of the current browser content sniffing clustermess, and
see if there is a way of moving out of the quagmire -- due
2012-05-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/686
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/686
<noah> Robin says: The person in charge is Adam Barth and the
document is pretty much final — I see little support for
changing this.
<noah> Robin Berjon, 7 Jun 2012, 16:24:19
<masinter> Finding on authoritative metadata , does it need
review?
<noah> ACTION-709?
<trackbot> ACTION-709 -- Noah Mendelsohn to talk to Jeff& W3M
about TAG futures -- due 2012-06-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/709
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/709
<noah> ACTION-725?
<trackbot> ACTION-725 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Peter,
to create big picture overview coming out of analysis of TAG
effectiveness -- due 2012-06-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/725
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/725
<noah> close ACTION-709
<trackbot> ACTION-709 Talk to Jeff& W3M about TAG futures
closed
Overdue Actions
<noah>
[37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort
=owner
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
<noah> ACTION-689?
<trackbot> ACTION-689 -- Henry Thompson to work with Noah to
draft a further request to the 3023bis editor from the TAG to
include advice regarding what a particular +xml media type
registration should do wrt fragid semantics along the lines in
the discussion on media types and fragment identifiers at the
f2f on 2012-04-04 -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689
<noah> ACTION-681?
<trackbot> ACTION-681 -- Henry Thompson to hST to prepare TAG
discussion of
[39]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
gs -- due 2012-04-30 -- OPEN
[39] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
<trackbot>
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/681
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/681
<noah> HT: Subsumed and overtaken
<noah> close ACTION-681
<trackbot> ACTION-681 HST to prepare TAG discussion of
[41]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-re
gs closed
[41] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
<noah> ACTION-689?
<trackbot> ACTION-689 -- Henry Thompson to work with Noah to
draft a further request to the 3023bis editor from the TAG to
include advice regarding what a particular +xml media type
registration should do wrt fragid semantics along the lines in
the discussion on media types and fragment identifiers at the
f2f on 2012-04-04 -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689
<noah> ACTION-23?
<trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Henry Thompson to track progress of
#int bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML
Schema WG -- due 2012-06-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23
[43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23
<noah> HT: Schema group realizes they need to do something
ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeni working with Yves to publish FPWD - Due
2012-07-31 [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01]
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
--
All the best, Ashok
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 20:07:13 UTC