W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

draft minutes 5/17/2012 TAG teleconference

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:10:53 -0700
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AF2822F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
On the web


and in plain text:


      [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] 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


          Ashok, Henry, Jeni, Jonathan, Larry, Noah





     * [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


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

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

   <noah> ACTION-697?

   <trackbot> ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare overview of
   DANE for TAG consideration -- due 2012-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [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


     [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 --


     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690


     [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

   ht: the IETF is gearing up to standardize the "+" suffix
   practice such as used in +xml
   ... it includes specifically a (slightly broken) reference to
   ... 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
   -regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
   [recorded in

     [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
   -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
   -regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??

     [23] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt

   <noah> . ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
   -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
   -regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due 2012-05-05
   [recorded in

     [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
   -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
   -regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis due date now

     [28] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt

   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

   <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
   ... 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
   ... We might need to defer the issue to some other group


     [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

   <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

   <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

   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.


     [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

   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


     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findingshttp://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
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
   -regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due 2012-05-05
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on
   -regs-00.txt and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures
   [recorded in

     [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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC