<wycats> jeff: can you explain Headlights a bit for us?
We have e-mail from Jeff Jaffe to the TAG soliciting TAG participation in headlights 2013 effort.
<ht> Note that Alex has lost audio
Jeff Jaffe is with us for this section
<slightlyoff> only a bit...apologies
<slightlyoff> my fault...bad hardware
JJ: Summarizes goals of headlights. Basically to discover things W3C should be doing better, or at least that might need better attention.
AR: What's the form of the work product? Working group.
JJ: That decision comes later. We're identifying gaps.
... We're also focusing especially on high level issues.
<slightlyoff> I'd like to understand how we're going to address things that are OS-limited...in many ways it's a strategic tension...will we become an advocacy org around this?
<wycats> am I supposed to do something if I'm on the queue?
NM: TAG is in a time of transition...we're just getting to know each other.
JJ: Understood, either mode of participation is good
JJ: Having people participate as individuals is good too.
<ht> Alex - So JJ did highlight the "Closing the Gap with Native" project
<ht> Which is where I would expect the OS-limited issue to arise
<slightlyoff> same...I think I am deeply interested in native vs. web and performance
YK: I'm interested for native vs. Web especially.
NM: Great. Anyone else interested in helping?
... Also, please alert people you may know who aren't on the TAG but who may want to help the W3C identify priorities for the coming year.
JJ: One aspect of the exercise is to prioritize things that should turn into community groups, and/or transition fro CG to WG.
... Sometimes stopping at CG is good. I want task forces to have autonomy to think through issues.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask how this all rolls up
<slightlyoff> thanks for rephrasing me more cogently =)
NM: What's the rollup mechanism when this exercise completes?
JJ: AC meeting is June 9 in Tokyo
... There will probably be more good proposals than resources...so June gives us member feedback at AC
... July is F2F meeting of W3 management team...that's where where we try to do resource allocations.
<wycats> I agree that a philosophical discussion is not very useful, but the problem is both political and technical
<slightlyoff> I'm in, but can't make the AC meeting.
<wycats> there are many improvements to the web platform that everyone agrees would be a good idea, but which are blocked on Mobile Safari or Chrome for Android
<wycats> so it's not purely a technical question
<ht> Not formally as TAG -- that's overkill, IMO
NM: Are we really depending on the TF's to identify the right things to do? I think we've often identified e.g. Web vs. native, but have never either a) done the right things to realistically address the gap or b) netted out reasons why the Web will not likely be competitve, and we why should not waste or energy on the impossible/unlikely.
JJ: To contribute, write me or group leaders. I'm fine with participation as individuals or from the TAG.
... I agree with IRC discussion, it's a combnination technical, political(? scribe isn't sure he got this right) and business model problem
... Also HTML5 performance
<slightlyoff> is anyone speaking?
<ht> AR: YC is interested in participating, so am I, maybe
<ht> ... What would it mean for us to participate as the TAG?
<ht> ... We are sort of an advocacy shop in W3C -- would that be OK?
<ht> ... There are particular platform-related issues, where vendors have made non-technical decisions
AR?: Platform vendors aren't opening certain things to web...don't want to push toward dead ends.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to argue against (starting as) TAG-official involvement
NM: Logistical proposal...we won't appoint formal TAG reps at this point, BUT.... it would be very welcome for folks like Yehuda or the Alex to come to the TAG and say: "I would welcome the TAG's insight on this (e.g. web native). Let's discuss. Maybe or maybe not as a byproduct of such discussion, the TAG decides to take a formal position, or ask someone to represent us formally.
<slightlyoff> no objection
RESOLUTION: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes are approved
<trackbot> ACTION-780 -- Ashok Malhotra to draft note to PING asking them to pick up our incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs -- due 2013-01-31 -- OPEN
<ht> Send it
NM: OK to send the note?
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-780 Draft note to PING asking them to pick up our incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs.
<ht> If you think it needs an explanation of why we are not taking it forward, add that
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to send https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2013Jan/0044.html to PING
<trackbot> Created ACTION-783 - Send https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2013Jan/0044.html to PING [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-02-14].
HT: Could add explanation that we're ducking due to changing membership or lack resource
<slightlyoff> I'm fine with the draft
NM: I'll try to make a small change and send
<ht> I am not prepared to drive a DOM/XML discussion forward
YK: I don't want to speak for Alex, but would like to put "layering" on the agenda. We need to get into more specifics.
<slightlyoff> it's a situation where we know how to do it but need a small target to use as a demonstration
<slightlyoff> (FWIW, we have done this in other areas, e.g. document.register())
<slightlyoff> Yves: I'm actively working on offline in another area...will loop you in
<slightlyoff> I'll take the AI
<scribe> ACTION: Alex with help from Yehuda to frame F2F discussion of layering - Due 2013-03-04
<trackbot> Created ACTION-784 - with help from Yehuda to frame F2F discussion of layering [on Alex Russell - due 2013-03-04].
<ht> Just to repeat that some combination of Jeni, HST and JAR will try to take the URI documentation/HTTPRange14/Issue57 nexus forward
NM: Just layering?
MC: We need to find better ways to communite with developers
... More ideas about involving other participants
<ht> If LM were here, he'd say the REC-track is the way we get review, but I'm not sure that's enough. . .
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of developer involvement/outreach at F2F - Due 2013-03-04
<trackbot> Created ACTION-785 - schedule discussion of developer involvement/outreach at F2F [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-03-04].
NM: Is this really the only technical issue?
AR: To some degree, I see layering as a prereq to understanding where we want to go on e.g. Web native.
AR: We don't have a reasonable stack of abstractions around appcache.
... Therefore, there are things that are like applications that are harder to build that you like.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say you've shown that some things are tied, not that others aren't
<ht> I wonder if this is another perspective on the "We're trying to turn the browser into a universal delivery platform, by bolting stuff onto something that wasn't designed for that, and the result is . . . messy" problem. . .
<slightlyoff> I have a proposal for an answer: the manifest destiny of the web platform is to provide safe access to all available hardware
NM: Gives example of things that need not wait for layering
AR: Agree, so happens the ones that interest me most follow from layering, but yes, we should have web/native on the agenda.
<wycats> it seems good to have a web vs. native topic on the agenda if Alex and I are going to participate in the Headlights Task Force
<ht> Otherwise known as "If we wanted to go there, we would have been much better off not to have started from here"
<wycats> different to what?
AR: Didn't know of that.
MC: Some work was done.
<wycats> http://www.w3.org/TR/api-design/ ?
<wycats> this does not look similar to what I think Alex has in mind
MC: I was concerned that we could codify bad practice.
<slightlyoff> wycats: agreed...this is sort of differetn
<ht> Separate spec. vs distributed is a very interesting point
<slightlyoff> I don't think I've got an opinion about where such a guide would live
<wycats> "We had talked of Yehuda writing this section. I will see if I can hunt him down." nobody ever contacted me ;)
MC: I find that I benefit most from guidance in core specs...maybe we should try to improve them.
NM: Sooner or later, we'll need to figure out what the TAG's role is. In this case, are there architectural implications for the big-pictue characteristics of the Web (security, evolvability, etc.)? If not, then maybe or role is to encourage other WGs to do their job better. Certainly OK to have some TAG discussion...sooner or later we need to sort out our role.
AR: This is reminding me that Robin's document seemed a bit too tactical.
MC: I'm interested.
<slightlyoff> I will drive it if you like
<slightlyoff> thank you!
<slightlyoff> that works for me
<trackbot> Error finding 'Marcos,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users>.
<wycats> not from me