See also: IRC log
<JeniT> scribenick: JeniT
<scribe> Scribe: Jeni Tennison
Noah: We may have a brief call next week, but probably not
<timbl> (I can't do next week anyway.)
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/08/11-minutes
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 11-august (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/08/11-minutes) are approved
noah: please sign up to scribe
<noah> Scribing: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/F2FScribing.html
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/snapshot/report.html
Norm: The task force has produced a report
... it's been edited a few times, there's some new text from noah for an introduction
... the main stumbling block is that we want to make it more publically visible
... we would like TAG's permission to clean it up and make it public as a Draft XXXX
<timbl> Draft TAG finding
Norm: and respond to feedback
ashok: I would like to see some conclusions in the report
... even if they were preliminary
... in Section 2.5 on XML parsing
<timbl> I see: 3 Conclusions TBD.
ashok: it mentions efforts to make it more forgiving, but they are not detailed
... I'd like to know what the thinking is and where we could go
Norm: those include XML5, which should be in the references
<noah> Could write informally, indicating which conclusions look pretty firm, and which are still controversial/poorly understood
Norm: other people have done work in this space
<timbl> Reference to Polyglot?
Norm: about the conclusions: I can put something in, but it depends on what the community thinks
... the TF hasn't got any conclusions yet, except that these are ways of addressing the problems raised
ashok: and on XML5, if you could extract some recommendations
Norm: Anne's done a very good job, but I don't think anyone's looked at it with care
... we'd need to spin up a WG to look at requirements
timbl: there's a polyglot document, is there a reference to polyglot
Norm: the polyglot doc is mentioned in the text in 2.1
<noah> NW: Ooops, need to clean up references
timbl: one conclusion is that if you're publishing documents, then being conservative in what you produce involves using polyglot
... there's another discussion about what W3C should publish in
... eg using polyglot as an example for the HTML and XML communities
Norm: I don't think there are downsides in publishing documents that can be polyglot, in polyglot
... use an HTML5 parser if you're going to be parsing HTML, is a good conclusion
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk a bit more about xml5, scope and conclusions
noah: it isn't clear to me how the current structure of the document relates to its scope
... the original scope was to do more than use cases
... it was to look at the overlap between the two stacks of HTML and XML
... to avoid unnecessary duplication between the stacks
... there was some attempt to do that but it was hard to get common ground
... so use cases were a starting point
... the problem statements include the resolution
... in the draft, we need to talk about the scope of the task force
... we need to bring out new technology directions and conclusions
... is this saying that all we can do is use cases?
... if so why? or is there something broader?
Norm: I can attempt to draft something around that
... personally, we tried to find common ground, and use cases helped to look at that
... after looking at the use cases, there didn't seem to be any problems to solve
noah: so the document should say that
Norm: ok, this is good feedback
... we'll address this in a new draft
... get the TF to agree to it
... then come back and see if that helps
noah: is that practical?
Norm: nothing new will happen before the F2F
<noah> ACTION: Noah to ping Norm end of Sept. on revised HTML/XML report per discussion on 1 Sept 2011 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-591 - Ping Norm end of Sept. on revised HTML/XML report per discussion on 1 Sept 2011 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-09-08].
<noah> ACTION-591 Due 2011-09-30
<trackbot> ACTION-591 Ping Norm end of Sept. on revised HTML/XML report per discussion on 1 Sept 2011 due date now 2011-09-30
<noah> ScribeNick: noah
Noah: Jeni is taking the lead for the TAG on the microdata/RDFa work
... Looking for perspectives from the TAG
JeniT: There is disagreement as to whether the task force is going to be an effective way to make progress. Some sense that each 'camp' is moving forward mostly independenlty, leading to them being out there side-by-side
... Even if so, my personal feeling is that there is useful work for a group of some sort to do in helping to either identify subsets and guidance, change them to bring them together, give guidance to people doing vocabularies, etc.
... I would like to know what the TAG thinks about undertaking an effort framed in that way, and whether it's a good use of my "TAG time" in particular.
... Also curious whether we should keep pushing harder for convergence.
TimBL: My initial hopes for the task force and looking at your blog post... I had the impression that you Jeni thought there was some overlap, and perhaps that some syntax could be shared. I thought if that was the case, a task force could take a real technical look.
... Obviously, you have to get buy in. If there was a small change, e.g. to RDFa, would people be willing to consider such a shift, and similarly for microdata?
... I think Manu's letter is on the pessimistic side
<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Aug/0050.html
TimBL: If that's technically impossible, I'm willing to put away the task force. If it's technically feasible but politically problematic, then we should hold people accountable if they are intransigent. The future is longer than the past.
JeniT: I always thought if we were going to get convergence it won't be by "banging heads". Rather, it will likely be by gradually evolving the languages to the point where there is defacto commonality, which people will come to recognize and value.
... I'm somewhat inclined to do this through e.g. change proposals and bug proposals. It's important that there also be a polictical context in which such proposals would get the right attention.
Noah: F2F session
JeniT: Probably not
Noah: OK, we will not hold time, but I would welcome it if you ask for a session, even for informal brainstorming.
<JeniT> ScribeNick: JeniT
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/13-agenda.html
noah: a lot of the required reading is already available
... my intention is to wrap about 3pm on 3rd day
... the product pages have been very helpful to me
... the structure is to first take a look at each of those, and then some of the other things we have
... section 1 has proposed goals
<noah> Goals:
<noah> Make progress on our five top priority products:
<noah> Prepare client-side state finding for publication (unless we decide there's too much more to do on #! and/or RDFa use of fragids
<noah> Review status of RDFa/Microdata task force, and set up appropriate ACTIONs for tracking
<noah> Make progress on our other active products
<noah> Give guidance and feedback to Norm Walsh and the subcommittee working on XML/HTML Unification
<noah> Rebalance TAG member assignments (noting, e.g., Jeni's new responsibilities for RDFa/Microdata)
noah: in client-side state area, we are close to publishing a TAG finding
... ashok has a draft for review; vote at the meeting to publish
... next goal will change (reviewing status of RDFa/microdata TF)
... that's now a maybe
... we also need to rebalance from people who are overburdened
... HTML5 Last Call -- Overview
... this closed on August 3rd
... the only thing we wanted to take forward was microdata/RDFa
... we will review and hopefully declare success
... track microdata/RDFa as its own item
... this will be a short session, to make sure we haven't lost loose ends
... might look briefly at microdata/RDFa
... ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-60): Web Applications: Client-side state
<noah> TAG Finding: Identifying Application State Due date: 1 Nov 2011
<noah> 25 June 2011: Draft for TAG review based on June 2011 F2F review
<noah> 1 Sept 2011: Last-call quality draft
<noah> W3C Note with FPWD (Raman's version) indicating this work no longer on Rec. track (to be done after reference to finding available)
noah: goal is detailed review and a vote on the draft
... also, when Raman did a 1st version it was put on the Rec track
... we agreed for Raman's draft to be published as a Note
... at the F2F in June
ashok: this is Raman's old write-up from 2009?
noah: yes, but it's the version that was published as a FPWD, so the W3C process means we have to do this
... we can indicate that the TAG finding is the follow-on to that work
<Yves> that's indeed right, final note with s SoTD explaining where the work is now
noah: ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): IETF Draft on MIME and the Web
<noah> Product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/mimeweb.html
<noah> Larry emails: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Aug/0099.html
noah: Larry has said in the last few weeks saying that doing a separate draft from the TAG is no longer the right goal
... lots of efforts at the IETF that cover the space
... recommends refocussing on reviewing those
... discussion on whether to do that or not, and what to say to W3C management
<jar> +1
noah: ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-60): Web Applications: Fragment ID Semantics and MIME Types
... ISSUE-57 (HttpRedirections-57), ISSUE-63 (metadataArchitecture-63) and ISSUE-14 (HttpRange-14) : URI Definition Discovery; Metadata Architecture
jar: ISSUE-57 and Persistence are carry over from June
noah: ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-60): Web Applications: Client-side Storage
... ashok and I have an action to propose an activity here
ashok: I've been trying to find apps that use client-side storage, and I've not been very successful
... one wonderful app and a bunch of toys
noah: I'd have thought Google mobile apps would have been poster children
ashok: sure, we can argue that you can do these things offline
... I was trying to find things where you can write different styles of apps
... so if there are more examples, that would be wonderful
noah: if you leave off the Google apps, you're leaving off the main interesting things
... if you have a choice between local and cloud storage, there's a tendency to do it in the cloud
... so it's natural to see the main uses as tackling network connectivity issues
ashok: different parts of the elephant
noah: ISSUE-50 (URNsAndRegistries-50): Persistent references
... I think we're invested in this work
jar: it's in a continuing brainstorming stage
... F2Fs are the best opportunity to talk about this
<jar> we're ready to do a product page
<jar> or will be at end of session
noah: ISSUE-25 (deepLinking-25): Can publication of hyperlinks constitute copyright infringment?
... draft was reviewed at last F2F
... were supposed to get some legal advice
... Dan says he hasn't had much luck yet
jar: I can get thinh to review it
noah: might we find a time for him to dial in?
jar: I'll mention it
noah: ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML Unification
... we just covered that
... there are also optional items
... carried over bodies from June F2F
... Web Applications: Design of APIs for Web Applications (minimization)
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
<noah> Key deliverables with dates:
<noah> By 15 October 2011: an approved TAG finding on API minimization
<noah> Schedules:
<noah> Initial draft finding for community review 2011-07-31
noah: my inclination is to have a session to straighten out a realistic schedule
... Product: Coordination with IAB/IETF on architecture of web applications: Joint session with Internet Architecture Board
... we had the joint phone session with the IAB
... we talked about trying to find other times to meet jointly
Yves: I think F2F time would be a waste
<noah> ACTION-565?
<trackbot> ACTION-565 -- Noah Mendelsohn to talk to Bernard about possible IAB/TAG co-location -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/565
<noah> Noah to schedule ACTION-565 for telcon, not F2F
<noah> ACTION-565?
<trackbot> ACTION-565 -- Noah Mendelsohn to talk to Bernard about possible IAB/TAG co-location -- due 2011-08-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/565
noah: ACTION-545: Privacy
... Web Applications: Security
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/08/11-minutes#item04
noah: working on guidance from 11 August to have at most 1/2 hour
... on security, we have John Kemp's work
... but we haven't identified who in the TAG should be doing anything, or what it should be
ashok: one thought is to start a security wiki to spell out the state of the art on the web
... probably worthwhile to also have a wiki about privacy
... as a spot where people can write about what's going on
noah: if other things crowd these out, they probably won't happen
ashok: I think it's worth speaking briefly about whether we ought to start a wiki
noah: the only reason I'm hesitant is because that might be hard to do briefly
ashok: I think it's important because privacy and security are central
... I think we should have something
noah: RFC 3023bis and IRI
... is there anything that I missed for the agenda?
... if there are any corrections on relative priorities
plinss: Unicode normalisation?
<jar> hmm.... we do need to talk about 3023 even if briefly...
<noah> Email from Addison Phillips http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html
plinss: This gets interesting in how it impacts HTML5, APIs and so on
... I think it's something that TAG should be working on
noah: some others were saying that other people have it as their day job
timbl: does the 2nd paragraph mean that current guidelines can't be technically implemented?
plinss: they're not being implemented because they're hard to implement for performance reasons
... the TAG needs to say that this is important, across specs
... or to say too little too late and forget it
noah: would it make sense for you (plinss) to write something that the TAG might say (to the private address)
... it sounds like something that we would write email to address rather than a finding
... we can then discuss that email
plinss: I can do that
ashok: I wonder if we should have Addison come on a TAG telcon to tell us what's going on
noah: yes, but it would have to be after the F2F
... we could send an email to Addison
... saying we're working on a position
... is this worth F2F time
plinss: I think it's worth a little bit of time
<noah> ACTION Plinss to draft possible TAG position statement on Unicode, and alert Addison Phillips of our intention to attempt to get agreement starting in October after the F2F
<trackbot> Created ACTION-592 - Draft possible TAG position statement on Unicode, and alert Addison Phillips of our intention to attempt to get agreement starting in October after the F2F [on Peter Linss - due 2011-09-08].
noah: does Hixie dropping the section resolve your concern, timbl?
timbl: yes, that resolves one concern, raising the concern about no standard mapping from microdata to RDF
noah: ok, we need more discussion of it
timbl: it comes under the TF discussion