Minutes from March 08 TAG Telcon

Are available at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes.html

and as text below


           - DRAFT -

                        TAG Weekly Teleconference

08 Mar 2012

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-irc


           Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Jeni_Tennison, Yves_Lafon,
           Henry_Thompson, Jonathan_Rees, Tim_Berners-Lee,

           Peter_Linss, Robin_Berjon

           Noah Mendelsohn

           Ashok Malhotra


      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Convene
          2. [5]f2f Planning
      * [6]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe>  Scribe: Ashok Malhotra

    <scribe>  scribenick: Ashok


    Noah: There will be a call next week.

    Approval of minutes from March 1

    <noah>  [7]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/01-minutes.html

       [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/01-minutes.html

    <JeniT>  I thought they were very good

    Minutes approved w/o objection

    Noah: Re. IETF meeting in Paris

    Yves: Larry and I will be there.

    <noah>  I would like to delegate the TAG coordination to Yves, if
    that's agreeable?

    <JeniT>  +1

    Yves: Will try and schedule a meeting with Robin

    Noah: Thomas wanted to know which sessions TAG members would attend
    ... Yves, could you coordinate, please

    HT: We can get a free pass if we ask the Director

    Noah: There is a another URI scheme being discussed http+aes
    ... should we discuss this?

    jar: We don't have TAG consensus on this issue

    HT: I would like to discuss, please

    Ashok: +1

    <JeniT>  +1

    <Yves>  +1

    Noah: I will schedule discussion next week.

f2f Planning

    Noah: I put in a number of links in the agenda
    ... we should look at our workplan
    ... Jeni had some suggestions
    ... some about parallel sessions
    ... I have a list of items people wanted to discuss at f2f

    <noah>  Hi Larry, we're just now starting on the F2F discussion

    <noah>  See the Agenda

    Jeni discusses parallel sessions and some longer sessions and some
    sessions with external people

    <noah>  Yes, Larry. We discussed IETF. Yves has the lead on getting
    IETF/TAG coordination set.

    <noah>  AM: I somewhat disagree on parallel sessions. Work on smaller
    groups should be done ahead of the meeting. The plenary meeting is
    an opportunity to work with the group as a whole.

    <noah>  AM: I feel that one of the valuable things about speaking to
    everybody is that someone whom you haven't been speaking with has a
    fresh perspective.

    <noah>  AM: So, I'm negative on breakout panels.

    <jar>  Reminder, someone else brought up the idea of parallel
    sessions, maybe John Kemp or Dan Appelquist, about a year to two
    years ago, so we've already had this discussion (don't remember
    exactly how it came out)

    <noah>  JT: In the ideal case you're right, but in practice we're

    Noah: I hear that parallel sessions take away from group
    interaction. OTOH, talking to people some f2f is very productive.
    ... perhaps make a topic list and see how the times work out and
    then we can see how to allocate the time

    <JeniT>  I'd also say, that we definitely should have full-group time
    on these sessions: I absolutely agree with Ashok's point that other
    people have valuable input

    <noah>  TAG Work Plan: [8]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/

    Next topic: Frag Id Semantics

    HT: I have not done any work on this for a while
    ... we can discuss it but let's not put it as a high priority item.

    <JeniT>  This is one of the topics where I thought some small-group
    F2F time would be valuable

    Noah: We should discuss how important this work is

    HT: It's important for 3023bis reasons

    <noah>  HT:
    [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-01-05.html is
    important mainly for 3023bis reasons.

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-01-05.html

    Noah: We should meet with Chris and find out how important this
    really is

    HT: It's important because specs are heading towards giving
    conflicting advice about semantics for Frag Ids
    ... specifically because 3023 is going in the direction that Frag Id
    semantics are generic and this conflicts with RDFa usage

    <noah>  Proposed ACTION: ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to
    meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment

    HT: I will try and produce something to frame the discussion

    <JeniT>  This is also a topic I would like us to nail, to the extent
    that after the F2F it is possible for HT and others to document what
    we have agreed

    <noah>  ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to
    discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers - Due
    2012-03-13 [recorded in

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes#action01

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-674 - encourage Chris Lilley to meet with
    us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers [on Noah
    Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-13].

    <noah>  ACTION: Henry to frame discussion of semantics of fragids and
    rfc 3023bis - Due 2012-03-27 [recorded in

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes#action02

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-675 - frame discussion of semantics of
    fragids and rfc 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-03-27].

    Next Topic: Publishing and Linking

    Jeni: We should get agreement and publish as a WD

    <noah>  JT: I would like to use F2F agreement that the draft sent a
    week or two ago can be published as a WD. Might require line-by-line

    JT: Would like to work on examples

    <noah>  NM: You want small group time specifically for examples?

    <noah>  JT: Yes, for motivational examples

    <noah>  AM: We had spoken of publishing this as a Recommendation
    rather than a Finding. Thinking about it...what are we actually
    recommending here? We are basically laying out the landscape. No

    <noah>  JT: It has best practices rather than new technologies.

    <masinter>  The goal was to get community consensus

    <noah>  Jeni... you said there was a draft a couple of weeks ago...do
    you have the link and announcement e-mail please?

    <JeniT>  I'll find it

    <noah>  Thank you!

    <masinter>  We're recommending that people use this framework to talk
    about the problem

    <noah>  Tempted to cut off discussion of whether it's a Rec


      [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0087.html

    <jar>  If the goal is to gather consensus, then Rec track is our only

    <masinter>  Could we ask someone else to talk about us on the topic?

    <JeniT>  Maybe Rigo?

    <noah>  [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html

    <JeniT>  ... although we've already had him in at TPAC...

    Next topic: URI Documentation Discovery

    <noah>  httpRange-14 change proposals seem like the main focus for
    now, right?

    Noah: How should we organize discussion?

    <noah>  NM: I just need to know how to plan F2F sessions. How many
    sessions, how long? Anything special I need to do to focus the

    <noah>  JAR: Hope to have more input than we have so far, goal is
    (ideally) to figure out what our consensus message should be moving
    forward. Then we can figure out how to document it. In any case, no
    separate sessions.

    <noah>  JT: When are the proposals due?

    JT: Will the change proposals be in by the f2f?

    jar: I gave March 29 as the deadline.

    <noah>  AM: What if we get nothing?

    <noah>  JAR: Seems to mean that people don't care to participate in
    consensus process. We then move down the Rec track and see if that
    gets attention, or kick it onto a different path.

    jar: Then people are saying they don't care or don't want to engage
    with us
    ... that's what we should decide at f2f ... or try a different tack

    <masinter>  I'm more convinced than ever that the document makes
    fundamental assumptions that are incorrect, that URIs are
    intrinsically ambiguous carrying "meaning" and that the "change
    proposal" process presumes agreement about the problem statement and
    only wants to argue about solutions

    <masinter>  Is there anyone willing to spend an hour or two on the
    phone with me talking about this?

    Larry: I can talk with JAR or anyone else on the phone about this
    before the f2f

    <masinter>  I don't want to spend TAG time on the discussion if I
    can't make progress convincing anyone 1-1

    <noah>  NM: Uhh...

    <masinter>  Contrapositive: if no one is willing to talk about it
    1-1, we shouldn't spend TAG time on it

    <noah>  JAR: I can talk to Larry, with or without Ashok.

    <noah>  NM: For now, I won't schedule httpRange-14 next week, but
    just ask if you want it.

    Next topic: MIME Types

    Larry: There is work happening at IETF e.g. Happiana ... maybe we
    can review that

    Noah: Larry, you wanted to do other things with other TAG members

    Larry: There are some workshops e.g. Language Evolution, Philosophy
    of the Web that may be interesting ...

    Noah: This is after the f2f?

    Larry: Yes, about 10 days after

    Noah: We can decide that this is no longer a major effort
    ... you were going to draft a close-out page
    ... I need to know what success is

    <masinter>  I don't have an opinion about TAG planning for future

    <masinter>  I have opinions about the technology

    <noah>  Noah: OK, then I will make the decision that we ramp this
    down as a high priority effort for now...one of us needs to update
    the product page to say that (TBD). We can continue to track the
    IETF Happiana work as you suggest

    Noah: Should we have a session on Happiana and related things or a
    session on what happened at IETF?

    <masinter>  I defer to Yves for votes on what he thinks will be
    helpful for the TAG to discuss

    <Yves>  It will depends on what happens during the IETF meeting

    <noah>  NM: Will later need input on what IETF-related sessions we
    want at the F2F. Could be overall debrief on Paris meetings and/or
    more specific sessions, e.g. on Happiana and registries.

    Noah: Should we discuss TAG effectiveness ... we can think about
    this and discuss later

    HT: No, thank you!

    Tim: Supports Henry!

    Noah: I will schedule session on API Minimization

    <masinter>  Has there been any feedback on the documents now

    Noah: Re: XML/HTML Unification not sure if there is anything new

    <masinter>  Wait for feedback

    Tim: We should have a session if we get sufficient feedback

    <noah>  ACTION-657?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-657 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon
    discussion of possible XML/HTML Unification next steps -- due
    2012-03-06 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/657

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/657

    <masinter>  encourage feedback? Ask for feedback at WWW2012?

    <noah>  ACTION: Noah to check with Norm whether there is sufficient
    feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [recorded in

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes#action03

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-676 - Check with Norm whether there is
    sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [on Noah
    Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-15].

    Noah: Should we discuss PhiloWeb at f2f?

    <noah>  NM: Do you think the PhiloWeb thing merits TAG F2F

    Larry: Henry will you be there?

    HT: Yes, I will be there

    <masinter>  Yes, I will be at PhiloWeb 2012 and will likely present
    slides I originally put together for TAG talking about versioning,
    registries, etc.

    Next Topic: Persistence of Identifiers

    HT: Nothing new since January
    ... nothing will happen between now and the f2f
    ... I do not want f2f time for this

    <noah>  HT: No F2F time on persistence of identifiers please

    Next Topic: Web Application Storage

    <noah>  NM: Web app storage...will you have a draft for F2F

    <noah>  AM: If we agree on Product page today, I could start working
    with Robin and maybe Larry, and then depending on how that goes, we
    see what I can draft.

    <noah>  NM: If I switch to discussing storage now, does that buy you
    a week of preparing drafts?

    <noah>  AM: Not needed, I'll move ahead.

    <noah>  AM: So, yes...you can go ahead with F2F planning.

    <noah>  NM: Should I assume a session on storage draft?

    <noah>  AM: Will tell you next week.

    <noah>  NM: Fine, but please remind me if I forget to ask.

    Next Topic: Items TAG members have asked to discuss at f2f

    <noah>  ACTION-594?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-594 -- Yves Lafon to with Peter and Henry produce
    partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2012-03-13 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594

    <noah>  ACTION-619?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-619 -- Henry Thompson to report on status of
    3023bis after TPAC -- due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/619

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/619

    <noah>  ACTION-672?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-672 -- Jeni Tennison to work with PLH to create
    W3C-sponsored registry of HTML extensions, and get that referenced
    from HTML media type registration, per
    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html --
    due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html

    <trackbot>  [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672

    <noah>  LM: Some e-mail, but so far no need for F2F discussion.

    <noah>  ACTION-590?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison
    Phillips on Unicode normalization
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html --
    due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html

    <trackbot>  [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590

    <noah>  ACTION-560?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last
    call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2012-02-28 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560

    <noah>  NM: I'll check with Henry on ACTION-560

    <noah>  ACTION-572?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 --
    due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572

    <noah>  YL: We can discuss at F2F.

    <noah>  AM: I agree

    Yves: We can discuss at f2f when we discuss client-side storage

    <noah>  ACTION-658?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of
    protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due
    2012-03-20 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658

    <noah>  ACTION-659?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-659 -- Yves Lafon to track IETF efforts on HTTP
    2.0&  SPDY Due: 2012-03-20 -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/659

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/659

    <noah>  YL: Following charter work on IETF mailing list

    <noah>  YL: For websockets and hybi we decided not a big
    issue...related to death of protocol for Edinburgh.

    Yves: we might drop this one

    <noah>  ACTION-658?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of
    protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due
    2012-03-20 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>  [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658

    <masinter>  fine with me to close

    <noah>  NM: Any objection to closing ACTION-658?

    <noah>  close ACTION-658

    <trackbot>  ACTION-658 Prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related
    issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) closed

    NM: On SPDY you are saying let's just watch what IETF is saying

    Yves: Yes

    <noah>  AM: What happened to CA authority item?

    <noah>  NM: Good question. Just now, I'm not seeing any actions.

    <noah>  AM: probably OK.

    <noah>  NM: Do we want F2F discussion of CA problems this time?

    <noah>  TBL: A lot of people have been rushing to "fix" this. Firefox
    has made significant updates.

    Tim: This is separate from general security and privacy issues

    <noah>  NM: Right, sorry, I agree. I meant to ask if we need another
    F2F session on CA in particular.

    <noah>  TBL: Not unless we have news from an expert on late breaking

    Noah: For now we will leave this issue off the agenda


Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 21:27:01 UTC