See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribenick: jar
<scribe> Scribe: Jonathan Rees
Convened.
jar: [...] indicate scribe's editorial notes
regrets Henry, Raman
future regrets - April 16 - John, Raman
noah: propose to cancel 4/23
<johnk> trackbot-ng, start telcom
<trackbot> Sorry, johnk, I don't understand 'trackbot-ng, start telcom'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
RESOLVED Telecon of 2009-04-23 is canceled
<johnk> trackbot-ng, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 09 April 2009
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of 26 March http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/26-minutes
noah: Agenda review. Propose to look at pending/due action items at end of call
... POWDER reviews due on the 27th
... Dan interested in working this up for next week
... Web app state WD - note has been sent to director for his approval
timbl: trying to figure out whether it is domain lead or director who's responsible
noah: Let's not get stuck on this [timbl & noah will figure it out]
... Priorities discussion - Tim has contributed to it on email - please follow up
... F2F reminders. 23-25 June, 22-24 Sept, both at MIT.
... hearing no objections, this is confirmed.
<timbl> The marlowe is slightly further away from MIT and from the river thanthe sonesta
noah: Want to wind this up
... Bob Freund wants us to give a heads-up ASAP if there will be an TAG issues re WS-RA
... We saw in early drafts of WS addressing the use of XML elements to identify things, instead of URIs
... Naming things in this way is counter to AWWW
... Apparently TAG's note on the subject has made little difference
masinter: I wouldn't expect a group already moving forward with an arch we don't like to change directions
... The purpose of the warning note would only be a signpost for other efforts
noah: The question is what to do
<timbl> I think we let this go for the reasons LArry mentions among others .. we have said our peice
ashok: ? We might want them to spell out what would happen if one did an HTTP GET on the URI in the endpoint reference ? ... it could lead to useful stuff
johnk: If it's not too much effort to draft a note, couldn't we choose to raise it again?
<Zakim> johnk, you wanted to ask whether the effort to draft a note is small enough that we should do it anyway?
noah: Hard to get general agreement on such a note
... and there are two points, 1. How endpoints are named, 2. Duplication of HTTP
masinter: More interested in how TAG deals with things like this in general, not necessarily this particular case
... We shouldn't hold up webarch as a reason
... Better to instead say why such and such is not a good idea
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say yes, both those issues, but too big a difference i mentality for more communication to be useful. and to say yes, both those issues, but too big a
masinter: It's appropriate for TAG to have authority to make statements, even when they're at variance with other group...
timbl: On both issues, the problem is competition with URIs and HTTP. But no use spending much more time on this issue
<Ashok> +1 to what Tim said
noah: Any specific different proposal for something to do?
<masinter> "The W3C Technical Architecture Group is disturbed by the fact that this recommendation defines mechnaisms that compete in some way with URIs and HTTP, by reimplementing other mechanisms."
<masinter> "This design pattern should not be repeated."
ashok: I recommend [that we ask them to spell out what would happen if one did an HTTP GET on the URI in the endpoint reference]
<masinter> just thinking about IAB's/IESG's ability to add notes to WG texts, even if they don't agree
<masinter> even if the IETF working group don't agree
timbl: I see no marginal gain to any effort of this sort
<masinter> I'm thinking more about 'how TAG works' rather than this particular effort
<timbl> If there were a small change t the document which would fix it then we could spend effort on this, but we aren't we are saying they whole project is a bad idea compared to web arch.
masinter: Interested in seeing that this kind of note-on-publication is something the TAG can do [procedurally]
johnk: It's not about a competing architecture, but rather how it intersects web architecture [what GET does]
noah: Having a competitor to HTTP/URI is very dissonant to web. But we've said this many times.
timbl: Asking about GET is a red herring. People don't do GETs on service endpoints... But a different question is recommending that GET return interesting information, but that's not the issue on the table
<johnk> I'm convinced enough by Tim's argument...
noah: Informal preference poll
... speak up if you prefer to send a note as ashok proposed
(silence)
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to write to Bob stating that there will probably not be any concerns from TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Write to Bob Freund, WS-RA WG chair, stating that there will probably not be any concerns from TAG [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-04-16].
noah: What should TAG be doing regarding language versioning?
... Look for Larry's email response to Noah's summarizing email on the subject
... The arch doc gives some advice on version identifiers (use them), but we got nervous. Story is unresolved
... Anything to help the HTML community? Any revisions desired to arch doc? These are separate questions
masinter: These things are related. HTML is a use case that can help drive work on versioning [in arch doc or elsewhere]
... If no id, then no versioning. Id tells you what extensions are being used and which aren't
... We were looking at the issues in the abstract. Specific cases are valuable, e.g. HTML4/HTML5.
... HTML5 has come to an interesting policy
... interesting to look at kinds of extensions and how they're indicated
... Willing to work on this
timbl: A really good idea to write this up. Good to tell the story, hold off on drawing conclusions.
... I don't know that this can be separated from the philosophy that every browser can show every document, but ...
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ashok red herring and to
johnk: Specific examples good. Volunteer to help Larry. Agree that current discussion in AWWW is vaguer than it could be. Would be good to make advice more specific based on examples
noah: Time to assign people... the two volunteers are new to the TAG's work on this subject
... To the extent HTML5 signals an extensibility architecture - can we write that down?
masinter: Looking at process - the HTML5 WG is trying to close issue of versioning - can we say something in the next 6 weeks? Even if not very strong? Timeliness is important.
noah: I would leave decisions like that up to the volunteers
masinter: Happy to work with others [John/Jonathan] so we can have a good discussion next week
<johnk> I have no time in the next week
noah: Larry/Jonathan/John take a week to move it forward, we'll take it up then
masinter: I'm supposed to report back to HTML WG on whether the TAG will have anything to say about this...
noah: Meeting of 23rd is being UN-cancelled, but Noah not available to plan the agenda
... Perhaps we can just do versioning then
ACTION-241?
<trackbot> ACTION-241 -- Larry Masinter to review TAG versioning situation and report back to TAG and HTML -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/241
noah: Closing
close ACTION-241
<trackbot> ACTION-241 Review TAG versioning situation and report back to TAG and HTML closed
close ACTION-229
<trackbot> ACTION-229 Noah to respond to John Kemp proposal of Feb 17 on versioning closed
close ACTION-183
<trackbot> ACTION-183 Incorporate formalism into versioning compatibility strategies closed
noah: John, re blog posting on versioning identifiers?
johnk: Is this work part of Larry's action now?
noah: Yes, but not directly... we should land in a consistent place
<masinter> My proposal was to use the HTML example to lead the general discussion
noah: Worried that having two active threads on versioning will be painful
... Let's let the arch doc versioning problem sit for a while [pending other work]
noah: Dan was going to lead us through this. He's not here.
masinter: The issue has been split off and moved to IETF. e.g. 10 messages on content sniffing this morning
... I sent something about this to www-tag
<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0020.html
masinter: I summarized what I thought the nature of the argument is. How extensibility fails, how systems evolve
... I'm encouraging liaison at an architectural level. Revisit in 6-8 weeks
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule TAG to revisit progress in IETF/HTML liaison on content sniffing (invite Mark Not or Lisa D?) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/09-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Schedule TAG to revisit progress in IETF/HTML liaison on content sniffing (invite Mark Not or Lisa D?) [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-05-15].
<johnk> here's a link to the last message in the thread on that subject from HTTP WG - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0183.html
close ACTION-233
<trackbot> ACTION-233 Report back from IETF/HTML liason meeting in March regarding MIME type override closed
noah: re ACTION-236, frag ids are being used for app state, apps are synthesizing documents...
Defer until Dan can participate.
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
close 240
close ACTION-240
<trackbot> ACTION-240 Read thread on RDFa, CURIEs and profile and summarize http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0295.html closed
close ACTION-245
<trackbot> ACTION-245 Noah to respond to TPAC survey saying TAG will meet Monday and Friday (half days) closed
close ACTION-248
<trackbot> ACTION-248 Prepare a new draft of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url-20080320.html for review by the group closed
(It was clear that Raman had produced his draft.)
close ACTION-251
<trackbot> ACTION-251 Assemble the Mar 2009 f2f minutes from the now-complete 3 daily records closed
close ACTION-252
<trackbot> ACTION-252 Noah to schedule discussion of Autumn TAG F2F - see minutes of 26 March 2009 closed
ACTION-253 needs to stay open. Postpone to next week 4/16
ACTION-255?
<trackbot> ACTION-255 -- John Kemp to contact Sam to ask (a) how can the TAG be helpful (b) offer set up phone call involving Sam & 1 or 2 others -- due 2009-04-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/255
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
noah: keep open; push out.
ACTION-24?
<trackbot> ACTION-24 -- Tim Berners-Lee to clarify http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri , perhaps by using N3 -- due 2009-03-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/24
postpone to just before June F2F
ACTION-116?
<trackbot> ACTION-116 -- 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 2009-04-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116
TimBL: That, I'm working on. Happy to keep being reminded every week.
ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2009-03-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
jar: Probably not very good use of TAG time right now
... Scheduling thing
... JAR will remind Noah to schedule this
noah: How about May 5.
ACTION-251?
<trackbot> ACTION-251 -- Noah Mendelsohn to assemble the Mar 2009 f2f minutes from the now-complete 3 daily records -- due 2009-04-02 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/251
masinter: Not done. But it still makes sense to do it.
... How about 2 weeks.
ADJOURNED.