See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
Dan: The Geolocation spec has some privacy requirements now
... we should ask them what their plans are re. privacy
Larry: Re.privacy ... we should schedule a review after we read the position papers for the workshop
Noah: I have an action to ask Tomas whether I could attend the Workshop
... I will report back on the workshop
Dan: I am working on a position paper with a colleauge from Vodaphone
... I would like to take an Action to work on a finding on 'minimization'
Noah mentions opportunity costs
Noah: Did we learn anything from the WGs that we want to work on
<noah> AM: I spent the morning at the agenda setting session for the HTML5 group
<noah> AM: They spelled out a timeline to go to last call
<noah> AM: They want all proposals for issue resolutions by 23 Feb 2011
<noah> LM: Change proposals
<noah> AM: My guess is that they are not going to resolve everything by last call
Noah: Paul said "we are going to determine and resolve all our issues before we go to last call". May not get agreement from the raiser that the issue has been resolved to his satisfaction
<noah> Noah: In particular, they understand that they may get comments on the same issues after last call.
<noah> AM: There are three issues open that may be interesting to the TAG. 1) HTML versioning 2) Distributed/Decentralized Extensibility 3) RDFa prefixes too complicated
Noah: I had an action re, terminology in the HTML spec re. conformance in the case where there are extensions
... the spec says 'applicable specs may be used to create extension' then tere is some langauge that I am unhappy with
... seems like the user can decide what is conforming
... they need better wording re. conformance
... I raised the issue and it will be discussed at 4pm today
LM: Questions what they say
Noah: I'm talking about deltas ... extensions
<lmm> think the issue comes down to why you define 'conforming document' and what the interoperability consequences of that definition is
Noah: They seems to say that you are conforming if you want it be
<lmm> normally the benefit of defining 'conforming document' is that 'conforming documents' will work with 'conforming document readers'. Allowing arbitrary extensions to 'conforming document' will break that interoperability promise
Noah: They have diluted the meaning of 'conformance'
<noah> Noah: Exactly, Larry, that's why I'm raising this issue
Noah: I think we are agreeing
LMM: I comes down to the conformance of the document
<lmm> there isn't an issue with conforming readers also implements extensions
LMM: It is not a problem for readers
<lmm> or is it? it depends on the nature of the extensions?
Noah: There is no bound to the changes I can make ... I can replace < with (
<lmm> if the 'extension' actually changes the behavior of existing conforming documents, then the 'applicable specification' probably isn't conforming
Noah: Say that 'this doc conforms to HTML and this extension document'.
LMM: Can extensions change existing behavior?
Noah: I don't think that is ruled out
<noah> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requirements
<noah> When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed, either this specification can be updated accordingly, or an extension specification can be written that overrides the requirements in this specification. When someone applying this specification to their activities decides that they will recognize the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an applicable specification for the purposes of conformance requirements in this specif
<lmm> too many meaningless terms in this
<noah> Authors must not use elements, attributes, or attribute values for purposes other than their appropriate intended semantic purpose. Authors must not use elements, attributes, or attribute values that are not permitted by this specification or other applicable specifications.
<lmm> "authors must not" -- should be "conforming documents must not"
<noah> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178
Noah: This is their issue 140
<noah> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/140
<noah> ISSUE-140: clarify the applicability of the term "conforming document" in cases where "applicable specifications" had been used to augment or change the base HTML5 specification
<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-140 failed, please let sysreq know about it
<lmm> suggest change proposal that just removes the text that doesn't add to the value of the specification
Noah: Larry argued we shd set goals and dates
... we are working in parallel on a bunch of stuff
<lmm> want to go back to HTML discussion we just had, to suggest we write a change proposal, with due date ... Jan 15
Noah: Perhaps look at work on Web Apps and pick one or two topics and ask whole TAG to work on it
... so when a draft comes out people will read it and comment on it
LMM: We shd discuss what our product will be.
LMM: Re. HTML issue we shd create a change proposal
Noah: I did create a change proposal
... and put it in Bugzilla
... they put aside and I raised an issue
LMM: We should not schedule discussion unless we have a document
Ashok: I think some brainstorming is good
<lmm> In this particular case, I think we should schedule the TAG to develop the change proposal
Noah: I would like to try this
LMM: In the case of the HTML issue, unless it is resolved to our satisfaction the TAG should create a change proposal
<lmm> I am saying that we should not talk about things that we're not willing to "engage" on
Noah: Explains the history
LMM: Disagrees with what happened
Noah: If TAG has an interest in this we can pick it up and pursue it
LMM: If issue not resolved to our satisfaction, TAG shd create a change proposal
Noah: There is a change proposal ... I can bring it to the TAG
<lmm> consider possibly finding on versioning specifically on extensions
Ashok: Yes, if we can bound it
<noah> ACTION: Noah to report results of HTML5 WG consideration of conformance for extensions (their ISSUE 140), get TAG to prepare change proposal if necessary Due: 2010-11-16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/05-minutes#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-498 - Report results of HTML5 WG consideration of conformance for extensions (their ISSUE 140), get TAG to prepare change proposal if necessary Due: 2010-11-16 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-11-12].
Noah: You shd not be able to claim conformance if your doc does not conform to the unextended spec
LMM: Will the doc be parsed by a conforming reader
<lmm> there might be two levels of "conforming document", based on the "ignore any element or attribute you dont understand"
<lmm> the current text doesn't seem to enforce the interoperability requirement between "conforming documents" and "conforming readers". the question is whether an "applicable specification" might make a currently "conforming reader" into a "non-conforming reader"
Noah: Conforming readers accept all bit streams
LMM: But must accept in a conforming sense
Noah: Larry, you can go further than I have done and bring that to the TAG if you wish to.
LMM: Alexey said the IESG noticed that the Web was becoming an app platform and wanted to get involved in relevant architectural issues
... Alexey said they were going to schedule discussion at the Prague mtg of IETF ... wondering if TAG should prepare a paper to deliver at that conference
Ashok: What's the deadline?
Dan: A deadline may help
LMM: I am going to the mtg and can present
Yves: I would be good to show that TAG is interested in this area
<lmm> propose ACTION: Larry to coordinate with Alexey about a possible presentation, come back to TAG with ideas
Noah: I like the bounded scope
<lmm> product: presentation & slide deck ready by March 15
Ashok: Discussion about how tracker is broken
<noah> ACTION: Noah to prepare product description page for work on IETF presentation. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/05-minutes#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-499 - Prepare product description page for work on IETF presentation. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-11-12].
<noah> For IETF Product: Deliverable = Presentation to be given in March, with slide deck due 2 weeks ahead
<noah> For IETF product: subgoal is TAG agreement on content coming out of Feb F2F
<noah> ACTION: Larry to coordinate with Alexey about a possible presentation introducing IETF to TAG work on Web Apps & report to TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/05-minutes#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-500 - Coordinate with Alexey about a possible presentation introducing IETF to TAG work on Web Apps & report to TAG [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-11-12].
<noah> ACTION-500 Due 2010-11-30
<trackbot> ACTION-500 Coordinate with Alexey about a possible presentation introducing IETF to TAG work on Web Apps & report to TAG due date now 2010-11-30
<noah> ACTION: Noah to follow up on whether GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per site/app etc [self-assigned] Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/11/05-minutes#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-501 - Follow up on whether GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per site/app etc [self-assigned] Due: 2011-03-01 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-11-12].