W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Confirming date of TAG F2F (was: Draft minutes of TAG telcon 2013-01-24 now available)

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:03:24 -0500
Message-ID: <5109DEFC.8030807@arcanedomain.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
Thank you Henry. I assume you have correctly scribed the discussion as it 
happened, but I note that the resolution you recorded on the planned date 
of the TAG F2F was superceded by a note from me 3 days later [1].

To help avoid confusion, I have added to the minutes a note from the chair 
[2] indicating that the correct dates for the TAG F2F are 18-20 March, as 
announced in [1].

Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0154.html
[2]

On 1/28/2013 11:42 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> at
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html
>
> and in text form below.
>
> ht
> --------------
>                                     - DRAFT -
>
>                                        TAG
>
>                                     24 Jan 2013
>
>     [2]Agenda
>
>     See also: [3]IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
>     Present
>            Marcos Caceres, Yehuda Katz, Yves Lafon, Peter Linss, Ashok
>            Malhotra, Noah Mendelsohn, Alex Russell, Jeni Tennison, Henry S.
>            Thompson, Anne van Kesteren (in part)
>
>     Regrets
>            Tim Berners-Lee, Larry Masinter
>
>     Chair
>            Noah Mendelsohn
>
>     Scribe
>            Henry S. Thompson
>
> Contents
>
>       * [4]Topics
>           1. [5]Admin
>           2. [6]March F2F location
>           3. [7]Polyglot / DOM 4 issue: XML Declaration in the DOM
>           4. [8]Progress on FragID finding
>           5. [9]Back to DOM XML Declarations
>           6. [10]Next steps for Publishing and Linking
>           7. [11]Future of Privacy by design note and related privacy
>              issues
>           8. [12]ISSUE-57
>           9. [13]XML/HTML Unification
>       * [14]Summary of Action Items
>       __________________________________________________________________
>
> Admin
>
>     RESOLUTION: [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-minutes agreed as
>     a correct record
>
>     NM: Two goals for the near term:
>     ... 1) Focus for the TAG, as membership changes
>     ... Suggestions welcome, by email, I'll schedule discussion when it
>     looks likely to be productive
>     ... I need help moving beyond good top-level visions, which need
>     filling in
>     ... 2) Ongoing work, some nearing completion, others less concrete
>     ... Need to either complete, or drop
>
> March F2F location
>
>     NM: 17-19 March no longer possible for TimBL
>     ... And earlier hope that we might try London the preceding weekend is
>     fading
>
>     <noah> Two options: London Fri-Sun 15-17 & Cambridge 19-21 USA
>
>     <Marcos> MC: Any WFM
>
>     <slightlyoff> can make london, although the friday is iffy thanks to
>     TC39 flight back
>
>     <JeniT> either ok
>
>     <slightlyoff> unlikely to make cambridge
>
>     <plinss> either works
>
>     <wycats> I am with slightlyoff vis a vis TC39
>
>     <Yves> can make cambridge but will miss one day, can't for london (I
>     can make 1 day)
>
>     <Ashok> London No, Cambridge Yes
>
>     <HST> I can only do 16-17 in London, but I have always been at risk for
>     this meeting
>
>     <wycats> can we push it forward?
>
>     <noah> How far forward
>
>     <wycats> these weeks seem pretty contended
>
>     <noah> ?
>
>     <noah> No, Tim's calendar is incredibly booked. We typically have to
>     get on it 3 months in advance
>
>     <slightlyoff> thanks for the clarification
>
>     <wycats> It looks like slightlyoff and my preference is both London
>
>     <wycats> I am reviewing my calendar
>
>     <slightlyoff> I won't be in Cambridge, no
>
>     <slightlyoff> but i'm not more important than tim...break the tie on
>     his calendar
>
>     <HST> I can't do Cambridge
>
>     <wycats> I have an existing obligation during the Cambridge time period
>     but I could cancel
>
>     <slightlyoff> no objection, but regrets
>
>     <slightlyoff> no, my regrets for not being able to make it...not
>     anyone's fault
>
>     RESOLUTION: Next TAG f2f will be Cambridge, MA on 19--21 March
>
>     <slightlyoff> agree with Henry
>
> Polyglot / DOM 4 issue: XML Declaration in the DOM
>
>     HST: XML Core group is discussing this
>     ... There's a concern that the XML Declaration is in the XML Infoset
>
>     HST: Noah's agenda includes a contested assertion
>     ... There's email reporting that a number of current browsers continue
>     to support it.
>
>     NM: Should TAG do anything right now?
>
>     HST: Tempted to recuse myself. I'm active in the XML Core group. Not
>     clear on TAG-level issue. Dropping it does seem inappropriate, or
>     confusing at best.
>
>     HST: I will certainly come back to the TAG on this if I think there's a
>     genuine architectural issue here
>
>     NM: Not clear we're ready to address this -- we would need to have some
>     reason to suppose that we could get community engagement on the TAG's
>     involvement
>
> Progress on FragID finding
>
>     NM: We have a project ongoing at the moment:
>     [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
>
>     NM: That page describes goals, deliverables, success criteria
>
>     <noah>
>
>     NM: And we have a public WD: Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers
>     and Media Type Definitions at
>     [17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-fragid-best-practices-20121025/
>
>     <noah> ACTION-772?
>
>     <trackbot> ACTION-772 -- Larry Masinter to with help from Jeni to
>     propose CR exit criteria for fragids finding Due 2013-01-08 -- due
>     2013-01-18 -- OPEN
>
>     <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/772
>
>     NM: And the current leading edge is recorded in this ACTION:
>     ... We are heading for CR, and we were going to discuss exit criteria
>     at the (cancelled) F2F
>
>     JT: I don't know where we are on exit criteria, I don't think I've
>     heard from LM, who has that action
>
>     JT: I have made a new editors' draft (undated:
>     [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids, dated:
>     [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-01-05.html)
>     , which incorporates comments from Richard Cyganiak
>
>     JT: I think we can still go direct to CR at this point
>     ... I'll take over the CR exit criteria action
>
>     NM: Thanks
>
>     <noah> ACTION-772?
>
>     <trackbot> ACTION-772 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Larry to
>     propose CR exit criteria for fragids finding -- due 2013-02-12 -- OPEN
>
>     <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/772
>
>     <slightlyoff> +1
>
> Back to DOM XML Declarations
>
>     <noah> NM: Notes that Yehuda and Alex favor discussing the DOM at the
>     F2F
>
>     NM: Happy to have any topic raised by member on our telcon agenda
>     ... Often good to prepare stuff on telcons before we take them up at a
>     f2f
>
> Next steps for Publishing and Linking
>
>     <noah> ACTION-773?
>
>     <trackbot> ACTION-773 -- Ashok Malhotra to line up reviewers for
>     Publishing and Linking and invite to participate in F2F -- due
>     2012-12-20 -- CLOSED
>
>     <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/773
>
>     AM: We need a fair amount of work on this still
>     ... The two editors, AM and LM, are both on their way off the TAG
>     ... It would be great if a new member would take this up
>     ... Or perhaps JT could pick it up
>
>     NM: Points taken
>     ... What do people think -- should we continue to pursue this one? If
>     so, then we'll look at how
>
>     <wycats> I'm not personally interested in pursuing it with my time
>
>     HST: I'm conficted. I think it's potentially very important. I get
>     profoundly frustrated when, knowledgeable journalists seem not to
>     distinguish linking and embedding when reporting on serious cases
>     involving extradition or other serious matters.
>
>     HST: Yes, different jurisdictions are different. I wish we could do the
>     service of helping. We gave it a good shot. The comments from people
>     who understand better what's needed have not been supportive. So, I'd
>     love to see it move forward, but I can't do it. We may have to drop it.
>
>     YL: The legal side gave us feedback that suggests working, as we have,
>     only on the technical side, we won't get there -- to take this forward
>     we need to recruit help on the legal side
>
>     NM: This feels that something we should have been able to make work, if
>     we had managed to stay focussed
>
>     <slightlyoff> it may be the case that the legal community is
>     improvising too in a vacuum of settled case law
>
>     NM: but the feedback we got from the legal side was not all consistent,
>     and in attempting to follow it we lost focus
>     ... When we tried to focus on the technology, I think we made some
>     progress, but we couldn't quite close it
>     ... I do hate to close something after so much effort
>
>     JT: Yes, but that is a sunk cost, and it probably is time to move on
>     ... So maybe a finding or a REC is not the right vehicle for achieving
>     our limited goal
>     ... So maybe realising that blog posts or articles in the press are
>     legitimate TAG outputs
>     ... is the right thing to do for this
>
>     NM: So keep it as a work item, or not?
>
>     JT: Keep it on the list of things to include in strategic priorties at
>     the F2F
>
>     AR: What was the driver in the first place, for taking this on?
>
>     NM: There has been a steady trickle of legal cases [in US and UK] which
>     involved sites with links and/or embedding, where public discussion was
>     just muddled. And we did get, I think, requests from [the W3C's legal
>     guy] Rigo Wenning, to help with this.
>     ... We thought that a TAG finding on this would have more value than an
>     individual's blog post
>
>     AR: So there was a specific request from lawyers for an explicit
>     technical guidance?
>
>     <JeniT> Jonathan brought Thinh along
>
>     <JeniT> Thinh from Creative Commons
>
>     HST: I am not sure we had an explicit request to start us off --
>     certainly some positive feedback once we got started
>
>     <Ashok> Yes. we had a chat with Thinh
>
>     AR: I think it would be a possible way forward to publish something
>     pithy that says "Here's the relevant bits, in the TAG's opinion"
>
>     <noah> Hmm. Did I not hear Alex suggest pointing to existing
>     explanations?
>
>     <slightlyoff> I'm not trying to
>
>     NM: I think the problem is that the RFCs and related material are not
>     at the right level for public consumption
>
>     HST: I think JT's suggestion is the best we've got
>
>     <noah> . ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to
>     pursue Publishing and Linking
>
>     <HST:> +1
>
>     <slightlyoff> and don't think we should try to in an absence of
>     compelling demand from a userbase with authority
>
>     PL: Couldn't we simply put this on an official TAG blog
>
>     NM: We do indeed have such a blog
>     ... But we've used it for personal posting, rather than corporate
>
>     <HST:> [23]http://www.w3.org/blog/tag/ [link was broken, now fixed, see
>     action on YL below]
>
>     <noah> ACTION: Yves to figure out where our old TAG blog stuff is.
>     [recorded in
>     [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action01]
>
>     <trackbot> Created ACTION-778 - Figure out where our old TAG blog stuff
>     is. [on Yves Lafon - due 2013-01-31].
>
>     NM: The entire finding?
>
>     AM: It's long for a blog post, isn't it?
>     ... Maybe take one part of it -- extract highlights?
>
>     <JeniT> +1 for a series
>
>     PL: Break it up into a series of articles would be fine
>
>     AM: One on copyright, one on linking vs. embedding
>
>     NM: I'm concerned about the archival status of blog posts, compared to,
>     say, W3C notes
>     ... Putting smaller pieces where they could be useful, yes, but not
>     sure about doing it via a blog
>     ... So what about notes?
>     ... So some dimensions: how formal; what mechanism; how much TAG
>     consensus required
>     ... And beyond the TAG, e.g. LM had been interested in the fact that
>     REC-track gives some community buy-in
>
>     PL: CSS has its own blog. . .
>
>     NM: Sure, just there is a history which we need to hook up with
>
>     [Anne van Kesteren joins the call]
>
>     PL: OK, let's try moving that forward again
>     ... tweet about it, and improve its visibility
>
>     <noah> . ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to
>     pursue Publishing and Linking
>
>     AM: Yes
>
>     <noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to
>     pursue Publishing and Linking - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in
>     [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action02]
>
>     <trackbot> Created ACTION-779 - schedule F2F discussion of whether and
>     how to pursue Publishing and Linking [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
>     2013-03-01].
>
> Future of Privacy by design note and related privacy issues
>
>     <noah> ACTION-774?
>
>     <trackbot> ACTION-774 -- Peter Linss to frame F2F discussion of Privacy
>     by design note, and possible followup up with privacy group. Due:
>     2013-01-08 -- due 2012-12-20 -- OPEN
>
>     <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/774
>
>     NM: This started with work by Dan Appelquist wrt Javascript APIs for
>     minimal disclosure
>
>     <slightlyoff> "object capabilities"
>
>     AM: Minimization
>
>     NM: Then Robin Berjon shifted the focus, as Dan A. left the TAG
>     ... And then Robin left
>     ... And PL was given the action to take the existing content, slightly
>     cleaned up, and publish it as a Note
>
>     AM: And we also agreed to ask the Privacy Interest Group (PING) to take
>     this over
>     ... Also, Nick Doty is writing a document about fingerprinting, which
>     makes up about half the content of our draft
>
>     NM: So?
>
>     AM: Abandon it
>
>     AM: I have had no answer from PING
>
>     NM: Draft me an email and I'll send it
>
>     PL: The idea was that by publishing it as a Note we could hand it over
>     to PING
>
>     <noah> ACTION: Ashok to draft note to PING asking them to pick up our
>     incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs [recorded in
>     [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action03]
>
>     <trackbot> Created ACTION-780 - Draft note to PING asking them to pick
>     up our incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs [on Ashok Malhotra
>     - due 2013-01-31].
>
>     NM: I'll wait a few days for comments from TAG members and then send it
>     -- use tag@w3.org for that, please
>
>     <Ashok> PING: public-privacy@w3.org
>
>     <Ashok> Here is a link to the Privacy by Design document:
>     [28]http://darobin.github.com/api-design-privacy/api-design-privacy.htm
>     l
>
> ISSUE-57
>
>     HST: JAR and I made some progress at MIT in December, JT has improved
>     her draft, and is awaiting comments. I hope we will make some progress
>     before the f2f, but not much in the next few weeks
>
>     <noah> Try this link
>     [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
>
>     <noah> It's really more than ISSUE-57, we sort of use that as a
>     shorthand name.
>
>     NM: How about a briefing at the F2F?
>
>     HST: Maybe -- ask me in a month
>
>     <noah> ACTION: Jeni to prepare reading and discussion on Defining URIS
>     (ISSUE-57) for March F2F - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in
>     [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action04]
>
>     <trackbot> Created ACTION-781 - prepare reading and discussion on
>     Defining URIS (ISSUE-57) for March F2F [on Jeni Tennison - due
>     2013-03-01].
>
>     JT: Yes -- I think it's appropriate to aim for feedback on the Primer
>     and discussion about next steps
>
>     noah: this is also known as httpRange14
>     ... this issue is about how to get information about things that aren't
>     documents using HTTP
>     ... why don't we have a session on F2F topics on next week's telcon
>     ... please send emails with suggestions to the public mailing list
>
>     <wycats> noah: can you put a "layering" item on the F2F agenda. I could
>     write up a sentence or paragraph if that would be helpful
>
> XML/HTML Unification
>
>     noah: is there anything useful we can do about this today?
>     ... I have an action to announce that it's done
>
>     noah: I took an action to schedule discussion of the DOM stuff at the
>     F2F
>     ... there's a raging discussion on polyglot on both the HTML and TAG
>     mailing lists
>     ... in part in reaction to the TAG's reply to Henri
>
>     <wycats> I am happy to wait until the F2F to discuss so that the new
>     members can get a high-bandwidth dump of existing perspectives
>
>     <slightlyoff> sorry
>     ... I'll wait to see what else people ask for me to schedule around
>     this topic
>
>     <slightlyoff> my fault
>
>     <wycats> 1+
>
>     Alex: I'd like to understand what's driving our interest here?
>     ... what's the architectural principle, or is it because there's a
>     disagreement?
>
>     noah: can we defer that to when Tim and/or Henry are with us?
>     ... while HTML&JSON are increasingly being used, XML is still an
>     important technology
>     ... some people feel that publishing polyglot could help meet the
>     requirements of those that want to publish HTML with an XML flavour
>     ... we asked for the publication of the polyglot document
>
>     Anne: I was on the TF, and maybe the TAG asked for polyglot, but the TF
>     didn't
>
>     noah: the TF surveyed the field, yes
>     ... the TAG went further than the TF
>
>     Yehuda: I think this is related to some of the issues that the new TAG
>     members are interested in
>     ... and we should have a discussion about this in a F2F
>
>     noah: we sometimes get requests that we have to respond to more quickly
>
>     Yehuda: we should respond to those, but a F2F discussion would be
>     useful
>
>     <noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of polyglot, the TAG's
>     request to HTML WG on polygot, and HTML/XML Unification - Due
>     2013-03-01 [recorded in
>     [31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action05]
>
>     <trackbot> Created ACTION-782 - schedule F2F discussion of polyglot,
>     the TAG's request to HTML WG on polygot, and HTML/XML Unification [on
>     Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-03-01].
>
>     noah: please could existing TAG members go through your actions and
>     either close them or send me email about what you want to do with them
>     ... if there are other things that you want to discuss next week,
>     please email them to me
>
>     <slightlyoff> I won't be able to attend next week's call (on vacation).
>     Regrets.
>
>     <JT:> I will scribe next week
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>     [NEW] ACTION: Ashok to draft note to PING asking them to pick up our
>     incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs [recorded in
>     [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action03]
>     [NEW] ACTION: Jeni to prepare reading and discussion on Defining URIS
>     (ISSUE-57) for March F2F - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in
>     [33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action04]
>     [NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of polyglot, the TAG's
>     request to HTML WG on polygot, and HTML/XML Unification - Due
>     2013-03-01 [recorded in
>     [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action05]
>     [NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to
>     pursue Publishing and Linking - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in
>     [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action02]
>     [NEW] ACTION: Yves to figure out where our old TAG blog stuff is.
>     [recorded in
>     [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action01]
>       __________________________________________________________________
>
>
>      Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.135
>      ([38]CVS log)
>      $Date: 2013-01-28 16:39:48 $
>
> References
>
>     1. http://www.w3.org/
>     2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-agenda.html
>     3. http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-tagmem-irc
>     4. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#agenda
>     5. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item01
>     6. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item02
>     7. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item03
>     8. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item05
>     9. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item06
>    10. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item07
>    11. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item08
>    12. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item09
>    13. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#item10
>    14. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>    15. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-minutes
>    16. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
>    17. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-fragid-best-practices-20121025/
>    18. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/772
>    19. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids
>    20. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-01-05.html
>    21. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/772
>    22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/773
>    23. http://www.w3.org/blog/tag/
>    24. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action01
>    25. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action02
>    26. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/774
>    27. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action03
>    28. http://darobin.github.com/api-design-privacy/api-design-privacy.html
>    29. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
>    30. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action04
>    31. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action05
>    32. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action03
>    33. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action04
>    34. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action05
>    35. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action02
>    36. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action01
>    37. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>    38. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 03:04:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:51 UTC