See also: IRC log
Regrets for next week: Jeni
next scribe: Larry
<jar> Corrections for Wednesday
<jar> Topic need "y" ("discovery")
<jar> Change "of" to "therefore"" after "proposition"
<jar> "expect ion" should be "expectation"
<jar> misspelling "prirotize"
approval of f2f minutes, last week we got some correction requests
<Larry> i'm willing to let them go ;)
<jar> one other: "will be out-competed" said by Harry Halpin, not me
RESOLUTION: minutes of the Edinburgh 13-15 Sept F2F approved, subject to editorial changes (see above)
last week minutes: any comments?
Ashok: some typos but ok
RESOLUTION: minutes of last week telcon approved
TPAC is coming up, any preference for morning or afternoon for TAG meeting?
(monday and friday)
no preference, so up to the chair
<Ashok> I will be at TPAC ... I was not on your list from last week
Note also that the HTML/XML TF is moving forward
Preparation for the upcoming TAG election. It will be discussed during TPAC
<Larry> As long as Ian and Jeff are discussing waht they want th e TAG to do, I'm happy
Larry proposed that the dinner slot could lead to something more substantive, but it might be a busy time, so we might suggest a BoF
<noah> YL: I did check with SPDY folks, no answer yet
=> due date bumped by one week
<noah> ACTION-615 Due 2011-10-13
<trackbot> ACTION-615 Check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC due date now 2011-10-13
<noah> DKA: Deep linking breakout is confirmed.
DKA: I expect that rigo will join us for the session on friday, will confirm as soon that I know
noah: is the breakout confirmed or not yet?
jar: it might be possible that one cc attorney could be interested by this breakout session
<Larry> we can invite experts? or schedule a break-out session ?
<Larry> maybe we could propose breakouts on specific TAG topics, like copyright, early normalization
Larry: I wonder about poposing breakouts on other topics, like on html, privacy etc... it this a way of engaging communities?
<Larry> specifically about topics that the TAG has discussed, since we have something substantitve to start with
DKA: from the wiki page, it's an open space process, there are 28 slots then an lection process
<JeniT> There are already a couple of breakout proposals on privacy already
DKA: proposal can be merged if they are similar. I don't think there will be more than the 28 available slots
<Larry> well, "permanance", "versioning", things TAG has discussed and that TAG members there one or more of us could lead a discussion about
DKA: for deep linking, it might be better to invite people we want to talk with for a specific session, and keep the breakout to reach other people
Noah: if TAG members want to propose sessions... but don't overcommit by having conflicts between sessions
<Larry> I'd especially want to look for things where community input might give us some direction on what we should do
<Larry> hmm, like on MIME and the Web, MIME types, sniffing, etc.
there were discussions on js api being too biased for that or not
<noah> "noted some potential issues, including lack of adequate support for publish-subscribe paradigm, issues related to caching, issues related to appropriate URI definition for local resources, and the potential cost of indirection ."
<Larry> The main thing I'd look for is an architecture where the distinction between local and network resources is orthogonal to the interface for the data
<Larry> Ashok and I were talking about this for client storage vs. cching
Ashok: js will be lots faster than doing REST stuff in accessing the camera.
<Larry> This is an interesting point for calendars, for example, where you might have a local calandar or a network calander
jar: they might use the slower approach if things are not provided natively by the js access (like security or privacy)
<Larry> it's really orthogonal
noah: it depends on the kind of optimizations you want to do
larry: there are things like data storage, local or remote, cache etc... it was a good idea to have the interface independent of the fact that storage is local or remote
you want the data interface to be the same, regardless of how the data is accessed (locally or not)
<Larry> there's a data interface and an administrative interface
jar: the webarch doc already says that things should be identified by URIs
<Larry> i think webarch isn't enough, it's not only "identify" it's "access in the same manner"
noah: it is one side of the trade off, on one hand we have identification, but there is also performance. file:// uris are different than http:// uris, as file:// is localhost, so there is a need to identify the local camera, but do I want to use a local URI or a global one?
noah: do you want to propose to discuss with the DAP working group during TPAC?
<Larry> i think we could invite Frederick to talk to us even not at TPAC?
Noah: the proposed response is to say that there might be indeed some arch questions, and we should discuss at TPAC
<trackbot> ACTION-613 -- Daniel Appelquist to organize deep linking breakout at TPAC -- due 2011-10-06 -- OPEN
<noah> close ACTION-613
<trackbot> ACTION-613 Organize deep linking breakout at TPAC closed
<noah> close ACTION-593
<trackbot> ACTION-514 -- Daniel Appelquist to draft finding on API minimization -- due 2011-10-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<noah> Jonathan's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0014.html
jar: Henry is the only one to have spoken on this, so we should work on it together
<jar> I said "or Jeni", scribe didn't get it...
jar: not sure how urgent it is (wrt RDFa's LC comments)
but it would be a "nice to have"
<jar> rdfa wants to advance the draft ASAP... but they have been saying that for several months... I think they are stalled on something else. so there is no specific deadline, just "please soon or else you won't be able to give input"
<JeniT> this relates to the fragids and mime types draft which Henry and Peter are (I think) working on
Noah: do you prefer to go over email, or schedule telcon time when Henry is there?
noah: let's plan that for next week
<trackbot> ACTION-608 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<noah> That one came from F2F overflow
<trackbot> ACTION-583 -- Ashok Malhotra to (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 -- due 2011-08-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-07-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<noah> close ACTION-608?
Ashok: the WG started, so let's close my action
<noah> AM: Working group started, no need for charter review
<noah> close ACTION-583
<trackbot> ACTION-583 (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 closed
<noah> ACTION-566 Due 2011-10-11
<trackbot> ACTION-566 Contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. due date now 2011-10-11
ashok: is there anything else we should be doing in the privacy arena?
509, just discussed
<trackbot> ACTION-521 -- Noah Mendelsohn to figure out where we stand with http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec track -- due 2011-08-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
long ago, the TAG worked on the following document:
short document, ending with good practice
<jar> no brainer
to summarize, if a ns is defined about some animals, is it ok to add new ones several years later?
should you provision for that in the first spec?
<noah> Finding: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
Note that this is already a finding
if we say it's a only finding, we should close the rec track doc (by publishing a Note?)
the question is "so should it be a full REC or not?"
jar: did that finding had any effect on namespaces that has been defined since then?
<Larry> this isn't in scope for this discussion, but i wonder about this recommendation having any meaning. You can say wahtever policy you want for the future, but how does that prevent a new rec from overriding an old one anyway?
noah: not that I recall
Yves: not in the spec I tracked
jar: so is publishing this document as a REC will change this?
<JeniT> webarch already has the good practice "An XML format specification SHOULD include information about change policies for XML namespaces." http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-doc-ns-policy
<jar> "Specifications that define namespaces SHOULD explicitly state their policy with respect to changes in the names defined in that namespace."
<Larry> I think this is in the space of extensibility policies
<Larry> no rec
<JeniT> no rec
<DKA> no rec
<noah> no rec
<Ashok> no rec
<Larry> i'd want to see something mroe generally on extensibility, rather than narrowly on XML namespaces
peter: REC has more weight than findings, so I'd like to see TAG publishing more RECs
<Larry> I'm reacting to the "things W3C should stop doing" google+ thread which included XML
<noah> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ will be taken off the REC track. This does not settle the question of whether the TAG should put more emphasis on RECs in general.
<noah> RESOLUTION: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ will be taken off the REC track. This does not settle the question of whether the TAG should put more emphasis on RECs in general.
<noah> close ACTION-521
<trackbot> ACTION-521 Figure out where we stand with http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ on the rec track closed
<noah> ACTION Noah to work with Yves to take http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ off the Rec track Due 2011-11-15
<trackbot> Created ACTION-617 - Work with Yves to take http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-namespaceState-20060329/ off the Rec track Due 2011-11-15 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-10-13].
<trackbot> ACTION-537 -- Daniel Appelquist to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating to interaction -- due 2011-07-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
(proposal to close it)
<JeniT> I agree with Dan
the TAG is putting down work on interactions by closing this action
<noah> close ACTION-537
<trackbot> ACTION-537 Reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating to interaction closed
Noah: note that we will have a call next week