IRC log of tagmem on 2011-06-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:09:52 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
01:51:13 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
02:04:03 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
02:58:01 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
13:33:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
13:33:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:33:55 [DKA]
trackbot, start meeting
13:33:58 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:33:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
13:34:00 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
13:34:00 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM scheduled to start 34 minutes ago
13:34:01 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
13:34:01 [trackbot]
Date: 08 June 2011
13:34:31 [masinter]
Noah: equating 'hosting' with 'possession' leads to difficulty
13:34:51 [DKA]
Topic: Linking and Publishing Document
13:34:51 [timbl]
What Tim said was: The term 'posession' for physical artefacts combines aspect of ownership (as in property) and access to and control over -- but no such concept with these 3 wrapped up applies online.
13:36:00 [masinter]
noah: Organization is surprising, the note was a "stink bomb", editorially .... make it a separate section
13:36:15 [jar]
Stallman says there is no such thing as "intellectual property"... meaning that you cannot possess bits, you can only possess a physical device that carries some bits. Copyright doesn't cover ownership, it covers copying and performing.
13:36:36 [masinter]
Jeni: I put them in notes because I wasn't sure we wanted them in there.
13:36:55 [Ashok]
13:36:56 [timbl]
Maybe it would be good say that some things are done by automatic agents, which are set up for various parties benefitt tbut themselves cannot themselves be held resposnible for the legality of the way they are used. These include transmission systems and routers, proxies, nd also automatic format transfoamtion services and image re-rendering service, spell-checkers etc etc etc.
13:37:12 [masinter]
q+ jar
13:37:18 [masinter]
ack jar
13:37:30 [masinter]
jar: The key idea is 'who is responsible for what'
13:37:41 [masinter]
13:37:45 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
13:38:07 [noah]
q- jar
13:38:24 [ht]
q+ to as about bullet 2 n the note
13:38:51 [masinter]
TimBL: poeple who set up agents, format translation, spell checkers, image downsamplers, .... are not responsible for the content that they are used for.
13:39:33 [masinter]
ht: I like the note and thing it should be upgrade, but point 2 is a tautology
13:40:08 [masinter]
ht: you should tell me things like 'things that are fundamental to their operation are at risk'
13:40:11 [jar]
[ht is referring to 2nd bullet in note at end of 1.1]
13:40:12 [ht]
q- ht
13:40:25 [masinter]
Jeni: would it help with these to have the pithy 'this is the thing' first
13:40:32 [noah]
Legislation that forbade transformations on illegal material would similarly limit the services that service providers could provide that are of value for legal purposes.
13:41:33 [masinter]
TimBL: it would be great to have a list of automated agents should be covered
13:41:40 [noah]
ack ashok
13:41:59 [masinter]
ashok: when you speak about transformations, you also include censorship
13:42:40 [masinter]
ashok: censorship can be helpful in that it excludes bad words and then makes bad words acceptable
13:42:51 [masinter]
Jeni: is it useful to put in examples?
13:43:17 [masinter]
Noah: we should be particularly aware of international different concerns
13:43:41 [Ashok]
Yes, examples would be great!
13:44:36 [noah]
LMM: Thinking about longevity of this document, and its applicability over time. I'd like to see it put it into section. I'd like a section on stuff that's happened (or might happen) that's bad. E.g. hosting equated with posession and ... (explain what bad happened)
13:45:03 [noah]
LMM: Then there are TAG recommendations on best practices. The terminology will stand; the examples are current... (scribes
13:45:26 [noah]
LMM: (scribe's not sure where that point was going) I like the Street View example.
13:45:44 [noah]
LMM: Part of my question is "who is the audience?" Just the legal community, or also ISPs?
13:45:57 [noah]
13:46:00 [noah]
ack masinter
13:46:17 [jar]
13:46:17 [noah]
LMM: So, I'm resisting wording suggesting what good laws would be, what the impact would be of laws, etc.
13:46:25 [noah]
q+ to say isps are not the point
13:46:53 [timbl]
s/member:TimBL: it would be great to have a list of automated agents should be covered/member:TimBL: while it would be great to have a list of automated agents as examples, it is important that, because this list changes all the time any laws should make the point in general about any automated systems like those, not the specific ones./
13:47:08 [noah]
DKA: Genesis of this document was to service legal community's needs. Are you pushing back on that?
13:47:21 [jar]
lmm's specific organization suggestion: 1. terminology 2. examples 3. recommended best practice
13:47:32 [noah]
LMM: No, but rearrangement would help. Don't like the "if you were to do this it would be bad" should be "this happened, and it was bad"
13:47:40 [noah]
LMM: Too speculative.
13:47:59 [masinter]
the wording sounds too speculative
13:48:14 [masinter]
terminology + organization
13:49:15 [masinter]
noah: I wouldn't go as far as Larry, in a document like this we should be careful how we shouldn't be to cautious
13:50:04 [masinter]
Jeni: Section 1.2 is around copying and distributing: 4 kinds of reasons why you copy data, with a summary and some points around that.
13:50:17 [noah]
noah: I wouldn't go as far as Larry in being retrospective only. In some cases, it's very useful to say "we see certain policies being considered, we can explain the likely practical consequences to the Web"
13:50:47 [ht]
q+ to say it's worse than 'slow down'
13:51:08 [masinter]
13:52:20 [masinter]
noah: 1.2 I had to read this 2-3 times to understand
13:53:36 [masinter]
noah: there is a formal distinction between hosting "HOSTED OWNED CONTROLLED" by an 'origin server'. The intent here is fine but the presentation is unclear. Introduce the simple case and then add the complexity
13:55:25 [masinter]
noah: "it is usually impossible to tell" ... when? from just one perspective, not 'from a subpoena' ... in simple ways be more careful about stuff like that
13:55:57 [masinter]
DKA: we want to make sure this document is readable to non-technical people, perhaps a diagram would be useful?
13:56:18 [masinter]
(not sure 'non-technical' is the right audience)
13:56:51 [timbl]
(Why we ended up with "origin server" instead of "original server" I don;t know)
13:57:30 [masinter]
('original' was updated with a new version, so it's not the original which used to be hosted at CERN etc.)
13:57:57 [masinter]
jar: talk about libraries?
13:58:26 [masinter]
noah: backup strategies might also make copies....
13:58:42 [masinter]
TimBL: backing up in the cloud ....
13:59:13 [masinter]
jar: I think it's worth talking about libraries... there is a special exception for them, that says libraries are allowed to make backups
13:59:39 [masinter]
Yves: do they have the right to own illegal content
14:00:03 [masinter]
14:00:39 [masinter]
Yves: libraries may be able to hold on to illegal material even if they can't distribute it
14:01:14 [masinter]
Jeni: 1.2.3 Search engines
14:01:49 [masinter]
Jeni: 1.2.4 Reusing .... that's the bits you're after, if you're trying to prevent something.
14:02:17 [masinter]
DKA: you don't talk about 'fair use', and has different names
14:03:16 [masinter]
noah: I'd understand this if the terms lined up, and that we can clarify
14:03:33 [masinter]
noah: we have technical terms about transformation and storing and only indirectly allowed
14:05:30 [masinter]
noah: That is for the lawyers to do.... (examples about copying and Xerox machines)
14:08:45 [masinter]
i'd suggest going through one more round and issue a FPWD
14:09:04 [masinter]
DKA: we should have Tin back on and get his feedback on a call
14:09:24 [masinter]
dka: then we go to a more general community
14:09:42 [masinter]
Jeni: and Rigo .... and Casey (privacy council)
14:10:02 [masinter]
s/i'd/larry: i'd
14:10:12 [masinter]
jeni: get a legal review
14:11:05 [masinter]
jar: what TIn said ... if this is a TAG finding, it will have some impact, but if it is Req track that would have broader review....
14:11:23 [masinter]
... it would have much broader impact
14:11:42 [noah]
14:11:46 [masinter]
the people Tin have in mind are judges, legislators, constituents, .... try to get EFF review
14:12:10 [timbl]
14:12:16 [noah]
14:12:27 [noah]
q- ht
14:12:29 [masinter]
Noah: I do want to be careful about how we handle it
14:12:33 [noah]
q+ masinter
14:14:19 [jar]
What the legal community will care about is whether the document has had wide review within the technical community. Rec track is W3C's usual way of getting wide review.
14:15:04 [masinter]
larry: encourage Jeni to make another editorial pass, get individual review, and then we'll mkae one more pass at the meeting, and then go to FPWD
14:15:26 [jar]
14:15:34 [timbl]
14:15:49 [masinter]
DKA: I tried to pull out section 1.5 with linking as a speech act. Essentially the idea is to conceptually put together linking with speech act, and put this into free speech
14:16:16 [masinter]
DKA: freedom of expresion ... we htink linking is a kind of expression
14:17:29 [masinter]
larry: UN declaration last week on Internet
14:17:58 [masinter]
TimBL: there was a site that was taking down, who embedded video links
14:18:10 [masinter]
TimBL: drawing this lines is something the TAG could do
14:18:36 [masinter]
q+ that we write htis as the TAG editing hte community consensus opinion
14:18:47 [masinter]
14:19:15 [masinter]
TimBL: cases where linking was aiding and abetting the crime
14:20:21 [masinter]
Jeni: linking to something is like speaking about something. Some cases there are are laws against some kind of speech ....
14:21:55 [masinter]
HT: suppose we agree as we have said many times that URIs are something like names. I'm not aware of any limitations on naming things, just ....
14:22:14 [masinter]
DKA: if you just had a list of links... and the combination of that list was, by itself, inciting violence
14:22:23 [timbl]
14:22:31 [timbl]
q+ yves
14:22:37 [timbl]
t+ timbl
14:22:38 [JeniT]
14:22:43 [masinter]
((heated conversation))
14:22:57 [timbl]
q+ dka
14:23:04 [ht]
I really like the freedom of expression line
14:23:15 [JeniT]
ack masinter
14:23:19 [JeniT]
ack timbl
14:23:41 [ht]
I am somewhat skeptical of the "subject to the same kind of constraints as any other kind of expression"
14:23:50 [masinter]
larry: We sometimes talk about hte TAG saying things in this document, we should try to be careful that the TAG is editing this document but we're trying to capture community consensus
14:24:31 [masinter]
TimBL: you can say 'get your Free TV here', you're inciting people. If you say "here is how you can find out how ot make a bimb"
14:25:05 [masinter]
ht: A catalog of shops that used to sell the anarchist's cookbook isn't illegal even if the book itself is
14:25:10 [DKA]
14:25:38 [masinter]
timbl: when it comes to copyright, linking is fundamental, but when it comes to racial hate words might not be illegal
14:25:44 [JeniT]
ack yves
14:26:22 [masinter]
yves: we have laws in French about intent, indications of crime... is the link an invitation to follow the link... talking about what is legal or what is not legal
14:27:21 [masinter]
noah: one area that would be helpful to point out, there are different kind of links.... the visible rendering of the link where what is visible ...
14:27:31 [masinter]
((DKA brings up Rick Rolling))
14:27:56 [ht]
q+ to mention hovertext
14:28:19 [jar]
agree, a taxonomy of link presentations would help to tease out these issues
14:28:30 [masinter]
14:28:45 [JeniT]
14:28:48 [JeniT]
14:28:49 [masinter]
people reading the minutes should read that important article about legal opinions on linking
14:29:09 [JeniT]
ack dka
14:29:23 [masinter]
Noah: discussion of downloading pornography and case around that
14:29:36 [JeniT]
ack ht
14:29:36 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to mention hovertext
14:31:07 [masinter]
ht: could not find any tool that would that preserved hover text
14:31:12 [jar]
ht: link presentation taxonomy interacts with tools (e.g. pdf combination) - taxon not invariant
14:31:12 [timbl]
It may be tempting for some people to try to cast a link as more than just a reference, because it is so easy to follow -- but that is tricky as in fact if for example you give the address of an illegal brothel in plain text, in fact a phone will navigate you there.
14:31:56 [Yves]
some tools generate links out of plain text (like MUAs)
14:32:05 [masinter]
noah: what i tried to do in the last few minutes is make a first cut on the product page for this work
14:35:23 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
14:38:04 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
14:38:20 [masinter]
((discussion of timeliness as a sucess criteria))
14:39:01 [masinter]
Ashok: I thought the goal was to help web hosting and product companies
14:39:21 [masinter]
jeni: there is an aspect to this that is about describing the technical things
14:39:37 [masinter]
jar: we want to help with their defense and prosecution
14:39:52 [masinter]
noah: I'm reluctant to delete what it says but augment it
14:40:11 [masinter]
jka: This document should be a useful tool for technical people to talk to lawyers
14:40:37 [masinter]
jar: Express the common understanding in the technical community to those who make law. That is what Tin said is needed and what the document does.
14:40:47 [masinter]
jar: In doing so we support the technical community
14:40:52 [Yves]
14:41:29 [Yves]
14:42:16 [jar]
s/Tinh/Thinh Nguyen/
14:44:26 [masinter]
larry: I want the word consensus appear in the document
14:44:37 [masinter]
s/document/product page/
14:45:09 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
14:45:23 [masinter]
larry: I would like the word 'consensus' to be part of the product page, our intention to build consensus, develop consensus
14:50:22 [masinter]
jar: 'make law'
14:55:20 [masinter]
((discussion of schedule, FPWD ....))
14:56:00 [masinter]
dka: we need a live legal review, don't think we can do it just by sending the document out
14:56:49 [masinter]
goal is to get legal feedback before next F2F
14:57:42 [masinter]
((discussion of agenda))
15:00:32 [masinter]
((break for 10 min))
15:08:45 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
15:08:52 [masinter]
15:09:10 [masinter]
topic: API minimization
15:10:18 [masinter]
DKA: Review "Data Minimization in Web API"
15:11:22 [masinter]
DKA: I was part of DAP working group call, was a good call, Frederick had sent me some good feedback and also from Robin and on more on the call.... also more feedback from others...
15:11:50 [masinter]
DKA: They felt that this was a useful document for the TAG to produce
15:13:16 [masinter]
DKA: I redid the introduction to be more clear. I renamed the document. Started with an excerpt of a 1978 paper...
15:14:02 [masinter]
15:14:25 [masinter]
dka: further on I extract the actual requirements that the DAP working group come up with ...
15:14:57 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
15:15:24 [masinter]
dka: talking about how this applies to geographic location
15:15:45 [masinter]
dka: what does this protect us from? Good feedback from DAP working group
15:15:51 [Ashok]
15:16:15 [masinter]
Secton 2: what are our recommendation? This is something I just added. With some MUST and SHOULD and MAY language
15:16:27 [masinter]
this tries to make this more general and clear
15:17:04 [masinter]
noah: people have seen earlier versions... who read this? Going over this for the benefit of what you did?
15:17:30 [masinter]
dka: I'd like to work on the product page for this... it's a smaller document, it's very targeted
15:19:04 [masinter]
dka: Noah, you asked "are there good examples of where this principle has been applied and it resulted in the desirable result? " and I don't know
15:19:21 [masinter]
noah: do you agree that this might have unintended consequences?
15:19:43 [masinter]
dka: there's been enough work on this that the risk is minimal, but we need more examples, and the document now lacks that
15:20:24 [noah]
15:20:34 [masinter]
15:21:21 [masinter]
q+ to ask whether this might also apply to other data paths
15:21:33 [masinter]
((discussion of whether this should be req track))
15:22:27 [masinter]
((question about patent policy))
15:22:52 [masinter]
ashok: What are you thinking of oding to this?
15:23:14 [masinter]
dka: I want to add more references, get further review from a wider community....
15:23:25 [masinter]
dka: kind of TAG call for review
15:23:58 [masinter]
noah: tradition for findings is that we don't use a formal process, all the findings have previous versions... we send email to www-tag and other places...
15:24:18 [masinter]
jar: does this go out in weekly newsletter, it's important than it that happens
15:24:37 [masinter]
jar: the distinction between Finding and Req implies the kind of review we expect
15:25:12 [jar]
ergo, the decision should be based largely on what kind of review we want
15:25:14 [masinter]
wonder if this is something we might do with IAB on privacy, covering not only APIs but also protocols
15:25:33 [masinter]
yves: tag findings are much like working group notes
15:25:43 [masinter]
noah: we never go through the W3C process
15:25:56 [jar]
(for findings)
15:26:23 [masinter]
noah: this strikes me as being in the middle, we're just doing this for now
15:26:24 [masinter]
15:26:48 [masinter]
ashok: my reaction to this is that it is quite focused, and quite small, i would just publish this quick and get htis behind us
15:27:07 [masinter]
dka: the audience is mostly people
15:27:14 [noah]
15:27:22 [masinter]
dka: the date holds
15:27:27 [masinter]
q- ashok
15:27:30 [Ashok]
s/mostly/mostly W3C/
15:27:42 [noah]
ack next
15:28:00 [masinter]
yves: talking about reviews, might be a good coordination with IAB
15:28:27 [noah]
ack next
15:28:28 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to ask whether this might also apply to other data paths
15:28:29 [masinter]
dka: think that is already there in the action already
15:28:32 [masinter]
15:28:43 [masinter]
dka: want to work on this with IAB
15:30:15 [masinter]
noah: change the deliverables to have two parts... an informal publishing and then later a finding
15:31:31 [masinter]
dka: I would like to put out a draft finding for review ... before the next F2F sufficiently to have had some feedback com ein .... I think that means by the end of July
15:32:37 [masinter]
((discussion of schedule))
15:33:19 [masinter]
noah: DKA please edit the product page
15:33:29 [masinter]
noah: ... to include relevant actions and issues
15:34:29 [masinter]
topic: ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-60): Web Applications: Client-side Storage
15:35:59 [masinter]
ashok: there were two issues: sync with other devices, convert from other formats
15:37:09 [masinter]
ashok: are there others?
15:37:10 [masinter]
noah: could you give more context, it seemed like there was a whole lot. There were issues with cookies, issues with permacookies. There are resources identified by URIs, there are caches on the local machine. My email might wind up on my issues.
15:37:20 [masinter]
noah: before you did the AJAX implementation....
15:37:43 [masinter]
timbl: Noah, is it is possible point to a piece of client-side state
15:38:08 [masinter]
noah: I believe people implement what we would view as a cache with AJAX that now loses the URI
15:38:43 [masinter]
noah: why is state indentified with the same URI
15:39:23 [masinter]
noah: When we do a finding asking we should combine cache/storage
15:39:28 [masinter]
15:39:36 [masinter]
15:39:39 [masinter]
15:39:41 [masinter]
15:40:25 [masinter]
ashok: starts with discussion of cookies, you can't control them, got to client side storage, font stuff
15:40:39 [masinter]
ashok: I tried to find apps where they use client-side storage
15:41:08 [masinter]
noah: mobile GMail... go into airplane can continue to read & write email
15:41:24 [masinter]
jar: used to be done with gears, now available with HTML storage
15:41:36 [masinter]
noah: they're using HTML client-side storage
15:42:13 [masinter]
ashok: "Oh gosh that's a terrific app, we couldn't have done that with cookies"
15:44:05 [masinter]
noah: you go to a web site and it starts eating space... you might want to clear for privacy reasons, it wrote a megabyte in my SD card?
15:44:23 [masinter]
noah: this thing looks great when you work on one site, but there's denial of storage
15:45:02 [masinter]
timbl: I've had something i've wanted for a while on tracking on dependencies, program space, debian keeps track of which modules were loaded
15:45:18 [masinter]
timbl: I want to glob them
15:45:25 [JeniT]
q+ to ask about encryption of data in local storage
15:45:56 [masinter]
q+ to ask to talk about client-side storage of programs, user private data, public data, cache data
15:46:24 [masinter]
timbl: ((example of how some app might help him manage storage on his device))
15:46:58 [masinter]
q+ to note about cloud storage, iCloud, moving client storage to client write-through cache
15:47:20 [masinter]
timbl: installation and persistent cache should be treated on the same scale
15:48:11 [masinter]
noah: Tim wants really rich version of what 'manage local storage'
15:48:39 [masinter]
timbl: things like budgets for tasks
15:48:44 [noah]
15:48:53 [noah]
q+ noah to talk about agenda item
15:49:11 [noah]
ack next
15:49:12 [Zakim]
JeniT, you wanted to ask about encryption of data in local storage
15:49:42 [masinter]
ashok: doesn't say anything about encryption right now, sort of orthogonal
15:50:01 [masinter]
ashok: consider encryption
15:50:07 [JeniT]
q+ to say that she has some twitter responses
15:50:17 [masinter]
((photo of whiteboard will be added to minutes))
15:50:31 [masinter]
ashok: there's a reason why people don't encrypt but i don't know
15:50:58 [noah]
NM: Encryption is an implementation technique used to achieve certain things...the document needs to start by stating what is to be achieved (that is, what are the threats against which we are protecting)
15:51:24 [masinter]
ashok: there are all these situations where people hack the cookies, encrypting them would prevent that
15:51:52 [timbl]
15:51:56 [masinter]
15:53:00 [JeniT]
q+ JeniT2 to talk about permissions around local storage
15:54:19 [masinter]
jeni: ((reporting examples came back on twitter))
15:54:53 [masinter]
jeni: permissions around local storage, EU regulation that web sites have to talk about storage on local machine and what it's used for
15:54:59 [noah]
ack next
15:55:04 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about agenda item
15:55:51 [masinter]
ashok: this is the list, leading toward a product page
15:56:00 [JeniT]
Other apps from twitter were from O'Reilly, FT webapp, facebook
15:56:05 [JeniT]
Rigo references
15:56:16 [JeniT]
Norm talks about
15:56:53 [masinter]
ashok: the idea is that W3C started in a new direction, going to this with local storage. The idea was to think about it, and say what are the questions it raises, how do we manage it, how do we use it.
15:57:47 [masinter]
noah: we need a product page
15:59:56 [JeniT]
From @bsletten: These are all WebDB (which is WebKit-only) examples, some just tests:
16:00:19 [masinter]
ashok: you can have lightweight clients
16:00:52 [masinter]
larry: just want you to talk about iCloud and moving everything where the truth copy is in the cloud and everything is a cache in the architecture space
16:03:37 [JeniT]
From @bsletten: Here is a full “application”:
16:03:52 [JeniT]
From @bsletten: Here is an IndexedDB example:
16:11:52 [masinter]
((discussion of product page, what are goals vs. success criteria, whether 'good practices' should be a success criteria or a goal))
16:17:25 [masinter]
accept product page
16:18:47 [jar]
The product page is here:
16:19:45 [jar]
Adjourned for lunch.
16:19:49 [jar]
16:59:01 [jar] Creative Commons and
16:59:20 [JeniT]
16:59:36 [masinter]
17:04:12 [jar]
17:12:38 [Ashok]
rrsagent, pointer
17:12:38 [RRSAgent]
17:14:47 [masinter]
17:22:27 [JeniT]
Scribenick: JeniT
17:22:34 [JeniT]
Scribe: Jeni Tennison
17:22:44 [timbl]
17:24:50 [JeniT]
Topic: TAG Priorities for 2011
17:25:06 [JeniT]
17:27:52 [JeniT]
noah: We need a better shared understanding of what we're trying to do in the next few months and who's working on what
17:28:35 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
17:28:36 [JeniT]
... there are some things where I'd like that we do better
17:29:23 [JeniT]
... [talks through spreadsheet of commitments of people to products]
17:30:34 [JeniT]
... we get best output if people engage and collaborate on products
17:31:37 [JeniT]
... it's healthy to have some things that are quality pieces of work that we can point back to
17:32:26 [JeniT]
... the product pages help us to have a shared understanding of what we're doing
17:32:43 [JeniT]
... are there a small number of these that we want to make sure we do well?
17:33:44 [JeniT]
... ground rules for discussion: we won't spend time on technical issues regarding each product
17:34:24 [JeniT]
... we won't expand or contract scope
17:34:41 [JeniT]
timbl: Are new things out of bounds?
17:35:07 [JeniT]
noah: We can look at adding those when we're comfortable with these
17:35:32 [JeniT]
jar: there are six people, five of whom are working at capacity
17:35:46 [JeniT]
... do people need to swap focus?
17:36:06 [JeniT]
... how can we encourage those who aren't doing work to do more
17:36:40 [JeniT]
noah: I want to break out of people working on their own
17:37:37 [JeniT]
dka: some of the things don't seem to be equivalent levels
17:37:54 [JeniT]
... privacy and dnt has different scope from publishing & linking on the web, which we know we're going to do
17:38:17 [JeniT]
... we need to categorise and reflect topics, which reflect work
17:38:26 [JeniT]
... such as Ashok going to the privacy workshop
17:39:10 [JeniT]
noah: How much of the nuance between the things can we have? Hard in a spreadsheet.
17:39:26 [JeniT]
... also the Xs don't indicate the depth of work someone is doing, it's very approximate
17:39:44 [JeniT]
... let's try to do this mentally (to work out which are big and small)
17:39:55 [JeniT]
... I really want to make broad groupings
17:40:24 [JeniT]
timbl: If these things aren't the same, where's the problem?
17:40:36 [JeniT]
... what we have to do *are* quite different in scope
17:41:09 [JeniT]
dka: It doesn't matter; I think the problem is to reflect the amount of time that we're spending on each topic
17:41:29 [JeniT]
timbl: should people fill that out themselves?
17:41:44 [JeniT]
noah: I was hoping to start with the topic areas
17:41:56 [JeniT]
dka: I'd like to see those categorised
17:42:57 [JeniT]
noah: if I chose the three things to give high priority to, those things would be the ones that we'd really put intensive work on
17:43:10 [JeniT]
... can we do all these without compromise
17:43:34 [JeniT]
timbl: we need one piece of required reading for the telcon
17:43:58 [JeniT]
noah: I want people to say which ones of these topics are the high priorities
17:44:47 [JeniT]
timbl: HTML5 review is something that we should do
17:44:54 [JeniT]
JeniT: some of these are time critical and others aren't
17:45:03 [JeniT]
timbl: one for 'urgent' and one for 'important'
17:45:24 [JeniT]
s/one/one column/
17:45:53 [JeniT]
noah: HTML5 gets a time critical code of 'Yes'
17:46:07 [JeniT]
... Can we do this for others?
17:46:54 [JeniT]
JeniT: fragid semantics is something that has a time critical component because it impacts on other drafts
17:47:04 [JeniT]
ht: we identified that as something for TPAC 2011
17:48:06 [JeniT]
Yves: I will work on fragid semantics as well
17:48:40 [JeniT]
dka: I didn't say I'd do anything on fragid semantics
17:49:34 [JeniT]
noah: We said we were starting the task force on HTML/XML unification
17:49:53 [JeniT]
ht: I don't think we are the people to take this forward
17:50:46 [JeniT]
noah: Having anything active on the list costs me effort
17:51:13 [JeniT]
timbl: Make a priority column
17:51:39 [JeniT]
noah: I'll add numbers for priorities
17:52:02 [JeniT]
timbl: What is the objective for HTML/XML unification?
17:52:21 [JeniT]
noah: it was to give the community guidance on how to maximise synergy between HTML and XML
17:52:42 [JeniT]
timbl: I thought that was part of HTML5 review
17:52:58 [JeniT]
... there's lots of things under HTML5 review, including fragid semantics
17:53:10 [JeniT]
noah: the formal HTML5 review has to finish by early August
17:53:24 [JeniT]
... there are links, and some aspects that we have to dive into early on
17:53:51 [JeniT]
... that's currently top priority
17:53:59 [JeniT]
timbl: that includes microdata and RDFa
17:54:19 [JeniT]
noah: Can I continue to ask which things should be given priority?
17:54:30 [JeniT]
ht: I'd like to give mime architecture for the web priority
17:54:42 [JeniT]
... and HTTP semantics
17:55:07 [JeniT]
... mime architecture is important because mime registrations are coming in all the time, and the longer we delay the more we miss
17:55:25 [JeniT]
noah: high means that it should be within the top 5
17:55:57 [JeniT]
timbl: why HTTP semantics?
17:57:12 [JeniT]
ht: I want to prioritise what we talked about yesterday
17:57:21 [JeniT]
noah: that might not be there
17:57:59 [JeniT]
timbl: what is the urgency there?
17:57:59 [masinter]
17:57:59 [trackbot]
ISSUE-57 -- Mechanisms for obtaining information about the meaning of a given URI -- open
17:57:59 [trackbot]
17:58:15 [JeniT]
ht: it's our credibility, and because there's more linked data being published all the time
17:59:00 [JeniT]
timbl: what's interesting for me is avoiding trainwrecks
18:00:17 [JeniT]
jar: Add a column that captures why
18:01:08 [JeniT]
[discussion on spreadsheet]
18:01:53 [JeniT]
timbl: 'Finding URI definitions' important for linked data uptake & TAG credibility
18:02:53 [JeniT]
... 'Fragid Semantics' is important for RDFa, which is part of our HTML5 review
18:03:23 [JeniT]
... 'HTML/XML Unification' relates to HTML5 Review
18:03:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
18:03:54 [JeniT]
noah: also we said we'd write something and we're close to shipping it
18:05:09 [JeniT]
timbl: We need to schedule work to avoid the trainwrecks
18:06:05 [JeniT]
noah: What about web application state? I'd like to argue for that one
18:07:36 [JeniT]
JeniT: it's important and good and we're close but it's not time critical
18:08:10 [JeniT]
noah: Web app state might be high priority because we're close with it
18:09:12 [JeniT]
... I think the community would benefit from it
18:09:51 [JeniT]
... We have to find what things fit in with the people who are working on it
18:10:26 [JeniT]
dka: API minimisation and publishing and linking on the web are fairly high priority, but they're not 2s
18:11:12 [JeniT]
noah: After sorting, our top priorities are HTML5 last call review, and to the bits of unification that relate to that
18:11:27 [JeniT]
... to fragid semantics, web app state and Jonathan's work on URI definitions
18:11:55 [JeniT]
... Have we lost anything? Are any of the rest high priorities?
18:12:33 [JeniT]
ht: Let's ensure that one slot each week focus on things that aren't in the top priority list
18:13:01 [JeniT]
noah: Yes, but there will be weeks where one or two things fill the call
18:13:12 [JeniT]
... but we will get to the others too
18:13:29 [JeniT]
... If the high priority ones aren't moving, then I'm going to get people to focus on them
18:13:53 [JeniT]
... I want to cross check that people are working on the important ones
18:14:48 [JeniT]
... there are roughly three groups: critical, things we intend to work on, and other random things
18:15:04 [JeniT]
dka: some of these are things that we will work on when we clear the rest of the list
18:15:23 [JeniT]
noah: we'll still work on some of these
18:15:40 [JeniT]
dka: I don't know what 'privacy friendly web including do-not-track' is
18:15:53 [JeniT]
noah: You helped make the product page for it
18:16:13 [JeniT]
dka: I think privacy is an umbrella topic, that includes API minimisation etc
18:16:40 [JeniT]
jar: these are things that we've decided we'll work on but we don't know exactly what we're going to do with them, this includes security and IETF
18:16:49 [JeniT]
noah: I will pay attention to the product pages for these
18:17:31 [JeniT]
... there might be new things that come in, and this will change
18:18:03 [JeniT]
JeniT: One thing you were after was whether people needed to be moved to work on the important things
18:18:27 [JeniT]
noah: OK, we're going to discuss HTML5 last call in a few minutes, and everyone will have to do something on it
18:18:41 [JeniT]
... on fragid semantics we have JeniT, ht and Yves
18:19:04 [JeniT]
... on web app state, we have Ashok
18:19:07 [JeniT]
... I was asking ht
18:19:15 [JeniT]
ht: I'd be much happier on Jonathan's papers
18:19:23 [JeniT]
... if that's OK with Jonathan
18:19:54 [JeniT]
noah: What's the product page for Jonathan's work?
18:20:34 [JeniT]
JeniT: I volunteered on web application state
18:20:46 [JeniT]
noah: 'Finding URI definitions' we have jar and ht
18:20:53 [jar]
18:21:52 [JeniT]
on fragids I have done the product page:
18:22:19 [JeniT]
noah: Larry, the next is mime architecture for the web, which was suggested as a priority
18:22:36 [JeniT]
... it's in the IETF space, what do I need to do to make it happen better?
18:23:05 [JeniT]
... is the energy that it will take low?
18:23:15 [JeniT]
Larry: I don't expect a lot more TAG effort on it
18:23:32 [JeniT]
... I have comments on it, I have a co-editor, I'll want some review, but I don't need a lot of TAG effort on it
18:23:58 [JeniT]
noah: These high priorities are things that should take time
18:24:20 [JeniT]
... I'll give myself an action to schedule a telcon of how to manage this over the next few months
18:24:43 [JeniT]
Larry: Do you have a column on urgency? there's also how important it is, and how much effort is needed
18:25:02 [JeniT]
ht: that comes back to HTML/XML unification, where there's nothing to do in the medium term
18:25:23 [JeniT]
Larry: I'm expecting to review this with Alexei at the IETF meeting, and then I'd like to get TAG review then
18:25:27 [JeniT]
noah: when is that roughly?
18:25:30 [JeniT]
Larry: August
18:26:07 [JeniT]
noah: On API minimisation, would it help for someone else to help you dka?
18:26:13 [JeniT]
dka: I think it's small enough that it's ok just me
18:26:35 [JeniT]
noah: Last one is linking & publishing
18:26:47 [JeniT]
... that has JeniT & dka
18:27:09 [JeniT]
... last one is HTML/XML unification
18:27:24 [JeniT]
... I've asked Norm to get back to us with a document that needs TAG review
18:27:35 [JeniT]
... Thank you, that has really helped me
18:28:02 [Norm]
Will do. Need to get the TF to give it a once over and address comments, then will send along
18:28:11 [JeniT]
... The other thing is that Jeff has asked for 2-3 things that we have said we would commit to
18:28:27 [JeniT]
... How should I respond to Jeff?
18:28:38 [JeniT]
timbl: Tell him about the top 5 things
18:29:04 [JeniT]
noah: Isn't he after things that he can track in 2011?
18:29:14 [JeniT]
timbl: Two or more things where we've got a schedule and milestones
18:29:42 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to draft note for Jeff Jaffe listing 5 top TAG priorities as trackable items.
18:29:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-568 - Draft note for Jeff Jaffe listing 5 top TAG priorities as trackable items. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-06-15].
18:30:08 [JeniT]
ashok: He also wanted a list of stuff that he should be looking out for
18:30:38 [JeniT]
noah: I took an action to figure out by fall how to respond to that
18:30:52 [JeniT]
... OK, that ends this session
18:31:33 [JeniT]
Topic: Administration
18:32:00 [JeniT]
noah: We've decided to meet in Edinburgh in September
18:32:16 [JeniT]
... are there any objections or anyone who can't attend?
18:32:33 [JeniT]
[no one objects]
18:32:44 [JeniT]
noah: what about the meeting afterwards?
18:32:55 [JeniT]
... should it be in California in the winter
18:33:14 [JeniT]
... dka said that it would be hard for him to go to CA
18:33:23 [JeniT]
ashok: would it be terrible to meet here again?
18:33:38 [JeniT]
noah: that's fine for me, but I feel like we drag people to Cambridge all the time
18:33:57 [JeniT]
jar: What about New York?
18:34:07 [JeniT]
ashok: I can get Oracle to host
18:34:31 [JeniT]
Larry: When are we talking about?
18:34:53 [JeniT]
noah: December/January ish
18:35:09 [JeniT]
... any preferences between here and New York?
18:35:30 [JeniT]
... we don't have to lock it in
18:35:47 [JeniT]
[some hands go up to prefer Cambridge]
18:36:03 [JeniT]
[even Ashok's hand doesn't go up for New York]
18:36:25 [JeniT]
Larry: Dec/Jan might be more comfortable in California
18:36:31 [JeniT]
ht: Peter might like to host
18:37:38 [JeniT]
Larry: I could host
18:37:56 [JeniT]
Ashok: If I have to host in SF, I would need several months lead time
18:38:14 [JeniT]
noah: I just want a preference poll
18:38:25 [JeniT]
... Cambridge vs California
18:38:47 [JeniT]
dka: I might have a travel problem to the West Coast
18:39:02 [JeniT]
... it would be less trouble approving travel to East Coast
18:39:28 [JeniT]
ht: I have a preference for Cambridge
18:39:34 [JeniT]
noah: We should go to CA soon
18:39:51 [JeniT]
... because travel overhead should be spread around
18:40:36 [JeniT]
ht: If people want to host, because it helps them with their own management, then we should take that into consideration
18:40:51 [JeniT]
Larry: I don't like coming here in winter
18:41:03 [JeniT]
Yves: I can host, and it's better in winter and spring
18:42:32 [DKA]
s/t would be less trouble approving travel to East Coast//
18:42:53 [DKA]
s/member:dka said that it would be hard for him to go to CA//
18:45:46 [DKA]
s/dka said that it would be hard for him to go to CA//
18:47:45 [JeniT]
[diary discussions]
18:51:26 [JeniT]
noah: 4-6th January 2012?
18:51:45 [JeniT]
... any strong preference between Cambridge & CA
18:52:06 [JeniT]
... slight preference for Cambridge
18:52:38 [JeniT]
Larry: slight preference for CA
18:52:42 [JeniT]
... Peter prefers CA
18:56:09 [Yves]
IETF is March 25-30, 2012 in Paris
18:56:12 [noah]
RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet in Cambridge, MA 4-6 January 2012
18:57:12 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to check with Peter on January TAG date
18:57:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-569 - Check with Peter on January TAG date [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-06-15].
18:57:22 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to inform Amy of January TAG date
18:57:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-570 - Inform Amy of January TAG date [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-06-15].
19:13:06 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
19:24:10 [JeniT]
Topic: HTML5 Review
19:26:45 [JeniT]
19:30:15 [plh]
plh has joined #tagmem
19:33:48 [noah]
RESOLVED: TAG members will hold 2-4 April 2012 for TAG meeting in Sophia Antipolis, France. The meeting is not yet confirmed. It's in order to ask for changes.
19:35:40 [masinter]
19:36:01 [JeniT]
noah: A few people took actions to review sections
19:37:26 [JeniT]
... Yves on security
19:37:34 [JeniT]
... Larry has bug report on fragids
19:37:47 [JeniT]
... Timbl on microdata mappings to RDF
19:38:12 [JeniT]
... noah on normative status of author document
19:38:35 [JeniT]
... Larry to draft note on TAG interest on architectural issues
19:39:15 [JeniT]
... JeniT to review microdata and RDFa
19:39:28 [JeniT]
... ht to review polyglot and DOCTYPES
19:40:07 [JeniT]
... which of these do we want to discuss?
19:40:31 [noah]
* Better ways of asking chairs about HTML5 architural issues
19:40:43 [noah]
* Microdata and RDFa
19:40:52 [noah]
* Authoring draft status
19:41:23 [noah]
* App cache (Dan)
19:41:32 [noah]
PLH: Last call ends August 3.
19:41:37 [noah]
* Do we have enough coverage?
19:42:41 [JeniT]
Larry: plh, there's a last call, how do you think the TAG could be most effective?
19:42:52 [JeniT]
plh: you don't have to review the entire specification
19:43:02 [JeniT]
... the list you have is a good one
19:43:13 [JeniT]
... the URI/IRI issue is one
19:43:51 [JeniT]
Larry: the TAG has a charter to resolve issues between working groups, so perhaps we can be more involved with that more than reviewing documents
19:44:24 [JeniT]
plh: the biggest issue we have there is between HTML and WAI-PF
19:44:25 [noah]
q+ to say TAG needs to comment on architecture
19:44:43 [JeniT]
Larry: Do we need higher consideration?
19:44:50 [JeniT]
jar: Have you heard from RDFa?
19:44:56 [JeniT]
plh: Well, that's part of the group to some extent
19:45:23 [JeniT]
ht: the crucial thing, namely prefix bindings, went away as they're still there
19:45:50 [masinter]
ht: xmlns prefixes are in the HTML draft? Plh says no.
19:45:50 [JeniT]
plh: are you talking about HTML5 syntax for xmlns?
19:46:30 [JeniT]
jar: Prefixes is part of it, but microdata is another part of it
19:46:41 [JeniT]
... is there any issue between the RDFa WG and microdata?
19:46:48 [JeniT]
plh: not recently
19:46:49 [masinter]
q+ to note that handling of IRI is mainly Chris Weber new chair working it, and encourage Philippe to help coordinate with him etc.
19:46:52 [noah]
ack next
19:46:53 [masinter]
19:47:23 [JeniT]
noah: Larry made the point that we're here to resolve issues within WGs
19:47:50 [JeniT]
... we also have a mandate to help ensure that specs use web architecture well
19:48:12 [JeniT]
... we should continue to do that even if WGs don't come up with objections
19:48:40 [JeniT]
Larry: one of the chairs of the WG believes that the TAG has no authority
19:49:15 [JeniT]
timbl: the TAG is considered just as any other member of the group
19:49:50 [masinter]
19:50:02 [JeniT]
noah: can we scope the issues and if that becomes a problem we'll worry about it then
19:50:05 [timbl]
19:50:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:50:57 [JeniT]
timbl: What were the issues that we had?
19:51:16 [JeniT]
noah: There were a few, didn't we have a discussion and send an email that listed those points?
19:51:20 [timbl]
- Microdata and RDFa conflict
19:51:31 [timbl]
- historiclly, URI spec
19:51:49 [timbl]
- historically, HTTP spec ;ashes
19:51:51 [JeniT]
plh: There is issue 41 on distributed extensibility
19:52:01 [JeniT]
... the group made a decision, and no one is arguing against it
19:52:14 [JeniT]
ht: xml-dev woke up to this 10 days ago
19:52:35 [timbl]
- Dencentralised extensbility
19:52:48 [JeniT]
s/distributed extensiblity/decentralised extensibility/
19:52:56 [masinter]
19:53:06 [JeniT]
s/distributed extensibility/decentralised extensibility/
19:53:19 [JeniT]
noah: We had the HTML/XML unification work which is part of that
19:53:25 [plh]
--> HTML5 and almost no namespaces
19:53:59 [JeniT]
... If we've given our input, is it appropriate to raise the issue again at last call?
19:54:22 [JeniT]
plh: you can provide new material, or you can raise an objection
19:54:37 [DKA]
Isn't this why we encouraged development of the Polyglot spec?
19:55:05 [JeniT]
timbl: David Carver asked how you put Exhibit stuff into HTML5 so that it will validate?
19:55:27 [JeniT]
s/David Carver/someone/
19:55:39 [masinter]
how does issue-41 work with polyglot?
19:55:53 [JeniT]
plh: The answer is XHTML syntax
19:55:58 [JeniT]
noah: XHTML syntax or polyglot?
19:56:16 [JeniT]
plh: when you use namespaces in XML syntax, they are valid there, but they might not load properly in the DOM
19:56:25 [JeniT]
... if you use application/xhtml+xml then it will be loaded properly in the DOM
19:56:28 [JeniT]
... just not in text/html
19:56:41 [JeniT]
noah: a script will find it when parsed as XHTML, but not when parsed as HTML
19:56:54 [JeniT]
... is there news on polyglot?
19:57:02 [JeniT]
plh: we have objection on making it normative
19:57:13 [JeniT]
... separate from the authoring spec
19:57:27 [JeniT]
dka: what is the objection?
19:58:01 [JeniT]
noah: the objection on authoring & base spec normative is potential for clashes
19:58:15 [JeniT]
... the polyglot spec doesn't redefine anything, it just observes what works in both modes
19:58:25 [JeniT]
timbl: it's only an observation
19:58:36 [masinter]
should polyglot reference the authoring spec instead of the main one
19:58:41 [noah]
19:58:43 [plh]
--> Polyglot spec should be a Note
19:59:08 [JeniT]
dka: the implication of polyglot is that there is an implementation burden on browsers, isn't there?
19:59:13 [JeniT]
plh (etc): no
19:59:43 [JeniT]
noah: it's just says where the parsing rules intersect to yield the same DOM
19:59:56 [plh]
20:00:09 [JeniT]
timbl: the polyglot spec should be considered a rec track spec
20:00:18 [JeniT]
plh: we have someone objecting to that right now
20:00:42 [JeniT]
noah: you can have rec track but non-normative
20:01:10 [JeniT]
... if this spec disagrees with a normative spec, then it's clear which is in error
20:01:29 [JeniT]
... if you have two normative specs that don't work together then it's hard to work out where the bug is
20:01:56 [JeniT]
Larry: we should specify what a normative spec is and why you would want one
20:02:06 [noah]
s/same DOM/same DOM or other interestingly compatible results/
20:02:16 [masinter]
why you might or might not want it
20:02:27 [JeniT]
ht: the issue was raised to get rid of prefix bindings, a change proposal against RDFa in HTML
20:02:47 [JeniT]
... there were two change proposals in response to this issue (120)
20:02:59 [JeniT]
... one was to take out profile/prefix/xmlns
20:03:04 [plh]
--> Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology
20:03:08 [noah]
HTML WG Decision on their ISSUE 120:
20:03:29 [JeniT]
... the other was to say that it's important, with existing pages containing xmlns, and you can't take it away
20:03:42 [JeniT]
... eventually the chairs found in favour of the status quo
20:04:04 [JeniT]
... so RDFa as currently constituted has prefixes and CURIES and uses xmlns to bind them
20:04:19 [JeniT]
... despite the fact that HTML doesn't support namespace bindings
20:05:16 [JeniT]
JeniT: I've implemented building RDFa processor over HTML and it sucks
20:05:33 [JeniT]
ht: various people want to reopen the issue
20:05:57 [plh]
--> New Information Status
20:06:01 [JeniT]
... but the chairs won't reopen until there's substantial new information
20:06:22 [JeniT]
... and there is no formal request to reopen
20:06:40 [JeniT]
noah: how we should engage is tricky
20:07:00 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
20:07:16 [DKA]
Tim: observation about RDFa and microdata...
20:07:25 [DKA]
Noah: What do we currently have scheduled for TAG work on that issue?
20:07:31 [DKA]
... Henry?
20:07:40 [DKA]
HT: That one's not on me but it is on someone.
20:07:50 [DKA]
JAR: I had a concrete suggestion on RDFa.
20:08:19 [ht]
Here's the nub of the mess that text/html + RDFa + xmlns:... requires, given no support for xmlns:... in the HTML5 DOM:
20:08:24 [DKA]
ScribeNick: JeniT
20:08:59 [JeniT]
jar: the suite of HTML5 specs talk about both microdata and RDFa and creating RDF from them
20:09:08 [JeniT]
... and the way they do it is qualitatively very different
20:09:22 [JeniT]
... the microdata mapping is done by the HTML WG
20:09:25 [masinter]
q+ to wonder that moving RDFa and microdata forward is a really unhappy overlap, that is 'more information', and maybe microdata / RDFa should be worked on further, and LC is premature
20:09:48 [JeniT]
... the HTML+RDFa document is developed cooperatively between HTML and the RDF applications WG
20:10:12 [JeniT]
... I or JeniT should take an action to point this out to the RDFa/RDF WG chairs
20:10:27 [JeniT]
... I think the mapping to RDF should be the business of the people involved in RDF
20:10:40 [JeniT]
... maybe the process was fine, maybe if they cared, there would be formal objections
20:11:14 [JeniT]
... I want to check with Manu and others whether they're happy with it
20:11:25 [JeniT]
... the potential change proposal would be to remove that section
20:11:46 [JeniT]
noah: the time is limited between now and early August
20:12:21 [JeniT]
... if we want to have impact, we need to get to the point where if we want to, we need to raise a formal objection
20:12:41 [JeniT]
... we need to focus on that level of things
20:12:59 [JeniT]
Larry: Having these two specs for doing this is architecturally wrong
20:13:10 [JeniT]
... we can see how this battles out in the market place
20:13:36 [JeniT]
... perhaps we should ask the microdata and RDFa specs should be declared not ready to go to Rec until there's more work on getting them to work together
20:13:39 [plh]
20:13:42 [timbl]
20:13:50 [noah]
20:13:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-367 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask the HTML5 chairs to treat our 8220 bug as input to the poll, specifically as "An objection to keeping Microdata in", cc to -- due 2010-02-10 -- CLOSED
20:13:50 [trackbot]
20:13:55 [JeniT]
... it's harmful having two
20:13:57 [JeniT]
20:14:01 [masinter]
ack masinter
20:14:01 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to wonder that moving RDFa and microdata forward is a really unhappy overlap, that is 'more information', and maybe microdata / RDFa should be
20:14:04 [Zakim]
... worked on further, and LC is premature
20:14:12 [ht]
Some real numbers about RDFa:
20:14:16 [JeniT]
noah: we previously had actions on microdata
20:14:36 [JeniT]
... there was a history of prior pushback on microdata
20:14:43 [JeniT]
ht: they responded positively to that
20:15:01 [ht]
In that they moved it out of the main spec.
20:15:11 [JeniT]
plh: I don't think that stopping going to Rec is going to have much effect
20:15:15 [JeniT]
... people are already doing it
20:15:22 [JeniT]
... you have to formally object early
20:15:34 [JeniT]
... maybe we should consider creating a task force to reconcile the two
20:15:42 [JeniT]
... like we did for HTML/XML
20:15:54 [noah]
ack next
20:15:58 [noah]
ack next
20:16:07 [noah]
20:16:20 [JeniT]
timbl: people see this as tribal war between those who like/dislike RDF
20:16:54 [JeniT]
... a task force isn't just about these specs, but about the communities behind them
20:16:59 [noah]
q+ to ask how task force relates to last call comments
20:17:11 [JeniT]
... you can imagine reinvention of schema languages, query languages for microdata
20:17:46 [JeniT]
... I'm not biased towards RDFa because I'm an RDF-head, but because it's compatible with a set of technologies developed over many years
20:17:53 [JeniT]
... and has companies invested in it
20:18:02 [JeniT]
... not necessarily the browser vendors
20:18:08 [masinter]
the TAG work on metadata architecture is part of this
20:18:33 [JeniT]
... this isn't just about two specs
20:18:39 [noah]
ack next
20:18:54 [JeniT]
... and if there are issues of usability, the RDFa spec should change too
20:18:58 [noah]
20:19:01 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
20:19:25 [DKA]
JeniT: I looked through microdata and rdf specs.
20:19:34 [DKA]
... the big things that jumped out as being problems to me
20:20:02 [DKA]
... a) the stuff Jonathan touched on - the incompatibilities of what you get when you parse each of them
20:20:21 [noah]
Hmm, so you can't use them both in the same document?
20:20:33 [ht]
q+ to mention a simple metric which supports Jeni
20:20:54 [DKA]
... b) clear that microdata was integrated into the way that html works in a way that rdfa wasn't, For example, methods defined using microdata but not for RDFa. Methods for copying/pasting stuff with microdata but not with RDFa.
20:21:22 [DKA]
... so there is a mismatch between them, a conflict between them (you can't use them both)...
20:22:36 [DKA]
... If you're going to have 2 ways of doing the same thing then they ought to have clear advantages and disadvantages in different circumstances, and a clear upgrade path from the simple one to the complex one.
20:22:43 [DKA]
HT: They ought to be complementary.
20:22:45 [timbl]
20:22:57 [noah]
ack next
20:22:58 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask how task force relates to last call comments
20:23:07 [JeniT]
Scribenick: JeniT
20:23:32 [JeniT]
noah: I wanted to ask if, if we create a task force, how does that fit with August last call
20:23:57 [JeniT]
ht: a report from such as task force would provide new evidence
20:24:21 [noah]
20:24:23 [masinter]
20:24:25 [plh]
20:24:27 [noah]
ack next
20:24:28 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to mention a simple metric which supports Jeni
20:24:33 [JeniT]
noah: we need to say something now about this, to lay groundwork
20:24:47 [noah]
HT: The new evidence might apply to a subsequent last call.
20:24:55 [JeniT]
ht: the extracting microdata to JSON section is one screenful compared to five screenfuls to RDF
20:25:14 [noah]
NM: Hmm, it might uncover new input, but shouldn't we also see how much input we can provide for >this< last call?
20:25:26 [noah]
ack next
20:25:29 [masinter]
q+ to ask if we want to work on Jeni's comments
20:25:45 [JeniT]
plh: There is a long example in the RDFa section, but no example in the JSON section
20:25:55 [JeniT]
... This issue has never been brought to the working group
20:26:28 [JeniT]
... the issue of working on two data specifications has never been discussed
20:26:45 [JeniT]
ht: Tim's objection was that microdata should be taken out
20:26:56 [ht]
20:27:33 [noah]
ack next
20:27:34 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to ask if we want to work on Jeni's comments
20:28:02 [JeniT]
Larry: JeniT had some comments
20:28:06 [JeniT]
JeniT: I can write those up
20:28:18 [JeniT]
ACTION: JeniT to write up comments on microdata and RDFa
20:28:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-571 - Write up comments on microdata and RDFa [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-06-15].
20:28:19 [noah]
20:29:03 [JeniT]
Larry: I like this idea of a task force
20:29:19 [JeniT]
noah: it wouldn't have input to this last call
20:29:46 [JeniT]
Larry: We can comment that the specs shouldn't progress until the task force reports back
20:30:13 [JeniT]
noah: We need to make a case that something is broken
20:30:14 [masinter]
because there are two ways of doing the same thing that are inconsistent
20:30:26 [JeniT]
... can we object to things in 2nd last call that are unchanged?
20:30:31 [JeniT]
ht: yes!
20:31:14 [JeniT]
noah: we could file an objection now with crude form on issues, and say we think it needs more detailed attention
20:31:59 [JeniT]
... can we draft a last call comment?
20:32:50 [JeniT]
timbl: an alternative is to object just to microdata
20:34:18 [JeniT]
[discussion about status of RDFa as existing Rec]
20:34:38 [JeniT]
ht: I only want to object to microdata
20:34:56 [JeniT]
... RDFa is standardising a widely deployed technology that we already have standardised
20:35:57 [JeniT]
jar: there are legitimate parties who have reviewed RDFa who have said it's not acceptable
20:36:18 [JeniT]
timbl: How can we say that RDFa should have those issues addressed?
20:36:28 [JeniT]
jar: the issue is reconciliation not one spec or the other
20:36:56 [JeniT]
yves: in '95 when we had CSS, SGML had DSSSL
20:37:21 [JeniT]
... CSS was adopted because it was easy enough, despite the conflict
20:37:39 [JeniT]
ht: it was agreed between the CSS and XSL that they would share a common semantics
20:37:51 [JeniT]
yves: it would be fine if there was no conflict between the two
20:38:07 [JeniT]
... that being the case, the objection is to the two unless we have a good story to tell
20:38:19 [JeniT]
noah: do we have to object on a per-document basis?
20:38:46 [JeniT]
... can we object on the package of HTML5 rather than on a particular document
20:39:01 [JeniT]
timbl: I'm not sure of the process, but yes that would be appropriate
20:39:15 [JeniT]
Larry: we can object to each of them because they're in conflict
20:39:28 [JeniT]
... if we had to choose one it would be microdata
20:39:41 [JeniT]
... we think they're both likely to be forward, and what we want is consistency in the upgrade path
20:40:09 [JeniT]
timbl: microdata and RDFa are identical except for spelling differences
20:40:28 [JeniT]
... microdata may be a subset
20:40:39 [JeniT]
... it's at the same level, not like CSS vs XSL
20:41:36 [masinter]
jeni: there are large and complex differences in whether someone is an item, the rules in RDFa are complicated
20:43:07 [masinter]
jeni: RDFa may tried too hard to be easy for developers but makes it really difficult to process (? )
20:44:37 [JeniT]
noah: we can't reinvent RDFa based on this experience because it would take too long
20:44:58 [masinter]
jeni: fixing RDFa might take time (? <not scribing well>)
20:45:08 [JeniT]
timbl: there is a lot of RDFa out there already
20:46:26 [JeniT]
JeniT: I will take what I'm writing and couch it as an objection
20:46:44 [JeniT]
dka: we didn't cover appcache
20:46:54 [JeniT]
plh: my only point was Yves should look at it
20:47:07 [masinter]
Chris Weber new IRI chair was communicating with HTML-WG directly
20:48:07 [masinter]
/m3 plh, suggest you follow up with Chris Weber on the HTML/IRI issues, I'm encouraging him to push forward on issues
20:48:18 [JeniT]
ACTION: Yves to look at appcache in HTML5 Due 2011-07-31
20:48:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-572 - Look at appcache in HTML5 Due 2011-07-31 [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-06-15].
20:48:43 [Yves]
s;/m3 plh, suggest you follow up with Chris Weber on the HTML/IRIissues, I'm encouraging him to push forward on issues;;
20:50:21 [JeniT]
Topic: Next steps on Issue-57
20:50:53 [jar]
20:52:20 [JeniT]
jar: phrase as 'strengthen or revise consensus'
20:52:59 [JeniT]
ashok: do you want to get consensus on one particular solution?
20:53:24 [JeniT]
... you've spelled out a number of possible approaches
20:53:35 [JeniT]
jar: we want to spell out recommended practice from those
20:54:37 [JeniT]
noah: A W3C Rec would take as long as it takes to get consensus
20:54:50 [JeniT]
... the first criterion implies something informal
20:54:56 [JeniT]
jar: these are orthogonal
20:55:23 [JeniT]
noah: success means doing all these things
20:55:50 [JeniT]
... we develop acceptable techniques
20:56:01 [JeniT]
jar: Harry's objection was having no authoritative documentation
20:56:33 [JeniT]
noah: The product page can say that we don't know yet
20:57:43 [JeniT]
Larry: There's a possibility that you might not succeed
20:58:03 [JeniT]
... you might as well say what you really want to have happen
20:58:20 [JeniT]
noah: I want to use the product pages to be what we work towards
20:58:34 [JeniT]
Larry: I'm asking jar what he really wants to have happen
20:58:57 [JeniT]
jar: I think people are wasting time quibbling and I want to be able to point to a document
20:59:09 [JeniT]
timbl: Do you want to describe the status quo or something more?
20:59:38 [JeniT]
jar: 'either strengthen or revise consensus'
20:59:47 [JeniT]
... possibly do something new
21:00:42 [JeniT]
timbl: it's the overall design of the system that you want to strengthen or revise, not just get people to be more friendly with each other
21:01:27 [JeniT]
Larry: we want to make sure that the linked data community is happy
21:01:36 [JeniT]
jar: more the adoption of linked data, not the linked data community
21:01:56 [JeniT]
Larry: I'm trying to get to a goal to something that can be more evaluable
21:02:18 [JeniT]
jar: A definition discovery story that supports adoption of linked data
21:02:23 [JeniT]
noah: that will be widely deployed
21:02:31 [JeniT]
Larry: that's not necessarily a measure of quality
21:02:57 [JeniT]
noah: wide deployment is important as well as quality
21:03:35 [JeniT]
jar: the TAG could say that RDF should do what it wants
21:03:47 [JeniT]
Larry: I don't think we can let them not care about web architecture
21:04:37 [JeniT]
jar: On the schedule...
21:04:46 [JeniT]
... proposal is to revise following our discussion
21:04:56 [JeniT]
... put it out on the semantic web and LOD lists to ask for help to approve
21:05:04 [JeniT]
... and then convene a telcon with concerned parties
21:06:55 [JeniT]
Topic: Adjournment
21:07:20 [JeniT]
noah: telcon next week
21:15:46 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
21:32:14 [plh]
plh has left #tagmem
21:44:57 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem
21:46:24 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
21:46:35 [masinter]
rrsagent, pointer
21:46:35 [RRSAgent]
21:54:24 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
23:20:21 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #tagmem