See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 25 July 2013
<scribe> Scribe: Jeni Tennison
<scribe> ScribeNick: JeniT
plinss: we'll go round the room
... slightlyoff, do we have minutes from the other week?
slightlyoff: I'll get them in, sorry
plinss: no work on github syncing, but set up repo for website redesign
dka: updated actions, outreach to web apps WG (Chaals) very receptive to collaborative session around Promises
... we're starting to get a reputation for the TAG being the place to go to ask for guidance on the use of Promises
... which we wanted
... we discussed doing a F2F meet up with Art when meeting in Boston
... I'm going to follow up with Art & hope for a good session then
... don't think we want to do anything before Boston, but open to suggestions
... next F2F is sooner than we think
marcosc: should we be dealing with the Promises stuff?
... or should we post to script-coord list?
slightlyoff: we should lay down neutral guidance
... the crypto guys asked who should deal with it, can do it personally
<marcosc> https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text
marcosc: we're going to get more and more questions
slightlyoff: not next call but one after I will have something done in that area
<marcosc> I've just updated the README.MD quickly https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text/blob/master/README.md
dka: the other thing I've progressed is getting Anssi from Intel to come in
... tangentially, Larry & Ashok collaborated on a blog post
<dka> https://twitter.com/w3ctag/status/360077819939794945
dka: I tweeted from the TAG account
... it's a follow-on around the publishing & linking document
... we're not going to do anything further, it's just a matter of amplifying
marcosc: I did a review of the orientation lock API
... ended up rewriting parts of the spec
... working to get changes integrated
<marcosc> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/7
marcosc: some of the things still stand, particularly moving to Promises model
... I'd appreciate further comment from TAG members
<Yves> you got a +1 from me ;)
slightlyoff: I'll take a look at that this week
<Yves> apart from the 'should' part
marcosc: I might have a chance to push the changes before you take a look
... it's a short spec
... took me one hour
... a review won't take long
slightlyoff: spent more time on web audio review
... think the draft is good to go, want feedback
... fielded request for review from XX
<dka> +1 to posting it to the public audio forum
slightlyoff: to make sure things are in line & invite them to a call
... at TC39 I'm going to try to broach the topic of TPAC
marcosc: it's great to see developers sending feedback on web audio
<dka> Agree
marcosc: I saw people tweet about it too, which I think was really cool
slightlyoff: I'm excited about it too
... but the longer it sits in our repo without sending it on, it could reflect badly
... anyone opposed to sending it?
plinss: good to go
<marcosc> SHIP IT!!!!
plinss: send it
<Yves> +1
slightlyoff: I'll do that today
timbl: can we have a pointer for the minutes?
<plinss> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/07/WebAudio.md
<timbl> "the somewhat liberal use of SHOULD in that spec is going to lead to user agents doing bad things" yes
RESOLUTION: Send the feedback Alex has drafted over to Web Audio working group (officially).
timbl: I haven't done a lot of TAG-related stuff
... there have been discussions within W3C about dependencies between specs
... the TAG might be asked to get involved
... about whether one spec can move forward when a referenced spec doesn't
... a guide about when it's a good idea and when not, an enumeration of different cases, could be useful
... we might get pinged on that
<dka> on dependencies - I took ACTION-820 at some point but I have not followed up on it yet...
dka: I need to contact AB about this, is this something we should do?
... should we be proactive?
timbl: I think it's good to say that we're willing to pick it up if we need to
Yves: I reviewed the marcosc review, which was good
... for HTTP 2.0, I put my thoughts on the mailing list
... it's another kind of serialisation and use of the network for HTTP 1.1
... not different architecturally
... the major change is the possibility of doing server push
... which is defined in the spec as a way to send replies that contain additional resources
... such as the icons/CSS related to a page
... so the client doesn't have to request them
... that's one thing in HTTP 2.0 that isn't in HTTP 1.1 and might have architectural implications
... part of the HTTP effort was to look at being able to change the transport
... HTTP 2.0 is built with that information from HTTPbis in mind
... so they can reference the relevant part of HTTPbis
... for everything that's connection-related, like compression, it's just implementation detail
... it doesn't change the semantic
<dka> Somewhat relevant (as it involves SPDY and also the concept of split browsing which the TAG has touched on before) interesting to note Google's plans to implement network-based compression proxy for Chrome for IOS /Android - I blogged here: http://www.torgo.com/blog/2013/07/data-compression-proxy.html
dka: is there a reason to draft a document of feedback in the same way as we've done for WebAudio?
Yves: it's not feedback, but just what the differences are and what the implication is for architecture
... what's the implication of being able to do push?
... it's more a list for us
dka: what about a blog post?
Yves: I can do that
<dka> ACTION: Yves to write a blog post on http 2.0. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-823 - Write a blog post on http 2.0. [on Yves Lafon - due 2013-08-01].
JeniT: I've asked Phil Archer to talk to the TAG ACTION-806 - he can make it next week.
dka: Yes I think makes sense.
JeniT: I sent the draft around httpr***-** stuff...
... My aim for next week is to create an outline for capability URLs document.
dka: Please ask Phil to post an intro to the TAG mailing list as well.
JeniT: sure
<slightlyoff> sorry to drop off the call
plinss: aob?
dka: is there anything we can do to accelerate the web design stuff?
... should we investigate other options?
<slightlyoff> can anyone advise me on how/when we might be able to invite the Crypto folks to present?
<slightlyoff> 2 weeks from now?
plinss: other people?
<slightlyoff> do folks prefer that I work up feedback before or after?
plinss: we just need to decide what the page needs to contain
dka: shall we put that in a README in the github repo you created?
plinss: yes
<dka> ACTION: DKA to add some ideas to the tag-site-redesign readme file.. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/25-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-824 - Add some ideas to the tag-site-redesign readme file.. [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2013-08-01].
plinss: ADJOURNED