TAG Face-to-Face -- 10 Feb 2011

<scribe> Scribe: Henry S. Thompson

<scribe> Scribenick: ht

<TimblPhone> Sorry late

Review of Agenda

NM: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
... Action item review is just checking that we've got the right things on the schedule in the near term
... Open issue review is quite different, intended to check that we haven't let things fall between the cracks, or that we are carrying things we don't need to

TAG Priorities for 2011

NM: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#priorities
... Good for us to review each year where our effort is going, and how we are going to get it done
... and be sure we have a shared notion of our priorities
... I'd like to get more than one person on the hook for at least some tasks, to share the work back and forth in some way
... Looking back, we set outselves some priorities: Tracking/influencing the HTML work -- hard situation, but we did a number of things here and I think we did what we set to do
... We also committed to a Web App Arch effort, since two years, but I don't feel that we've made as much progress here as I'd hoped -- we need to look hard at this to see whether we should modify or even drop our goal
... Third goal was Metadata, an umbrella for many SemWeb issues

JR, LM: No, Metadata is much narrower than that, it is about documents only

TBL: +1 to keeping Metadata narrowly focussed

NM: We've also done good work, largely due to LM's efforts, on a number of core web infrastructure issues, including IRIs and media types

LM: I'm actually concerned how little progress on IRIs lately

<noah> file:///C:/Noah/Web/TAG/CVS/WWW/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html

NM: On the organizational front, we're trying to structure the management of our work via Tracker Products

For example, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html

NM: Tracker has Issues, Actions and Products
... Actions can be associated with Issues or Products
... See the Guide to TAG procedures [URI]

<timbl> nm: Tracker is just not flexible enough to be able to connect issues and products

NM: Please note that there are two 'Product' pages, one under 2001/tag/products and one under Tracker

[Discussion about mechanism, not minuted]

<timbl> nm: Need properties fo a product: Goals, scuuess criteria, deliverables with dates, schedules, TAG members assigned, related issues.

NM: Intent is to have a small number of Products

<timbl> We could do it in RTDF if we had a RDF export from Tracker of course

NM: API Minimization is our first example: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html
... Goals and Success criteria are the core of these
... Made concrete by deliverables
... Example ACTION: ACTION-514

tracker, ACTION-514

trackbot, ACTION-514

<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, ACTION-514'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

LM: I think maybe we need two categories of Products
... 1) Specific documents or other outputs;
... 2) Things which are more like some of our Issues, e.g. Track the HTML work

NM: Yes, but can we just try your case (1) for now

TBL: Mechanisms are your business as chair, the focus is on the content, that's where our energy should go
... But, having said that, my inner hacker has already built an ontology for issue/product/... management for the Tabulator
... I could do more hacking and give you everything you want
... In practice lets go ahead as you propose
... But in the background, maybe you and I should try to do something better

Tutti: Crack on

NM: Regardless of mechanism, do we agree to focus our effort management on setting goals and success criteria, with dated deliverables

<jar> It would be nice if (1) product name could be changed (2) products can be classified somehow (active, complete, etc) (3) notes could be added to product pages

LM: We do other things -- coordination with the IETF

<masinter> want to track the larger theme of W3C/IETF coordination at architectural level

LM: This is a larger theme

NM: For me that's an Issue, about how to coordinate with other bodies

LM: It's not a management issue, it's a technical issue -- what is the relationship of Web Arch to Internet Arch
... What's critical for a Product is Success criteria
... And I think we _can_ identify and evaluate progress for this effort, so it can be a Product

NM: Other things can have ways to identify and evaluate progress, I want to keep Products for things with deliverables

<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to suggest we take a look at w3c priorities : http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

<timbl> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wf/flow#Task <-- the high-level concept of task

DKA: Wrt TAG priorities, there's also the W3C 2011 Priorities and Milestones document
... http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011#Summary

NM: This reminds me that there are two ways to come at our planning: internally-driven and externally-driven

DKA: In particular, are we missing anything from Jeff Jaffe's list?

NM: So take a tentative pass at what we are already spending time on
... and then see if there's anything we're missing
... at which point we will know if we're overcommitted

LM: It's great to see a W3C priority list of technical topics
... I'd like to respond to it
... So this is higher priority for me than reviewing our current / past efforts

HST: The chair is asking for help in getting to that, by first clarifying the status of our existing commitments

NM: Here's another Product: HTML/XML Unification

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/???

<masinter> I think the "big theme" here is: architectural coherence of the W3C protocol and format work

TBL: Wrt Success criteria, include documentation of important properties of the system which need to be preserved

<masinter> And that XML / HTML is a lead element, because so much of W3C work is based on XML and yet HTML consistency with it is at issue

<masinter> and that the TAG could look at whatever the "task force" produces in this context

<masinter> the goal should not be "Unification" but "coherence" and "support for workflows and use cases"

<masinter> and there are various sub-products, around IRIs and URI schemes....

<noah> ACTION: Noah to build Tracker product page for HTML/XML Unification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-522 - Build Tracker product page for HTML/XML Unification [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

LM: The big theme here is architectural coherence between W3C RECs
... I wouldn't want to track this as Unification, because that's not the goal even for XML vs. HTML
... I don't think that goal stands up

NM: I hear you as observing that there's a higher theme that this specific Product fits into
... and I think we can do that, we can have Themes
... The name comes from the history -- is the key point the abstraction of a higher level

LM: Either this fits in one of the high-level things the JJ laid out, or something else
... in this case, something else, which is a particular TAG responsibility

NM: I hear this, and will try to find a way to organise our thinking at this level

LM: Pass for now

HST: [proposed minor agenda restructuring]

Client-side Storage http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#webAppStorage

ISSUE-60

trackbot, ISSUE-60

<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE-60'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

trackbot, ISSUE 60

<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE 60'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

AM: speaks to http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/ClientSideStorage.pdf
... I need guidance on how to take this forward

<masinter> This underlying architectural issue relates to "Powerful Web Apps", "Data and Service Integration" and "Web of Trust": web applications are more powerful if different applications can share. But they have to do it in a secure way that also maintains user privacy.

AM: The fundamental issue is how to manage the inevitable intrusion of the Privacy/Security issue into any discussion of client-side storage:
... 1) Ignore it, and just do the storage thing;
... 2) Try to do the integration.

<masinter> topic?

AM: The answer is different depending on whether we see the deliverable here as stand-alone, or as part of a larger document where Security is being taken care of

<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to point out that there is now a large and increasing amount of technology making cookies the tip of the iceberg, and that the issue of which websites can acecss

TBL: The document talks mostly about cookies, but there are a large number of new technologies, e.g. sqllib, which are at least as important going forward

<masinter> Security sections could move to https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters

TBL: And as you talk about privacy in that context, it becomes a question about what 'agent' (software, site, person) can get access to what

AM: You're going beyond data

<masinter> based on http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p11.pdf

TBL: No, just data raises these issues, say I have an rdf store on my phone, and an app written by an airline is running in a container from a third party and wants access to that data. . .
... At worst we end up all having to have our own copies of all the privacy-implicated software, to ensure our data doesn't get away

<Zakim> jar, you wanted to mumble about multiple requirements -> solution with multiple facets

TBL: So this discussion has to be forward-looking to address not just what's here now, but what's coming soon

<masinter> "In 2011, W3C expects to charter a Web Application Security Working Group for work on specific technologies to enable more robust and secure Web Applications." from http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

JAR: Normal engineering practice should be followed, to look first at the requirements, without jumping to soon to the technology (e.g. cookies)
... You started out with "need....", which are requirements, and then jump to security -- but that's a requirement too
... It's like building a LISP interpreter, if you leave memory management to the end, you end up with a buggy implementation

AM: Right, so you're saying add security as a requirement, early

JAR: Only then do you look at solutions
... and try to match requirements to aspects of solutions

<masinter> under "Privacy and Security"

LM: There is a commitment at W3C level to charter a Privacy and Security Wg

<noah> Actually, the slide just said privacy, and I think that's what I heard him ask about. That's why I got confused when we kept talking about security.

LM: And that group is a candidate recipient for this work

AM: I thought it was a Privacy IG that was on the way
... and that's not quite the same

LM: W3C has commited to chartering a Web Applications Security WG
... In JJ's document

<noah> From: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

<noah> In 2011, W3C expects to charter a Web Application Security Working Group for work on specific technologies to enable more robust and secure Web Applications.

<noah> (public document)

<Zakim> noah, you wanted to briefly respond to Tim

AM: So, yes, when that happens, feeding in to it makes sense

NM: On the separate vs. together point (storage vs. Privacy&Security)
... indeed per JAR sometimes it's dangerous to factor
... but not sure that's true here
... Suppose you did just focus on storage, w/o talking about P&S

<masinter> "Client side state" doesn't really have anything to say unless there is some 'memory' or 'communication' of client side state

NM: What would the Product page look like if you did that (thought experiment)?
... If you can't even do that, we've learned something
... And if you _can_, then we can look at the P&S factoring question as such
... Thinking about the Product page should be really helpful

AM: I want to come back to the "one large document" question

JAR: That's not what I said. . .

NM: If we want to do a large document, it's a long way out
... So even if we are aiming for a merged form, the work has to go ahead as if it were going to stand on its own

LM: Different perspective -- we're not designing an implementation -- there are already a number of design patterns for C-S S, and they differ

<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to explore a different perspective -- there are multiple design patterns in use in the community, some are better than others for several reasons... which are

LM: they have different relevant properties to the requirements
... Here are seven different design patterns here are their properties, here's why some address req't X, Y, Z better/worse than others

<masinter> "seven" plus or minus four

NM: Assuming this is a separate document, what are the top three questions it will answer for the community?

AM: Give me three weeks

NM: OK, let's suspend judgement on the long-term future of this work until we see your response

<masinter> are there books or papers on web application design, that cover client side storage, use of cookies, local storage, etc?

<noah> . ACTION: Ashok (with help from Noah) build product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered

AM: We asked the WebApps guys who are writing these specs, where are your use cases?
... And they didn't have much of a concrete reply

[Scribe note: This was all re http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60]

<noah> ACTION: Ashok (with help from Noah) build good product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-523 - (with help from Noah) build good product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered on client side storage Due: 2011-03-01 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2011-02-17].

[Break until 1045]

[resume from break]

Review of TAG activity

NM: I've been reviewing the open actions, to try to abstract what the set of Products are in principle
... So that we can create the ones that are missing
... Quick scan of the Tracker Products: 2001/tag/group/track/products
... Agreed that we are _not_ currently working on the Versioning Product

<noah> ACTION: Noah close versioning product [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-524 - Close versioning product [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

LM: Some of that work is going forward under other headings, e.g. the mime info work

NM: What is this WebApp Access Control product?

<noah> ACTION: Noah to check with John before closing http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access control [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-525 - Check with John before closing http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 WebApps access control [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

JR: Ask JK

<noah> ACTION: Noah to do first draft product stuff for MIME and related core web mechanisms [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-526 - Do first draft product stuff for MIME and related core web mechanisms [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

NM: We have a total of 45 open actions

LM: I want to push Action 519 to be even bigger, on the relation of standards to operational requirements
... Big ISPs come to IETF, not to W3C, so this is important wrt our presentation to the IAB

<noah> ACTION: Noah to make sure we make progress on ACTION-519 and ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF meeting, talk to be ready by mid-March [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-527 - Make sure we make progress on ACTION-519 and ACTION-517 in time to provide input to Prague IETF meeting, talk to be ready by mid-March [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

NM: Diving in to Action-521, do we want to press forward with taking Disposition of Names in a Namespace to REC: 4 not sure, 2 against, 1 to push it to Core, 0 to do it
... Remind NM to propose next steps and/or discussion on this
... Relieved not to find too many "Oops, we've let this slip" responses or "Oops, there's a big iceberg under here"
... Open for discussion, let's propose edits to the list of Products
... Additions or deletions

<noah> q_

<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say Products don't exhaust our work

<Zakim> jar, you wanted to take apart 'important'

<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to propose changing "HTML 5 review" to "HTML/CSS/etc. architecture"

LM: Change HTML 5 review to Open Web Platform Architecture
... At the TPAC plenary, the MS rep [name?] proposed a number of HTML5-related arch. issues
... and I've gotten a list from Julian Reschke

<masinter> and from several other people

HST: Is Persistence a Product

NM: Should we be doing that -- think about where this stands?

<masinter> I'm looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011

LM: I don't think it is one of the top priorities aligns with the guidance we're getting

TBL: We are responsible for long-term issues, which no-one else will worry about

NM: I read JJ's list as a "be sure to cover this", not "and nothing else"

HST: We owe it to the people who raised the persistence question to work on it, and I think addressing why people don't trust 'http:' URIs is a fundamental arch. question.

NM: Goals and success criteria

<noah> HT: We have two draft documents in different stages: 1) my somewhat stale but valuable Dirk and Nadia design a naming scheme and 2) Jonathan's checklist document

<noah> HT: I think each of those speak to a different community, and suggest different deliverables directed at different goals.

<masinter> the reason why i'm reluctant to put this is a priority is that i'm afraid i have some real disagreements about the nature of the problem and the directions to address them.

<noah> HT: Potential goal #1: address the architectural origins of the vulnerability of Web names.

<noah> HT: Potential goal #2: identify best practices for the use of Web names in contexts where some form of persistence is goal.

<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to suggest a serious thing.

<noah> ACTION: Henry to create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-528 - Create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2011-02-17].

<timbl> due date: 3011-01-01 -- test that the action URI still works

<noah> ACTION-528 Due 2011-03-01

<trackbot> ACTION-528 Create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names Due: 2011-03-01 due date now 2011-03-01

<masinter> "persistence" requires both technical and social institutions to coordinate. We should look at successful social institutions and those in trouble.

DKA: Offline web: widgets, app cache, cf. JJ's Web Apps and mobile devices bullet

<masinter> http://www.archive.org/post/337580/internet-archive-needs-your-help

DKA: There is a workshop being organized by Matt Womer in this area

NM: This overlaps with C-S S

DKA: This is about packaging
... not (just) storage

NM: Should we discuss making this a product?
... OK, will do

<noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule telcon discussion of a potential TAG product relating to offline applications and packaged Web [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-529 - Schedule telcon discussion of a potential TAG product relating to offline applications and packaged Web [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-02-17].

NM: All of mobile?

DKA: No, mobile and the offline web -- packaging the web

<Ashok> Interacts with Client-Side Storage

JAR: Saying something is important is not very useful, unless someone is signed up for it
... Maybe we should do a gap analysis: a matrix where we have supply-side -- what would each member be inclined to do, left to themselves, vs. demand-side: what have JJ and/or our community asked us to do
... and we look for the blank spaces
... And we don't yet have enough information yet to actually build that matrix

NM: That's a goal for us, yes

<masinter> alignment between W3C working groups, and with IETF and with previous specs and .... is after all what TAG was originally chartered for

<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about 'underlying architecture' as possibly a higher TAG priority than Jeff's list, which applies to W3C as a whole

<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to wonder about a goal in which social insititions are changed in order to acheive persistence.

IETF Meeting in Prague

<noah> Henry and Larry will be there.

<noah> AM: Talk or panel.

<noah> LM: See ACTION-500. There is a panel, with representation from lots of the IETF community. Panel description is copied in the action.

trackbot, action-500

<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, action-500'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

trackbot, action-500?

<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, action-500?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<noah> LM: Not yet determined between Henry and me who will actually be on the panel.

<noah> ACTION-500?

<trackbot> ACTION-500 -- Larry Masinter to coordinate about TAG participation in IETF/IAB panel at March 2011 IETF -- due 2011-02-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/500

<noah> AM: You probably only get 15 mins?

<noah> LM: At most, could be 10.

<noah> LM: We should use this mainly to "show the flag", indicate where major points of interest are, etc.

<noah> LM: They've written what they think the issue is for them.

<noah> HT: It's in some sense better we don't have a longer slot, which would lead to us reading our laundry list.

<noah> HT: The appropriate question we need to think of here today is, what do we want to project about the TAG itself?

<noah> LM: We are in the process of establishing our priorities based on what the community needs from us. Some people at the IETF meeting are likely to be, unfortunately, not W3C members.

<noah> NM: Um, our TAG community is the Web and Internet community, not just the W3C.

<noah> LM: Ooops, you're right, that's what I meant.

<noah> NM: We listen to everyone, on www-tag, by inviting people to join meetings and calls, etc.

<noah> HT: The IETF is appealingly a crypto-anarchist community with a long history.

<noah> HT: They are phenomenally successfully.

<noah> HT: Larry and I should probably send email to www-tag asking for input, then get telcon time.

<noah> LM: Henry, hows about you draft a talk for review, with my help?

<noah> HT: I'll produce say, 5 slides, for review on call in two weeks.

<masinter> what is the tag, waht the tag works on, what things are we thinking about in W3C, what things are we thinking about in the TAG in particular

<noah> ACTION: Henry to draft slides for IETF meeting, with help from Larry Due 2011-02-22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-tagmem-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-530 - Draft slides for IETF meeting, with help from Larry Due 2011-02-22 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2011-02-17].

NM: Suspended for lunch

- DRAFT -

TAG Face-to-Face
10 Feb 2011

Attendees

Contents

Review of Agenda

TAG Priorities for 2011

Client-side Storage http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#webAppStorage

Review of TAG activity

IETF Meeting in Prague

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

TAG Face-to-Face 10 Feb 2011

Attendees

Contents

Review of Agenda

TAG Priorities for 2011

Client-side Storage http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda#webAppStorage

Review of TAG activity

IETF Meeting in Prague

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

TAG Face-to-Face
10 Feb 2011