See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Ashok Malhotra
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
Noah: There will be a call next week.
Approval of minutes from March 1
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/01-minutes.html
<JeniT> I thought they were very good
Minutes approved w/o objection
Noah: Re. IETF meeting in Paris
Yves: Larry and I will be there.
<noah> I would like to delegate the TAG coordination to Yves, if that's agreeable?
<JeniT> +1
Yves: Will try and schedule a meeting with Robin
Noah: Thomas wanted to know which sessions TAG members would attend
... Yves, could you coordinate, please
HT: We can get a free pass if we ask the Director
Noah: There is a another URI scheme being discussed http+aes
... should we discuss this?
jar: We don't have TAG consensus on this issue
HT: I would like to discuss, please
Ashok: +1
<JeniT> +1
<Yves> +1
Noah: I will schedule discussion next week.
Noah: I put in a number of links in the agenda
... we should look at our workplan
... Jeni had some suggestions
... some about parallel sessions
... I have a list of items people wanted to discuss at f2f
<noah> Hi Larry, we're just now starting on the F2F discussion
<noah> See the Agenda
Jeni discusses parallel sessions and some longer sessions and some sessions with external people
<noah> Yes, Larry. We discussed IETF. Yves has the lead on getting IETF/TAG coordination set.
<noah> AM: I somewhat disagree on parallel sessions. Work on smaller groups should be done ahead of the meeting. The plenary meeting is an opportunity to work with the group as a whole.
<noah> AM: I feel that one of the valuable things about speaking to everybody is that someone whom you haven't been speaking with has a fresh perspective.
<noah> AM: So, I'm negative on breakout panels.
<jar> Reminder, someone else brought up the idea of parallel sessions, maybe John Kemp or Dan Appelquist, about a year to two years ago, so we've already had this discussion (don't remember exactly how it came out)
<noah> JT: In the ideal case you're right, but in practice we're distributed.
Noah:In the past, some members have found time before or after the scheduled meetings for interaction in smaller groups. On the assumption that's not economically practical in this case, it's just a tradeoff: any time taken in breakouts comes out of time spent all together. I don't have a strong feeling what's best in this case ... perhaps make a topic list and see how the times work out and then we can see how to allocate the time.
<JeniT> I'd also say, that we definitely should have full-group time on these sessions: I absolutely agree with Ashok's point that other people have valuable input
<noah> TAG Work Plan: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/
Next topic: Frag Id Semantics
HT: I have not done any work on this for a while
... we can discuss it but let's not put it as a high priority item.
<JeniT> This is one of the topics where I thought some small-group F2F time would be valuable
Noah: We should discuss how important this work is
HT: It's important for 3023bis reasons
<noah> HT: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-01-05.html is important mainly for 3023bis reasons.
Noah: We should meet with Chris and find out how important this really is
HT: It's important because specs are heading towards giving conflicting advice about semantics for Frag Ids
... specifically because 3023 is going in the direction that Frag Id semantics are generic and this conflicts with RDFa usage
<noah> Proposed ACTION: ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers
HT: I will try and produce something to frame the discussion
<JeniT> This is also a topic I would like us to nail, to the extent that after the F2F it is possible for HT and others to document what we have agreed
<noah> ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers - Due 2012-03-13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-674 - encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-13].
<noah> ACTION: Henry to frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis - Due 2012-03-27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-675 - frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-03-27].
Next Topic: Publishing and Linking
Jeni: We should get agreement and publish as a WD
<noah> JT: I would like to use F2F agreement that the draft sent a week or two ago can be published as a WD. Might require line-by-line review
JT: Would like to work on examples
<noah> NM: You want small group time specifically for examples?
<noah> JT: Yes, for motivational examples
<noah> AM: We had spoken of publishing this as a Recommendation rather than a Finding. Thinking about it...what are we actually recommending here? We are basically laying out the landscape. No recommendations.
<noah> JT: It has best practices rather than new technologies.
<masinter> The goal was to get community consensus
<noah> Jeni... you said there was a draft a couple of weeks ago...do you have the link and announcement e-mail please?
<JeniT> I'll find it
<noah> Thank you!
<masinter> We're recommending that people use this framework to talk about the problem
<noah> Tempted to cut off discussion of whether it's a Rec
<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0087.html
<jar> If the goal is to gather consensus, then Rec track is our only choice.
<masinter> Could we ask someone else to talk about us on the topic?
<JeniT> Maybe Rigo?
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
<JeniT> ... although we've already had him in at TPAC...
Next topic: URI Documentation Discovery
<noah> httpRange-14 change proposals seem like the main focus for now, right?
Noah: How should we organize discussion?
<noah> NM: I just need to know how to plan F2F sessions. How many sessions, how long? Anything special I need to do to focus the discussion.
<noah> JAR: Hope to have more input than we have so far, goal is (ideally) to figure out what our consensus message should be moving forward. Then we can figure out how to document it. In any case, no separate sessions.
<noah> JT: When are the proposals due?
JT: Will the change proposals be in by the f2f?
jar: I gave March 29 as the deadline.
<noah> AM: What if we get nothing?
<noah> JAR: Seems to mean that people don't care to participate in consensus process. We then move down the Rec track and see if that gets attention, or kick it onto a different path.
jar: Then people are saying they don't care or don't want to engage with us
... that's what we should decide at f2f ... or try a different tack
<masinter> I'm more convinced than ever that the document makes fundamental assumptions that are incorrect, that URIs are intrinsically ambiguous carrying "meaning" and that the "change proposal" process presumes agreement about the problem statement and only wants to argue about solutions
<masinter> Is there anyone willing to spend an hour or two on the phone with me talking about this?
Larry: I can talk with JAR or anyone else on the phone about this before the f2f
<masinter> I don't want to spend TAG time on the discussion if I can't make progress convincing anyone 1-1
<noah> NM: Uhh...
<masinter> Contrapositive: if no one is willing to talk about it 1-1, we shouldn't spend TAG time on it
<noah> JAR: I can talk to Larry, with or without Ashok.
<noah> NM: For now, I won't schedule httpRange-14 next week, but just ask if you want it.
Next topic: MIME Types
Larry: There is work happening at IETF e.g. Happiana ... maybe we can review that
Noah: Larry, you wanted to do other things with other TAG members
Larry: There are some workshops e.g. Language Evolution, Philosophy of the Web that may be interesting ...
Noah: This is after the f2f?
Larry: Yes, about 10 days after
Noah: We can decide that this is no longer a major effort
... you were going to draft a close-out page
... I need to know what success is
<masinter> I don't have an opinion about TAG planning for future work
<masinter> I have opinions about the technology
<noah> Noah: OK, then I will make the decision that we ramp this down as a high priority effort for now...one of us needs to update the product page to say that (TBD). We can continue to track the IETF Happiana work as you suggest
Noah: Should we have a session on Happiana and related things or a session on what happened at IETF?
<masinter> I defer to Yves for votes on what he thinks will be helpful for the TAG to discuss
<Yves> It will depends on what happens during the IETF meeting
<noah> NM: Will later need input on what IETF-related sessions we want at the F2F. Could be overall debrief on Paris meetings and/or more specific sessions, e.g. on Happiana and registries.
Noah: Should we discuss TAG effectiveness ... we can think about this and discuss later
HT: No, thank you!
Tim: Supports Henry!
Noah: I will schedule session on API Minimization
<masinter> Has there been any feedback on the documents now released?
Noah: Re: XML/HTML Unification not sure if there is anything new
<masinter> Wait for feedback
Tim: We should have a session if we get sufficient feedback
<noah> ACTION-657?
<trackbot> ACTION-657 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of possible XML/HTML Unification next steps -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/657
<masinter> encourage feedback? Ask for feedback at WWW2012?
<noah> ACTION: Noah to check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/08-minutes#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-676 - Check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-15].
Noah: Should we discuss PhiloWeb at f2f?
<noah> NM: Do you think the PhiloWeb thing merits TAG F2F discussion?
Larry: Henry will you be there?
HT: Yes, I will be there
<masinter> Yes, I will be at PhiloWeb 2012 and will likely present slides I originally put together for TAG talking about versioning, registries, etc.
Next Topic: Persistence of Identifiers
HT: Nothing new since January
... nothing will happen between now and the f2f
... I do not want f2f time for this
<noah> HT: No F2F time on persistence of identifiers please
Next Topic: Web Application Storage
<noah> NM: Web app storage...will you have a draft for F2F
<noah> AM: If we agree on Product page today, I could start working with Robin and maybe Larry, and then depending on how that goes, we see what I can draft.
<noah> NM: If I switch to discussing storage now, does that buy you a week of preparing drafts?
<noah> AM: Not needed, I'll move ahead.
<noah> AM: So, yes...you can go ahead with F2F planning.
<noah> NM: Should I assume a session on storage draft?
<noah> AM: Will tell you next week.
<noah> NM: Fine, but please remind me if I forget to ask.
Next Topic: Items TAG members have asked to discuss at f2f
<noah> ACTION-594?
<trackbot> ACTION-594 -- Yves Lafon to with Peter and Henry produce partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2012-03-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594
<noah> ACTION-619?
<trackbot> ACTION-619 -- Henry Thompson to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC -- due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/619
<noah> ACTION-672?
<trackbot> ACTION-672 -- Jeni Tennison to work with PLH to create W3C-sponsored registry of HTML extensions, and get that referenced from HTML media type registration, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672
<noah> LM: Some e-mail, but so far no need for F2F discussion.
<noah> ACTION-590?
<trackbot> ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html -- due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590
<noah> ACTION-560?
<trackbot> ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2012-02-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560
<noah> NM: I'll check with Henry on ACTION-560
<noah> ACTION-572?
<trackbot> ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572
<noah> YL: We can discuss at F2F.
<noah> AM: I agree
Yves: We can discuss at f2f when we discuss client-side storage
<noah> ACTION-658?
<trackbot> ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658
<noah> ACTION-659?
<trackbot> ACTION-659 -- Yves Lafon to track IETF efforts on HTTP 2.0 & SPDY Due: 2012-03-20 -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/659
<noah> YL: Following charter work on IETF mailing list
<noah> YL: For websockets and hybi we decided not a big issue...related to death of protocol for Edinburgh.
Yves: we might drop this one
<noah> ACTION-658?
<trackbot> ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658
<masinter> fine with me to close
<noah> NM: Any objection to closing ACTION-658?
<noah> close ACTION-658
<trackbot> ACTION-658 Prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) closed
NM: On SPDY you are saying let's just watch what IETF is saying
Yves: Yes
<noah> AM: What happened to CA authority item?
<noah> NM: Good question. Just now, I'm not seeing any actions.
<noah> AM: probably OK.
<noah> NM: Do we want F2F discussion of CA problems this time?
<noah> TBL: A lot of people have been rushing to "fix" this. Firefox has made significant updates.
Tim: This is separate from general security and privacy issues
<noah> NM: Right, sorry, I agree. I meant to ask if we need another F2F session on CA in particular.
<noah> TBL: Not unless we have news from an expert on late breaking details?
Noah: For now we will leave this issue off the agenda
ADJOURNED