IRC log of tagmem on 2011-03-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:44:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:44:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:50:28 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
16:51:21 [jar]
jar has changed the topic to: (jar)
16:55:58 [Larry]
Larry has joined #tagmem
16:56:09 [Larry]
zakim, call me
16:56:09 [Zakim]
Sorry, Larry; you need to be more specific about your location
16:56:44 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
16:56:51 [Zakim]
17:00:24 [Zakim]
17:00:32 [Zakim]
17:01:15 [Larry]
17:01:35 [Zakim]
17:02:01 [ht]
yves, you in via SIP?
17:02:10 [ht]
I'm losing :-(
17:03:21 [Larry]
regrets: Peter
17:03:31 [ht]
zakim, code?
17:03:31 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht
17:03:45 [Zakim]
17:04:02 [ht]
Chair: Jonathan Rees
17:04:06 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:04:07 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
17:04:12 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
17:04:19 [ht]
Meeting: TAG telcon
17:04:29 [ht]
17:05:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.626.aaaa
17:05:14 [ht]
s/Rees/Rees (pro tem)
17:05:25 [ht]
s/Rees/Rees (pro tem)/
17:05:34 [ht]
s/Rees/Rees (pro tem)/
17:05:46 [ht]
Topic: Admin
17:05:58 [ht]
Regrets for 24 March: tbl, hst
17:06:05 [ht]
Scribe for 24 March: pl
17:06:12 [DKA]
Minutes 10 March OK with me.
17:06:18 [ht]
JR: RESOLVED: Minutes of 10 March approved
17:06:29 [Larry]
IETF agenda is
17:06:41 [ht]
Topic: IETF Meeting in Prague
17:07:18 [Larry]
/me quotes: 4. Technical Session:
17:07:18 [Larry]
"The Future of Applications"
17:07:18 [Larry]
Panel session moderated by Jon Peterson
17:07:18 [Larry]
17:07:21 [Larry]
Jonathan Rosenberg (Skype)
17:07:24 [Larry]
Harald Alvestrand (Google)
17:07:27 [Larry]
Henry S. Thompson (W3C)
17:07:29 [ht]
17:07:31 [Larry]
Possibly more
17:07:35 [Larry]
17:07:47 [DKA]
(checked in)
17:08:06 [ht]
HST: Thanks to AM and NM for input
17:09:09 [ht]
HST: I've included versions of the material they sent
17:09:47 [ht]
HST: Plan to use a subset as appropriate
17:10:13 [ht]
LM: You're supposed to be talking about the Future of APplications
17:10:19 [ht]
... So change the title of the talk
17:10:28 [ht]
HST: WIll do
17:11:03 [ht]
LM: Applications are going away, to be replaced by Web sites
17:11:18 [ht]
... We may not like this, but it's happening
17:11:22 [DKA]
+1 to LM.
17:11:27 [ht]
... So Web Arch _is_ application architecture
17:11:51 [ht]
LM: Put this earlier
17:12:19 [ht]
... to clarify why webarch is _relevant_ to talk about the future of apps
17:13:12 [ht]
YL: You can see the replacement happening both ways
17:13:26 [Larry]
some sites might be replacing a web site of documents with a web site of one application, but it's still "web architecture"
17:13:30 [ht]
... Website has only one URL, all content is computed
17:13:57 [ht]
YL: Web Arch is not cast in stone -- Web evolves, TAG tries to keep up
17:14:03 [Larry]
q+ to argue against 5 and 6 just because i don't like them much
17:14:05 [ht]
HST: Yes
17:14:27 [ht]
LM: Remove 5 & 6 because I don't like what they say
17:14:51 [Ashok]
+1 to Yves' comment re. evolution
17:14:51 [ht]
HST: Noted
17:15:30 [jar]
lm: URIs don't have owners. resources maybe
17:15:31 [ht]
HST: May be cut if time is short
17:15:55 [ht]
LM: How relevant are they to the question before the panel?
17:16:28 [ht]
LM: Slide 7 _was_ true -- are they true of Web Apps?
17:16:40 [ht]
s/are/are those assertions/
17:17:02 [ht]
HST: Every single one needs to be re-examined
17:17:28 [DKA]
Under slide 11, you might want to include a link to the joint IAB/W3C/ISOC workshop on privacy from last year:
17:18:08 [ht]
LM: Historically there is an Arch of the Web of Docs
17:18:24 [ht]
... Now we have to migrate that to the Arch of the Web of Docs _and_ Apps
17:18:33 [ht]
... Make that clear earlier
17:19:15 [ht]
LM: That gives us a context for 5, 6, 7, #!, etc.
17:19:51 [ht]
... Side-effect free? View source less helpful if it's all JS?
17:20:18 [Yves]
I would note that the issue about media types is a good example of possible cooperation
17:21:04 [ht]
HST: Valuable as both source of fixes and as guidance for rhetorical stance
17:21:34 [Larry]
Maybe we should work either now or by email on what the design issues are in moving from web of docs to web of apps... e.g., does "view source" still work? Do redirect, cache and proxy still work with web applications?
17:21:40 [jar]
Presentation is Mon 28 March
17:21:42 [ht]
JR: Presentation is on 28 March
17:22:26 [Larry]
slide 8: "how we see ourselves" "how we saw ourselves"
17:22:27 [ht]
HST: I will not be on the call
17:22:32 [Ashok]
17:22:42 [jar]
17:22:44 [ht]
q- Larry
17:22:46 [ht]
ack next
17:22:56 [ht]
AM: Wrt Privacy
17:23:28 [ht]
AM: There's been a lot of discussion of this on the IETF privacy mailing list
17:23:45 [ht]
... There will be people there who know a lot about this -- more than we do, pbly
17:24:11 [ht]
HST: Happy to convey that we are the junior partners in this
17:24:18 [ht]
... need IETF help
17:24:51 [ht]
LM: The TAG is tracking more than leading
17:25:01 [ht]
... W3C is running workshops
17:25:08 [jar]
lm: We're asking help in some cases, putative authority in others
17:25:26 [ht]
LM: In contrast, slide 15 is our lead
17:25:39 [Larry]
"a mess" isn't very informative
17:25:58 [ht]
AM: What's the polite way of saying that
17:26:03 [ht]
17:26:40 [ht]
LM: We have a work in progress, which tries to move this forward, so not "a mess"
17:26:51 [ht]
... This is an example of an evolution point
17:26:59 [Larry]
it might be a mess, but it is natural
17:27:03 [jar]
17:28:10 [ht]
LM: Lead with W3C priorities, put TAG's second on slide 10
17:29:24 [ht]
HST: Not sure
17:29:43 [ht]
LM: Top-level goal is improving IETF/W3C engagement
17:30:02 [ht]
... so the W3C goals are the highest-level agenda-setters
17:30:52 [ht]
JR: HSt, are we done?
17:30:55 [ht]
HST: Yes
17:31:23 [ht]
LM: This is thought-provoking, which is just right
17:31:48 [ht]
... We can use this to organise how we think about organising our Web App arch. work
17:31:54 [ht]
JAR: Yes, that makes sense
17:32:13 [ht]
s/work/work -- it gave me a new perspective -- anyone else?/
17:32:27 [ht]
Topic: IETF meeting on registries
17:33:45 [ht]
LM: MNot noticed a change proposal from Mike Smith wrt content types for <canvas> in HTML5, which proposes a registry
17:33:59 [ht]
... Is the W3C gearing up to run more registries?
17:34:20 [ht]
... Is this a way we should go for extensible vocabularies?
17:35:01 [ht]
LM: There was a reason IANA moved registration management from one person to a 'political' process
17:35:12 [ht]
... Such tasks shouldn't be taken on lightly
17:35:21 [jar]
lm: registry steward looks after fairness, safety, ...
17:35:38 [ht]
LM: When we have web-based protocols that need an extensible vocabulary of parameters
17:36:01 [ht]
... and looking at ISOC's sponsorship of W3C
17:36:31 [ht]
LM: IETF, ICANN and IANA are independent organisations -- is there coordination needed here?
17:37:07 [ht]
... Should W3C stumble in to running registries -- has the membership committed to resourcing the indefinite provisioning of this service?
17:37:29 [ht]
JR: In the IETF case, I thought new registry entries were declared by RFCs. . .
17:37:54 [ht]
LM: Not always. IANA has a contract to perform registry services, under the direction of IETF.
17:38:29 [ht]
... So if the IETF publishes an RFC which creates a registry, it has to specify how registrations are managed
17:38:55 [ht]
... It can be first-come, first-served, or managed by IETF, or devolved in part to other organizations
17:39:26 [ht]
LM: In some cases there is an appointed expert reviewer or panel of reviewers, e.g. Graeme Kline for URI schemes
17:39:32 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
17:40:02 [ht]
... But the RFC that covers URI scheme registration is being revised to accommodate IRIs
17:40:13 [ht]
HST: So life is complex
17:40:47 [jar]
ht: these things ramify. it's nice that the xpointer scheme registry is simple; that doesn't mean all registries are like that
17:41:01 [ht]
HST: Just because the XPointer scheme registry is simple to operate doesn't mean it's always that way
17:41:33 [ht]
LM: The ownership of the text/html media type semantics is an example of why the process matters
17:41:50 [ht]
... Mostly it doesn't matter, but when it does, there has to be a clear story
17:42:09 [ht]
LM: Sniffing isn't disconnected from this either
17:42:34 [jar]
17:42:35 [ht]
LM: Not sure W3C has taken on board all the potential complexity of running a registry
17:43:18 [ht]
YL: Consider image/svg+xml took a long time to be defined, only officially registered a few months ago, but successfully in use for years
17:43:36 [DKA]
I share your concerns, Larry.
17:43:37 [ht]
YL: Move to have everything defined by RFC is not necessarily helpful
17:43:48 [Zakim]
17:43:54 [JeniT]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:43:54 [Zakim]
+JeniT; got it
17:44:02 [ht]
LM: There have been gaps in the processes, that needs to be resolved
17:44:13 [ht]
HST: Thinks TLR will be in Prague
17:44:36 [Yves]
tlr will be in Prague
17:45:01 [ht]
LM: It would be good if someone from W3C staff who is up to speed on registry issues was at [some meeting]
17:45:21 [ht]
LM: What to do about the now-rejected link relation registry
17:45:41 [ht]
LM: Anyone from HTML WG at the IETF meeting?
17:45:59 [ht]
YL: I will check
17:46:22 [ht]
HST: LM should maybe brief TLR
17:47:12 [ht]
ACTION Larry to liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background
17:47:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-539 - Liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-03-24].
17:48:41 [ht]
ACTION Larry to try to arrange for Thomas Roessler to participate in the meeting about Registries at the IETF meeting in Prague
17:48:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-540 - Try to arrange for Thomas Roessler to participate in the meeting about Registries at the IETF meeting in Prague [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-03-24].
17:49:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.216.aabb
17:49:34 [plinss]
zakim, aabb is plinss
17:49:34 [Zakim]
+plinss; got it
17:49:36 [ht]
zakim, +1 is plinss
17:49:36 [Zakim]
sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named '+1'
17:49:47 [ht]
zakim, 1 is plinss
17:49:47 [Zakim]
sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named '1'
17:49:54 [Larry]
zakim, who's here
17:49:54 [Zakim]
Larry, you need to end that query with '?'
17:49:59 [Larry]
zakim, who's here?
17:49:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, DKA, Jonathan_Rees, Yves, ht, Ashok, JeniT, plinss
17:50:01 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeniT, Ashok, Larry, DKA, RRSAgent, jar, Zakim, ht, Norm, plinss, Yves, trackbot
17:50:17 [ht]
Topic: Copyright and deep linking
17:50:52 [ht]
JR: Links in the agenda for the background
17:51:19 [ht]
... including discussion with Thinh Nguyen in December 2010:
17:51:38 [ht]
JR: DKA, what about ACTION-505?
17:51:50 [ht]
17:51:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-505 -- Daniel Appelquist to start a document wrt issue-25 -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN
17:51:50 [trackbot]
17:51:56 [Ashok]
17:52:18 [ht]
DKA: Shell document exists, needs content
17:52:34 [ht]
... What is the audience, what is the point?
17:52:54 [ht]
DKA: The recent legal issue has put some energy behind it
17:52:55 [JeniT]
q+ to talk about some drafting
17:53:02 [ht]
q+ to talk about a Best Practice
17:53:25 [jar]
17:53:33 [ht]
DKA: Guidance for a court? Focussed on difference between link and transclusion?
17:53:48 [ht]
... That needs action on people to contribute content
17:53:54 [ht]
... I can do some, but not all
17:53:57 [jar]
17:54:10 [jar]
ack next
17:54:17 [ht]
AM: Thanks DKA
17:54:27 [ht]
AM: Typically the TAG writes on technical stuff
17:54:39 [ht]
... this is not quite technical
17:54:56 [ht]
... So what can we write, and for whom? We are not lawyers. . .
17:55:14 [jar]
17:55:15 [ht]
... Where is the TAG in this difficult controversial situation?
17:55:19 [jar]
ack next
17:55:20 [Zakim]
JeniT, you wanted to talk about some drafting
17:55:31 [DKA]
zakim, mute me
17:55:31 [Zakim]
DKA should now be muted
17:55:49 [ht]
JT: I'm trying to draft something, as an aid to thinking this through
17:55:52 [Larry]
q+ to wonder if there is some 'expert' testimony we could use as guidance for what technical facts are useful.
17:56:17 [ht]
JT: We can contribute some terminology: how information moves, by fetching, caching, etc.
17:56:31 [ht]
... And what happens with it: linked, transcluded, etc.
17:56:55 [ht]
JT: That could then be used and referred to be the people involved in the legal discussion
17:57:21 [Larry]
I want it to move through "recommendation" stage, and turn into a W3C (and IETF?) consensus document, to give more weight to it than just "TAG as another group of experts"
17:57:38 [ht]
JT: We could also give guidance/good practice to web masters about putting acknowledgements in to pages etc.
17:57:40 [jar]
17:57:47 [ht]
ack next
17:57:47 [jar]
ack next
17:57:48 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to talk about a Best Practice
17:57:52 [Zakim]
Larry, you wanted to wonder if there is some 'expert' testimony we could use as guidance for what technical facts are useful.
18:00:26 [jar]
18:00:31 [JeniT]
Sorry, by webmaster/web developer I meant author
18:01:05 [ht]
HST: [experience with lecture notes]
18:01:07 [jar]
18:02:05 [ht]
LM: To be useful legally, but w/o legal opinions -- maybe we should look at existing expert testimony
18:02:18 [ht]
... to get some guidance as to what might be useful
18:02:21 [JeniT]
Do we know where to find those?
18:02:40 [ht]
LM: I feel pretty strongly that we need to take this through broader review, by putting it on the REC track
18:02:49 [ht]
... so it gets community review
18:03:07 [ht]
JR: That's what Thinh said
18:03:25 [DKA]
zakim, unmute me
18:03:25 [Zakim]
DKA should no longer be muted
18:03:28 [jar]
18:03:31 [DKA]
18:03:39 [ht]
JR: The minutes of that meeting are very useful
18:03:54 [ht]
18:04:04 [Yves]
18:04:11 [ht]
JR: How do we coordinate with the rest of W3C?
18:04:26 [ht]
q+ to say REC track _is_ coordination
18:04:45 [ht]
AM: Maybe speak to Danny Weitzner? [sp?]
18:05:00 [ht]
YL: May be too busy, in gov't these days
18:05:10 [ht]
JR: I can talk to Hal Abelson. . .
18:05:25 [Larry]
q+ to note that TAG hasn't done many rec track documents. suggest: draft something, invite AC and public comment
18:05:37 [jar]
18:05:46 [ht]
JR: Maybe the first thing is to let DKA and JL get something written and that will let us
18:05:47 [jar]
ack next
18:05:53 [ht]
JR: get started
18:06:21 [ht]
DKA: With respect to what can/should we be saying, I like JT's suggestion that we start with terminology
18:06:41 [ht]
... aimed at informing the legal community
18:07:03 [ht]
DKA: After the conversation with Thinh, I thought we had consensus on a bit more than that
18:07:28 [ht]
... That would clarify that "[quote]"
18:07:54 [ht]
... Documenting the parts of WebArch that support that proposition are what JT is suggesting
18:07:59 [jar]
18:08:01 [JeniT]
yes :)
18:08:02 [ht]
HST, AM, JAR: +1
18:08:06 [Larry]
i would like to separate out the opinion part from the definition and architectural part, even in separate documents
18:08:26 [jar]
18:08:35 [jar]
ack ht
18:08:35 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to say REC track _is_ coordination
18:08:50 [JeniT]
I don't know either :)
18:09:05 [ht]
ACTION Jeni helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc.
18:09:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-541 - Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-03-24].
18:09:28 [ht]
ACTION-541 due 2011-03-30
18:09:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. due date now 2011-03-30
18:09:43 [ht]
ack ht
18:10:25 [ht]
HST: REC track gives us all the coordination we need
18:10:33 [jar]
ack next
18:10:34 [Zakim]
Larry, you wanted to note that TAG hasn't done many rec track documents. suggest: draft something, invite AC and public comment
18:11:25 [ht]
LM: We haven't done many REC-track documents -- we might want to work harder than W3C Process requires at the early stage
18:11:32 [ht]
... to let people know what we're doing
18:11:55 [ht]
LM: Part of that would be to solicit additional material
18:12:13 [jar]
18:12:54 [ht]
JR: Maybe see that as the doing the equivalent of chartering
18:13:06 [jar]
well not exactly..
18:13:30 [ht]
LM: We have to be careful about describing what we think we are doing
18:13:56 [JeniT]
18:14:27 [ht]
LM: For the time being, that's a pointer to some requirements on the Introduction to the document being drafted
18:14:44 [JeniT]
q+ being a good web citizen
18:14:56 [ht]
JR: No-one wants to give legal advice, which is one reason why there is no guidance wrt HST's problem
18:15:05 [JeniT]
18:15:29 [jar]
18:15:31 [ht]
JR: THere are at least some non-legal issues, such as giving credit (as opposed to licensing)
18:15:33 [jar]
ack jenit
18:15:54 [Larry]
we want to give advice which is useful in a legal context, but doesn't itself make legal recommendations, since the technical issues are balanced against societal and financial ones to come to a conclusion about what is or should be legal or not legal
18:15:54 [ht]
JR: where some advice could be given w/o serious repercussions
18:16:19 [jar]
+1 good citizen
18:16:20 [ht]
JT: So, aim to talk more about being a good web citizen/being responsible
18:16:28 [ht]
... rather than making any legal claims
18:16:36 [jar]
18:16:37 [ht]
That fits with giving credit
18:16:38 [Larry]
q+ to argue against 'good citizen'
18:16:48 [jar]
ack larry
18:16:48 [Zakim]
Larry, you wanted to argue against 'good citizen'
18:16:57 [ht]
q+ to ask what legal status of share-alike wording is
18:17:03 [Ashok]
But will the good practice protect you legally?
18:17:18 [ht]
LM: Balancing the technical facts versus societal goals
18:17:53 [ht]
... A lot of societal goals are mixed in here, and they are much harder to give advice about
18:18:01 [ht]
... than getting the facts clear
18:18:13 [jar]
18:18:21 [jar]
ack ht
18:18:21 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to ask what legal status of share-alike wording is
18:18:26 [jar]
18:18:48 [ht]
LM: In particular there are access-control mechanisms, say passwords, by which material can be
18:18:55 [ht]
... barred to some and allowed to others
18:19:15 [ht]
LM: Then you say something about conventions for using such mechanisms
18:19:18 [jar]
18:19:25 [ht]
LM: Those are facts
18:19:51 [jar]
18:21:18 [ht]
HST: Asks a complicated question about "give me credit" really means
18:21:38 [ht]
... as a way of asking how we could safely give guidance on how to give credit
18:23:06 [ht]
JR: I was thinking more along the lines of what the form of a credit notice should be, _a la_ Chicago Manual of Style, in a social context such as academia
18:23:18 [ht]
... Even if something is in the public domain, you can still credit someone
18:24:11 [ht]
JT: I'll work with DKA and we'll get something out
18:24:42 [JeniT]
18:24:51 [DKA]
18:24:52 [ht]
JR: Adjourned
18:24:56 [DKA]
18:25:05 [DKA]
+1 to great chairing and organizing, JAR
18:25:07 [ht]
Tutti: Thanks to JR for chairing
18:25:14 [Zakim]
18:25:16 [Zakim]
18:25:18 [Zakim]
18:25:20 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:25:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht
18:25:21 [Zakim]
18:25:22 [Zakim]
18:25:23 [Zakim]
18:25:26 [Zakim]
18:25:30 [ht]
rrsagent, make minutes world-visible
18:25:30 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:25:52 [ht]
zakim, bye
18:25:52 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Masinter, DKA, Jonathan_Rees, Yves, ht, +1.202.626.aaaa, Ashok, JeniT, +1.858.216.aabb, plinss
18:25:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
18:26:01 [ht]
rrsagent, bye
18:26:01 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items