See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 21 July 2011
<scribe> scribenick: Larry
<scribe> scribe: Larry Masinter
Larry & Jeni point out a couple of places in the minutes where it isn't clear who is talking -- probably scribe speaking as self
JeniT: reminder register for TPAC.
... next call August 4
... any other regrets?
larry: might not make 4 august
<JeniT> I won't make 4 August
JeniT: Henry will put together local arrangement page for F2F
Larry: . ACTION: Henry to put together local arrangements page ?
JeniT: we sent a comment, they made two bugs, one on Microdata and one on RDFa, and the bug on microdata was just closed
... JeniT said in email she thought closing the bug was 'fine' and that it the task force would submit bugs
JeniT: (recapping events in HTML and TAG)
... I agree that the recommendation to not do anything now but wait for the task force is the right decision.
Henry: What you said didn't jive with what I read.
... My understanding was that if we didn't raise an issue we wouldn't have a chance to see any changes until the "next version".
JeniT: *IF* we raise an issue, and then nothing happened, then it would be put off to the next version.
Henry: If we do nothing we get an option at last call review?
Yves: it is more of the role of the task force to raise issues and proposals.
Larry: I think this is nonsense.
... Our comments remain whether or not there is a task force, whether or not the task force is sabotaged or people refuse to participate, the comment still remains.
... they're not actually responding to our comments, they give us some funny process with change proposals and schedules, but we've not gotten a response to our actual technical comment.
JeniT: if we push back now we are in a worse position.
Larry: we had a technical comment, we should get a technical response to our technical comment.
HT: we hope that the task force is going to be the source of resolution to the issue.
Larry: we're getting a "we won't respond to your comment unless the task force succeeds".
Larry: I think they should respond to our technical comment, or promise to respond at some later day.
Larry: for example, they could leave the bugs open pending the task force resolution.
... The bugs could actually be addressed now, without the task force.
(discussion of alternatives)
HT: highight paragraphs and say we expect to re-open these bugs.
Larry: that isn't sufficient for me. I'd like the bugs to be visible during last call review as open.
... I would like the bugs to remain open while the task force is deliberating, to have them show as open rather than closed. Closing the bugs is misleading.
HT: Noah could reply to HTML chairs that we'd like them to keep the bugs open
... I will draft something and post it into IRC later.
Larry: the task force is just us trying to be helpful, but it's their responsibility to address the issues.
jar: Who's responsibility is the formation of the task force?
((discussion of task force))
<scribe> chair: DKA
Larry: Some push-back on scope from one of the task force members… Worth talking about.
... Here, we have 2 incompatible things. What are the workflows that start off with one and end with another, the real difficulties?
... My expectation is that the task force report would summarise what the issues were.
... And explain why things are different and explore some of the possibilities of changing one or the other to make things better.
... E.g., HTML with upper case element names might improve compatibility.
Dan: it seemed to me that the report was pretty dismissive about the impact of polyglot, but my interpretation of when polyglot was useful was in systems that would be used by orgaizations where they would have the need to round trip HTML.
... the one sentence about 'limited applicability' seemed overly dismissive.
... it did seem like the report reinforced the idea that "you can't fix this problem"...... where do we take things from there?
Larry: I conjecture we should ask the task force to be more explicit, expand their report significantly… Verify that their charter is broader.
Jeni: should they produce a more detailed review of the differences between HTML and XML?
<trackbot> ISSUE-67 -- HTML and XML Divergence -- open
Larry: there was a thread on www-tag about "Revised HTML/XML Task Force Report"
<trackbot> ACTION-437 -- Tim Berners-Lee to create a task force on XML / HTML convergence -- due 2011-06-01 -- CLOSED
Dan: I can write some text to the tag mailing list about the place of polyglot (as a suggested input to the document) - it should be grounded in what our original call to the HTML working group about polyglot.
... How can we communicate some of these ideas? Does it make sense to ask Norm to participate in the next TAG call?
JAR: I was thinking the same thing.
<DKA> . ACTION: Dan to ask Norm to participate in next TAG call regarding clarifying what the TAG wants out of the task force.
<DKA> ACTION: Dan to ask Norm to participate in next TAG call regarding clarifying what the TAG wants out of the task force. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-584 - Ask Norm to participate in next TAG call regarding clarifying what the TAG wants out of the task force. [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2011-07-28].
larry: i wrote on this thread what *I* would like to see, but do other TAG members agree they want those, or are these just me
Dan: also we will discuss on the mailing list the points Larry has raised and use this as a agenda for our discussion with Norm on the 4th (assuming he can make it).
Larry, quoting: "Maybe I'm asking too much, but I was hoping that the report from a task force set up to work through xml-html convergence issues might give a better idea of how serious the problems with various approaches might be, to help inform decisions. Html pages that cannot be made polyglot..... are they rare? Common? Only happens with pages that also have significant problems in ogher ways?"
Dan: scope of workshop to include "web apps" and "offline operation" not just local storage
<jar_> web app = 'runs in the browser' ?
Dan: ((list of web application approaches .... implementation feedback from deployment of appcache that 'this isn't exactly what we need'))
<trackbot> ACTION-341 -- Yves Lafon to follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 -- due 2011-05-10 -- OPEN
Yves: scheduled for Saturday
<trackbot> ACTION-350 -- Henry Thompson to revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion -- due 2011-08-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership -- due 2011-04-26 -- OPEN
larry: rel-ownership is related to IETF and IANA issues
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to show a draft of email to Noah for Paul Cotton
HT: will post proposed draft:
<ht> "Thanks for clarifying the process options.
<ht> ...The TAG is not quite clear how to proceed. Your final paragraph
<ht> ...("Since the TAG's plan appears to be to create a task force...")
<ht> ...comes close to what we would like, in that it makes clear that as
<ht> ... and when the task force reports one or more Issues can be created
<ht> ... against bugs 13100 and 13101 , . But from our perspective we
<ht> ... would be happier if the Status of these bugs were such that they
<ht> ... showed up in searches of Open bugs during the life of the proposed
<ht> ... task force.
<ht> In particular, it appears that if we don't want 13100 to be Closed
<ht> ... officially on 1 August, we have to either escalate (not appropriate
<ht> ... at this point) or reopen (not appropriate at this point). Could you
<ht> ... please arrange for the bugs to just remain unclosed until, based on
<ht> ...the task force outcome, the TAG either reopens it, escalates, or
<ht> ... accepts the _status quo_ and closes it? Fullscale closure seems
<ht> misleading as long as a task force is actively pursuing the
<ht> matter. . .
<DKA> .RESOLVED send the above to Noah to send to Paul from the TAG.
<DKA> RESOLUTION Send the above to Noah to send to Paul from the TAG.
Larry: we have a product on MIME...
... if we want changes to MIME itself then we need to work with IETF - a tag finding isn't enough.
we need to review the Freed document.
My document has expired; we could update it but by itself it doesn't do anything.
the Freed document updates the entire MIME registration document
<JeniT> There's very little on fragment identifiers.
Larry: My document was a requirements document to point out what was wrong. While the above (draft-freed-media-type-regs-00) updates the entire mime type reg process.
Dan: Should we review draft-freed-media-type-regs-00 against your requirements?
<Yves> yes fragment identifiers, issue of compound documents, clash between generic things (foo/* and +bar)
larry: if we want to be effective, getting updates to the freed document seems to be the path.
... I'm interested - I would like to work with someone.
<JeniT> I can look from a fragid lens, will try to write something up while I'm on holiday (1st 2 weeks of August)
<DKA> .ACTION: Larry to meet with Yves prior to the IETF document to review this document.
<DKA> ACTION: Larry to meet with Yves prior to the IETF document to review this draft-freed-media-type-regs-00. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-585 - Meet with Yves prior to the IETF document to review this draft-freed-media-type-regs-00. [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-07-28].
Larry: IRI working group is meeting - they are making good progress.
... [summarizes] they are having a meeting next week. It's open. You can call in.
… we can carry TAG sentiment to it.