See also: IRC log
<Larry> scribe: Larry Masinter
<Larry> scribenick: Larry
Noah: will have meeting on 12th; regrets from Tim until June 2
<plinss> Peter sends regrets for the June 2 telcon
Larry might be out on May 12
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/04/28-minutes
<DKA> I think they're good.
<noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 28 April 2011 are approved http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/04/28-minutes
topic; Administrative items
Noah: As Tim explained last week, W3C management team are asking internal groups to commit to 2-3 significant goals. Tim & Noah will continue to discuss this and will bring this to TAG.
... working on quarterly status reports, will show it & solicit input, will want a quick turn-around. Please send email about things you care about wrt status report, should have draft in next day or two.
... looking into coordinating with IAB or joint meeting, has had some interactions with Bernard Adoba, contact through PLH
... There has been discussion about Quebec in July, discussion about teeing up issues.
... Proposal they would dial into TAG F2F perhaps.
<ht> IETF Quebec is 24-28 July
Noah: I want volunteers to help develop agenda for call with IAB.
Larry: I can work on that, will solicit input from those who participate in W3C and IETF
(technical difficulties with HT phone, covering with IRC)
<noah> Henry, are you willing to help Larry with the planning?
<ht> The talk in the hall at IETF was that we need to find out more about each other, and a f2f was to be preferred as a first step.
<ht> I am not at all convinced that a telcon is a good start.
<noah> Because?
<ht> We need to get to know these guys, that's why we suggested a f2f.
<noah> Well, I think a F2F is unlikely to happen until, say, Dec. if then.
<ht> they suggested it.
<noah> Really better to wait that long vs. doing what we can now?
Larry: I will likely be in Quebec IETF
<Yves> I will be in Quebec IETF
<jar> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/81/index.html
<ht> HST might be able to be in Quebec, yes
noah: (various) issues around logistics of joint meeting
<ht> I agree that cancelling September is not an option
<ht> HST understands NRM's concerns, and will represent them
noah: It's my belief that setting up a TAG meeting tends to be the kind of thing that the next time we can book a TAG meeting will be December, or maybe TPAC
<noah> ACTION: Larry to (with help from Henry and Yves) make proposals for topics to be pursued with IAB. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-549 - With help from Henry and Yves make proposals for topics to be pursued with IAB [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-05-12].
noah: consistent with having a call on June 8 wednesday of TAG F2F
... 13-15 september meeting: think about your preferences
Larry: prefer Edinburg
Noah: <something about Norm's report from task force, missed it>
<ht> NM: NDW may join the June f2f, either by 'phone or in person, to update us on state of XML taskforce
Ashok: was really only about the "Do Not Track" header, very well organized and very well run
... It seemed that all of the stakeholders were there: Facebook, PayPal, FCC, Academics, regulators from Canada, etc. Everyone was there.
... general consensus that _something_ has to be done; a few people disagreed.
... facebook and paypal seemed to argue that they were 'special' and should be exempt. Others were saying 'we require a lot more details'. Others were really outraged, stood up and screamed, 'what the hell is going on'.
... there are a lot of details that need to be worked out. "Do we require a header or a DOM property? Do we require a response header? Is it granular, by company, by ad network, is it a site list, it is a tag list, is it personal data rather than analytical data?'
... you have to be able to do it without making it very difficult for the user. This was a concern that came up over and over again, that user's DONT actually specify their browser preferences, how to make it simple, what are the defaults, and so on.
... big question, how will we measure compliance, who will measure compliance.
... looks like we will start working group(s) to standardize this, proposals from Microsoft (to W3C) and Mozilla (to IETF). Whether we end up with a W3C or IETF working group is open.
... there will be a report from Thomas in about two weeks
noah: Is there a general assumption that the "Do Not Track" header WOULD be effective if deployed?
ashok: it was debated, it was debated by details, i do not think there was an argument that "that's the wrong direction, and we ought to be going somewhere else"
noah: we rely on the implementor of the server to actually implement this, there's nothing in the protocol to enforce?
ashok: this is part of the debate
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to ask was the CDT proposal (privacy rule-sets) or any other proposal besides DNT discussed?
dka: was CDT at the workshop, were any other proposals discussed?
ashok: A. Cooper from CDT, and (someone, missed). The gentleman spoke about privacy rule-sets, but only briefly This was put into the 'details' bucket.
... The agenda points to the position papers, http://www.w3.org/2011/track-privacy/agenda.html. Reommend Facebook's position paper in particular.
<noah> ACTION-545?
<trackbot> ACTION-545 -- Ashok Malhotra to report to TAG, after privacy workshop, regarding architecture issue on privacy and especially degree to which use cases beyond those addressed by "Do Not Track" need attention -- due 2011-05-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/545
<noah> close ACTION-545
<trackbot> ACTION-545 Report to TAG, after privacy workshop, regarding architecture issue on privacy and especially degree to which use cases beyond those addressed by "Do Not Track" need attention closed
<noah> ACTION-507?
<trackbot> ACTION-507 -- Daniel Appelquist to with Noah to suggest next steps for TAG on privacy -- due 2011-05-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/507
dka: there's an ongoing discussion, API minimization still an issue
<noah> note action items from previous privacy workshop: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Dec/att-0061/ActionItems_Workshop.pdf
<noah> I do see that last week's workshop is promising to propose a set of next steps, to be available soon.
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to discuss position papers
LM: Looks to me like a lot of the discussion at this workshop was at the policy level (what do we want to do) as opposed to technical (how do we want to do it).
... The "Do Not Track" header is in some sense a policy proposal, wrapped in a best guess implementation proposal.
ashok: the people that asked lots of questions were using them to say "well, it isn't well spelled out"
AM: It's possible that people asking questions were actually happy to delay things a bit.
LM: Not sure about that. Many of the questions looked appropriate to me.
... What are the threats we're trying to guard against? How do the mechanisms perform in those use cases?
noah: W3C point of contact is TLR; Noah & Dan will coordinate with him to brainstorm about where W3C sees this going and what the TAG can do.
NM: Proposing to recast ACTION-507 as being to work with Thomas Roessler to coordinate plan for W3C and TAG.
larry: suggest taking this as a technical and not just administrative issue: What *are* the architectual issues open, and what can the TAG do to help with them?
NM: Yes, the goal is for the TAG to deal with the architectural issues
larry: I think this is something we could work on whether or not W3C is the standards group for DNT, for example
ashok: there was a lot of talk about 'first party' and 'third party', but it was very difficult to tell a 'third party', where do we go here?
<noah> Just so you know, I'm about to propose closing ACTION-507, openening a new one on Dan with help from me to work with TLR to get ready for serious TAG discussion at F2F
<noah> close ACTION-507
<trackbot> ACTION-507 With Noah to suggest next steps for TAG on privacy closed
<noah> ACTION Dan to (with help from Noah) plan TAG work on privacy, leading to session at F2F, next step is contact with TLR
<trackbot> Created ACTION-550 - With help from Noah to plan TAG work on privacy, leading to session at F2F, next step is contact with TLR [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2011-05-12].
LM: Request Ashok's list of architectural issues from Privacy Workshop to appear on future agenda.
<noah> ACTION-539?
<trackbot> ACTION-539 -- Larry Masinter to liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background -- due 2011-03-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/539
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/04/14-minutes.html#item06
<noah> LM: There was a discussion at IETF with IANA. A mailing list was started to involve IANA, IAB, IESG, including Thomas Roessler and Philippe le Hegaret. A goal is to be in time to influence HTML WG.
Larry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0006.html: There is a mailing list ( happiana@ietf.org<mailto:happiana@ietf.org>.see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/happiana) for discussions about improving some of the processes around IANA registries and a wiki page http://www.w3.org/wiki/FriendlyRegistries listing some requirements and a place to gather explicit proposals.
yves: the HTML working group decided to put rel relations in the microformats wiki site, but if happy iana mailing list comes to a new procedure for iana registries this will be 'new information' and the issue can be reopened.
<noah> ACTION-33?
<trackbot> ACTION-33 -- Henry Thompson to revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion -- due 2011-06-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33
<noah> ACTION-121?
<trackbot> ACTION-121 -- Henry Thompson to hT to draft TAG input to review of draft ARK RFC -- due 2011-05-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/121
<ht> No interaction between those actions and this issue
<noah> ACTION-531?
<trackbot> ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries -- due 2011-04-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531
<noah> ACTION-531 Due 2011-05-27
<trackbot> ACTION-531 Draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries due date now 2011-05-27
larry: this is a swirl of administrative and architectural issues, and i think administrative dominates
<noah> ACTION-539?
<trackbot> ACTION-539 -- Larry Masinter to liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background -- due 2011-03-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/539
<noah> ACTION-478?
<trackbot> ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a second draft of a finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from Oct. 2010 F2F -- due 2011-05-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
<noah> ACTION-539?
<trackbot> ACTION-539 -- Larry Masinter to liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background -- due 2011-03-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/539
<noah> close ACTION-539?
<noah> Jonathan's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Apr/0062.html
<scribe> Scribenick: noah
JAR: RDFa is effectively a mixin to XML
... thie situation with XML and HTML with respect to RFDa is analogous... the media type registrations says something about fragment IDs, but it isn't consistent with what RDF wants
... RFC 3023, the XML media type registration, does say something about fragment IDs, but it doesn't say what RDFa needs.
... I pointed this out to the RDFa group, and they didn't seem very concerned.
... But I submitted some text. Even if they didn't fix the problem, the problem should be documented.
<jar> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/#s_Syntax_overview
JAR: The TAG (perhaps Larry) said: "well, if the problem isn't fixed, at least document it". They drafted something, and it's linked from my email.
... the resulting text is linked from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Apr/0062.html
<ht> +1 to JAR pushing back further
JAR: We looked at this again, and Noah had a concern about one sentence (scribe isn't sure which). I, JAR, agreed with Noah, and so I sent a comment.
... I did draft the sentence that says "unfortunately" for them.
<jar> Unfortunately, this practice is not at present covered by
<jar> the media type registrations ...
JAR: What's worse is that nobody is actually signed up to make this all work.
<JeniT> Currently it says "However, the media type registrations that govern the meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]) have not yet caught up with this practice."
LM: Would it help if the TAG expressed the opinion that the RDFa working group has responsibility to make sure that their specs are consistent with the rest of the Web?
JAR: Might help, or they might say not in our charter.
<larry> ScribeNick: Larry
noah: isn't it true that all W3C working groups have some responsiiblity to strive for consistency with web architecture etc. Doesn't the W3C process explicitly or implicitly put that responsibility on working groups?
yves: may not be explicit in the charter, but it's how W3C operates from day 1
jar: they're at second "Last Call"
noah: often what has happened is that, Tim, as Director, and Tag member, is how the TAG makes its opinion known
... we have some de facto if not de jure clout, what do we want to tell them?
jar: this segues into what Jeni was just doing....
<Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to say that the RDFa group don't need to solve the problem, they just need to insert JAR's weasel words
<JeniT> "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0000.html
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say Well, we >could< say "this is going to take time, but it's worth waiting for"
jeni: proposed update to MIME and Web document....
noah: we hit it with #!, RDFa, conneg, to just sort of go "we're going to punt on specs and architecture", but this is increasingly important
<noah> In a nutshell, I think it's worth debating two options:
<noah> Jeni's: It's too late, we don't want to slow down things like RDFa. Just have them put in a health warning indicating that specs are being ignored, and move along.
<noah> Alternative: decide that this is becoming an increasingly important aspect of Web arch. It's coming up with #!, with RDFa, with client-side state, and conneg. To have the core specs not being followed needs to be fixed, even if it means slowing down the freezing of specs like RDFa.
<noah> I'm really not sure which path is better, and I'm proposing that we look hard at what Jeni's drafted to see if it answers that question.
larry: Why doesn't it matter to RDF group that their fragments don't work with 3986?
jar: The namespace used for RDF is different than the namespace used by IETF, so it's OK that they're different.
... It doesn't matter to be consistent with the URI namespace that we know of.
... It's difficult to bridge these two worlds.
... take one of these document and put on XML hat, follow your nose, you get an element in the infoset; if you put on your RDF hat, you follow your nose, and you get to something, but you get to a different thing
<noah> JAR: Put on your XML hat, follow your nose, and you get to an element. Take the same input, put on your RDF hat, and you get something else.
<noah> JT: You talk also about the case where there is an element.
jeni: there are situations where there is an element that has that ID, according to IETF that uRI with fragment ID identifies that element.
<noah> JAR: Yes. Then, according to IETF, it identifies that element. Conneg makes it weird.
jar: "Follow your nose" is already broken by content negotiation
noah: there's plenty of practice out there ... content negotiation between text/html and application/xhtml+xml is 'close enough'
jar: it works well enough in the cases they care about
noah: we will pick up with this at a future
dka: will have more on API minimization for next call
noah: whole bunch of actions are due on 10th, please in email give guidance
adjourned