01:09:52 timbl has joined #tagmem 01:51:13 JeniT has joined #tagmem 02:04:03 DKA has joined #tagmem 02:58:01 noah has joined #tagmem 13:33:47 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 13:33:47 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-tagmem-irc 13:33:55 trackbot, start meeting 13:33:58 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:33:58 Zakim has joined #tagmem 13:34:00 Zakim, this will be TAG 13:34:00 ok, trackbot; I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM scheduled to start 34 minutes ago 13:34:01 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 13:34:01 Date: 08 June 2011 13:34:31 Noah: equating 'hosting' with 'possession' leads to difficulty 13:34:51 Topic: Linking and Publishing Document 13:34:51 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 noah: Organization is surprising, the note was a "stink bomb", editorially .... make it a separate section 13:36:15 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 Jeni: I put them in notes because I wasn't sure we wanted them in there. 13:36:55 q+ 13:36:56 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 q+ jar 13:37:18 ack jar 13:37:30 jar: The key idea is 'who is responsible for what' 13:37:41 q+ 13:37:45 ht has joined #tagmem 13:38:07 q- jar 13:38:24 q+ to as about bullet 2 n the note 13:38:51 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 ht: I like the note and thing it should be upgrade, but point 2 is a tautology 13:40:08 ht: you should tell me things like 'things that are fundamental to their operation are at risk' 13:40:11 [ht is referring to 2nd bullet in note at end of 1.1] 13:40:12 q- ht 13:40:25 Jeni: would it help with these to have the pithy 'this is the thing' first 13:40:32 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 TimBL: it would be great to have a list of automated agents should be covered 13:41:40 ack ashok 13:41:59 ashok: when you speak about transformations, you also include censorship 13:42:40 ashok: censorship can be helpful in that it excludes bad words and then makes bad words acceptable 13:42:51 Jeni: is it useful to put in examples? 13:43:17 Noah: we should be particularly aware of international different concerns 13:43:41 Yes, examples would be great! 13:44:36 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 LMM: Then there are TAG recommendations on best practices. The terminology will stand; the examples are current... (scribes 13:45:26 LMM: (scribe's not sure where that point was going) I like the Street View example. 13:45:44 LMM: Part of my question is "who is the audience?" Just the legal community, or also ISPs? 13:45:57 q? 13:46:00 ack masinter 13:46:17 q? 13:46:17 LMM: So, I'm resisting wording suggesting what good laws would be, what the impact would be of laws, etc. 13:46:25 q+ to say isps are not the point 13:46:53 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 DKA: Genesis of this document was to service legal community's needs. Are you pushing back on that? 13:47:21 lmm's specific organization suggestion: 1. terminology 2. examples 3. recommended best practice 13:47:32 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 LMM: Too speculative. 13:47:59 the wording sounds too speculative 13:48:14 terminology + organization 13:49:15 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 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: 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 q+ to say it's worse than 'slow down' 13:51:08 http://www.amazon.com/ISP-Survival-Guide-Strategies-Competitive/dp/0471314994#reader_0471314994 13:52:20 noah: 1.2 I had to read this 2-3 times to understand 13:53:36 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 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 DKA: we want to make sure this document is readable to non-technical people, perhaps a diagram would be useful? 13:56:18 (not sure 'non-technical' is the right audience) 13:56:51 (Why we ended up with "origin server" instead of "original server" I don;t know) 13:57:30 ('original' was updated with a new version, so it's not the original www.w3.org which used to be hosted at CERN etc.) 13:57:57 jar: talk about libraries? 13:58:26 noah: backup strategies might also make copies.... 13:58:42 TimBL: backing up in the cloud .... 13:59:13 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 Yves: do they have the right to own illegal content 14:00:03 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose 14:00:39 Yves: libraries may be able to hold on to illegal material even if they can't distribute it 14:01:14 Jeni: 1.2.3 Search engines 14:01:49 Jeni: 1.2.4 Reusing .... that's the bits you're after, if you're trying to prevent something. 14:02:17 DKA: you don't talk about 'fair use', and has different names 14:03:16 noah: I'd understand this if the terms lined up, and that we can clarify 14:03:33 noah: we have technical terms about transformation and storing and only indirectly allowed 14:05:30 noah: That is for the lawyers to do.... (examples about copying and Xerox machines) 14:08:45 i'd suggest going through one more round and issue a FPWD 14:09:04 DKA: we should have Tin back on and get his feedback on a call 14:09:24 dka: then we go to a more general community 14:09:42 Jeni: and Rigo .... and Casey (privacy council) 14:10:02 s/i'd/larry: i'd 14:10:12 jeni: get a legal review 14:11:05 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 ... it would have much broader impact 14:11:42 S/TIn/Thinh/ 14:11:46 the people Tin have in mind are judges, legislators, constituents, .... try to get EFF review 14:12:10 q? 14:12:16 q- 14:12:27 q- ht 14:12:29 Noah: I do want to be careful about how we handle it 14:12:33 q+ masinter 14:14:19 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 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 +1 14:15:34 q+ 14:15:49 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 DKA: freedom of expresion ... we htink linking is a kind of expression 14:17:29 larry: UN declaration last week on Internet 14:17:58 TimBL: there was a site that was taking down, who embedded video links 14:18:10 TimBL: drawing this lines is something the TAG could do 14:18:36 q+ that we write htis as the TAG editing hte community consensus opinion 14:18:47 q+ 14:19:15 TimBL: cases where linking was aiding and abetting the crime 14:20:21 Jeni: linking to something is like speaking about something. Some cases there are are laws against some kind of speech .... 14:21:55 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 DKA: if you just had a list of links... and the combination of that list was, by itself, inciting violence 14:22:23 q? 14:22:31 q+ yves 14:22:37 t+ timbl 14:22:38 q? 14:22:43 ((heated conversation)) 14:22:57 q+ dka 14:23:04 I really like the freedom of expression line 14:23:15 ack masinter 14:23:19 ack timbl 14:23:41 I am somewhat skeptical of the "subject to the same kind of constraints as any other kind of expression" 14:23:50 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 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 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 q? 14:25:38 timbl: when it comes to copyright, linking is fundamental, but when it comes to racial hate words might not be illegal 14:25:44 ack yves 14:26:22 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 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 ((DKA brings up Rick Rolling)) 14:27:56 q+ to mention hovertext 14:28:19 agree, a taxonomy of link presentations would help to tease out these issues 14:28:30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Astley_-_Never_Gonna_Give_You_Up.ogg 14:28:45 q 14:28:48 q? 14:28:49 people reading the minutes should read that important article about legal opinions on linking 14:29:09 ack dka 14:29:23 Noah: discussion of downloading pornography and case around that 14:29:36 ack ht 14:29:36 ht, you wanted to mention hovertext 14:31:07 ht: could not find any tool that would that preserved hover text 14:31:12 ht: link presentation taxonomy interacts with tools (e.g. pdf combination) - taxon not invariant 14:31:12 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 some tools generate links out of plain text (like MUAs) 14:32:05 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 has joined #tagmem 14:38:04 timbl has joined #tagmem 14:38:20 ((discussion of timeliness as a sucess criteria)) 14:39:01 Ashok: I thought the goal was to help web hosting and product companies 14:39:21 jeni: there is an aspect to this that is about describing the technical things 14:39:37 jar: we want to help with their defense and prosecution 14:39:52 noah: I'm reluctant to delete what it says but augment it 14:40:11 jka: This document should be a useful tool for technical people to talk to lawyers 14:40:37 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 jar: In doing so we support the technical community 14:40:52 s/Tin/Tim 14:41:29 s/Tim/Tinh/ 14:42:16 s/Tinh/Thinh Nguyen/ 14:44:26 larry: I want the word consensus appear in the document 14:44:37 s/document/product page/ 14:45:09 JeniT has joined #tagmem 14:45:23 larry: I would like the word 'consensus' to be part of the product page, our intention to build consensus, develop consensus 14:50:22 jar: 'make law' 14:55:20 ((discussion of schedule, FPWD ....)) 14:56:00 dka: we need a live legal review, don't think we can do it just by sending the document out 14:56:49 goal is to get legal feedback before next F2F 14:57:42 ((discussion of agenda)) 15:00:32 ((break for 10 min)) 15:08:45 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 15:08:52 ((reconvene)) 15:09:10 topic: API minimization 15:10:18 DKA: Review "Data Minimization in Web API" 15:11:22 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 DKA: They felt that this was a useful document for the TAG to produce 15:13:16 DKA: I redid the introduction to be more clear. I renamed the document. Started with an excerpt of a 1978 paper... 15:14:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization-20100605.html 15:14:25 dka: further on I extract the actual requirements that the DAP working group come up with ... 15:14:57 timbl has joined #tagmem 15:15:24 dka: talking about how this applies to geographic location 15:15:45 dka: what does this protect us from? Good feedback from DAP working group 15:15:51 q+ 15:16:15 Secton 2: what are our recommendation? This is something I just added. With some MUST and SHOULD and MAY language 15:16:27 this tries to make this more general and clear 15:17:04 noah: people have seen earlier versions... who read this? Going over this for the benefit of what you did? 15:17:30 dka: I'd like to work on the product page for this... it's a smaller document, it's very targeted 15:19:04 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 noah: do you agree that this might have unintended consequences? 15:19:43 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization.html 15:20:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization-20100605.html#Guidelines 15:21:21 q+ to ask whether this might also apply to other data paths 15:21:33 ((discussion of whether this should be req track)) 15:22:27 ((question about patent policy)) 15:22:52 ashok: What are you thinking of oding to this? 15:23:14 dka: I want to add more references, get further review from a wider community.... 15:23:25 dka: kind of TAG call for review 15:23:58 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 jar: does this go out in weekly newsletter, it's important than it that happens 15:24:37 jar: the distinction between Finding and Req implies the kind of review we expect 15:25:12 ergo, the decision should be based largely on what kind of review we want 15:25:14 wonder if this is something we might do with IAB on privacy, covering not only APIs but also protocols 15:25:33 yves: tag findings are much like working group notes 15:25:43 noah: we never go through the W3C process 15:25:56 (for findings) 15:26:23 noah: this strikes me as being in the middle, we're just doing this for now 15:26:24 q? 15:26:48 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 dka: the audience is mostly people 15:27:14 q? 15:27:22 dka: the date holds 15:27:27 q- ashok 15:27:30 s/mostly/mostly W3C/ 15:27:42 ack next 15:28:00 yves: talking about reviews, might be a good coordination with IAB 15:28:27 ack next 15:28:28 masinter, you wanted to ask whether this might also apply to other data paths 15:28:29 dka: think that is already there in the action already 15:28:32 q- 15:28:43 dka: want to work on this with IAB 15:30:15 noah: change the deliverables to have two parts... an informal publishing and then later a finding 15:31:31 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 ((discussion of schedule)) 15:33:19 noah: DKA please edit the product page 15:33:29 noah: ... to include relevant actions and issues 15:34:29 topic: ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-60): Web Applications: Client-side Storage 15:35:59 ashok: there were two issues: sync with other devices, convert from other formats 15:37:09 ashok: are there others? 15:37:10 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 noah: before you did the AJAX implementation.... 15:37:43 timbl: Noah, is it is possible point to a piece of client-side state 15:38:08 noah: I believe people implement what we would view as a cache with AJAX that now loses the URI 15:38:43 noah: why is state indentified with the same URI 15:39:23 noah: When we do a finding asking we should combine cache/storage 15:39:28 q+ 15:39:36 ack 15:39:39 q? 15:39:41 q- 15:40:25 ashok: starts with discussion of cookies, you can't control them, got to client side storage, font stuff 15:40:39 ashok: I tried to find apps where they use client-side storage 15:41:08 noah: mobile GMail... go into airplane can continue to read & write email 15:41:24 jar: used to be done with gears, now available with HTML storage 15:41:36 noah: they're using HTML client-side storage 15:42:13 ashok: "Oh gosh that's a terrific app, we couldn't have done that with cookies" 15:44:05 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 noah: this thing looks great when you work on one site, but there's denial of storage 15:45:02 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 timbl: I want to glob them 15:45:25 q+ to ask about encryption of data in local storage 15:45:56 q+ to ask to talk about client-side storage of programs, user private data, public data, cache data 15:46:24 timbl: ((example of how some app might help him manage storage on his device)) 15:46:58 q+ to note about cloud storage, iCloud, moving client storage to client write-through cache 15:47:20 timbl: installation and persistent cache should be treated on the same scale 15:48:11 noah: Tim wants really rich version of what 'manage local storage' 15:48:39 timbl: things like budgets for tasks 15:48:44 q? 15:48:53 q+ noah to talk about agenda item 15:49:11 ack next 15:49:12 JeniT, you wanted to ask about encryption of data in local storage 15:49:42 ashok: doesn't say anything about encryption right now, sort of orthogonal 15:50:01 ashok: consider encryption 15:50:07 q+ to say that she has some twitter responses 15:50:17 ((photo of whiteboard will be added to minutes)) 15:50:31 ashok: there's a reason why people don't encrypt but i don't know 15:50:58 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 ashok: there are all these situations where people hack the cookies, encrypting them would prevent that 15:51:52 q? 15:51:56 q- 15:53:00 q+ JeniT2 to talk about permissions around local storage 15:54:19 jeni: ((reporting examples came back on twitter)) 15:54:53 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 ack next 15:55:04 noah, you wanted to talk about agenda item 15:55:51 ashok: this is the list, leading toward a product page 15:56:00 Other apps from twitter were from O'Reilly, FT webapp, facebook 15:56:05 Rigo references http://code.w3.org/dashboard 15:56:16 Norm talks about http://norman.walsh.name/2011/01/18/wordclock 15:56:53 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 noah: we need a product page 15:59:56 From @bsletten: These are all WebDB (which is WebKit-only) examples, some just tests: http://twitpic.com/58q95p 16:00:19 ashok: you can have lightweight clients 16:00:52 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 From @bsletten: Here is a full “application”: http://htmlfive.appspot.com/static/stickies.html 16:03:52 From @bsletten: Here is an IndexedDB example: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/indexeddb/todo/ 16:11:52 ((discussion of product page, what are goals vs. success criteria, whether 'good practices' should be a success criteria or a goal)) 16:17:25 accept product page 16:18:47 The product page is here: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/clientsidestate.html 16:19:45 Adjourned for lunch. 16:19:49 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html 16:59:01 https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27603 Creative Commons and schema.org 16:59:20 s/dashboard/privacy-dashboard/ 16:59:36 http://www.iab.org/about/iab-members/ 17:04:12 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/FAQ 17:12:38 rrsagent, pointer 17:12:38 See http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-tagmem-irc#T17-12-38 17:14:47 http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/DynamicMediaXMPPartnerGuide.pdf#page=19 17:22:27 Scribenick: JeniT 17:22:34 Scribe: Jeni Tennison 17:22:44 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/05/facebook-party-out-of-control_n_871473.html 17:24:50 Topic: TAG Priorities for 2011 17:25:06 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/06-agenda#priorities 17:27:52 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 has joined #tagmem 17:28:36 ... there are some things where I'd like that we do better 17:29:23 ... [talks through spreadsheet of commitments of people to products] 17:30:34 ... we get best output if people engage and collaborate on products 17:31:37 ... it's healthy to have some things that are quality pieces of work that we can point back to 17:32:26 ... the product pages help us to have a shared understanding of what we're doing 17:32:43 ... are there a small number of these that we want to make sure we do well? 17:33:44 ... ground rules for discussion: we won't spend time on technical issues regarding each product 17:34:24 ... we won't expand or contract scope 17:34:41 timbl: Are new things out of bounds? 17:35:07 noah: We can look at adding those when we're comfortable with these 17:35:32 jar: there are six people, five of whom are working at capacity 17:35:46 ... do people need to swap focus? 17:36:06 ... how can we encourage those who aren't doing work to do more 17:36:40 noah: I want to break out of people working on their own 17:37:37 dka: some of the things don't seem to be equivalent levels 17:37:54 ... privacy and dnt has different scope from publishing & linking on the web, which we know we're going to do 17:38:17 ... we need to categorise and reflect topics, which reflect work 17:38:26 ... such as Ashok going to the privacy workshop 17:39:10 noah: How much of the nuance between the things can we have? Hard in a spreadsheet. 17:39:26 ... also the Xs don't indicate the depth of work someone is doing, it's very approximate 17:39:44 ... let's try to do this mentally (to work out which are big and small) 17:39:55 ... I really want to make broad groupings 17:40:24 timbl: If these things aren't the same, where's the problem? 17:40:36 ... what we have to do *are* quite different in scope 17:41:09 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 timbl: should people fill that out themselves? 17:41:44 noah: I was hoping to start with the topic areas 17:41:56 dka: I'd like to see those categorised 17:42:57 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 ... can we do all these without compromise 17:43:34 timbl: we need one piece of required reading for the telcon 17:43:58 noah: I want people to say which ones of these topics are the high priorities 17:44:47 timbl: HTML5 review is something that we should do 17:44:54 JeniT: some of these are time critical and others aren't 17:45:03 timbl: one for 'urgent' and one for 'important' 17:45:24 s/one/one column/ 17:45:53 noah: HTML5 gets a time critical code of 'Yes' 17:46:07 ... Can we do this for others? 17:46:54 JeniT: fragid semantics is something that has a time critical component because it impacts on other drafts 17:47:04 ht: we identified that as something for TPAC 2011 17:48:06 Yves: I will work on fragid semantics as well 17:48:40 dka: I didn't say I'd do anything on fragid semantics 17:49:34 noah: We said we were starting the task force on HTML/XML unification 17:49:53 ht: I don't think we are the people to take this forward 17:50:46 noah: Having anything active on the list costs me effort 17:51:13 timbl: Make a priority column 17:51:39 noah: I'll add numbers for priorities 17:52:02 timbl: What is the objective for HTML/XML unification? 17:52:21 noah: it was to give the community guidance on how to maximise synergy between HTML and XML 17:52:42 timbl: I thought that was part of HTML5 review 17:52:58 ... there's lots of things under HTML5 review, including fragid semantics 17:53:10 noah: the formal HTML5 review has to finish by early August 17:53:24 ... there are links, and some aspects that we have to dive into early on 17:53:51 ... that's currently top priority 17:53:59 timbl: that includes microdata and RDFa 17:54:19 noah: Can I continue to ask which things should be given priority? 17:54:30 ht: I'd like to give mime architecture for the web priority 17:54:42 ... and HTTP semantics 17:55:07 ... 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 noah: high means that it should be within the top 5 17:55:57 timbl: why HTTP semantics? 17:57:12 ht: I want to prioritise what we talked about yesterday 17:57:21 noah: that might not be there 17:57:59 timbl: what is the urgency there? 17:57:59 ISSUE-57? 17:57:59 ISSUE-57 -- Mechanisms for obtaining information about the meaning of a given URI -- open 17:57:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 17:58:15 ht: it's our credibility, and because there's more linked data being published all the time 17:59:00 timbl: what's interesting for me is avoiding trainwrecks 18:00:17 jar: Add a column that captures why 18:01:08 [discussion on spreadsheet] 18:01:53 timbl: 'Finding URI definitions' important for linked data uptake & TAG credibility 18:02:53 ... 'Fragid Semantics' is important for RDFa, which is part of our HTML5 review 18:03:23 ... 'HTML/XML Unification' relates to HTML5 Review 18:03:45 Zakim has left #tagmem 18:03:54 noah: also we said we'd write something and we're close to shipping it 18:05:09 timbl: We need to schedule work to avoid the trainwrecks 18:06:05 noah: What about web application state? I'd like to argue for that one 18:07:36 JeniT: it's important and good and we're close but it's not time critical 18:08:10 noah: Web app state might be high priority because we're close with it 18:09:12 ... I think the community would benefit from it 18:09:51 ... We have to find what things fit in with the people who are working on it 18:10:26 dka: API minimisation and publishing and linking on the web are fairly high priority, but they're not 2s 18:11:12 noah: After sorting, our top priorities are HTML5 last call review, and to the bits of unification that relate to that 18:11:27 ... to fragid semantics, web app state and Jonathan's work on URI definitions 18:11:55 ... Have we lost anything? Are any of the rest high priorities? 18:12:33 ht: Let's ensure that one slot each week focus on things that aren't in the top priority list 18:13:01 noah: Yes, but there will be weeks where one or two things fill the call 18:13:12 ... but we will get to the others too 18:13:29 ... If the high priority ones aren't moving, then I'm going to get people to focus on them 18:13:53 ... I want to cross check that people are working on the important ones 18:14:48 ... there are roughly three groups: critical, things we intend to work on, and other random things 18:15:04 dka: some of these are things that we will work on when we clear the rest of the list 18:15:23 noah: we'll still work on some of these 18:15:40 dka: I don't know what 'privacy friendly web including do-not-track' is 18:15:53 noah: You helped make the product page for it 18:16:13 dka: I think privacy is an umbrella topic, that includes API minimisation etc 18:16:40 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 noah: I will pay attention to the product pages for these 18:17:31 ... there might be new things that come in, and this will change 18:18:03 JeniT: One thing you were after was whether people needed to be moved to work on the important things 18:18:27 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 ... on fragid semantics we have JeniT, ht and Yves 18:19:04 ... on web app state, we have Ashok 18:19:07 ... I was asking ht 18:19:15 ht: I'd be much happier on Jonathan's papers 18:19:23 ... if that's OK with Jonathan 18:19:54 noah: What's the product page for Jonathan's work? 18:20:34 JeniT: I volunteered on web application state 18:20:46 noah: 'Finding URI definitions' we have jar and ht 18:20:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/clientsidestate.html 18:21:52 on fragids I have done the product page: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html 18:22:19 noah: Larry, the next is mime architecture for the web, which was suggested as a priority 18:22:36 ... it's in the IETF space, what do I need to do to make it happen better? 18:23:05 ... is the energy that it will take low? 18:23:15 Larry: I don't expect a lot more TAG effort on it 18:23:32 ... 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 noah: These high priorities are things that should take time 18:24:20 ... I'll give myself an action to schedule a telcon of how to manage this over the next few months 18:24:43 Larry: Do you have a column on urgency? there's also how important it is, and how much effort is needed 18:25:02 ht: that comes back to HTML/XML unification, where there's nothing to do in the medium term 18:25:23 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 noah: when is that roughly? 18:25:30 Larry: August 18:26:07 noah: On API minimisation, would it help for someone else to help you dka? 18:26:13 dka: I think it's small enough that it's ok just me 18:26:35 noah: Last one is linking & publishing 18:26:47 ... that has JeniT & dka 18:27:09 ... last one is HTML/XML unification 18:27:24 ... I've asked Norm to get back to us with a document that needs TAG review 18:27:35 ... Thank you, that has really helped me 18:28:02 Will do. Need to get the TF to give it a once over and address comments, then will send along 18:28:11 ... The other thing is that Jeff has asked for 2-3 things that we have said we would commit to 18:28:27 ... How should I respond to Jeff? 18:28:38 timbl: Tell him about the top 5 things 18:29:04 noah: Isn't he after things that he can track in 2011? 18:29:14 timbl: Two or more things where we've got a schedule and milestones 18:29:42 ACTION: Noah to draft note for Jeff Jaffe listing 5 top TAG priorities as trackable items. 18:29:43 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 ashok: He also wanted a list of stuff that he should be looking out for 18:30:38 noah: I took an action to figure out by fall how to respond to that 18:30:52 ... OK, that ends this session 18:31:33 Topic: Administration 18:32:00 noah: We've decided to meet in Edinburgh in September 18:32:16 ... are there any objections or anyone who can't attend? 18:32:33 [no one objects] 18:32:44 noah: what about the meeting afterwards? 18:32:55 ... should it be in California in the winter 18:33:14 ... dka said that it would be hard for him to go to CA 18:33:23 ashok: would it be terrible to meet here again? 18:33:38 noah: that's fine for me, but I feel like we drag people to Cambridge all the time 18:33:57 jar: What about New York? 18:34:07 ashok: I can get Oracle to host 18:34:31 Larry: When are we talking about? 18:34:53 noah: December/January ish 18:35:09 ... any preferences between here and New York? 18:35:30 ... we don't have to lock it in 18:35:47 [some hands go up to prefer Cambridge] 18:36:03 [even Ashok's hand doesn't go up for New York] 18:36:25 Larry: Dec/Jan might be more comfortable in California 18:36:31 ht: Peter might like to host 18:37:38 Larry: I could host 18:37:56 Ashok: If I have to host in SF, I would need several months lead time 18:38:14 noah: I just want a preference poll 18:38:25 ... Cambridge vs California 18:38:47 dka: I might have a travel problem to the West Coast 18:39:02 ... it would be less trouble approving travel to East Coast 18:39:28 ht: I have a preference for Cambridge 18:39:34 noah: We should go to CA soon 18:39:51 ... because travel overhead should be spread around 18:40:36 ht: If people want to host, because it helps them with their own management, then we should take that into consideration 18:40:51 Larry: I don't like coming here in winter 18:41:03 Yves: I can host, and it's better in winter and spring 18:42:32 s/t would be less trouble approving travel to East Coast// 18:42:53 s/member:dka said that it would be hard for him to go to CA// 18:45:46 s/dka said that it would be hard for him to go to CA// 18:47:45 [diary discussions] 18:51:26 noah: 4-6th January 2012? 18:51:45 ... any strong preference between Cambridge & CA 18:52:06 ... slight preference for Cambridge 18:52:38 Larry: slight preference for CA 18:52:42 ... Peter prefers CA 18:56:09 IETF is March 25-30, 2012 in Paris 18:56:12 RESOLUTION: The TAG will meet in Cambridge, MA 4-6 January 2012 18:57:12 ACTION: Noah to check with Peter on January TAG date 18:57:12 Created ACTION-569 - Check with Peter on January TAG date [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-06-15]. 18:57:22 ACTION: Noah to inform Amy of January TAG date 18:57:22 Created ACTION-570 - Inform Amy of January TAG date [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-06-15]. 19:13:06 DKA has joined #tagmem 19:24:10 Topic: HTML5 Review 19:26:45 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/06-agenda#htmlreview 19:30:15 plh has joined #tagmem 19:33:48 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 http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html 19:36:01 noah: A few people took actions to review sections 19:37:26 ... Yves on security 19:37:34 ... Larry has bug report on fragids 19:37:47 ... Timbl on microdata mappings to RDF 19:38:12 ... noah on normative status of author document 19:38:35 ... Larry to draft note on TAG interest on architectural issues 19:39:15 ... JeniT to review microdata and RDFa 19:39:28 ... ht to review polyglot and DOCTYPES 19:40:07 ... which of these do we want to discuss? 19:40:31 * Better ways of asking chairs about HTML5 architural issues 19:40:43 * Microdata and RDFa 19:40:52 * Authoring draft status 19:41:23 * App cache (Dan) 19:41:32 PLH: Last call ends August 3. 19:41:37 * Do we have enough coverage? 19:42:41 Larry: plh, there's a last call, how do you think the TAG could be most effective? 19:42:52 plh: you don't have to review the entire specification 19:43:02 ... the list you have is a good one 19:43:13 ... the URI/IRI issue is one 19:43:51 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 plh: the biggest issue we have there is between HTML and WAI-PF 19:44:25 q+ to say TAG needs to comment on architecture 19:44:43 Larry: Do we need higher consideration? 19:44:50 jar: Have you heard from RDFa? 19:44:56 plh: Well, that's part of the group to some extent 19:45:23 ht: the crucial thing, namely prefix bindings, went away as they're still there 19:45:50 ht: xmlns prefixes are in the HTML draft? Plh says no. 19:45:50 plh: are you talking about HTML5 syntax for xmlns? 19:46:30 jar: Prefixes is part of it, but microdata is another part of it 19:46:41 ... is there any issue between the RDFa WG and microdata? 19:46:48 plh: not recently 19:46:49 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 ack next 19:46:53 q? 19:47:23 noah: Larry made the point that we're here to resolve issues within WGs 19:47:50 ... we also have a mandate to help ensure that specs use web architecture well 19:48:12 ... we should continue to do that even if WGs don't come up with objections 19:48:40 Larry: one of the chairs of the WG believes that the TAG has no authority 19:49:15 timbl: the TAG is considered just as any other member of the group 19:49:50 q? 19:50:02 noah: can we scope the issues and if that becomes a problem we'll worry about it then 19:50:05 q? 19:50:24 Zakim has joined #tagmem 19:50:57 timbl: What were the issues that we had? 19:51:16 noah: There were a few, didn't we have a discussion and send an email that listed those points? 19:51:20 - Microdata and RDFa conflict 19:51:31 - historiclly, URI spec 19:51:49 - historically, HTTP spec ;ashes 19:51:51 plh: There is issue 41 on distributed extensibility 19:52:01 ... the group made a decision, and no one is arguing against it 19:52:14 ht: xml-dev woke up to this 10 days ago 19:52:35 - Dencentralised extensbility 19:52:48 s/distributed extensiblity/decentralised extensibility/ 19:52:56 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0085.html 19:53:06 s/distributed extensibility/decentralised extensibility/ 19:53:19 noah: We had the HTML/XML unification work which is part of that 19:53:25 --> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201106/msg00002.html HTML5 and almost no namespaces 19:53:59 ... If we've given our input, is it appropriate to raise the issue again at last call? 19:54:22 plh: you can provide new material, or you can raise an objection 19:54:37 Isn't this why we encouraged development of the Polyglot spec? 19:55:05 timbl: David Carver asked how you put Exhibit stuff into HTML5 so that it will validate? 19:55:27 s/David Carver/someone/ 19:55:39 how does issue-41 work with polyglot? 19:55:53 plh: The answer is XHTML syntax 19:55:58 noah: XHTML syntax or polyglot? 19:56:16 plh: when you use namespaces in XML syntax, they are valid there, but they might not load properly in the DOM 19:56:25 ... if you use application/xhtml+xml then it will be loaded properly in the DOM 19:56:28 ... just not in text/html 19:56:41 noah: a script will find it when parsed as XHTML, but not when parsed as HTML 19:56:54 ... is there news on polyglot? 19:57:02 plh: we have objection on making it normative 19:57:13 ... separate from the authoring spec 19:57:27 dka: what is the objection? 19:58:01 noah: the objection on authoring & base spec normative is potential for clashes 19:58:15 ... the polyglot spec doesn't redefine anything, it just observes what works in both modes 19:58:25 timbl: it's only an observation 19:58:36 should polyglot reference the authoring spec instead of the main one 19:58:41 q? 19:58:43 --> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12725 Polyglot spec should be a Note 19:59:08 dka: the implication of polyglot is that there is an implementation burden on browsers, isn't there? 19:59:13 plh (etc): no 19:59:43 noah: it's just says where the parsing rules intersect to yield the same DOM 19:59:56 http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/0504-html5-plh/xml5.xhtml 20:00:09 timbl: the polyglot spec should be considered a rec track spec 20:00:18 plh: we have someone objecting to that right now 20:00:42 noah: you can have rec track but non-normative 20:01:10 ... if this spec disagrees with a normative spec, then it's clear which is in error 20:01:29 ... 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 Larry: we should specify what a normative spec is and why you would want one 20:02:06 s/same DOM/same DOM or other interestingly compatible results/ 20:02:16 why you might or might not want it 20:02:27 ht: the issue was raised to get rid of prefix bindings, a change proposal against RDFa in HTML 20:02:47 ... there were two change proposals in response to this issue (120) 20:02:59 ... one was to take out profile/prefix/xmlns 20:03:04 --> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology 20:03:08 HTML WG Decision on their ISSUE 120: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0689.html 20:03:29 ... the other was to say that it's important, with existing pages containing xmlns, and you can't take it away 20:03:42 ... eventually the chairs found in favour of the status quo 20:04:04 ... so RDFa as currently constituted has prefixes and CURIES and uses xmlns to bind them 20:04:19 ... despite the fact that HTML doesn't support namespace bindings 20:05:16 JeniT: I've implemented building RDFa processor over HTML and it sucks 20:05:33 ht: various people want to reopen the issue 20:05:57 --> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/new-information-status.html New Information Status 20:06:01 ... but the chairs won't reopen until there's substantial new information 20:06:22 ... and there is no formal request to reopen 20:06:40 noah: how we should engage is tricky 20:07:00 ScribeNick: DKA 20:07:16 Tim: observation about RDFa and microdata... 20:07:25 Noah: What do we currently have scheduled for TAG work on that issue? 20:07:31 ... Henry? 20:07:40 HT: That one's not on me but it is on someone. 20:07:50 JAR: I had a concrete suggestion on RDFa. 20:08:19 Here's the nub of the mess that text/html + RDFa + xmlns:... requires, given no support for xmlns:... in the HTML5 DOM: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/#preserving-namespaces-via-coercion-to-infoset 20:08:24 ScribeNick: JeniT 20:08:59 jar: the suite of HTML5 specs talk about both microdata and RDFa and creating RDF from them 20:09:08 ... and the way they do it is qualitatively very different 20:09:22 ... the microdata mapping is done by the HTML WG 20:09:25 q+ to wonder that moving RDFa and microdata forward is a really unhappy overlap, that schema.org is 'more information', and maybe microdata / RDFa should be worked on further, and LC is premature 20:09:48 ... the HTML+RDFa document is developed cooperatively between HTML and the RDF applications WG 20:10:12 ... I or JeniT should take an action to point this out to the RDFa/RDF WG chairs 20:10:27 ... I think the mapping to RDF should be the business of the people involved in RDF 20:10:40 ... maybe the process was fine, maybe if they cared, there would be formal objections 20:11:14 ... I want to check with Manu and others whether they're happy with it 20:11:25 ... the potential change proposal would be to remove that section 20:11:46 noah: the time is limited between now and early August 20:12:21 ... 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 ... we need to focus on that level of things 20:12:59 Larry: Having these two specs for doing this is architecturally wrong 20:13:10 ... we can see how this battles out in the market place 20:13:36 ... 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 q+ 20:13:42 q+ 20:13:50 ACTION-367? 20:13:50 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 www-archive@w3.org -- due 2010-02-10 -- CLOSED 20:13:50 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/367 20:13:55 ... it's harmful having two 20:13:57 q+ 20:14:01 ack masinter 20:14:01 masinter, you wanted to wonder that moving RDFa and microdata forward is a really unhappy overlap, that schema.org is 'more information', and maybe microdata / RDFa should be 20:14:04 ... worked on further, and LC is premature 20:14:12 Some real numbers about RDFa: http://tripletalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/rdfa-deployment-across-the-web/ 20:14:16 noah: we previously had actions on microdata 20:14:36 ... there was a history of prior pushback on microdata 20:14:43 ht: they responded positively to that 20:15:01 In that they moved it out of the main spec. 20:15:11 plh: I don't think that stopping going to Rec is going to have much effect 20:15:15 ... people are already doing it 20:15:22 ... you have to formally object early 20:15:34 ... maybe we should consider creating a task force to reconcile the two 20:15:42 ... like we did for HTML/XML 20:15:54 ack next 20:15:58 ack next 20:16:07 q? 20:16:20 timbl: people see this as tribal war between those who like/dislike RDF 20:16:54 ... a task force isn't just about these specs, but about the communities behind them 20:16:59 q+ to ask how task force relates to last call comments 20:17:11 ... you can imagine reinvention of schema languages, query languages for microdata 20:17:46 ... 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 ... and has companies invested in it 20:18:02 ... not necessarily the browser vendors 20:18:08 the TAG work on metadata architecture is part of this 20:18:33 ... this isn't just about two specs 20:18:39 ack next 20:18:54 ... and if there are issues of usability, the RDFa spec should change too 20:18:58 q? 20:19:01 ScribeNick: DKA 20:19:25 JeniT: I looked through microdata and rdf specs. 20:19:34 ... the big things that jumped out as being problems to me 20:20:02 ... a) the stuff Jonathan touched on - the incompatibilities of what you get when you parse each of them 20:20:21 Hmm, so you can't use them both in the same document? 20:20:33 q+ to mention a simple metric which supports Jeni 20:20:54 ... 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 ... so there is a mismatch between them, a conflict between them (you can't use them both)... 20:22:36 ... 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 HT: They ought to be complementary. 20:22:45 q? 20:22:57 ack next 20:22:58 noah, you wanted to ask how task force relates to last call comments 20:23:07 Scribenick: JeniT 20:23:32 noah: I wanted to ask if, if we create a task force, how does that fit with August last call 20:23:57 ht: a report from such as task force would provide new evidence 20:24:21 q? 20:24:23 q? 20:24:25 q+ 20:24:27 ack next 20:24:28 ht, you wanted to mention a simple metric which supports Jeni 20:24:33 noah: we need to say something now about this, to lay groundwork 20:24:47 HT: The new evidence might apply to a subsequent last call. 20:24:55 ht: the extracting microdata to JSON section is one screenful compared to five screenfuls to RDF 20:25:14 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 ack next 20:25:29 q+ to ask if we want to work on Jeni's comments 20:25:45 plh: There is a long example in the RDFa section, but no example in the JSON section 20:25:55 ... This issue has never been brought to the working group 20:26:28 ... the issue of working on two data specifications has never been discussed 20:26:45 ht: Tim's objection was that microdata should be taken out 20:26:56 http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#converting-html-to-other-formats 20:27:33 ack next 20:27:34 masinter, you wanted to ask if we want to work on Jeni's comments 20:28:02 Larry: JeniT had some comments 20:28:06 JeniT: I can write those up 20:28:18 ACTION: JeniT to write up comments on microdata and RDFa 20:28:18 Created ACTION-571 - Write up comments on microdata and RDFa [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-06-15]. 20:28:19 q? 20:29:03 Larry: I like this idea of a task force 20:29:19 noah: it wouldn't have input to this last call 20:29:46 Larry: We can comment that the specs shouldn't progress until the task force reports back 20:30:13 noah: We need to make a case that something is broken 20:30:14 because there are two ways of doing the same thing that are inconsistent 20:30:26 ... can we object to things in 2nd last call that are unchanged? 20:30:31 ht: yes! 20:31:14 noah: we could file an objection now with crude form on issues, and say we think it needs more detailed attention 20:31:59 ... can we draft a last call comment? 20:32:50 timbl: an alternative is to object just to microdata 20:34:18 [discussion about status of RDFa as existing Rec] 20:34:38 ht: I only want to object to microdata 20:34:56 ... RDFa is standardising a widely deployed technology that we already have standardised 20:35:57 jar: there are legitimate parties who have reviewed RDFa who have said it's not acceptable 20:36:18 timbl: How can we say that RDFa should have those issues addressed? 20:36:28 jar: the issue is reconciliation not one spec or the other 20:36:56 yves: in '95 when we had CSS, SGML had DSSSL 20:37:21 ... CSS was adopted because it was easy enough, despite the conflict 20:37:39 ht: it was agreed between the CSS and XSL that they would share a common semantics 20:37:51 yves: it would be fine if there was no conflict between the two 20:38:07 ... that being the case, the objection is to the two unless we have a good story to tell 20:38:19 noah: do we have to object on a per-document basis? 20:38:46 ... can we object on the package of HTML5 rather than on a particular document 20:39:01 timbl: I'm not sure of the process, but yes that would be appropriate 20:39:15 Larry: we can object to each of them because they're in conflict 20:39:28 ... if we had to choose one it would be microdata 20:39:41 ... we think they're both likely to be forward, and what we want is consistency in the upgrade path 20:40:09 timbl: microdata and RDFa are identical except for spelling differences 20:40:28 ... microdata may be a subset 20:40:39 ... it's at the same level, not like CSS vs XSL 20:41:36 jeni: there are large and complex differences in whether someone is an item, the rules in RDFa are complicated 20:43:07 jeni: RDFa may tried too hard to be easy for developers but makes it really difficult to process (? ) 20:44:37 noah: we can't reinvent RDFa based on this experience because it would take too long 20:44:58 jeni: fixing RDFa might take time (? ) 20:45:08 timbl: there is a lot of RDFa out there already 20:46:26 JeniT: I will take what I'm writing and couch it as an objection 20:46:44 dka: we didn't cover appcache 20:46:54 plh: my only point was Yves should look at it 20:47:07 Chris Weber new IRI chair was communicating with HTML-WG directly 20:48:07 /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 ACTION: Yves to look at appcache in HTML5 Due 2011-07-31 20:48:19 Created ACTION-572 - Look at appcache in HTML5 Due 2011-07-31 [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-06-15]. 20:48:43 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 Topic: Next steps on Issue-57 20:50:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html 20:52:20 jar: phrase as 'strengthen or revise consensus' 20:52:59 ashok: do you want to get consensus on one particular solution? 20:53:24 ... you've spelled out a number of possible approaches 20:53:35 jar: we want to spell out recommended practice from those 20:54:37 noah: A W3C Rec would take as long as it takes to get consensus 20:54:50 ... the first criterion implies something informal 20:54:56 jar: these are orthogonal 20:55:23 noah: success means doing all these things 20:55:50 ... we develop acceptable techniques 20:56:01 jar: Harry's objection was having no authoritative documentation 20:56:33 noah: The product page can say that we don't know yet 20:57:43 Larry: There's a possibility that you might not succeed 20:58:03 ... you might as well say what you really want to have happen 20:58:20 noah: I want to use the product pages to be what we work towards 20:58:34 Larry: I'm asking jar what he really wants to have happen 20:58:57 jar: I think people are wasting time quibbling and I want to be able to point to a document 20:59:09 timbl: Do you want to describe the status quo or something more? 20:59:38 jar: 'either strengthen or revise consensus' 20:59:47 ... possibly do something new 21:00:42 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 Larry: we want to make sure that the linked data community is happy 21:01:36 jar: more the adoption of linked data, not the linked data community 21:01:56 Larry: I'm trying to get to a goal to something that can be more evaluable 21:02:18 jar: A definition discovery story that supports adoption of linked data 21:02:23 noah: that will be widely deployed 21:02:31 Larry: that's not necessarily a measure of quality 21:02:57 noah: wide deployment is important as well as quality 21:03:35 jar: the TAG could say that RDF should do what it wants 21:03:47 Larry: I don't think we can let them not care about web architecture 21:04:37 jar: On the schedule... 21:04:46 ... proposal is to revise following our discussion 21:04:56 ... put it out on the semantic web and LOD lists to ask for help to approve 21:05:04 ... and then convene a telcon with concerned parties 21:06:55 Topic: Adjournment 21:07:20 noah: telcon next week 21:15:46 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 21:32:14 plh has left #tagmem 21:44:57 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 21:46:24 masinter has joined #tagmem 21:46:35 rrsagent, pointer 21:46:35 See http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-tagmem-irc#T21-46-35 21:54:24 timbl has joined #tagmem 23:20:21 timbl_ has joined #tagmem