- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:39:10 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
DRAFT minutes at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/24-minutes.html
and in plain text below.
Best
Jonathan
__________________________________
[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
24 May 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/24-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Tim_Berners-Lee, Ashok_Malhotra, Larry_Masinter,
Noah_Mendelsohn, Jonathan_Rees, Jeni_Tennison
Regrets
Yves_Lafon, Henry_Thompson, Robin_Berjon
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
Jonathan Rees
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]Approve minutes of prior meeting
3. [7]Administrative items
4. [8]Vendor prefixes
5. [9]Pending review action items
6. [10]Overdue action items
* [11]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: Jonathan Rees
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 24 May 2012
<scribe> scribenick: jar
Convene
regrets from Robin for today
<noah> No regrets for next week
Approve minutes of prior meeting
<noah> [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes
RESOLUTION: approve
[13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes as record of
that meeting
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes
Administrative items
noah: F2F - think about taking on vendor prefixes
<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>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
lm: I'm not going to do a lot more right now on DANE, doesn't
seem much the TAG can do
<noah> close ACTION-697
<trackbot> ACTION-697 Prepare for discussion of CA
infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) closed
<noah> . ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA
infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01
<noah> ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA
infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01
recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-710 - keep an eye on issues relating
to CA infrastructure weakness, including DANE [on Larry
Masinter - due 2012-09-01].
<noah> ACTION-690?
<trackbot> ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on
Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-05-05 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690
<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
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.ht
ml -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672
<noah> I thought the ball was in my court to mark the product
page approved
jt: Re fragids and mime types, I did a product page, needs to
be revised per comments
nm: I thought we had approved the product page & that NMM was
supposed to do clerical work. Happy with product page
<noah> Jeni will mark product page as "not draft".
<noah> close ACTION-690
<trackbot> ACTION-690 sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers
and Mime Types closed
jt: I've done an initial draft that's currently with Larry. I
can take an action to provide it for F2F
lm: I'll try to get back to you [JT] by this weekend, otherwise
just go ahead and publish
nm: On the master work plan page we sometimes pull out 1-2 next
steps, pls check that
jt: Re action 672, let's talk about that when it's done
nm: I will do a local arrangements page for the F2F
Regrets LM for 3rd day of F2F
<Ashok> +1
Vendor prefixes
lm: Because it was a narrow enough use case, and the community
was making progress, this seemed interesting
... There are differences of opinion as to whether old stuff
*should* go away ever [to force updates]
... The question is whether the CSS experience could apply in
other situations
... Interesting proposal to put dates in vendor prefixes.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say that I think vendors are
thinking in different terms
plinss: I don't think Apple has publicly said they're never
going to drop things, seems flexible
... Mozilla, Opera have been aggressive about dropping prefixes
nm: Difference between architecture and market pressure [?] -
difficult to deal with market pressure issues in the TAG
lm: I think it's part of designing standards and extensibility
regimes. It's important what vendors say, not just what they
do.
... Authors aren't in the room, so we need to look for a trip
point, and in this case it's the browsers
nm: But vendors can't predict how things will go, so won't want
to make any promises. Users want to deploy quickly and then
never rev
lm: I disagree. Don't think there's lock-in. There's no point
in having a deployment plan unless people agree to abide by it
<noah> I do understand what you're saying. I'm just skeptical
that vendors will do what you want them to do.
lm: I'm getting mixed messages. What you really want is that
when a standard version comes a long, the prefixed version will
go away. That means vendor needs to announce intent to remove
nonstandard version, when standard arrives
... What I was hoping for was that at least some browsers would
have some visual indication of obsolete or soon to be obsolete
features
pl: Some of them do this in their developer views
<noah> The message I'm hearing is: many "customers" write their
pages once, and then kill the funding or the teams that would
be capable of rewriting them to change the spelling of things
like CSS prefixes. The economic incentive for them to do that
2nd step isn't there.
nm: Look at how people fund these projects. Right now they use
vendor prefixes. Then they move on. What I heard is that the
team has disbanded by this time. So this would mean decisions
not to use the features in the first place
lm: The use case was when there was a design team that wants
continued work
... There has to be lead time, so people are prepared
... How can we strengthen the will to move on
nm: SOmething the TAG can do?
lm: Right now the deployment plans are locked inside places
that are hard to find
nm: Peter, how is CSS working on this issue?
pl: We see most of the problem as education. Initiative to
teach comes from the community, we try to correct them
<masinter> i thought we could document the issues around
deployment plans, and point out best practices about how to
design extensibility methods
<masinter> that's more general than CSS; we might look at why
it is easier because of the "cascading" of style sheets
nm: So what can we do. Isn't CSS already doing a lot
pl: One way the TAG could help CSS is re proposal from Florian.
I think his proposal would be harmful, and it would be useful
if the TAG had an opinion on it
<masinter> TAG could evaluate Florian's proposal and other
alternatives?
<masinter> if we worked on this, it should be rec-track
lm: Is this is the kind of thing we work on, we should get wide
community approval, head for Rec track. But from a perspective
that doesn't tie it to CSS
... Cascading makes this unique
<masinter> is this a lesson for XML-ER?
nm: We've tried to crack distributed extensibility nut many
times. Agree that focus here is good. Feels like next step
should come from CSS WG
<masinter> for example, if this extensibility method doesn't
apply to XML, is there a refocus of XML dealing with
un-recognized elements to make it more extensible?
nm: Worried about umpteenth frontal assault on issue
lm: Looking at specific cases is a good way to deal with
general cases (Polya How to Solve It)
tbl: Not a good time for TAG to generalize, good to look at
cases
<masinter> i'm a big fan of Polya -- here is a specific
instance where a solution is tractable. The universal problem
was too hard, but we might make progress on this one
nm: Should we do anything else re Florian's proposal?
<masinter> i think one of the big questions is whether "old
stuff goes away" -- is it, or is it not, reasonable to assume
that once a usage becomes significant it will never get
dropped?
jt: Didn't PL just say it would be helpful for the TAG to
evaluate Florian's proposal?
<masinter> i'd like to see the extensibility mechanism in CSS
documented
<masinter> in a way that actually corresponds to what CSS WG
thinks the policy is
lm: I'd like to see the CSS deployment policy to be written up,
in one place. I don't think there is a document that describes
the policy
... I'm reluctant to compare a proposal to the current policy,
in the absence of a document describing the current policy
pl: It would be sensible for the WG to do this
lm: Peter, what do you want to do?
pl: I'm not necessarily endorsing the current policy, just
wanting to comment on Florian's proposal
<noah> ACTION: Peter to report on CSS WG plans for documenting
policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of
vendor-prefixed identifiers - Due 2012-06-11 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-711 - report on CSS WG plans for
documenting policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of
vendor-prefixed identifiers [on Peter Linss - due 2012-06-11].
Pending review action items
<noah>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingrevie
w
[20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> ACTION-541?
<trackbot> ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to
produce draft on technical issues relating to copyright/linking
-- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541
<noah> JT: We agreed to bump
<noah> ACTION-541 Due 2012-08-01
<trackbot> ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce draft on
technical issues relating to copyright/linking due date now
2012-08-01
<noah> ACTION-610?
<trackbot> ACTION-610 -- Jeni Tennison to draft initial cut at
[22]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats -- due
2012-04-17 -- OPEN
[22] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/610
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/610
<noah> ACTION-610 Due 2012-05-29
<trackbot> ACTION-610 Draft initial cut at
[24]http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats due date
now 2012-05-29
[24] http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats
<noah> ACTION-677?
<trackbot> ACTION-677 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact HTML WG
co-chairs to ask about timing for output of Encrypted Media TF
-- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/677
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/677
<noah> Reply from Maceij Stachowiak:
<noah> The current status is:
<noah> - The Task Force has been proposed, but not yet created
<noah> - We posted a Call for Consensus on a proposal to create
the Task Force
<noah> - There have been numerous objections, statements of
support, and considerable discussion
<noah> - On request, and based on the amount of discussion, the
Call for Consensus has been extended until at least April 18th,
and may be extended further.
<masinter> close, don't see any follow-ups
nm: I did this one. Anyone want followup?
<noah> close ACTION-677
<trackbot> ACTION-677 Contact HTML WG co-chairs to ask about
timing for output of Encrypted Media TF closed
<noah> ACTION-682?
<trackbot> ACTION-682 -- Jonathan Rees to suggest to TAG
sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review -- due
2012-04-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682
<noah> JAR: Mark Nottingham said sections in question will
likely be changed. This may not be the time to comment.
<masinter> there was also an objection that it wasn't really in
scope for the HTTP document or IETF
<noah> ACTION-682?
<trackbot> ACTION-682 -- Jonathan Rees to suggest to TAG
sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review -- due
2012-07-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682
<noah> ACTION-687?
<trackbot> ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for
opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB
about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to
expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due
2012-05-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687
<noah>
[29]http://www.w3.org/mid/4FA063B3.4080507%2540arcanedomain.com
[29] http://www.w3.org/mid/4FA063B3.4080507%2540arcanedomain.com
<noah> Proposal from Noah (25 April):
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.ht
ml
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.html
<noah> Larry's note:
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0207.ht
ml
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0207.html
<noah> "I suggest the tag ask the AB more generally about the
process for insuring our resolution affects the rec process. At
what point are sppecs required to have stable references, and
what are the explicit exception guidelines?"
lm: Henry said he wanted to review the old advice he drafted.
We agreed to let QA document stand for now, but that we should
pick it up at some point [?]
<noah> ACTION-669?
<trackbot> ACTION-669 -- Henry Thompson to review
[32]http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and
see whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving
specs Due: 2012-08-01 -- due 2012-06-01 -- OPEN
[32] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice
<trackbot>
[33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/669
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/669
lm: That's the one
... Suggest adding to that action something about tracking down
the process question too
... Link to the emails too in that note?
<noah> close ACTION-687
<trackbot> ACTION-687 Look for opportunities to discuss putting
forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed
reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of
scope creep etc. closed
JR: the emails are linked from 687 in tracker
Overdue action items
nm: Especially looking for actions that lead into the F2F
<noah>
[34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort
=owner
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
nm: A high proportion of these are owned by people not on call
<masinter> action-606
<noah> Larry: ACTION-685
<masinter> action-543
jr: My actions related to f2f: 704, 201. Action in progress not
related to F2F: 695
<noah> ACTION-693 was raised in the context of storage, I
think.
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
[35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-585?
<trackbot> ACTION-585 -- Larry Masinter to meet with Yves prior
to the IETF document to review this
draft-freed-media-type-regs-00. -- due 2011-07-28 -- CLOSED
<trackbot>
[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/585
[36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/585
jr: Planning to work on 201 soon but probably not ready for F2F
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to
MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded
in media type -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> ACTION-704?
<trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni
and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on
httpRange-14 -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704
<noah> ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of
AWWSW discussions -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
<noah> ACTION-693?]
<noah> ACTION-693?
<trackbot> ACTION-693 -- Robin Berjon to draft scope and goals
for the Patterns/Pitfalls work in local/remote storage synch --
due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/693
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/693
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[41]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
[41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
[42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<masinter> what input on I18N and normalization does the TAG
want?
<masinter> this is on comparison & normalization?
lm: I'm interested & willing to talk about unicode
normalization. Hard to tell whether this is about CSS selectors
pl: Selectors is just one of many places. Question is early,
late, very late normalization
<masinter> i run into this with IRI docs
<masinter> if we're going to talk about unicode normalization,
i'd want to cover IRIs too then
<Ashok> +1 to Larry
lm: If we're going to talk about unicode normalization, the IRI
issues need to be in scope
... want to put the IRI comparison document in scope
nm: The action doesn't mention CSS, it's the I8n WG
lm: A month ago I18N WG committed to reviewing the IRI
documents
nm: I just want to know if this is to be a F2F session
pl: Reluctant to ask them for a document without TAG commitment
to work on this [?]
nm: I don't think their effort will be wasted
am: Didn't we get something from Addison outlining what the
issues were?
<masinter>
[43]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison
[43] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison
<masinter> and
[44]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01#sec
tion-5.2.2 in particular
[44] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01#section-5.2.2
nm: Can I delegate to Peter the decision about how to talk to
I18N and whether to schedule a F2F session?
<noah> . ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29
lm: If we decide to talk about it, I'll help prepare, but have
no particular opinion on whether to talk about it
<noah> . ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29
<noah> ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
[45] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-712 - Help us decide whether to have
F2F session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [on Peter
Linss - due 2012-05-31].
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[46]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
[46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-606 Due 2012-06-12
<trackbot> ACTION-606 Invite I18N and other concerned groups to
provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the
TAG regarding unicode normalization due date now 2012-06-12
<noah>
[47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=ow
ner
[47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner
nm: We'll be talking about the high priority items for sure,
just trying to find other things we ought to talk about at the
F2F, that we might have forgotten about
<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 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694
[48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694
<noah> This is about the proposed acct: URI scheme
[49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012May/0097.ht
ml
[49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012May/0097.html
nm: Tim, last week we had a F2F planning session, and the
agenda looked thin. So I scheduled today's discussion of
pending and overdue actions
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to
MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded
in media type -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[50]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
[50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> ACTION-543 relates to what Jeni's doing right?
<noah> LM: Right.
lm: When I saw 543 I thought it was about Jeni's draft
... Just change the title
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to
Fragid draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in
media type -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
[51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other
concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to
discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due
2012-06-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[52]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
[52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-478?
<trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a second
draft of a finding on persistence of references, to be based on
decision tree from Oct. 2010 F2F -- due 2012-04-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[53]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
[53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
<noah> JAR: Working on it, but not for F2F
<noah> JAR: Maybe should talk to Larry
<noah> ACTION-478 is a MAYBE for the F2F
<noah> ACTION-478 Due 2012-07-10
<trackbot> ACTION-478 Prepare a second draft of a finding on
persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from
Oct. 2010 F2F due date now 2012-07-10
<masinter> meaning now = 'the associations which you wish to
have persist'
<noah> ACTION-704?
<trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni
and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on
httpRange-14 -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[54]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704
[54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704
<noah> ACTION-704 Due 2012-05-29
<trackbot> ACTION-704 with help from Jeni and Henry to try to
identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 due date
now 2012-05-29
<noah> ACTION-695?
<trackbot> ACTION-695 -- Jonathan Rees to check with Thomas
Roessler on whether security review of CORS is coming up in
W3C/IETF liaison -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[55]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/695
[55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/695
<noah> JAR: I have pinged him.
<noah> ACTION-695 Due 2012-05-29
<trackbot> ACTION-695 Check with Thomas Roessler on whether
security review of CORS is coming up in W3C/IETF liaison due
date now 2012-05-29
<noah> NM: 695 is happening?
<noah> JAR: Yes.
<noah> ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of
AWWSW discussions -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[56]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
[56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
<noah> ACTION-201 Due 2012-06-02
<trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due
date now 2012-06-02
<noah> ACTIOM-650?
<masinter> i had a interesting convo (cc'd www-archive) on
issue-57 and think the distinction between communication &
semantics perspectives is key
<noah> ACTIOM-650?
<noah> ACTION-650?
<trackbot> ACTION-650 -- Jonathan Rees to review what
provenance WG is doing with an eye to application to privacy
issues -- due 2012-04-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[57]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/650
[57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/650
<noah> ACTION-650 Due 2012-08-01
<trackbot> ACTION-650 Review what provenance WG is doing with
an eye to application to privacy issues due date now 2012-08-01
<masinter> culminating on
[58]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/003
5.html
[58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/0035.html
ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA
infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01
recorded in [59]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F
session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [recorded in
[60]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to report on CSS WG plans for documenting
policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of
vendor-prefixed identifiers - Due 2012-06-11 [recorded in
[61]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
[59] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
[60] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
[61] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [62]scribe.perl version
1.1 ([63]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/29 12:37:22 $
[62] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[63] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 12:39:42 UTC