See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Yves
<noah> and Yves
noah: can someone chair next week?
chair for next week, DKA
regrets from noah next week
need to assess if we need to cancel july 28 meeting or not
<jar> possible regrets from me for the last 1/2 hour of the 21st. will have to see
approval of the last minutes
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/06/23-minutes
RESOLUTION: minutes of june 23 approved
<noah> TPAC: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/
TPAC registration is open
plan not done yet, but likely to be as usual, be there if you can, no mandatory attendance, meet on monday morning and friday afternoon (or monring if travels get in the way).
<Larry> On the HTML/XML task force, there's been some question about the scope of the task force... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jul/0008.html
<Larry> should we discuss the task force scope if there is disagreement about what they're supposed to do.
Norm Walsh announced the new draft of the HTML/XML TF report, not yet final for us to review
scope of the TF will be discussed at the end of this call or next week's call if agenda is full
<Larry> "In that regard I think it would be helpful if the TAG offered more information on the problem that this TF is in fact expected to solve. "
<noah> Henry?
F2F is EDI, people might start travel plan.
ht, do you have an ETA for a page about EDI accomodations?
ht: will try to do that next week
discussion started in Mandelieu about language spec vs user-agent spec
resolution at that time was to publish a projection of the main spec now called 'edition for web authors'
<Larry> Re HTML5 edition for web authors, the advice "Readers are encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG." is good short term but will of course need to change at "Rec" status, but it's a fine interim position. My main concern is that web authors and creators of authoring tools really review the language spec seriously for completeness and coherence and consistency
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html
<noah> "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG."
are you happy with this resolution ?
<noah> I am fine with it.
<JeniT> looks fine to me
<Larry> really it's about robustness principle (conservative in what you send, liberal in what you produce), and the authoring spec should be the conservative counterpoint to the liberal user agent
+1
<plinss> works for me
<jar> +1
<Larry> i'm fine with the resolution as it is, but we still need to monitor robustness
<ht> Sigh -- not what I would prefer, but I can live with it
<DKA> That is fine with me.
<Larry> well, we have a 'robustness' goal, and the resolution is consistent with that although not by itself sufficient
<noah> proposed RESOLUTION: The TAG finds the resolution proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html to be acceptable, and we thank the HTML WG
<Larry> that's fine
<noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG finds the resolution proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html to be acceptable, and we thank the HTML WG
<noah> ACTION: Noah to inform HTML WG of satisfaction with authoring spec resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-582 - Inform HTML WG of satisfaction with authoring spec resolution [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-07-21].
<Larry> if you wanted to say something about robustness etc. i wouldn't mind, but it's asking too much
<Larry> i think it's fine to separate it
<noah> TAG note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0136.html
<noah> HTML WG opens bugs http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13100 and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13101
<Zakim> JeniT, you wanted to talk about chairing the TF
<Larry> i think the risk is lack of sincere participation... "We'd rather just stonewall"
noah: it seems that some people read TAG's note as "wait for the TF", that's not how we want the TF to be perceived, this should be a W3C TF not a TAG one
<Larry> Is there a common theme in the XML/HTML task force and the RDFa/Microdata task force? We're asking for communities to work together.... analyze the use cases, come up with a coherent analysis....
<noah> Not sure, Larry. I personally feel that the HTML/XML TF wound up acknowledging that there was so much existing deployment of rigid XML specifications, and complex HTML implementations, that in fact little could be be done.
ashok: what do we think the TF will come up with? fearing that nothing useful might get out of it.
<Larry> If there are two mechanisms the task force should review use cases of workflows that start with one and end up with the other, how do they work? If there are incompatibilities, are there changes to one or the other or both that would reduce the incompatibilities?
<noah> In the case of RDFa and Microdata, I would hope we're at a stage where, on the merits, there are much better opportunities to come together in practice. Whether people of good will are going to come together to fine out is of course TBD.
jeni: the initial question is "is there a competition between rdfa and microdata, and are people wanting to change the syntax they use" ie: is it worth spending time to unify the two approaches
<Larry> If we decide to let both proceed *AS W3C Recommendations*, shouldn't the differences, impact on the workflows, inconsistencies be documented, so that people who are voting for both understand the costs associated with what they're voting for?
if not, then document the differences and different use cases
and if yes, discussed based on bugs people encounter when deploying both rdfa and microdata, ie: leading to improvements that would also help unification
<Larry> There's some move to look at SVG/canvas/CSS as another of these issues: overlapping technologies with awkward workflows moving from one to the other, and how can transfers of things like color and transparency and layering and gradients be moved from one to the other
<Larry> e.g., could one define a version of XHTML where element names are upper case as a way to improve interop of scripts that compare element names
noah: deployment of rdfa and microdata is still early, so modifying should be still posible while with the amount of html/xml deployed it was far more difficult for the html-xml TF
<Ashok> http://www.w3.org/2011/track-privacy/report
ashok, privacy-related wg charter is out, it talks about DNT
<noah> Ashok, are you comfortable with TLR's advice?
<Ashok> # Blocking mechanisms: Domain Blocking,HTTP header,DOM Property, DoNotTrack Cookies Alissa Cooper paper: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cooper-web-tracking-opt-outs-00. # Do we need a response header? # Different rules for first-party and third-party sites? # Granularity of permissions/restrictions: binary, by category, black-list, white-list # How does user specify his choices?
<Ashok> Blocking mechanisms: Domain Blocking,HTTP header,DOM Property, DoNotTrack Cookies
<Ashok> Alissa Cooper paper: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cooper-web-tracking-opt-outs-00.
<Ashok> Do we need a response header?
<noah> Seems to me like the only way to introduce something like this really robustly is to have a "mustUnderstand" feature in HTTP -- that's not there.
<noah> Therefore, any site can just ignore a DNT header, right?
<Ashok> Different rules for first-party and third-party sites?
<Larry> I think the TAG should be talking about higher-level issues... like "where is the threat analysis"
ashok: subtle shades as third-party sites might act as first-party and so on
Larry: don't want to review things that will be worked by WGs, we might need to look at the issues at a higher level
<Ashok> Granularity of permissions/restrictions: binary, by category, black-list, white-list
<Ashok> How does user specify his choices?
ashok: users are not good, or not wanting to describe what they want for privacy
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter-draft
ashok: charter is very wide and non-specific
<Larry> I think the working group should be charatered to do a threat analysis to establish requirements, and that RFC 3694 is a good model of what a "threat analysis" might look like
<noah> ACTION-550?
<trackbot> ACTION-550 -- Daniel Appelquist to with help from Noah to plan TAG work on privacy, leading to session at F2F, next step is contact with TLR -- due 2011-05-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/550
<noah> ACTION-566?
<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-06-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566
<noah> close ACTION-550
<trackbot> ACTION-550 With help from Noah to plan TAG work on privacy, leading to session at F2F, next step is contact with TLR closed
<noah> ACTION: Ashok (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-583 - (with help from Dan) organize TAG review of proposed W3C charter on tracking protection (privacy) Due 2011-07-26 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2011-07-21].
<noah> ACTION-566?
<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-06-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566
<noah> ACTION-566 Due 2011-07-19
<trackbot> ACTION-566 Contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. due date now 2011-07-19
<noah> ACTION-556?
<trackbot> ACTION-556 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with HTML WG chairs as to why http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/author/ is not normative -- due 2011-06-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/556
<noah> close ACTION-556
<trackbot> ACTION-556 Follow up with HTML WG chairs as to why http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/author/ is not normative closed
<noah> ACTION-581?
<trackbot> ACTION-581 -- Noah Mendelsohn to include discussion of Authoring Spec status resolution http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html in 14 July 2011 Agenda [self-assigned] -- due 2011-07-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/581
<noah> close ACTION-581
<trackbot> ACTION-581 Include discussion of Authoring Spec status resolution http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html in 14 July 2011 Agenda [self-assigned] closed
<noah> close ACTION-573?
<noah> ACTION-573?
<trackbot> ACTION-573 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send Jeni's note to HTML WG, RDFa, and W3C staff on Wed 22 June 2011 if there are no objections received by the 21st Due 2011-06-22 -- due 2011-06-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/573
<noah> close ACTION-573
<trackbot> ACTION-573 Send Jeni's note to HTML WG, RDFa, and W3C staff on Wed 22 June 2011 if there are no objections received by the 21st Due 2011-06-22 closed
<noah> ACTION-575?
<trackbot> ACTION-575 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Jun/0082.html as edited Due 2011-06-24 -- due 2011-06-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/575
<noah> close ACTION-575
<trackbot> ACTION-575 Send http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Jun/0082.html as edited Due 2011-06-24 closed
<Larry> I see quite a bit of progress in IETF IRI working group lately
<noah> ACTION-577?
<trackbot> ACTION-577 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available DueL 2011-07-12 -- due 2011-06-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577
<Larry> IRI working group meeting at IETF in quebec
<noah> ACTION-577?
<trackbot> ACTION-577 -- Henry Thompson to prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available -- due 2011-07-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577
<Larry> suggest discussion should focus on TAG input to IRI working group meeting?
<Larry> next week is OK, 28th is during IETF
Larry: supplying TAG input to the upcoming IRI WG meeting at next IETF would be very good
ht: indeed
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
henry will frame what will be discussed next week re: IRI and rfc3023bis
<noah> ACTION-440?
<trackbot> ACTION-440 -- Henry Thompson to ask Hixie what is meant in this [section 9.2] by "retrieving an external entity" and could some clarification be added. -- due 2011-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440
<noah> ACTION-440?
<trackbot> ACTION-440 -- Henry Thompson to ask Hixie what is meant in this [section 9.2] by "retrieving an external entity" and could some clarification be added. -- due 2011-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/440
see thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jul/thread.html#msg57
noah: we should up the priority of everything related to html5 review
<noah> ACTION-350?
<trackbot> ACTION-350 -- Henry Thompson to revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion -- due 2011-08-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350
<noah> ACTION-404?
<trackbot> ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership -- due 2011-04-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404
<noah> ACTION-508?
<trackbot> ACTION-508 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed bug report against HTML5 media type registration regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps -- due 2011-04-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
<Larry> i should do this and haven't
<noah> NM: Last call comment from ACTION-508?
<noah> LM: Yes.
Larry, all we need to have is that the definition points out that the fragid might be interpreted
I may submit a bug
LM: leave 508 up for me to submit the bug
<noah> ACTION-508 Due 2011-07-19
<trackbot> ACTION-508 Draft proposed bug report against HTML5 media type registration regarding interpretation of fragid in HTML-based AJAX apps due date now 2011-07-19
<Larry> I don't think this is controversial
<noah> ACTION-557?
<trackbot> ACTION-557 -- Larry Masinter to draft note for chairs list on TAG interest in hearing of architectural issues and comments relating to HTML5...draft to be sent to tag@w3.org -- due 2011-06-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/557
<noah> close ACTION-557
<trackbot> ACTION-557 Draft note for chairs list on TAG interest in hearing of architectural issues and comments relating to HTML5...draft to be sent to tag@w3.org closed
<noah> ACTION-560?
<trackbot> ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2011-06-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560
<noah> ACTION-460 Due 2011-07-21
<trackbot> ACTION-460 Coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on privacy policy due date now 2011-07-21
<noah> ACTION-572?
<trackbot> ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 -- due 2011-07-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572
Noah: large part of next week's call should be on those html5 topics
also don't forget to make progress on products
<Larry> I submitted http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13257 bug 13257 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/508
Larry: some question about the goals of the HTML/XML TF, what are we expecting ?
<Larry> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jul/0008.html
<Larry> I wrote: "While I don't expect a task force to necessarily solve the problem given it, I do expect, if the conclusion is that the problem given the task force cannot be solved, for the task force to explain clearly, cogently, concisely (without too many references to jump through or an expectation to have participated in years of discussion) why the problem cannot be solved. I don't think the HTML/XML task force draft report does that
<Larry> yet. "
Noah: use cases were the things people wanted to get better compatibility on
issues when proposing solutions are deployment or spec incompatibility issues
<Larry> I don't think the task force report explains where the problems are now... the cost/benefit analyses aren't in it
Larry: I would like to have the TF document why solution are not workable without reading 15 years of backlog
Noah: please send that comment to Norm
<jar> impossibility proofs are usually several orders of magnitude harder than possibility proofs
ADJOURNED
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/form/from/ Succeeded: s/scribe/chair/ Succeeded: s/tha /the / Succeeded: s/difficult/difficult for the html-xml TF/ Succeeded: s/ashok,/ashok:/ Found Scribe: Yves Inferring ScribeNick: Yves Present: Noah Ashok Peter Jeni Jar Henry Larry DKA Yves WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/07/14-agenda WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 14 Jul 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/07/14-tagmem-minutes.html People with action items: ashok noah WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]