W3C | TAG | Previous teleconference: 19 Feb 2009. | Next teleconference: 12th March 2009 (tentative).

TAG face-to-face meeting, 3-5 March 2009, Redwood Shores, CA, USA

Dave Orchard (outgoing TAG member), Noah Mendelsohn, Larry Masinter, John Kemp, T.V. Raman, Hubbell, Tim Berners-Lee, Henry Thompson, Jonathan Rees, Dan Connolly, Ashok Malhotra

Agenda Summary

Logistics

Agenda Details

1. Convene
   • Welcome new members
   • Appoint scribes
   • Review F2F Goals
     • Bring new TAG members "up to speed" on continuing work
     • Make progress on high priority technical issues
     • Establish TAG priorities for coming year - ensure issues list reflects actual priorities
     • Refine TAG administrative procedures
   • Review F2F Agenda (this document)
   • Approve Minutes of TAG Telcon of 19 February 2009
2. HTTP Content Negotiation (maybe track under ISSUE-57 or should we open a new one?)

   Background:

   Several recent email threads have raised questions about the proper use of content negotiation on the Web. In particular, these questions have included:

   • When, if ever, is it appropriate to use content negotiation to choose between representations of a resource and descriptions of that resource? Should redirection be used in conjunction with content negotiation for such purposes?
   • Typical AJAX applications use Javascript and HTML to create a presentation that is derived from one or more data sources which themselves are identified with URIs. Sometimes the presentation is a very direct rendering of the data, but in other cases one may wish to have separate links for the underlying data (e.g. an email document) and for its presentation in some particular user agent (e.g. Google gmail). Using separate URIs for these can be inconvenient, since in many cases both links will need to be recorded or transmitted. The TAG has been asked (email from Martin Nally, linked below) whether use of content negotiation might be an appropriate compromise.
   • The treatment of content negotiation in HTTPbis is likely to be revised, and there is some suggestion that content negotiation should be deprecated.

   Goals:

   • Explore technical issues relating to content negotiation
   • Decide whether TAG wants to pursue work on one or more of the questions discussed above
   • Identify next steps

   Preparation:

   • Email from Michael Hausenblas asking for TAG guidance on the proper use of content negotiation. See also the thread following from that in the email listing for February, and the related thread starting with the message Last minute input to discussion re 'on the boundaries of content negotiation in the context of the Web of Data'
   • Jonathan Rees points us to three emails he has sent on this subject, with the hint that that they get "progressively better". So, he suggests the first and the second as optional reading for the F2F, and the third as required (Jonathan's suggestions along with a little additional background are in this email - member only)
   • Larry Masinter email indicating that he will be updating the HTTPbis section on content negotiation. Tim Berners-Lee response email suggesting that deprecation of content negotiation would be a bad idea (member only).
   • Email from Martin Nally describing challenges in deciding whether to use content negotiation to choose between the presentation and the data driving the presentation in an Ajax application
3. HTML and "TAG Soup" Integration (ISSUE-54)

   Goals:

   • Review history, successes, and challenges with respect to TAG's efforts to assist the HTML community
   • Decide what, if anything, the TAG should set as goals for work on HTML this year. Explore ways that we can be helpful to the HTML 5 working group and to other W3C groups that provide HTML-based technologies.
   • Clarify relationship to TAG work in areas such as error handling, versioning, etc.

   Preparation:

   • T.V. Raman's analysis prepared for agenda of the TAG's Sept. 2008 meeting in Kansas City. It's in the agenda itself under the heading tagSoupIntegration-54 - HTML and The Web.
   • Update from Dan Connolly on HTML/Tag Soup Progress since TPAC (member-only)
   • HTML working group action 108 requests that the TAG consider HTML when working on versioning
4. Error handling (ISSUE-20)

   Goals:

   • Explore architectural principles relating to error recovery by software receiving incorrect data from Web interactions. Explore tradeoffs involving silent recovery from errors, robustness of Web communications, risk of incorrect processing, proliferation of incorrect content, vs. convenience for others and recipients of documents.
   • Decide what, if anything, the TAG should set as goals for work on error handling this year
   • Clarify relationship to TAG work in areas such as HTML/Tag soup, versioning, etc.

   Action:

   • ACTION-199 on Henry S. Thompson to Follow up on error handling thread (8 Oct) - due 2009-02-17, pending review

   Preparation:

   • Error handling discussion in minutes of TAG Telcon of 19 February 2009
   • Email thread on HTML and XML
5. XML Functions (ISSUE-34)

   Goals:

   • Bring new (and returning) members up to date on prior work on XML Functions.
   • Brief discussion of technical issues, if time permits.
   • Clarify goals and next steps.

   Action:

   • ACTION-113 on Henry S. Thompson to HT to a) revise composition.pdf[sic] to take account of suggestions from Tim & Jonathan and feedback from email and b) produce a new version of the Elaborated Infoset finding, possibly incorporating some of the PDF - due 2009-03-27, open

   Preparation:

   • The elaborated infoset: A proposal by Henry Thompson
   • Compositionality, elaboration and XML document semantics by Henry Thompson (28 November 2007)
6. URNsandRegistries-50: URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for naming on the Web (ISSUE-50)

   Goals:

   • Bring new (and returning) members up to date on prior work on issue URNsAndRegistries-50.
   • Brief discussion of technical issues, if time permits.
   • Clarify goals and next steps.

   Action:

   • ACTION-33 on Henry S. Thompson to revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion - due 2009-03-27, open
   • ACTION-121 on Henry S. Thompson to HT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK RFC - due 2009-03-27, open

   Preparation:

   • URNs, Namespaces and Registries by Henry Thompson and David Orchard (yes, sadly, the latest revision on this draft is from August, 2006)
7. webApplicationState-60Web Application State Management (ISSUE-60)

   Goals:

   • Bring new (and returning) members up to date on prior work on issue webApplicationState-60
   • Discuss technical issues
   • Clarify goals and next steps

   Actions:

   • ACTION-143 on Stuart Williams to Review Raman's draft of webApplicationState-60 - due 2009-03-03, open
   • ACTION-144 on Noah Mendelsohn to Attempt to articulate some of the higher level questions for inclusion in the draft. - due 2009-03-03, open

   Preparation:

   • Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters by T.V. Raman - 11 February 2008
   • Email from Martin Nally describing challenges in deciding whether to use content negotiation to choose between the presentation and the data driving the presentation in an Ajax application. This email also relates to application state management and use of URIs to track application state.
8. httpRedirections-57: Resource description discovery and access (ISSUE-57)

   Goals:

   • Review history and status of work in ISSUE-57 and resource description access in general
   • Decide what, if anything, the TAG wants to do in this area starting now
   • Clarify relationship to TAG work in areas such as metadata, content negotiation, site description metadata, etc.

   Actions:

   • ACTION-116 on Tim Berners-Lee to Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. - due 2009-02-24, open
   • ACTION-178 on Jonathan Rees to update draft of finding on uniform access to metadata. - due 2009-02-13, open
   • ACTION-200 on Jonathan Rees to Revise "Uniform Access to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case - due 2009-02-24, pending review
   • ACTION-201 on Jonathan Rees to Report on status of AWWSW discussions - due 2009-03-30, open
   • ACTION-217 on Jonathan Rees to Raise moving the registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham - due 2009-02-24, pending review

   Preparation:

   • Stuart Williams' email summarizing the history and status of ISSUE-57
   • Uniform Access to Metadata (5 Feb 2009 draft by Phil Archer and Jonathan Rees) and assocated email thread
   • Internet draft HTTP-based Resource Descriptor Discovery (draft-hammer-discovery-02) by E. Hammer-Lahav
   • (optional) Internet draft Link Relations and HTTP Header Linking (draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04) by Mark Nottingham
   • (optional) Internet draft Host Metadata for the Web (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01) by M. Nottingham and E. Hammer-Lahav
9. Review of ongoing TAG projects & Issue Prioritization

   Goals:

   The TAG goes into this meeting with 28 open issues. The overall goal of this session to identify a few key issues from our previous work that we will designate as possible major focus items for the coming year, to identify other issues that should remain active with lesser emphasis, and as appropriate to close (or open) others. In other F2F sessions, we will consider suggestions for new focus areas and priorities, so the final TAG agenda for the coming year will likely be a combination of ongoing work continued or refocused, along with new undertakings. This particular F2F session is aimed at ensuring that we understand and are properly tracking the status of work already underway. When we are done, the issues list should reflect in the description field the goals, deliverables, checkpoints, and success criteria for issues that remain active.

   Specific goals for this F2F session are:

   • Review open issues and close or change status as necessary. This is an opportunity for returning TAG members to remind themselves of the status of our long list of issues, and especially for new members to come up to speed. We will do this by splitting into small groups, each of which will do the following for a handful of issues:
     • Ensure that goals, deliverables, checkpoints and success criteria are understood, at least for high priority issues and preferably for all active issues.
     • Recommend whether the issue should remain open or be closed. If open, then whether the issue should be one of the few key focus areas of the TAG, or should have lesser emphasis.
   • After the breakout reviews are done, we will discuss recommendations, especially for high priority focus areas. If time permits, we will agree on revised status for all issues. If that proves a bad use of F2F time, then we will plan to finish the job via email and/or telcons as appropriate. The essential goal here is to learn enough that we can appropriately balance proposals for new TAG work with following through on our existing activities.
   • Also, the chair would like to propose more direct ongoing (I.e. post F2F) involvement of the rest of the TAG in tracking the status of particular TAG issues. We will discuss details at the F2F.

   Preparation:

   • Review open TAG issues table below. Think in advance about which ones we should be our main priorities, which ones should be closed, and which should continue as background activities.
10. TAG Priorities for Coming Year

    Goals:

    • Discuss specific proposals for new TAG directions and focus areas
    • Determine specific TAG goals and priorities for coming year.
    • For each such goal or direction, briefly identify success criteria, timeframes, the intended audience for any materials we produce, and next steps.

    Preparation:

    • Review Larry Masinter's suggestions for new TAG work areas
    • Review open TAG issues table (below)
    • Consider whether the Architecture of the World Wide Web and the findings that the TAG publishes are effective in getting the attention of and educating their intended audience(s).

    We will discuss this topic at least twice. The first session will focus on briefly reviewing proposals for new directions for TAG work, as well as proposals for which ongoing activites should be emphasized. We will also discuss which aspects of the TAG's work have been most effective, and which have not been effective. Note that we will in a separate session do a detailed review of all ongoing TAG activity (I.e. open issues), closing and reprioritizing as appropriate. The results of that analysis will be used as input to the second round discussion, which will attempt to set our overall priorities for the coming year.

11. Administration

    Goals:

    • Discuss (minor) changes in TAG administrative procedures
    • Get concurrence on contents of Guide to TAG Participation (W3C member-only), making revisions as necessary
    • Make plan to ensure everyone has access to CVS & other tools needed to assist with TAG operations, scribing, and document publication
    • Schedule upcoming F2F meeting(s) (email from Steve Bratt - member only)

    Preparation:

    • Read draft of Guide to TAG Participation (W3C member-only). Either be prepared to endorse it as is, or to suggest specific changes.
12. Unscheduled items

    No specific discussion time is allocated to the following, but we may choose to discuss these in some of the free time slots.

    • (late addition to this agenda) The TAG has, within the last week, been asked to help resolve concerns with the use of CURIEs in RDFa and with the HTML profile attribute. See very long email thread that was instigated with an email message from Mark Nottingham to www-tag titled "Using XMLNS in link/@rel", which in turn promoted a message to the public-html list from Julian Reschke titled @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel. The long thread starts with that; early messages in the thread were not cross-posted to www-tag, but later ones were (starting with this one).
    • contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24): Dan Connolly suggests that we discuss the draft Content-Type Processing Model, by Ian Hickson and Adam Barth; the draft proposes interoperable rules for Content-type "sniffing" in browsers. Note that the draft acknowledges at one point that it is in "... willful violation of the HTTP specification. [RFC2616]
    • XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41).
      Background:
      • HTML working group action 108 requests that the TAG consider HTML when working on versioning
      • Thread starting with John Kemp email on updating AWWW good practice note on versioning
      • ACTION-183 (David Orchard) Incorporate formalism into versioning compatibility strategies. Due 3 March 2009.
      • ACTION-221 (Jonathan Rees) Work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks. Due 24 February 2009 (OVERDUE).
      • ACTION-229 (Noah Mendelsohn) Noah to respond to John Kemp proposal of Feb 17 on versioning. Due 13 March 2009.
    • Should TAG focus more on the mobile Web and the growing use of smartphones with the Web? (Noah is interested in this.)
    • Review of Open Action Items
      • Review open action items: reassign owned by those who are leaving the TAG.
      • Review and, if possible, close pending review action items
    • Update on the Architecture of the World Wide Semantic Web AWWSW work.

Open W3C TAG Issues as of 24 February 2009