- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:10:53 -0700
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On the web
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes.html
and in plain text:
=========================================
[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.
Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
17 May 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Ashok, Henry, Jeni, Jonathan, Larry, Noah
Regrets
Chair
Noah
Scribe
Masinter
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]approval of minutes of may 3
3. [7]administrative items
4. [8]closing action-703
5. [9]issue-66 Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types
6. [10]f2f agenda
* [11]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 17 May 2012
<scribe> scribe: Masinter
<scribe> ScribeNick: masinter
<noah> No regrets
Convene
approval of minutes of may 3
<noah> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/03-minutes
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/03-minutes
<noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 3 May are approved
[13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/03-minutes
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/03-minutes
administrative items
<noah> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tools/scribeTAG.perl
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tools/scribeTAG.perl
<noah> Jonathan can scribe next week
<noah> NM: Who might work with us on DANE?
<noah> LM: Hannes Tschofenig is interested in working with the
TAG
<noah> ACTION-697?
<trackbot> ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare overview of
DANE for TAG consideration -- due 2012-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
Larry: bump date
<noah> ACTION-697?
<trackbot> ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare for
discussion of CA infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) -- due
2012-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
noah: everyone knows f2f is in boston, logistics should be
familiar to all (perhaps except Robin)
<noah> +1/-1 for who will be at F2F
(+1 from JeniT, plinss, jar, ashok, ht; Larry there for 2 days;
not sure about Robin )
closing action-703
<noah> close ACTION-703
<trackbot> ACTION-703 Put health warning in "Booth Script" for
formatting minutes closed
issue-66 Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types
<noah> ACTION-690?
<trackbot> ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on
Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-05-05 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690
<noah>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-04
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-04
(discussion of topic, content, logistics of document)
Jeni: not much changed from the content that was there before,
building on the negotiations on the media type registration
document, and making the recommendations more concrete
... Having now written a draft on this, the topics that make
sense to cover are the structure syntax suffix registration,
also for anyone writing fragment definitions ....
... we want to do this fairly rapidly, the timeline is based on
having something we can review at F2F, going through drafting
ashok: If you want to recommend what people ought to write or
how they are to write fragment id specifications, that's one
thing. But most of this is fixing bugs in things, that doesn't
look like recommendation to me.
<JeniT> suggest to cover: what people should write in media
type registrations, structured syntax suffix registrations,
guidelines for defining fragment structures (eg XPointer /
media fragment URIs), and guidelines for publishers and authors
that refer to URIs with fragment identifiers
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to mention
[19]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt
[19] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
ht: the IETF is gearing up to standardize the "+" suffix
practice such as used in +xml
... it includes specifically a (slightly broken) reference to
3023
... hoping Chris Lily will respond
... I would like people to review it, and especially section 8
... it seems to amend 3023 on the fly
<noah> ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
[20]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[20] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
[21] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-706 - Keep an eye on
[22]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=?? [on
Henry Thompson - due 2012-05-24].
[22] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
<noah> arghh...meant to put a dot in front of that
<noah> close ACTION-706
<trackbot> ACTION-706 Keep an eye on
[23]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
closed
[23] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
<noah> . ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
[24]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
[24] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
LM: I'm feeling we should act sooner -- raise issues ASAP even
if we aren't sure of the right fix.
(( discussion of how to send comments to the IETF and what to
say on the document and how we would review it ))
Henry: I will do that (raise the issue with Tony Hansen)
<noah> ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
[25]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due 2012-05-05
[recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[25] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
[26] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-707 - keep an eye on
[27]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis [on Henry Thompson -
due 2012-05-05].
[27] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
<noah> ACTION-707 Due 2012-06-05
<trackbot> ACTION-707 keep an eye on
[28]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis due date now
2012-06-05
[28] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
LM:
[29]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-su
ffix-regs is a better URL
[29] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs
<noah> ACTION: Henry to check with Chris Lilley on likely near
term progress of RFC 3023bis [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[30] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
<trackbot> Created ACTION-708 - Check with Chris Lilley on
likely near term progress of RFC 3023bis [on Henry Thompson -
due 2012-05-24].
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask about the split between success
criteria and deliverables, and also what should be in IETF
documents vs. what should be in our new Recommendation
noah: concern about the product page, so that the dependency
between IETF and Rec? What is left that is extra?
Jeni: if you look at the media type registration document, it
contains very little guidelines about fragment identifiers
<noah> From the 2nd success criteria: "The TAG will work with
the IETF and the W3C to update the templates for MIME type
registrations as necessary to promote consistent and accurate
documentation of fragment id semantics"
NM: If that's done, what's left for the Recommendation?
LM: the template should point to our rec once we have one
jeni: it includes in the template an area where people can talk
about fragment identifiers in depth
noah: if you could update the product page to clarify, that
would be helpful
... say that the template has been updated, but the template
doesn't have guideance
<noah> NM: I have some preference for updating the product page
to make clear what's not in the IETF templates, and what
therefore should in our Recommendation
<noah> LM: The IETF stuff should, ideally, point to the
Recommendation saying "look over there at the helpful guidance
the W3C has given you for doing this well"
<noah> LM: Might or might not be W3C, but yes. And that's why
we need Recommendation, so there is formal community consensus.
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about why 'rec'
(( discussion of whether this is a top priority, getting buy-in
))
NM: So, are we all agreed that Jeni's plan in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-04 is
what we want to do, and as a top priority.
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-04
<noah> Agreed with no objections.
JT: Larry's reviewing a draft, will soon go the TAG for review,
hoping for lots of time at F2F.
NM: Absolutely, it's a top priority.
LM: It looks good and close to done me.
... Ned already said he likes it.
noah: I would rather not have an overy aggressive schedule and
then be early rather than late in the schedule
... question on tag members listed as active on this, does
everyone still want to be listed?
(( no dissent ))
f2f agenda
noah: for F2F, most important thing is things that we should
have written
... what do we need to know about range-14 at F2F?
jar: hopefully we can wrap it up without a lot of discussion
... Jeni, Henry and I are working on getting a statement we can
agree on
... let's wait a week or two before deciding how much time to
schedule
... I've been meaning to go over the product page. Given the
lack of consensus in the community, i don't know if we can
succeed.
... We might need to defer the issue to some other group
<noah>
[32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
noah: there's a sense in which we're punting on a goal. If we
punt on a goal, i want to be careful that we justify that.
... (more about prioritizing)
<noah> JAR: Give me a week or two before we settle the F2F plan
on ISSUE-57
noah: next topic is publishing and linking. Should we have a
session on it?
<noah> NM: Publishing and linking?
<noah> JT: Can you give me a couple of weeks to see if I manage
some time?
jeni: let me see if i can get some time on it in the next
couple of weeks
<noah> NM: Absolutely. Thank you for trying.
noah: (discussion of balance of work and whether list of topics
represents what we are doing)
... I am inclined to schedule a session on TAG effectiveness,
without much structure
<noah> LM: It could be organized, based on threads, such as
finding vs. rec
<JeniT> +1 to having a session about general TAG
effectiveness/goals
<jar> +1 too
<noah> NM: My inclination is to look at things somewhat top
down, starting with our charter
<noah> LM: I'd be inclined to invite Jeff
nm: i think it would be useful to have a discussion among
ourselves also
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to propose meeting with W3C staff
to talk about this
<noah> . ACTION: Noah to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures
<noah> ACTION: Noah to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures
[recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[33] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
<trackbot> Created ACTION-709 - Talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG
futures [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-05-24].
nm: discussion of survey
<ht> Next AB meeting is on ... 11 June!
if AB is meeting 11 june, could we meet with them?
<noah> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/
<ht> Which reminds me -- HST regrets for next week
discussion of XML / HTML task force and next steps
lm: +1 to xml/html topic
<noah> JAR: doing AWWSW wrapup
<noah> JAR: distinct from other ISSUE-57 work
<noah> JAR: Will try to get a draft done June 1, then we can
decide F2F
<noah> AM: Storage session to decide what we're doing
nm: Ashok, can you put something together to review what the
issues are?
ashok: the TAG might want to write a finding, "look, there are
these mechanisms, here are the pros nd cons". That i think is
relatively easy to write up.
<noah> NM: Specifically, can we do something that will identify
the points of disagreement we've been thrashing on regarding
what goals and success criteria should be, so we can try to
settle them ahead of F2F?
<noah> AM: Difficult issues as to whether local items have
URIs, synchronization, etc. Those are hard.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about architecture vs. detail
nm: I think the tag's job in all this is to look after things
that are architectural in scope, and things that are part of
web architecture
... some of the proposals look like they mix architectural
issues with lower level things like IndexDB.
... what you say seems to sort things by 'hard' vs 'easy'
... Our question should be: if there is a design choice between
storing things locally vs. remotely, how does that affect the
design?
ashok: i'm trying to find how people handle this case, like
offline email. I've had some difficulty finding out.
nm: should we cancel the effort on storage? I can't tell where
you're going.
<Ashok>
[35]http://m.alistapart.com/articles/application-cache-is-a-dou
chebag/
[35] http://m.alistapart.com/articles/application-cache-is-a-douchebag/
<jar> I thought that post was very informative
ashok: this is an interesting post. Would a larger version of
this be interesting? larger in that we spoke about other local
storage mechanisms
... or, should we take up a narrower issue, like the
local/global URI question, and the problems of synchronization
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to reply
<noah> LM: I see stuff like dropbox, iCloud, Adobe
Creative/Cloud, blurring the line between local storage and Web
storage. This should be part of Web architecture.
<noah> LM: I'm more interested in surveying what people are
doing than making recommendations, because I don't think we
know what to recommend.
the web is moving toward blurring the line between local
storage and remote storage, and these new services will grow
<noah> I note that in the blog post, they do what I recommend,
which is use local storage as a cache for URL-id's content.
<noah> See e.g. this line of code: document.body.innerHTML =
localStorage.getItem( urlPath );
<noah> Note that it's indexing the local store with the urlPath
jar: it seems that what we call 'web architecture', the
original design of the web; you could imagine another path that
included things like dropbox and distributed storage
... if there were a place for architecture, and there's some
analysis for people who are designing things
<noah> Is it really clear that Web arch is completely
unprepared to integrate w/persistent store like Dropbox? I'm
unconvinced.
jar: I don't know what kind of thing one could say, though.
... where to put the boundary of such an analysis ?
nm: this is useful, but we're drifting scoping F2F sessions
jar: there's probably a lot to talk about if we cast a broader
scope
[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findingshttp://www.w3.org/2001/t
ag/findings
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findingshttp://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
<noah> LM: We have a list of TAG findings
[38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings, and we have approved
findings and draft findings. I look at the charter and how we
could lead the community.
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
<noah> LM: I think it would be worth the TAG time to go through
the findings, to see whether the community is following
them...cleaning them up to either get recs with community
consensus, or "drop" them.
nm: i think it's more effective for people to do this offline
individual review, and then come together to discuss
lm: suggest a survey
<noah> ADJOURNED
trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to check with Chris Lilley on likely near
term progress of RFC 3023bis [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
[40]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due 2012-05-05
[recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
[42]http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix
-regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures
[recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
[39] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action03
[40] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
[41] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action02
[42] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
[43] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
[44] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-tagmem-minutes.html#action04
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [45]scribe.perl version
1.1 ([46]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/17 22:07:08 $
[45] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:11:39 UTC