See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Jonathan Rees
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 24 May 2012
<scribe> scribenick: jar
regrets from Robin for today
<noah> No regrets for next week
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes
RESOLUTION: approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/05/17-minutes as record of that meeting
noah: F2F - think about taking on vendor prefixes
<noah> ACTION-697?
<trackbot> ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare for discussion of CA infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/697
lm: I'm not going to do a lot more right now on DANE, doesn't seem much the TAG can do
<noah> close ACTION-697
<trackbot> ACTION-697 Prepare for discussion of CA infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) closed
<noah> . ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01
<noah> ACTION: Larry to keep an eye on issues relating to CA infrastructure weakness, including DANE - Due 2012-09-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-710 - keep an eye on issues relating to CA infrastructure weakness, including DANE [on Larry Masinter - due 2012-09-01].
<noah> ACTION-690?
<trackbot> ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-05-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/690
<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> I thought the ball was in my court to mark the product page approved
jt: Re fragids and mime types, I did a product page, needs to be revised per comments
nm: I thought we had approved the product page & that NMM was supposed to do clerical work. Happy with product page
<noah> Jeni will mark product page as "not draft".
<noah> close ACTION-690
<trackbot> ACTION-690 sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types closed
jt: I've done an initial draft that's currently with Larry. I can take an action to provide it for F2F
lm: I'll try to get back to you [JT] by this weekend, otherwise just go ahead and publish
nm: On the master work plan page we sometimes pull out 1-2 next steps, pls check that
jt: Re action 672, let's talk about that when it's done
nm: I will do a local arrangements page for the F2F
Regrets LM for 3rd day of F2F
<Ashok> +1
lm: Because it was a narrow enough use case, and the community was making progress, this seemed interesting
... There are differences of opinion as to whether old stuff *should* go away ever [to force updates]
... The question is whether the CSS experience could apply in other situations
... Interesting proposal to put dates in vendor prefixes.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say that I think vendors are thinking in different terms
plinss: I don't think Apple has publicly said they're never going to drop things, seems flexible
... Mozilla, Opera have been aggressive about dropping prefixes
nm: We need to be realistic: a lot of what's going on here is the architects and those who deliver code to users are talking past each other. If a vendor-prefixed features is useful enough to get early adoption, then there will likely be market pressure not to drop it later. We've heard that "users" tend to disband or "defund" the teams that build these applications and move on to other things. Telling them to go back and update later is sometimes not practical.
lm: I think it's part of designing standards and extensibility regimes. It's important what vendors say, not just what they do.
... Authors aren't in the room, so we need to look for a trip point, and in this case it's the browsers
nm: But vendors can't predict how things will go, so won't want to make any promises. Users want to deploy quickly and then never rev
lm: I disagree. Don't think there's lock-in. There's no point in having a deployment plan unless people agree to abide by it
<noah> I do understand what you're saying. I'm just skeptical that vendors will do what you want them to do.
lm: I'm getting mixed messages. What you really want is that when a standard version comes a long, the prefixed version will go away. That means vendor needs to announce intent to remove nonstandard version, when standard arrives
... What I was hoping for was that at least some browsers would have some visual indication of obsolete or soon to be obsolete features
pl: Some of them do this in their developer views
<noah> The message I'm hearing is: many "customers" write their pages once, and then kill the funding or the teams that would be capable of rewriting them to change the spelling of things like CSS prefixes. The economic incentive for them to do that 2nd step isn't there.
nm: Look at how people fund these projects. Right now they use vendor prefixes. Then they move on. What I heard is that the team has disbanded by this time. So this would mean decisions not to use the features in the first place
lm: The use case was when there was a design team that wants continued work
... There has to be lead time, so people are prepared
... How can we strengthen the will to move on
nm: SOmething the TAG can do?
lm: Right now the deployment plans are locked inside places that are hard to find
nm: Peter, how is CSS working on this issue?
pl: We see most of the problem as education. Initiative to teach comes from the community, we try to correct them
<masinter> i thought we could document the issues around deployment plans, and point out best practices about how to design extensibility methods
<masinter> that's more general than CSS; we might look at why it is easier because of the "cascading" of style sheets
nm: So what can we do. Isn't CSS already doing a lot
pl: One way the TAG could help CSS is re proposal from Florian. I think his proposal would be harmful, and it would be useful if the TAG had an opinion on it
<masinter> TAG could evaluate Florian's proposal and other alternatives?
<masinter> if we worked on this, it should be rec-track
lm: Is this is the kind of thing we work on, we should get wide community approval, head for Rec track. But from a perspective that doesn't tie it to CSS
... Cascading makes this unique
<masinter> is this a lesson for XML-ER?
nm: We've tried to crack distributed extensibility nut many times. Agree that focus here is good. Feels like next step should come from CSS WG
<masinter> for example, if this extensibility method doesn't apply to XML, is there a refocus of XML dealing with un-recognized elements to make it more extensible?
nm: Worried about umpteenth frontal assault on issue
lm: Looking at specific cases is a good way to deal with general cases (Polya How to Solve It)
tbl: Not a good time for TAG to generalize, good to look at cases
<masinter> i'm a big fan of Polya -- here is a specific instance where a solution is tractable. The universal problem was too hard, but we might make progress on this one
nm: Should we do anything else re Florian's proposal?
<masinter> i think one of the big questions is whether "old stuff goes away" -- is it, or is it not, reasonable to assume that once a usage becomes significant it will never get dropped?
jt: Didn't PL just say it would be helpful for the TAG to evaluate Florian's proposal?
<masinter> i'd like to see the extensibility mechanism in CSS documented
<masinter> in a way that actually corresponds to what CSS WG thinks the policy is
lm: I'd like to see the CSS deployment policy to be written up, in one place. I don't think there is a document that describes the policy
... I'm reluctant to compare a proposal to the current policy, in the absence of a document describing the current policy
pl: It would be sensible for the WG to do this
lm: Peter, what do you want to do?
pl: I'm not necessarily endorsing the current policy, just wanting to comment on Florian's proposal
<noah> ACTION: Peter to report on CSS WG plans for documenting policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of vendor-prefixed identifiers - Due 2012-06-11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-711 - report on CSS WG plans for documenting policies relating to deployment and withdrawal of vendor-prefixed identifiers [on Peter Linss - due 2012-06-11].
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> ACTION-541?
<trackbot> ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to produce draft on technical issues relating to copyright/linking -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/541
<noah> JT: We agreed to bump
<noah> ACTION-541 Due 2012-08-01
<trackbot> ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce draft on technical issues relating to copyright/linking due date now 2012-08-01
<noah> ACTION-610?
<trackbot> ACTION-610 -- Jeni Tennison to draft initial cut at http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats -- due 2012-04-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/610
<noah> ACTION-610 Due 2012-05-29
<trackbot> ACTION-610 Draft initial cut at http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/metaformats due date now 2012-05-29
<noah> ACTION-677?
<trackbot> ACTION-677 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact HTML WG co-chairs to ask about timing for output of Encrypted Media TF -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/677
<noah> Reply from Maceij Stachowiak:
<noah> The current status is:
<noah> - The Task Force has been proposed, but not yet created
<noah> - We posted a Call for Consensus on a proposal to create the Task Force
<noah> - There have been numerous objections, statements of support, and considerable discussion
<noah> - On request, and based on the amount of discussion, the Call for Consensus has been extended until at least April 18th, and may be extended further.
<masinter> close, don't see any follow-ups
nm: I did this one. Anyone want followup?
<noah> close ACTION-677
<trackbot> ACTION-677 Contact HTML WG co-chairs to ask about timing for output of Encrypted Media TF closed
<noah> ACTION-682?
<trackbot> ACTION-682 -- Jonathan Rees to suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review -- due 2012-04-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682
<noah> JAR: Mark Nottingham said sections in question will likely be changed. This may not be the time to comment.
<masinter> there was also an objection that it wasn't really in scope for the HTTP document or IETF
<noah> ACTION-682?
<trackbot> ACTION-682 -- Jonathan Rees to suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review -- due 2012-07-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/682
<noah> ACTION-687?
<trackbot> ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due 2012-05-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687
<noah> http://www.w3.org/mid/4FA063B3.4080507%2540arcanedomain.com
<noah> Proposal from Noah (25 April): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.html
<noah> Larry's note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0207.html
<noah> "I suggest the tag ask the AB more generally about the process for insuring our resolution affects the rec process. At what point are sppecs required to have stable references, and what are the explicit exception guidelines?"
lm: Henry said he wanted to review the old advice he drafted. We agreed to let QA document stand for now, but that we should pick it up at some point [?]
<noah> ACTION-669?
<trackbot> ACTION-669 -- Henry Thompson to review http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs Due: 2012-08-01 -- due 2012-06-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/669
lm: That's the one
... Suggest adding to that action something about tracking down the process question too
... Link to the emails too in that note?
<noah> close ACTION-687
<trackbot> ACTION-687 Look for opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. closed
JR: the emails are linked from 687 in tracker
nm: Especially looking for actions that lead into the F2F
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
nm: A high proportion of these are owned by people not on call
<masinter> action-606
<noah> Larry: ACTION-685
<masinter> action-543
jr: My actions related to f2f: 704, 201. Action in progress not related to F2F: 695
<noah> ACTION-693 was raised in the context of storage, I think.
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-585?
<trackbot> ACTION-585 -- Larry Masinter to meet with Yves prior to the IETF document to review this draft-freed-media-type-regs-00. -- due 2011-07-28 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/585
jr: Planning to work on 201 soon but probably not ready for F2F
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in media type -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> ACTION-704?
<trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704
<noah> ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
<noah> ACTION-693?]
<noah> ACTION-693?
<trackbot> ACTION-693 -- Robin Berjon to draft scope and goals for the Patterns/Pitfalls work in local/remote storage synch -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/693
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<masinter> what input on I18N and normalization does the TAG want?
<masinter> this is on comparison & normalization?
lm: I'm interested & willing to talk about unicode normalization. Hard to tell whether this is about CSS selectors
pl: Selectors is just one of many places. Question is early, late, very late normalization
<masinter> i run into this with IRI docs
<masinter> if we're going to talk about unicode normalization, i'd want to cover IRIs too then
<Ashok> +1 to Larry
lm: If we're going to talk about unicode normalization, the IRI issues need to be in scope
... want to put the IRI comparison document in scope
nm: The action doesn't mention CSS, it's the I8n WG
lm: A month ago I18N WG committed to reviewing the IRI documents
nm: I just want to know if this is to be a F2F session
pl: Reluctant to ask them for a document without TAG commitment to work on this [?]
nm: I don't think their effort will be wasted
am: Didn't we get something from Addison outlining what the issues were?
<masinter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison
<masinter> and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01#section-5.2.2 in particular
nm: Can I delegate to Peter the decision about how to talk to I18N and whether to schedule a F2F session?
<noah> . ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29
lm: If we decide to talk about it, I'll help prepare, but have no particular opinion on whether to talk about it
<noah> . ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29
<noah> ACTION: Peter to help us decide whether to have F2F session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-712 - Help us decide whether to have F2F session on i18n and comparison Due 2012-05-29 [on Peter Linss - due 2012-05-31].
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<noah> ACTION-606 Due 2012-06-12
<trackbot> ACTION-606 Invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization due date now 2012-06-12
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/open?sort=owner
nm: We'll be talking about the high priority items for sure, just trying to find other things we ought to talk about at the F2F, that we might have forgotten about
<noah> ACTION-694?
<trackbot> ACTION-694 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work up simple intro to http+aes uri scheme and schedule discussion, possibly with PLH -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694
<noah> This is about the proposed acct: URI scheme http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012May/0097.html
nm: Tim, last week we had a F2F planning session, and the agenda looked thin. So I scheduled today's discussion of pending and overdue actions
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in media type -- due 2012-05-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> ACTION-543 relates to what Jeni's doing right?
<noah> LM: Right.
lm: When I saw 543 I thought it was about Jeni's draft
... Just change the title
<noah> ACTION-543?
<trackbot> ACTION-543 -- Peter Linss to propose addition to Fragid draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in media type -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543
<noah> ACTION-606?
<trackbot> ACTION-606 -- Peter Linss to invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization -- due 2012-06-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/606
<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 2012-04-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/478
<noah> JAR: Working on it, but not for F2F
<noah> JAR: Maybe should talk to Larry
<noah> ACTION-478 is a MAYBE for the F2F
<noah> ACTION-478 Due 2012-07-10
<trackbot> ACTION-478 Prepare a second draft of a finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from Oct. 2010 F2F due date now 2012-07-10
<masinter> meaning now = 'the associations which you wish to have persist'
<noah> ACTION-704?
<trackbot> ACTION-704 -- Jonathan Rees to with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/704
<noah> ACTION-704 Due 2012-05-29
<trackbot> ACTION-704 with help from Jeni and Henry to try to identify next steps for moving forward on httpRange-14 due date now 2012-05-29
<noah> ACTION-695?
<trackbot> ACTION-695 -- Jonathan Rees to check with Thomas Roessler on whether security review of CORS is coming up in W3C/IETF liaison -- due 2012-04-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/695
<noah> JAR: I have pinged him.
<noah> ACTION-695 Due 2012-05-29
<trackbot> ACTION-695 Check with Thomas Roessler on whether security review of CORS is coming up in W3C/IETF liaison due date now 2012-05-29
<noah> NM: 695 is happening?
<noah> JAR: Yes.
<noah> ACTION-201?
<trackbot> ACTION-201 -- Jonathan Rees to report on status of AWWSW discussions -- due 2012-05-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/201
<noah> ACTION-201 Due 2012-06-02
<trackbot> ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date now 2012-06-02
<noah> ACTIOM-650?
<masinter> i had a interesting convo (cc'd www-archive) on issue-57 and think the distinction between communication & semantics perspectives is key
<noah> ACTIOM-650?
<noah> ACTION-650?
<trackbot> ACTION-650 -- Jonathan Rees to review what provenance WG is doing with an eye to application to privacy issues -- due 2012-04-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/650
<noah> ACTION-650 Due 2012-08-01
<trackbot> ACTION-650 Review what provenance WG is doing with an eye to application to privacy issues due date now 2012-08-01
<masinter> culminating on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/0035.html
ADJOURNED