W3C

TAG Weekly

12 Jul 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra, Larry_Masinter, Henry_Thompson, Jonathan_Rees, Yves_Lafon, Jeni_Tennison, Peter_Linss
Regrets
Chair
Noah
Scribe
Ashok, Noah

Contents


<Ashok> scribenick: Ashok

Convene

Discussion of Agenda

<noah> AM: publishing and linking?

<masinter> I'm fine if there are things to talk about, I just don't have a new version

Ashok: Larry, this is a different thought related to Henry's latest mail

<noah> NM: OK, after fragids

<JeniT> "W3C TAG comments during IETF Last Call"

Larry: Discussion of TAG comments on IETF draft was postponed

<Yves> Minutes say <discussion postponed>

<masinter> The IETF/W3C liaison call noted something about that, should we find out what they wanted to talk about?

<noah> I think we should link the draft and comments in question

<ht> Here is the entire minute from the last IETF-W3C liaison call:

<ht> "14. W3C TAG comments during IETF Last Call

<ht> Discussion postponed."

<noah> NM: So, there's some ambiguity of which comments as to ours they were discussing?

<masinter> The only comments the W3C TAG has made during an IETF last call, that I can think of, are the comments we made on the media type registration document

<ht> That quote is from http://www.w3.org/mid/BFBD2017-3923-4C3F-8D27-04B4F53230F9@mnot.net

<ht> ... which is public

<noah> LM: Have we made any other comments than the one in question?

Approval of Minutes

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/12-agenda

<masinter> wait wait, ...

HT: There are places in Tuesday's minutes that need attribution

NM: They were innocuous

RESOLUTION: f2f minutes linked from the above are approved without change

<noah> Minutes of 21 June: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/06/21-minutes

RESOLUTION: Minutes from June 21 above are approved without change

Summer Schedule

<noah> Proposed schedule: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0004.html

<noah> Integrated Likely regrets for summer: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Jul/0001.html

NM: Any problems?
... still tentative.

<Yves> Regrets for July 19

NM: may cancel some calls later

<noah> Proposal:

<noah> July 12 Call

<noah> July 19 Call

<noah> July 26 NO CALL

<noah> Aug 2 MAYBE (depends in part on Larry availability)

<noah> Aug 9 Call

<noah> Aug 16 NO CALL (Noah unavailable)

<noah> Aug 23 Call

<noah> Aug 30 Call

<noah> Sept 6 NO CALL (Noah unavailable)

<noah> Agreed for now.

NM: We will have a call next week, July 19, and I hope we will have a draft of Publishing and Linking from Larry for discussion

Actions We Can Close Without Discussion

<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 2012-08-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/694

<noah> ACTION-724?

<trackbot> ACTION-724 -- Henry Thompson to investigate possible TAG efforts on URI scheme proliferation and extension points -- due 2012-08-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/724

<masinter> It's also mentioned in the W3C/IETF liaison call

<noah> Close ACTION-694

<trackbot> ACTION-694 work up simple intro to http+aes uri scheme and schedule discussion, possibly with PLH closed

NM: This scheme is no longer being pursued. Also, ACTION 724 overtakes this

Larry: If we're discussing this at all, we should focus on general questions about URI schemes

<noah> ACTION-729?

<trackbot> ACTION-729 -- Jeni Tennison to do new draft of fragids finding -- due 2012-07-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729

ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66): Fragment Identifiers and Mime

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html

NM: We would like to publish this as a Working Draft

JT: I made changes as in the minutes and the f2f
... made Best Practices linkable
... some rewording of Best Practices

AM: I looked at the Active Content parts of the draft and they looked good to me

HT: Para after Best Practice 7 has an editorial problem
... section reference is missing

<ht> Jeni, thank you for your work on this

<JeniT> Thanks ht :)

NM: We hoped to engage the IETF with this and we got cryptic references that it's too late

JT: We should publish as a WD

<masinter> Optimist: proceed as if it's possible that it isn't too late, without expectation

<masinter> +1 to FPWD

<noah> proposed resolution: Publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html as a FPWD

<masinter> Jeni may fix typos.

RESOLUTION: Publish the Frag Id document as a FPWD. For the REC track. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2012-07-01.html

<ht> Item 15 from the previously mentioned liaison call minutes (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Jul/0000.html) relates to the (no progress) state of 3023bis

<noah> Product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-05-28.html

<noah> Schedules:

<noah> 1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at June F2F

<noah> 1 July 2012: First Public Working Draft

<noah> 1 August 2012: Last Call Draft

<noah> 1 October 2012: Proposed Recommendation

<noah> 1 November 2012: Candidate Recommendation

<noah> 1 December 2012: Recommendation

NM: Schedule after FPWD seems aggresive ... shoukd we change this?

HT: We should put it back at least a month

<Yves> +1 to at least a month

<masinter> Synchronize with TPAC ?

NM: Perhaps LC draft just before our f2f and PR before TPAC
... Candidate Rec should come before Proposed Rec
... so we should change the schedule

<masinter> The main thing is that for TAG recs, the TAG isn't the implementors ... usually in a WG, the WG members are the implementors

<masinter> So we need a longer CR phase, but a shorter time to reach CR

Discussion about whether this document needs to go to CR

<masinter> I like the idea of coming up with exit criteria. I think it's a good exercise for us

+1 to Larry

<masinter> There's +xml and +json

NM: Don't want to wait years for implementations

<masinter> I think we should do CR

HT: The WG, in this case the TAG, to propose exit criteria

<masinter> We need an action item to propose exit criteria

<masinter> I think the exit criteria isn't what Noah is saying

NM: One or more registrations would follow the recommendation in this draft

<ht> I note the following in a recently published Last Call: "no Candidate Recommendation version will be published, and that the next step for this specification will be to Proposed Recommendation—interested parties please take note and comment accordingly."

Larry: We could look at processors and check if they follow our recommendations
... I would like to define exit criteria in terms of implementations

<masinter> All we need are implementors to agree

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say I would rather not decide (or discuss further) this issue until we think we are ready for last call

HT: Let's wait until we are in Last Call

<masinter> It's not premature to *start* the discussion, it's premature to finish it

HT: Also wait until we see what kind of response we get from the IETF and from other folks

<noah> Schedules:

<noah> 1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at June F2F

<noah> 1 July 2012: First Public Working Draft

<noah> 1 August 2012: Last Call Draft

<noah> 1 October 2012: Proposed Recommendation

<noah> 1 November 2012: Candidate Recommendation

<noah> 1 December 2012: Recommendation

LM: We should discuss but not finalize exit criteria

<JeniT> 1 August: FPWD

NM: Could someone put a stake in the ground re. a revised schedule?

<ht> 1 October: LCWD

<ht> 1 March: REC

LM: I would like us to look for community feedback at TPAC

NM: We have 2 weeks between our f2f and TPAC
... some work could be done between the two meetings

<masinter> +1 to HT proposal

+1

NM: Do we need a f2f to tweak the final draft?

HT: No need

NM: How about:

1 Oct LWCD

1 March Rec

<noah> ACTION-729?

<trackbot> ACTION-729 -- Jeni Tennison to do new draft of fragids finding -- due 2012-07-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/729

<noah> close ACTION-729

<trackbot> ACTION-729 do new draft of fragids finding closed

NM: When can we have FPWD out?

YL: Probably soon ... one or 2 weeks.

<noah> ACTION: Jeni working with Yves to publish FPWD - Due 2012-07-31 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-730 - working with Yves to publish FPWD [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-07-31].

YL: Lets say July 31

NM: If you can do it faster, great!
... Good work, Jeni

Publishing and Linking

<noah> scribenick: Noah

AM: I was thinking about a couple of things: First, there was a line from one of the Web sites saying "you ought to be able to link freely, because that's what makes the Web the Web". People said, "the TAG can't say that, because it's a legal opinion"
... Then we got e-mail from Martin Duerst suggesting that, because linking is central to the Web, we ought to be able to figure out something to say along those lines.

Mail from Martin: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0006.html

AM: Henry also suggests that we should be able to discuss differences between linking and embedding. I'd like to go further, and talk about the consequences. We should say which is allowable.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jul/0021.html

AM: I'm not quite sure what we can say about all this though.

<scribe> scribenick: Ashok

<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about working on "policy affects architecture" rather than "architecture implies policy", even though others might make the backward inference

<noah> +1 to what Larry is saying.

<noah> In fact, strong +1 to what Larry is saying;.

<JeniT> +1 too

<noah> LM: We should work on how policy affects architecture, not vice versa

<noah> LM: We should perhaps point out especially the consequences when different jurisdictions adopt different policies

LM: If policy treats linking and publishing as the same, then it has architectural impact, e.g., that you shouldn't link to someone who might change what the linked text says

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to focus on a weaker point, to do with educating peoples vocabularies, and hence intuitions

HT: If we clarified that Linking and embedding are different that is very valuable

<noah> HT: If all we did was to clarify terminology and concepts regarding linking vs. embedding, that alone would be a significant service

<noah> HT: I'm more inclined toward getting out something that just tries to educate and inform about differences.

HT: I would be happy just to clarify the differences

<noah> HT: If people as smart as Jimmy Wales get this wrong in public, that's a sign that there's a problem we could usefully address.

<noah> HT: Do less, and get it out.

<JeniT> the current draft makes a very clear distinction between 'inclusion' and 'links'

HT: We do not have to say anything about copyright or law ... just clarify the differences

<ht> Jeni, right, that's what I have in mind

<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about focus on jurisdictional difference

LM: I have been working on a framework to thinking about Policy and how legislation and Policy are different in different jurisdictions

<ht> I also like, or would like, the idea of analogies, where we are pretty sure that they enable people to think about the consequences of e.g. the embed/link difference, by drawing an analogy between unacknowledged quotation vs. acknowledged quotation vs. citation

<noah> FWIW, I agree that regulations differing in different jurisdictions is a big problem, with architectural implications. I'm not convinced that cross-jurisdiction should be our ONLY focus.

LM: In India, for example, they do not distinguish between Publishing and Linking

<masinter> It is the reason why 'architecture' has anything to say about legislation and policy, though

NM: We can talk about jurisdictional differences
... we could alert people to architectural consequences of jurisdictional policies

<masinter> We wouldn't have invented the web at all, if there weren't any jurisdiction in which it was legal

NM: Point out architectural consequences of policies with hypothetical examples
... Asks about future of this draft

<noah> ACTION-727?

<trackbot> ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger version of the Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due 2012-07-10 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

LM: Ashok and I will work together and I have taken the ball for the moment

<masinter> It's still Ashok with help from Larry

<noah> ACTION-727?

<trackbot> ACTION-727 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from JAR and Larry to work on a plan for taking a slightly stronger version of the Copyright and Linking draft forward -- due 2012-07-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/727

<jar> Inter-jurisdictional differences are pretty much the same as change, over time, in laws (etc.) within a jurisdiction, yes?

<noah> Interesting point, Jonathan.

Yes, Jonathan

NM: We will discuss Publishing and Linking as our main topic next week

Pending Actions

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

<noah> ACTION-686?

<trackbot> ACTION-686 -- Robin Berjon to try to find who is in charge of the current browser content sniffing clustermess, and see if there is a way of moving out of the quagmire -- due 2012-05-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/686

<noah> Robin says: The person in charge is Adam Barth and the document is pretty much final — I see little support for changing this.

<noah> Robin Berjon, 7 Jun 2012, 16:24:19

<masinter> Finding on authoritative metadata , does it need review?

<noah> ACTION-709?

<trackbot> ACTION-709 -- Noah Mendelsohn to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures -- due 2012-06-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/709

<noah> ACTION-725?

<trackbot> ACTION-725 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Peter, to create big picture overview coming out of analysis of TAG effectiveness -- due 2012-06-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/725

<noah> close ACTION-709

<trackbot> ACTION-709 Talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures closed

Overdue Actions

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

<noah> ACTION-689?

<trackbot> ACTION-689 -- Henry Thompson to work with Noah to draft a further request to the 3023bis editor from the TAG to include advice regarding what a particular +xml media type registration should do wrt fragid semantics along the lines in the discussion on media types and fragment identifiers at the f2f on 2012-04-04 -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689

<noah> ACTION-681?

<trackbot> ACTION-681 -- Henry Thompson to hST to prepare TAG discussion of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs -- due 2012-04-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/681

<noah> HT: Subsumed and overtaken

<noah> close ACTION-681

<trackbot> ACTION-681 HST to prepare TAG discussion of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs closed

<noah> ACTION-689?

<trackbot> ACTION-689 -- Henry Thompson to work with Noah to draft a further request to the 3023bis editor from the TAG to include advice regarding what a particular +xml media type registration should do wrt fragid semantics along the lines in the discussion on media types and fragment identifiers at the f2f on 2012-04-04 -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/689

<noah> ACTION-23?

<trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Henry Thompson to track progress of #int bug 1974 in the XML Schema namespace document in the XML Schema WG -- due 2012-06-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23

<noah> HT: Schema group realizes they need to do something

ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jeni working with Yves to publish FPWD - Due 2012-07-31 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/07/12-minutes#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.1 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/08/29 02:37:22 $