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

Draft Minutes TAG telcon 2013-07-25

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:03:29 +0100
Message-Id: <9A83AD25-7348-4477-B0F6-64E9EF49CDA8@jenitennison.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
The draft minutes from today's TAG telcon are available at

  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/07/25-minutes.html

and reproduced in text form below.

Jeni
----

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

25 Jul 2013

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TAG/Planning/2013-07-25-TC

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Peter, Dan, Jeni, Tim, Alex, Marcos, Yves

   Regrets
          Henry, Thompson

   Chair
          Peter Linss

   Scribe
          Jeni Tennison

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Peter
         2. [6]Dan
         3. [7]Marcos
         4. [8]Alex
         5. [9]Tim
         6. [10]Yves
         7. [11]Jeni
         8. [12]AOB
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 25 July 2013

   <scribe> Scribe: Jeni Tennison

   <scribe> ScribeNick: JeniT

   plinss: we'll go round the room
   ... slightlyoff, do we have minutes from the other week?

   slightlyoff: I'll get them in, sorry

Peter

   plinss: no work on github syncing, but set up repo for website
   redesign

Dan

   dka: updated actions, outreach to web apps WG (Chaals) very
   receptive to collaborative session around Promises
   ... we're starting to get a reputation for the TAG being the
   place to go to ask for guidance on the use of Promises
   ... which we wanted
   ... we discussed doing a F2F meet up with Art when meeting in
   Boston
   ... I'm going to follow up with Art & hope for a good session
   then
   ... don't think we want to do anything before Boston, but open
   to suggestions
   ... next F2F is sooner than we think

   marcosc: should we be dealing with the Promises stuff?
   ... or should we post to script-coord list?

   slightlyoff: we should lay down neutral guidance
   ... the crypto guys asked who should deal with it, can do it
   personally

   <marcosc> [14]https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text

     [14] https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text

   marcosc: we're going to get more and more questions

   slightlyoff: not next call but one after I will have something
   done in that area

   <marcosc> I've just updated the README.MD quickly
   [15]https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text/blob/master/RE
   ADME.md

     [15] https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text/blob/master/README.md

   dka: the other thing I've progressed is getting Anssi from
   Intel to come in
   ... tangentially, Larry & Ashok collaborated on a blog post

   <dka> [16]https://twitter.com/w3ctag/status/360077819939794945

     [16] https://twitter.com/w3ctag/status/360077819939794945

   dka: I tweeted from the TAG account
   ... it's a follow-on around the publishing & linking document
   ... we're not going to do anything further, it's just a matter
   of amplifying

Marcos

   marcosc: I did a review of the orientation lock API
   ... ended up rewriting parts of the spec
   ... working to get changes integrated

   <marcosc> [17]https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/7

     [17] https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/7

   marcosc: some of the things still stand, particularly moving to
   Promises model
   ... I'd appreciate further comment from TAG members

   <Yves> you got a +1 from me ;)

   slightlyoff: I'll take a look at that this week

   <Yves> apart from the 'should' part

   marcosc: I might have a chance to push the changes before you
   take a look
   ... it's a short spec
   ... took me one hour
   ... a review won't take long

Alex

   slightlyoff: spent more time on web audio review
   ... think the draft is good to go, want feedback
   ... fielded request for review from XX

   <dka> +1 to posting it to the public audio forum

   slightlyoff: to make sure things are in line & invite them to a
   call
   ... at TC39 I'm going to try to broach the topic of TPAC

   marcosc: it's great to see developers sending feedback on web
   audio

   <dka> Agree

   marcosc: I saw people tweet about it too, which I think was
   really cool

   slightlyoff: I'm excited about it too
   ... but the longer it sits in our repo without sending it on,
   it could reflect badly
   ... anyone opposed to sending it?

   plinss: good to go

   <marcosc> SHIP IT!!!!

   plinss: send it

   <Yves> +1

   slightlyoff: I'll do that today

   timbl: can we have a pointer for the minutes?

   <plinss>
   [18]https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/07/
   WebAudio.md

     [18] https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/07/WebAudio.md

   <timbl> "the somewhat liberal use of SHOULD in that spec is
   going to lead to user agents doing bad things" yes

   RESOLUTION: Send the feedback Alex has drafted over to Web
   Audio working group (officially).

Tim

   timbl: I haven't done a lot of TAG-related stuff
   ... there have been discussions within W3C about dependencies
   between specs
   ... the TAG might be asked to get involved
   ... about whether one spec can move forward when a referenced
   spec doesn't
   ... a guide about when it's a good idea and when not, an
   enumeration of different cases, could be useful
   ... we might get pinged on that

   <dka> on dependencies - I took ACTION-820 at some point but I
   have not followed up on it yet...

   dka: I need to contact AB about this, is this something we
   should do?
   ... should we be proactive?

   timbl: I think it's good to say that we're willing to pick it
   up if we need to

Yves

   Yves: I reviewed the marcosc review, which was good
   ... for HTTP 2.0, I put my thoughts on the mailing list
   ... it's another kind of serialisation and use of the network
   for HTTP 1.1
   ... not different architecturally
   ... the major change is the possibility of doing server push
   ... which is defined in the spec as a way to send replies that
   contain additional resources
   ... such as the icons/CSS related to a page
   ... so the client doesn't have to request them
   ... that's one thing in HTTP 2.0 that isn't in HTTP 1.1 and
   might have architectural implications
   ... part of the HTTP effort was to look at being able to change
   the transport
   ... HTTP 2.0 is built with that information from HTTPbis in
   mind
   ... so they can reference the relevant part of HTTPbis
   ... for everything that's connection-related, like compression,
   it's just implementation detail
   ... it doesn't change the semantic

   <dka> Somewhat relevant (as it involves SPDY and also the
   concept of split browsing which the TAG has touched on before)
   interesting to note Google's plans to implement network-based
   compression proxy for Chrome for IOS /Android - I blogged here:
   [19]http://www.torgo.com/blog/2013/07/data-compression-proxy.ht
   ml

     [19] http://www.torgo.com/blog/2013/07/data-compression-proxy.html

   dka: is there a reason to draft a document of feedback in the
   same way as we've done for WebAudio?

   Yves: it's not feedback, but just what the differences are and
   what the implication is for architecture
   ... what's the implication of being able to do push?
   ... it's more a list for us

   dka: what about a blog post?

   Yves: I can do that

   <dka> ACTION: Yves to write a blog post on http 2.0. [recorded
   in [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-823 - Write a blog post on http 2.0.
   [on Yves Lafon - due 2013-08-01].

Jeni

   JeniT: I've asked Phil Archer to talk to the TAG ACTION-806 -
   he can make it next week.

   dka: Yes I think makes sense.

   JeniT: I sent the draft around httpr***-** stuff...
   ... My aim for next week is to create an outline for capability
   URLs document.

   dka: Please ask Phil to post an intro to the TAG mailing list
   as well.

   JeniT: sure

   <slightlyoff> sorry to drop off the call

AOB

   plinss: aob?

   dka: is there anything we can do to accelerate the web design
   stuff?
   ... should we investigate other options?

   <slightlyoff> can anyone advise me on how/when we might be able
   to invite the Crypto folks to present?

   <slightlyoff> 2 weeks from now?

   plinss: other people?

   <slightlyoff> do folks prefer that I work up feedback before or
   after?

   plinss: we just need to decide what the page needs to contain

   dka: shall we put that in a README in the github repo you
   created?

   plinss: yes

   <dka> ACTION: DKA to add some ideas to the tag-site-redesign
   readme file.. [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc]

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-824 - Add some ideas to the
   tag-site-redesign readme file.. [on Daniel Appelquist - due
   2013-08-01].

   plinss: ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: DKA to add some ideas to the tag-site-redesign
   readme file.. [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc]
   [NEW] ACTION: Yves to write a blog post on http 2.0. [recorded
   in [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version
    1.137 ([25]CVS log)
    $Date: 2013-07-25 22:00:55 $

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 22:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:58 UTC