See also: IRC log
<masinter> I muted
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
<masinter> I'm not available next week
Noah: I will not be available next Thu. Can someone else chair?
Regrets from Noah, Larry for April 30
Tentatively, there will be a telcon April 30 with DanC in chair, but see below.
Larry: They are fine.
RESOLUTION: Minutes of April 16 approved
<DanC> my comment on POWDER test materials: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0006.html
DanC: I ran into 404s trying to use their tests
... They are thinking about PR so their test material shd be shiny.
<DanC> . http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-test/#grddl
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-test/tests/grddl_tests/Manifestgrddl002.rdf
<noah> Yes, I get an XML tree
ht: Browser says cannot open
Noah: My browser opens it
<DanC> . http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-test/tests/grddl_tests/powder002.xml
Noah: It get something ....
<DanC> now see grddl service: http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl/
Dan, HT, Noah Going thru the POWDER tests
<jar> view source gives you xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder#"
DanC: Basically, there is nothing ... either the GRDDL service is not working or their tests are busted
... I cannot see that their tests work
... Some options:
<DanC> (1) TAG endorses Dan's comment, based on self-describing web finding
<DanC> (2) nothing formal, but thanks for walking us thru it
<DanC> (3) YOUR SUGGESTION HERE
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to suggest new topic on GeoLocation / GeoPriv privacy issues
<jar> (3) TAG endorses Dan's comment [not based on finding, but based on general principle that GRDDL should work]
<noah> I'm curious what's the precedent here? It's either "this is a particular SDW issue"
<noah> or are we going to chase every 404 or broken GRDDL link
ht: I'm with jar
Ashok: I'm with jar
Noah: Closer to concur
Larry: Concur
<masinter> to be *really* honest, I don't really understand why GRDDL tests are important
<DanC> PROPOSED: to endorse Dan's comment that we can't get the POWER GRDDL tests ( http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-test/#grddl ) to work, and to ask the POWDER WG to fix what's braken or explain how we're doing it wrong.
HT Seconds
No discussion. Larry abstains
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to notify the POWDER WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/04/23-minutes#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-262 - Notify the POWDER WG [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-04-30].
<noah> Larry, I think something resembling an answer to your question is in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#RDFSection and especially seciton 5.2
<masinter> groups shouldn't do broken things, of course, but why this one is important for the TAG to comment on, isn't clear.
RESOLUTION: Endorse Dan's comment that we can't get the POWER GRDDL tests ( http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-test/#grddl ) to work, and to ask the POWDER WG to fix what's borken or explain how we're doing it wrong.
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/att-0444/draft.html
Web Addresses in HTML5
<DanC> more recent draft: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft-ietf.html <- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Apr/0199.html
Noah: DanC formatted for IETF
DanC: From the San Francisco mtg
<DanC> "This specification defines the term Web address, "
<noah> DC: San Francisco meeting suggests Web Address -> Hypertext reference
<DanC> [[ Still outstanding is the suggestion to change from "Web Addresses"
<DanC> to "Hypertext References".
<DanC> ]]
This uses web address -- the earlier usage was Hypertext Refererence
LM: Hoping this will replace IRI spec
... I understand why we have 2 specs ... I'm unhappy if there would be 3
<DanC> "good interim stage" , yes, that's where I feel we are
<noah> I think we need to note that Larry is suggesting that having this spec and IRI is one too many.
HT: If authors of this specs agree w/you we have 2 groups planning to replace 3987... not good
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask whether this is just too many specs, or whether there are really 3 sets of rules according to context
Noah: Larry implies there are 2 sets of usecases and 3 specs ... not a good situation
... URI not suitable for Chinese etc. IRI to replace some usages of URI
<DanC> (ht, I'm sympathetic to LMM's suggestion to expand the scope of my draft to obsolete RFC2987, but I boggle/tremble at the size of the task.)
Noah: HTML folks looking at removing leading and trailing spaces ....
HT: IRI spec was meant to be what people type
<DanC> noah, to whom was your question directed?
<noah> Anyone who knows the answer (he says perhaps unhelpfully)
<DanC> unhelpfully indeed.
<noah> Sorry
<noah> I was just curious if I was either missing something obvious, or perhaps pointing out a clear distinction in the goals of the spec. I suggest you ignore my question and go back to the q
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask which IETF area director, if any, is supervising the RFC3987bis effort
Larry: URI/IRI change was a way of managing versioning situation
HT: Is there an area director working with 3987bis
<ht> DanC, sorry -- yes, of necessity there is an area Director, but I don' t know who it is
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask DanC what he sees the relationship of this draft RFC to 3987 and 3987-bis is
Larry: W3C shd not publish docs that are conflict with how international domain names are beiing defined
<masinter> ((sorry))
<masinter> has anyone asked Martin / Michel ?
<Zakim> ht2, you wanted to explain about the LEIRI note
HT: Already been a parallel effort within W3C ... A number of XML specs have spaces in BNF for "web addresses"
... e.g. system identifiers, namespace names,
... most of them copy from Xlink how to turn string to URI
<noah> Ah, now I know what LEIRI is. Knew about the effort, just didn't recognize the latest initialism
HT: There were several copies of these bullet points that were almost identical
... so we (Core) thought we wd publish a 1 page spec ... after discussion thought this wd be better in IRIbis
<DanC> (noah, who's the shepherd for this IRIEverywhere issue? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/27 )
HT: what this did was define Legacy Extended IRI
... saying there were addreses that did not match IRI production (contained spaces, etc.)
<DanC> (I think it's expecting too much for the scribe and the meeting to get this story orally; I'd appreciate if HT would accept an action to tell the story in email to www-tag)
HT: Major difference between thais draft and LEIRI note was char encoding
<DanC> ACTION: HT summarize LEIRIs and "4 specs" in mail to www-tag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/04/23-minutes#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-263 - Summarize LEIRIs and "4 specs" in mail to www-tag [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-04-30].
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/27
DanC: I consider my action done.
HT: What happens next?
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/27
<DanC> close ACTION-253
<trackbot> ACTION-253 Brief the TAG on progress on \"web addresses in HTML\" draft closed
<noah> The chair wishes to remind himself that issue 27 is indeed a much better header for future discussion of this than the current "HTML"
Larry: How to coordinate these efforts?
... don't know how to help
Noah: Would TAG intervention help with LEIRI spec
Larry: Bemoans situation! Says it's impt for TAG to work on this
Noah: Has someone compared specs and figured out what they provide
... That would be a god service from the TAG
DanC: Let's see what HT writes
... would like to keep this on the front burner
Noah: We will schedule discussion next week ... or soon after HT's email
<DanC> +1 not do more on IRIEverwhere-27 next week
Noah: Let's not discuss next week as Larry will not be there
<DanC> ht, like this? http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft-ietf.html
<jar> action-259
<DanC> action-259?
<trackbot> ACTION-259 -- Larry Masinter to kick off discussion of versioning principles to apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry. -- due 2009-04-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/259
Noah: Can we talk abt Action 260?
<jar> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0042.html makes 260 pending review
jar: I sent mail and Larry responded
<DanC> (all this process gunk just gets in the way; wouldn't it be more straightforward to say "versioning, jonathan, you were going to do X; how is that going?" )
<jar> note to minutes editor: make sure my 'makes pending review' comment refers to 260, not 259. thanks.
Larry: Please respond to issue
<DanC> From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
<DanC> To: www-tag@w3.org WG <www-tag@w3.org>
<DanC> Subject: Versioning and HTML
<DanC> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:14:46 -0700 (13:14 CDT)
DanC: What shd we reply to?
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0045.html
Larry: email did not ask specific questions. I will send out new email with questions.
<DanC> ACTION-259 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-259 Kick off discussion of versioning principles to apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry. due date now next week
Noah: Versioning touches so many things ... started with XML versioning .... now talking abt HTML versioning
... can we close jar's action?
<masinter> "Flame on language verisoning and multiplexing"
<masinter> wasn't really a flame
<jar> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0042.html
DanC: I think action is done
<DanC> "Flame on language versioning and multiplexing" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Apr/0042.html
Noah: Encourage TAG to read note and then schedule discussion
<masinter> when there are action items to "send email to start a discussion", do other TAG members need a reminder to discuss
<noah> I'm trying to figure out whether enough TAG members have already read to allow discussion now, or whether I need to schedule later. Still a bit confused.
<ht> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200904/msg00033.html
<masinter> <Doctype HTML> for example is a question
<masinter> "if HTML5 becomes a Rec and we realize we did something poorly we will cause rampant compatibility problems if we change implementations. "
<masinter> what should HTML working group do to keep bad things from happening?
jar: I keep hoping someone will apply these ideas .... you could use this framework to analyze latest proposal from Google.
<masinter> "There are a whole bunch of versioning mechanism that will address that but also cause their own problems.
Noah: We need a shepherd for this issue
<masinter> I'm willing to shepherd but can't do it for the next week
<jar> Example phenomena to which to apply the framework: RDFa in HTML4/5; "canonical" link type. Identify game, players, payoffs
Larry: I can shepherd this issue
... we can rename issue
<DanC> (renaming and splitting has happened before. I'd like a TAG decision to rename, and of course it takes a TAG decision to split, since that involves making a new issue.)
Noah: Let's close Action 260
... Action 259
<DanC> close action-260
<trackbot> ACTION-260 Review and post the email exchange he had with Larry on versioning about 1-2 months ago closed
Larry: I will refine my questions
<DanC> action-259: update tracker description while you're at it
<trackbot> ACTION-259 Kick off discussion of versioning principles to apply to HTML, engage jonathan and henry. notes added
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about shepherding
Ashok: PLING has been tracking this with low effort
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say yes, I'm aware... I was briefed by W3C team contact and then spoke briefly with IETF WG chair and to suggest John K. is likely to be watching
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask what exactly TAG would do, and why now
DanC: Talks abt interaction with folks on this issue
Noah: Why aren't the WG s capable of handing this?
Larry: Nor sure this is a TAG issue
Noah: Is there a particular issue?
<noah> Larry, are you wanting an action to track followup on this?
<masinter> sure, that's fine
<noah> AM: Thomas Roessler offered to make suggestions on how TAG could help
<masinter> I wonder if this is a 'use case' for TAG work on security. I'm not interested in the TAG weighing in on the particular issue so much as how security and privacy fit into web architecture.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note one particular IETF draft and to note http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec-05
<noah> Ah, so there's a proposal that the W3C geolocation API should be changed.
Ashok: TLR was supposed to send mail to DanC re how TAG may help with priivacy/sercurity etc.
<DanC> "
<DanC> An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in Internet
<DanC> Applications
<DanC> draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec-05
<DanC> "
<DanC> (ashok, send mail to tlr and me, cc www-tag, perhaps?)
<noah> ACTION: Ashok to draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/04/23-minutes#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-264 - Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2009-04-30].
<masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2009Apr/0001.html
<DanC> 7 May
<masinter> and follow up
RESOLUTION: Next week's call cancelled
Next call May 7, 2009