00:45:14 JeniT has joined #tagmem 01:01:30 JeniT has joined #tagmem 01:25:50 timbl has joined #tagmem 03:08:42 noah has joined #tagmem 03:27:04 JeniT has joined #tagmem 03:32:28 JeniT has joined #tagmem 09:42:42 darobin has joined #tagmem 12:43:00 darobin has joined #tagmem 13:13:07 Zakim has left #tagmem 13:26:57 timbl has joined #tagmem 13:42:45 noah has joined #tagmem 13:42:47 glenn has joined #tagmem 13:53:05 masinter has joined #tagmem 13:58:54 JeniT has joined #tagmem 14:00:55 jar has joined #tagmem 14:01:11 Zakim has joined #tagmem 14:01:18 scribe: Jonathan Rees 14:01:21 scribenick: jar 14:01:50 Larry, document RDF is at http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr.rdf 14:01:57 zakim, who is here? 14:01:57 sorry, noah, I don't know what conference this is 14:01:58 On IRC I see jar, JeniT, masinter, glenn, noah, timbl, darobin, RRSAgent, plinss_, trackbot, Yves 14:01:59 plinss has joined #tagmem 14:02:09 zakim, who is here? 14:02:12 On the phone I see W3C, GlennAdams 14:02:14 On IRC I see plinss, Zakim, jar, JeniT, masinter, glenn, noah, timbl, darobin, RRSAgent, plinss_, trackbot, Yves 14:02:36 agenda review 14:03:44 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda 14:05:34 F2F scheduling 14:06:18 next one is april 2-4 south of france 14:09:09 Ashok has joined #tagmem 14:09:33 ht has joined #tagmem 14:10:12 +??P2 14:11:59 I have a conflict for week of Jun 11-15 should I be elected 14:11:59 I cannot do 25 or 29 may 14:12:10 should I be re-elected 14:12:38 We are talking about 12-14 June in Cambridge, to meet Tim's preferences. Can you do it? 14:12:44 Yes 14:13:07 I will be in London that week 14:14:35 The TAG plans to meet 12-14 June, but don't make travel plans yet since we need to consult with new members 14:15:36 ht: It would be good for every TAG member to touch base with an IETF meeting, IMO 14:16:40 LM: Let's talk to Mark N about liaison when he's here. Might be good to interact with ISOC too 14:17:08 LM: maye collaborate around extensibility 14:17:12 s/maye/maybe/ 14:17:33 suggestions for IETF general topics: (a) ask MNot on Friday (b) IAB on extensibility, (c) ISOC members on legal impact. 14:17:35 -GlennAdams 14:18:15 +GlennAdams 14:18:19 topic: Administration 14:18:26 suggestions for individual TAG members of relevant IETF working groups: RTC, IRI, URNbis, HTTPbis, websec. If you attend, be prepared to have read relevant documents being discussed 14:18:27 topic: Microdata + RDFa 14:18:37 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf 14:19:20 JT: We had wiki page set up since September. 2 documents came out of this 14:19:22 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html 14:20:06 … HTML data guide - advice on how to do data in HTML, when to use which mechanism 14:20:21 … divided by target audiences 14:21:15 Publishers: how to mix vocabularies, how to mix syntaxes - what do you have to be aware of re possible conflicts 14:21:29 s/Publishers:/JT: Publishers:/ 14:22:19 JT: Next section is for consumers - what syntax should you consume, how to deal with mixed input 14:23:08 JT: 3rd section for vocab authors. Extending existing vocabularies to suit new requirements, designing vocabs for each kind of syntax and that work across the syntaxes 14:23:32 … The plan is to publish this as a SWIG note in January 14:24:43 LM: What I'm missing is anything about whole-document metadata - DC, XMP - I know this is a different problem, but some ack of this would be nice 14:25:51 LM: The HTML meta tag seems related. The document ought to say something about this other stuff, if only to put it out of scope. 14:26:27 LM: references so that people are directed to the right place (if they want to know about it) 14:27:05 TBL: question about history of RDFa 14:28:02 TBL: Dublin Core was persuaded to adopt RDF with the understanding that RDFa would be coming along later 14:29:23 NM: Didn't the current effort start with the announcement of schema.org ? How have things progressed since then? 14:30:08 "whole document metadata" is a separate but related topic but likely to be confused 14:30:14 JT: RDFa Lite is now a WD, schema.org has adopted support for it 14:31:03 and http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-rdf-in-HTML 14:31:17 JT: Google already recognized a wide variety of markups, and schema.org was a statement of a preferred form 14:32:13 NM: It would be nice to be able to tell the community what the TAG's role was in this 14:32:16 also: http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/xmp/sdk/XMPspecification.pdf#page=98 embedding XMP in HTML 14:32:32 2003-12-15 XFN 1.0 launched by Tantek Çelik[1], Eric Meyer[2], Matthew Mullenweg[3] 14:33:00 a b "XHTML and RDF W3C Note 14 February 2004". World Wide Web Consortium. 2004-02-14. Retrieved 2007-12-27. 14:33:18 ashok: So there wasn't a groundswell to reduce the number of formats? Why not? 14:34:19 LM: I thought the big difference had to do with namespaces and extensibility? You can use namespaces in RDFa but not in microdata? 14:35:41 i'm also concerned about relationship between embedded metadata in linked images and metadata in links 14:35:44 JT: Not really. In microdata you can have multiple independent event vocabularies 14:36:36 JT: In microdata syntax you can't say a single item is two things from two different vocabularies… but you can always nest 14:37:04 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/microdata-rdf/index.html 14:37:09 TBL: What about getting triples out HTML documents? 14:37:19 JT: THat's the second document. 14:38:24 … There were problems with the HTML5 mapping of microdata to RDF 14:38:41 for example, http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/specs/ deals with relationship. For example, img src="something.jpeg" might want to link data about the image in the HTML, to ... override? supplant? be resolved against ? metadata ... may need something of the scope of http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/specs/ 14:38:52 … The problem is it's impossible to generate idiomatic RDF without some knowledge of the microdata vocabulary. 14:39:16 would like to make sure review with http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/ happens 14:39:37 … It doesn't make distinctions that RDF makes. E.g. what about ordering of multiple values? Microdata is always ordered, but in idiomatic RDF it would depend on vocabulary 14:40:05 JT: AFAIK everyone using microdata is using schema.org 14:40:21 TBL: Could you annotate the schema? 14:40:43 JT: Somewhere, somehow, there needs to be a registry that provides this information 14:41:50 http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#items 14:42:00 "Except if otherwise specified by that specification, the URLs given as the item types should not be automatically dereferenced." 14:44:02 q+ 14:44:46 q+ to ask that the HTML data guide address other workflows around data management in HTML: merging HTML from multiple sources, merging HTML data with data from other sources 14:45:19 We need to wrap this discussion in 2 minutes 14:45:58 jar: asking why there needs to be a canonical mapping for microdata (as opposed to lots of mappings) 14:46:07 noah: Cost/benefit 14:46:32 TBL: Scaling and reuse 14:46:46 ack next 14:46:48 masinter, you wanted to ask that the HTML data guide address other workflows around data management in HTML: merging HTML from multiple sources, merging HTML data with data from 14:46:51 ... other sources 14:46:52 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html#consuming-multiple-formats 14:47:06 zakim, close the queue 14:47:06 ok, noah, the speaker queue is closed 14:47:36 I think that's expanding the scope which I don't want to do 14:47:42 LM: metadata about the linked object in the referring document - this is a common workflow - possible conflicts - might be worth calling this out 14:47:47 That might be useful, but it's outside scope 14:48:14 Norm has joined #tagmem 14:48:18 if it is out of scope, then please note that it hasn't been addressed and hsould be before the analysis is complete 14:48:27 NM: Thanks Jeni 14:48:28 plh has joined #tagmem 14:49:49 JT: There's so much to say about this, we had to keep the scope quite narrow 14:49:58 topic: HTML.next 14:50:36 -ht 14:50:47 nm: I'd like to know what we ought to be doing re HTML.next in the next 3-6 months 14:50:48 I wonder why "This section is non-normative. 14:50:48 This document describes a means of transforming HTML containing microdata into RDF. " 14:51:52 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/next/markup/ 14:52:17 PLH: Mike Smith did some work since we last spoke about this. New list [of features], which is interesting 14:52:48 PLH: E.g. datagrid got removed from html5, deferred 14:53:17 PLH: Input mode attribute, proposal from Microsoft 14:53:32 NM: Looks like none of this is deep 14:53:50 PLH: There will be no upgrades to the HTML5 parsers 14:54:11 NM: That's important 14:54:11 modularization of the specification? 14:54:18 the proposed "element" and "template" element types appear somewhat generic 14:54:23 q+ 14:54:52 +??P4 14:55:16 PLH: intent element - from device API WG - for head - this is a problem since a parser treats unrecognized element as transition to body 14:55:21 which of http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/HTMLnext.pdf are in scope? 14:55:51 and my own perspective: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/HTMLnext-perspectives.pdf 14:55:58 TBL: This has always been a bug… unrecognized head elements ought to be ignored, otherwise there's no extensibility 14:56:28 PLH: intent is thus an example of an extension that's NOT going to be considered for now 14:56:47 … ('intent' is a misnomer) 14:57:39 NM: it has a pub/sub feel to it 14:58:18 PLH: Arrival of speech on the web is going to be a big item. Speech incubator group is looking at it 14:59:17 q? 14:59:39 PLH: translate - if you don't use namespaces, that's OK, but [scribe missed] 15:00:11 … translate will be part of HTML, but will be extended further 15:00:42 --> http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter.html Multilingual Web Working Group Charter 15:00:51 NM: Before ratholing, remember the goal is what the TAG should be doing 15:02:22 JAR: What about javascript related changes? 15:03:03 PLH: Being able to control adaptive streaming algorithm - it's a set of APIs 15:03:53 PLH: Javascript modules is not part of this discussion 15:05:27 LM: What I see is sets of features, which seems appropriate for the WG 15:05:45 plh? impact from media related proposals in http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next#Multimedia ? 15:06:23 … at TPAC there was an interesting panel … architectural conflicts between SVG and HTML, things left dangling, references to evolving specifications 15:07:12 … these are not features, but they are changes to the specification and affects evolution of the language. Maybe the WG doesn't want to work on this, as this is painful 15:07:21 s/affects/affect/ 15:07:46 s/SVG/SVG (etc.)/ 15:08:05 … might the TAG be able to make that kind of work easier to do? 15:08:35 PLH: SVG and HTML video element conflict will be addressed by the WGs 15:09:08 plh? accessibility issues from use of canvas ? is this in HTML.next scope ? 15:09:09 PLH: there is interest in making the technologies work well together 15:09:25 LM: color management 15:09:27 -GlennAdams 15:09:54 PLH: this is happening naturally, since implementors don't like to implement the same thing twice with variation 15:09:59 -darobin 15:10:09 +GlennAdams 15:10:10 LM: But that kind of pressure is not neceesarily enough 15:10:20 +[IPcaller] 15:11:39 PLH: CSS extensibility story has been falling apart. Market successes drive out minority features... 15:12:08 PL: If an id contains a - then it will never become part of CSS (this includes vendor prefixes) 15:12:43 PL: When people started using vendor prefixes for experimental purposes that was a problem 15:12:51 TBL: Pain 15:13:39 PL: Any vendor who does [that] will get a whack from the CSS WG 15:13:57 LM: The question is who to blame when something goes wrong 15:14:40 PLH: I introduced this topic because CSS seems to have the best extensibility story for experimental features 15:15:13 PL: The best approach is for the CSS WG to drive new features to rec as fast as possible, to avoid vendor prefixes 15:15:36 LM: Vendor prefixes should have a year, and old features should not be used 15:16:11 What can the TAG do? Extensibility, mdularization, references... architectural features 15:16:31 what is the record for attaining REC by CSS WG? 2-3 out of 20-30 specs? some specs going on 10+ years 15:16:46 NM: XML namespaces often feel like vendor prefixes. There's not a good way to say what the implementation path is for [missed] 15:17:23 LM: How can the TAG help? Not with the feature list. What about architectural issues, like extensibility, maybe narrowly focussed. 15:18:06 PLH: Because no namespace support, we're trying to keep track of new elements being introduced 15:18:14 … [in HTML] 15:19:02 TBL: HTML parser is a big black box, not driven by tables, no grammar - so how to add new elements? 15:19:06 timbl: table driven parser? Grammar? If you're adding new elements, where will they be added? 15:19:36 PLH: Some parts of parser are going to be unchanged - error recovery 15:19:47 DKA has joined #tagmem 15:20:13 LM: What about HTML5 issues closed for lack of change proposal? Reconsidering them for HTML6? 15:20:36 PLH: Correct, this can happen. 15:21:28 q? 15:22:34 ACTION-600? 15:22:34 ACTION-600 -- Daniel Appelquist to report to TAG on goals, scope and progress to date for HTML.next work -- due 2011-10-25 -- OPEN 15:22:35 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/600 15:22:55 JT: Has there emerged a kind of scope for HTML.next? Or timeline? 15:23:05 DKA: No progress on ACTION-600 15:23:17 NM: I think we'll probably reassign ACTION-600 given that Dan is leaving the TAG, let's see how the rest of this discussion goes. 15:23:24 ACTION-641? 15:23:24 ACTION-641 -- Noah Mendelsohn to try and find list of review issues relating to HTML5 from earlier discussions -- due 2012-01-17 -- OPEN 15:23:24 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/641 15:23:26 PLH: Should be more rapid this time 15:23:47 I'm sorry I didn't have time to get to ACTION-641. It's due mid-Jan. Not sure if I'll get to it, but I'll try. Help would be welcome. 15:24:58 PLH: There's the issue of modularizing the spec. To some extent this happens because different people are working on different parts 15:26:17 negative impact of modularization is cross-dependencies between modules and time lines for completion of dependencies 15:26:38 q? 15:27:06 masinter` has joined #tagmem 15:27:18 ACTION-600? 15:27:18 ACTION-600 -- Daniel Appelquist to report to TAG on goals, scope and progress to date for HTML.next work -- due 2011-10-25 -- OPEN 15:27:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/600 15:27:27 NM: The TAG isn't looking for work, the question is whether we can be of any use 15:28:08 separately, there are core semantics of HTML5 spec (such as event queue semantics) that are being normatively referenced by many other specs in other WGs (e.g., WebApps) 15:28:49 its becoming quite a nest of dependencies with little architectural planning for the impact 15:29:28 LM: We're not looking for trouble. Can we look to Philippe to bring to our attention anything the TAG might help with? 15:31:00 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG decides that it will not at this time start a significant effort on HTML.next. Therefore: 1) HTML.next will be removed from the under consideration list on the TAG product list 2) ACTION-600 will be closed. The TAG will look to PLH and others to engage the ... 15:31:09 TAG as appropriate on HTML.next issues. 15:31:28 masinter has joined #tagmem 15:32:09 RESOLUTION: The TAG decides that it will not at this time start a significant effort on HTML.next. Therefore: 1) HTML.next will be removed from the under consideration list on the TAG product list 2) ACTION-600 will be closed. The TAG will look to PLH and others to engage the TAG as appropriate on HTML.next issues. 15:34:03 close ACTION-600 15:34:03 ACTION-600 Report to TAG on goals, scope and progress to date for HTML.next work closed 15:35:05 LM: Request that MIME type registrations happen sooner 15:35:21 … You can say that there is no specification yet - register a placeholder 15:36:20 … W3C has been too conservative, better to err on the side of aggressive registration 15:36:44 … Enough about specs, it's time to start registering 15:37:14 … I want the official registry to be better than what you find in wikipedia 15:38:44 JT: Talking about media type registries - I had an action re FYN 15:39:23 LM: If specs are allowed to fork, maybe they shouldn't contain their own media type registration, since the reg has to talk about the fork 15:39:50 ACTION-642? 15:39:50 ACTION-642 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 -- due 2012-01-02 -- OPEN 15:39:50 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/642 15:40:12 LM: Consider the existence of "profiles" - the pointer to the main spec would be just one piece of information 15:40:14 q+ 15:41:15 LM: I want to figure out whether Philippe might need help [with any aspect of the reg. process] 15:41:25 NM: Is profile still out? 15:42:15 PLH: Are you looking for a text/html registration that is really vague? 15:42:48 LM: I was looking for a reg that talks about what someone receiving a document [so marked] would get 15:43:29 -GlennAdams 15:43:31 NM: Document misuses of the MIME type. 15:43:45 LM: MIME is the wrong place to talk about conformance or correctness. 15:44:05 LM: MIME is informational to receivers. 15:44:57 +GlennAdams 15:45:13 q+ 15:46:17 NM: The reg. makes promises: if doc is well formed it has such and such a meaning (dom, etc.) 15:47:16 LM: 3023 is a spec, and you can conform or not. Sets out conformance criteria. 15:47:48 plh, what I'm worried about is the follow-your-nose from an HTML document to understanding how the HTML document should be processed... 15:47:54 TBL: The arch goes thru media type, that means you're part of a protocol, you're committing to a particular meaning 15:48:19 … MIME type is a key piece of this, normative 15:48:22 plh, which can't currently happen because there's no route from the mime type to the various extensions made to HTML 15:49:27 plh, so I guess the question is: where is the registry of the set of HTML extensions (such as microdata, RDFa) 15:49:45 doesn't exist at the moment 15:49:50 LM: Let me try to misstate. When you register, you're saying two things, one to consumers, one to producers. Advice to consumers has to be realistic - even for non-conforming docs 15:50:22 s/misstate/restate/ 15:50:48 NM: When something's put on the wire, there are inferences that can be drawn from the specs 15:51:04 … It's a contract 15:51:35 … If you send me garbage, then nothing can be inferred per the registration 15:51:59 [but can be inferred some other ways?] 15:52:54 LM: The spec is extensible - extensions are legit according to the spec - even though not written at the time the spec is written 15:54:07 NM: Is error recovery language in HTML used for …? 15:55:04 [scribe couldn't distill what NM just said into something that could be written down] 15:56:06 NM: Fully legal, expect it but deprecated, tolerate it interoperably, ... 15:56:54 NM: If you see a new element name, maybe it comes from a future spec 15:57:44 LM: Jeni's action was to connect text/html to RDFa. No simple way to fix that if RDFa isn't listed in the media type reg. 15:58:21 LM: A registry of HTML extensions would solve this problem 15:58:35 -GlennAdams 15:59:01 JT: Could W3C do this? 15:59:46 jar: W3C already does this for XHTML (XHTML namespace document) 16:00:35 NM: What should the TAG's involvement be in the text/html media type registration? 16:00:55 PLH: No request sent yet 16:01:22 NM: Maybe TAG should be more actively involved 16:02:42 LM: There's currently a W3C policy that the media type reg is in the language spec, because unlinking led to mismatched. Probably OK in many cases, but not sure about text/html 16:04:44 other obligations for today, will rejoin in morning 16:05:06 glenn has left #tagmem 16:05:15 NM: I think the next step on media type registration would be to get a balanced analysis of potentially controversial or architecturally tricky points regarding the media type registration. Then we can see if there's anything the TAG needs to engage. 16:05:29 JT: We can rescope my ACTION-642 to cover that. 16:05:34 NM: Great, fine with me. Thank you. 16:05:37 ACTION-642 16:05:39 ACTION-642? 16:05:39 ACTION-642 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 -- due 2012-01-02 -- OPEN 16:05:39 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/642 16:07:08 New scope: JT with help from Larry to report on potential issues requiring TAG attention relating to HTML media type registration. 16:07:08 it says "at least" 16:08:26 "JT with help from Larry to liaise with PLH to register HTML media type 16:09:12 -darobin 16:09:56 "JT with help from Larry to propose plan to liaise with PLH to register HTML media type 16:09:56 NM: what about what TAG is doing, as opposed to TAG members. [scribe mistranscription] 16:11:30 ACTION-642? 16:11:30 ACTION-642 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Larry to propose plan to liaise with PLH to register HTML media type -- due 2012-01-17 -- OPEN 16:11:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/642 16:12:12 i liked the old action item better, because it recorded why we're doing it 16:32:24 break ending 16:32:32 topic: Privacy 16:33:22 Welcome Wendy Seltzer 16:33:55 introductions 16:34:18 WS: EFF, Berkman, now W3C team 16:37:19 http://masinter.blogspot.com/2011/08/internet-privacy-telling-friend-may.html 16:37:28 my contribution to the privacy discussion 16:38:07 wseltzer has joined #tagmem 16:39:22 NM: privacy, big issue, potential threat to the web. DNT 16:39:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0000.html 16:40:43 ashok: Idea was to look at privacy from higher level. There is a DNT WG, that's good, but it's just a corner of the "war on personal privacy" 16:41:51 want to ask about ISOC and http://www.internetsociety.org/our-work-privacy 16:41:59 … leaks from social networks 16:42:57 … picking up ambient information 16:43:33 … identifying based on clicks etc. 16:43:37 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt 16:44:07 … Not a technological problem. Encryption may be helpful, but not clear how far it can go 16:44:37 … Accountability, laws as non-technological alternative 16:45:41 Mitigations? Technical, policy, education 16:45:54 s/Mitigations/ashok: Mitigations/ 16:47:07 q+ 16:47:12 ack noah 16:47:18 q+ dan 16:47:27 ack next 16:48:22 DA: Data minimization as technical - granularity - this is privacy-enhancing 16:48:25 What is relationship of W3C role in privacy to other initatives 16:48:25 q+ noah 16:48:50 http://dataprivacylab.org/projects/irb/index.html 16:49:57 DKA: Negative feedback from geoloc WG - they ask, who is asking for this? 16:50:15 q+ to ask why this is TAG work... argue against TAG taking this as a major area, not so much because of "lack of expertise" as "already covered". to respond to DanA of W3C as policy-application group 16:50:23 ack next 16:51:09 Draft API Data Minimization finding: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/APIMinimization.html 16:53:31 NM: Here are 2 things. 1, possibility of more traffic encryption, cf. SPDY.. performance limited devices, cost of encryption. 2. Fingerprinting, e.g. browser configuration uniqueness . These are technical topics 16:53:44 ack next 16:53:45 masinter, you wanted to ask why this is TAG work... argue against TAG taking this as a major area, not so much because of "lack of expertise" as "already covered". to respond to 16:53:47 YL: 16:53:48 ... DanA of W3C as policy-application group 16:54:23 LM: W3C is a focus of policy initiatives that aren't asked for by developers. Constituencies come to us 16:55:07 … Many past difficulties around privacy have to do with venue shopping, esp between W3C and IETF. 16:55:35 … Encryption is a red herring. Does nothing for privacy 16:56:05 Sweeping generalizations are allways wrong -- and Larry's is no exception. 16:56:49 … Why is this TAG work? Seems like W3C work, but not TAG work - not technical. Not interested in stopgaps 16:57:53 it isn't that it is "not technical", it's that any TAG work would be without sufficient context to be useful 16:58:00 NM: Look at work plan…nothing much here re privacy, barely started 16:58:20 "Not interested in stopgap" => "DNT is stopgap, we shouldn't do too many more of those" 16:59:06 encryption doesn't help much with almost all of the privacy threats i can think of 16:59:13 For the record: I feel the data minimization is relevant to the TAG since it is articulating an architectural principle - a design best practice - that also happens to enhance privacy. 17:00:10 @dka: it might be an architectural principle, but it's not clear it really helps in most of the threat cases, and it's not actionable 17:00:12 RESOLUTION: TAG will not do a major effort on privacy at this point. We will remove Privacy from the list of active projects. 17:00:55 WS: The framing is a good start. Threat categories: p2p, corporate, individual to government - different concerns re different info collectos 17:01:03 LM: Threats? 17:01:27 WS: Info used out of context 17:02:30 LM: Is there a sense that these are more than a list of anecdotes? 17:03:15 LM: What W3C could do: try to ground anecdotal tales about hypothetical instances, in real cases 17:04:10 LM: If we had a better model of the real threats, we could do better at responding, with technical architecture 17:04:42 WS: We can do better at describing 17:05:44 LM: We need the particular cases - not a categorization - we already have good descriptions of categories, but they seem to be based on hypotheticals 17:05:59 LM: grounding in fact 17:06:08 TBL: risks digest 17:06:39 a real threat analysis 17:06:43 "concern" can be a harm too 17:06:53 http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-privacy.html 17:07:19 ...if people are deterred from using the web based on concerns that their information may be misused 17:07:26 concern can be caused by rumors too 17:07:43 many people are ocncerned about 12/11/12 or whenver the mayan calendar says the world will end 17:09:17 would encryption help with any of the issues in http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-privacy.html ? 17:09:57 discussion of what to do and whom 17:10:05 encryption could prevent some of the snooping by middlemen 17:10:46 q+ 17:10:46 encryption could also lead to misplaced trust (in case of CA attacks, for example) 17:11:27 ack next 17:11:40 WS: I'm here to work on Web Identity. 17:12:05 action jar to review what provenance WG is doing with an eye to application to privacy issues 17:12:05 Created ACTION-650 - Review what provenance WG is doing with an eye to application to privacy issues [on Jonathan Rees - due 2012-01-12]. 17:12:11 WS: Part of that is getting the privacy story right, and helping users to understand the implications of what they're doing on the Web 17:14:08 ACTION-566? 17:14:08 ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-18 -- OPEN 17:14:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566 17:16:03 http://www.internetsociety.org/our-work-privacy 17:16:19 see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/technical-plenary.html 17:17:21 adjourn for lunch 18:03:37 plinss has joined #tagmem 18:16:32 I'm hiting the road. noah, you've got my mobile if you need to reach me. See y'all this afternoon. 18:23:36 scribenick: Ashok 18:24:08 Topic: TAG Priorities for 2012 18:25:20 Noah: We published a finding on Web Application State. 18:25:35 ... need to deal with Raman's document 18:26:12 ... I suggest we move Web App State to the completed state 18:26:47 LM: Did we get community review? 18:27:14 Noah: We may want to do more to promote it and ask folks if it helped them 18:27:54 LM: Any reason not to make theis rec track 18:28:24 Jar: Findings should make their way into architectural recommendations 18:28:53 wseltzer has left #tagmem 18:30:31 RESOLUTION: The TAG, having published a finding on Web Application State, closes it's "product" on that topic. 18:30:55 ACTION: Noah to announce closing of Web App State Product Due: 2012-01-17 18:30:55 Created ACTION-651 - Announce closing of Web App State Product Due: 2012-01-17 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-01-12]. 18:32:00 product page needed) 18:32:00 Daniel Appelquist, Ashok Malhotra 18:32:00 TBD 18:32:00 18:32:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/ 18:32:29 The above is the list of stuff we are working on 18:32:56 Noah: Frag Identifiers and Mime Types is late 18:33:18 ACTION-594? 18:33:18 ACTION-594 -- Peter Linss to with Henry produce partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2011-10-18 -- OPEN 18:33:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594 18:33:19 Yves: I will work on that 18:34:13 ACTION-594? 18:34:13 ACTION-594 -- Yves Lafon to with Peter and Henry produce partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN 18:34:13 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594 18:36:38 LM: Should we integrate this with the other MIME stuff? 18:36:56 JT: I think it's better to keep a tight scope 18:40:44 Noah: The TAG agreed to invest in this effort starting by revisiting the work plan. 18:42:08 Noah updates the Product Page 18:42:54 Noah: Publishing and Linking on the Web remains a top priority 18:43:17 Noah: URI Discovery remains a top priority 18:43:48 Noah: MIME architecture for the Web remains a top priority 18:44:01 Noah: Other items: 18:44:42 Noah: API Minimization --- leave 18:45:51 LM: Not clear this will make progress. Let us publish now. 18:46:58 Dan: Maybe a new TAG member will have new energy to put in this 18:47:22 ... I can come back with a proposal how to publish it 18:48:32 Noah: We can leave open for a few weeks and then decide. Or decide to publish now. 18:52:25 Dan: I will come back with a proposal for our next telcon 18:54:04 Noah: HTML/XML Unification 18:54:19 ... this is either done or we keep in this mode 18:54:20 ACTION on me to come back with a proposal on API minimization draft by 17 january. 18:54:20 Sorry, couldn't find user - on 18:54:40 Noah: Persistence of Identifiers 18:54:53 ACTION: Appelquist to come back with a proposal on API minimization draft by 17 january. 18:54:53 Sorry, couldn't find user - Appelquist 18:54:55 ... should we move this up in priority 18:55:18 ACTION: Dan to come back with a proposal on API minimization draft by 17 january. 18:55:18 Sorry, couldn't find user - Dan 18:55:18 jar: Publishing a Workshop Report would be good. 18:55:39 ... then i can do some writing based on yesterday's session 18:55:53 ACTION: DKA to come back with a proposal on API minimization draft Due: 2012-01-17 18:55:53 Sorry, couldn't find user - DKA 18:56:01 ACTION: DanA to come back with a proposal on API minimization draft Due: 2012-01-17 18:56:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - DanA 18:57:37 ACTION-622? 18:57:37 ACTION-622 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of html.next as possible new TAG work focus (per Edinburgh F2F) [self-assigned] -- due 2011-12-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:57:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/622 18:57:42 ACTION-652? 18:57:42 ACTION-652 -- Yves Lafon to danA to come back with a proposal on API minimization draft -- due 2012-01-17 -- OPEN 18:57:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/652 18:58:20 ACTION: Noah to schedule telcon discussion of Persistence product page (which was drafted for but not reviewed at F2F0 Due: 2012-10-17 18:58:21 Created ACTION-653 - Schedule telcon discussion of Persistence product page (which was drafted for but not reviewed at F2F0 Due: 2012-10-17 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-01-12]. 18:58:47 Noah: Microdata and RDFa 18:58:55 ... is this done? 18:59:06 JT: I think we should declare success 19:00:34 JT: I will write a final taskforce report and tell the TAG and the HTML WG 19:01:39 ACTION: Jeni to write "product" page summarizing wrapup of RDFa/Microdata work Due: 2012-01-31 19:01:39 Created ACTION-654 - Write "product" page summarizing wrapup of RDFa/Microdata work Due: 2012-01-31 [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-01-12]. 19:02:11 Noah: Web Apps Storage 19:04:39 ScribeNick: JeniT 19:05:07 noah: client-side local storage is not a spec 19:05:20 ashok: the difficulty is there's more than one web storage capability 19:06:10 (looking at draft http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/clientsidestorage.html) 19:07:25 ashok: the success criteria look like requirements for a Web Storage Working Group 19:07:45 noah: I'm trying to spell out good practice for people developing web apps, such as a calendaring application 19:08:06 ht has joined #tagmem 19:08:27 ... how to design a good web app 19:08:40 TimBL: perhaps express it as a set of patterns 19:08:56 ... when we did a top-down analysis of versioning, it didn't really work 19:09:04 ... local storage is new, and it will change a lot soon 19:09:26 ... there's a caching pattern when the URI on the web is used everywhere to refer to the document, even when it's in local storage 19:10:01 noah: the TAG isn't committed to doing anything in this space at all currently 19:10:21 ... what we need to do here is to decide how to scope it and choose where to invest 19:10:47 larry: it's difficult to come up with best practices, but we could come up with criteria for evaluating a design 19:12:16 ... we don't have to produce the patterns, just say how to evaluate a design 19:12:40 ashok: evaluate on what basis? I thought using patterns or use cases would help 19:13:30 noah: there are cases where we will have a good idea for a pattern, such as where the same information is stored locally and on web 19:13:45 ... but then it's hard to point to local vs web 19:15:27 noah: we need a plan that's more than just noodling on use cases 19:15:42 ... how about we refine this draft product page? 19:16:08 jar has joined #tagmem 19:16:13 larry: examining even one tradeoff is useful 19:16:29 ashok: Dan, when could we have something about the workshop? do you have a draft? 19:16:33 ACTION-523? 19:16:33 ACTION-523 -- Ashok Malhotra to (with help from Noah) build good product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered on client side storage -- due 2011-12-20 -- OPEN 19:16:33 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/523 19:16:38 dan: there are minutes 19:16:46 Minutes for off-line web apps workshop: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/05-offline-minutes.html 19:17:10 ACTION-523 Due 2012-01-17 19:17:10 ACTION-523 (with help from Noah) build good product page for client storage finding, identifying top questions to be answered on client side storage due date now 2012-01-17 19:17:27 ScribeNick: Ashok 19:18:24 Noah: I feel moderatly good about the topics we have. 19:18:33 JT: SPDY? 19:19:10 Noah: Let's talk about this after tomorrow's session. 19:19:25 rrsagent, make logs member visible 19:19:40 rrsagent, pointer? 19:19:40 See http://www.w3.org/2012/01/05-tagmem-irc#T19-19-40 20:22:07 -W3C 20:22:08 TAG_f2f()7:30AM has ended 20:22:10 Attendees were W3C, GlennAdams, ht, darobin, [IPcaller] 20:39:53 Norm has joined #tagmem 20:45:37 noah has joined #tagmem 20:46:00 Norm has joined #tagmem 20:46:23 Norm begins by thanking Tim for the fine hospitality 20:47:00 JeniT has joined #tagmem 20:47:16 Norm has joined #tagmem 20:47:32 Norm begins by thanking Tim again for the fine hospitality 20:47:58 jar has joined #tagmem 20:48:10 DKA has joined #tagmem 20:48:44 Ashok has joined #tagmem 20:49:23 ACTION-437? 20:49:23 ACTION-437 -- Tim Berners-Lee to create a task force on XML / HTML convergence -- due 2011-06-01 -- CLOSED 20:49:23 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/437 20:49:41 Topic: XML/HTML Convergence 20:49:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/snapshot/ 20:50:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly#htmlxml 20:51:03 Noah: We should review the report, determine whether further action is required and update product pages, etc. 20:51:36 Norm: My goal is to publish report, which the TAG needs to do so that we can get public review 20:51:59 Noah: We could publish a note 20:53:13 Norm: The TAG wanted a strong statement re. Polygot but there were people that thought that that was a waste of time 20:53:44 ... so that does not appear 20:54:16 ... I attempted to incorporate the feedabck I got 20:56:06 timbl has joined #tagmem 20:56:09 2.1.1 in the table of contents 20:56:34 http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/snapshot/ 20:57:42 q+ to question the wording of the polyglot markup paragraph. 20:58:47 q+ 21:03:10 s/Resolution Broadly speaking, there are two techniques for addressing th/Resolution Broadly speaking, there are two alternative techniques for addressing th/ 21:03:25 LM: Add names of other contributers? 21:04:24 s/feedabck/feedback/ 21:04:29 q? 21:06:38 Dan: Are editorial comments in scope 21:06:56 Norm: Yes,they are 21:07:42 LM: I want references with refs to source material 21:09:07 Noah: Add sentence mentioing minutes of telcons 21:09:37 s/mentioing/mentioning/ 21:10:14 q+ 21:10:19 q? 21:10:29 q- 21:10:38 LM: Cite paper backing up assertion that "much of HTML is generated". 21:11:08 Norm: Could you identify where references would help? 21:11:56 Dan: Re. last para ... sets out a false dichotomy 21:12:40 ... should say "if you want to ... . you could use polyglot" 21:13:16 ... use positive wording 21:13:48 "Consumers that require polyglot markup will fail with content doesn't adhere to it. Therefore, consumers that want to access lots of random data can't use polyglot. On the other hand, in a constrained environment (eg where the consumer is publisher), polyglot is more viable" 21:13:54 People who like this sort of thing will find it's the sort of thing they like. (re polyglot) 21:14:04 Norm: There was some pushback re. polyglot 21:15:44 Dan: If you have a corpus you want to publish documents on web use it also s XML you should use XHTML 21:15:49 Polyglot reduces the number of versions you have to keep track of 21:16:51 Noah: Multiple uses of documents 21:19:31 Norm: If there is an angle for giving polyglot a better angle, I'm all for it but the taskforce did not want that 21:20:33 JT: We want to digitally sign the pages as XML 21:21:15 LM: Just say there are use cases for polyglot the TF didn't consider and didn't make progress on. 21:21:24 ? 21:21:30 Norm: I will attempt to incorporate this info in 2.1 and see if the taskforce will but off on it 21:21:59 q? 21:22:04 ack DKA 21:22:04 DKA, you wanted to question the wording of the polyglot markup paragraph. 21:22:22 q+ to ask about HTML toolchains consuming XML 21:22:31 scribenick: JeniT 21:23:00 ashok: laxer XML parsers seem interesting, and there should be more of a reference 21:23:15 ndw: if you want that to happen, I think the TAG should recommend taking that forward 21:23:41 noah: the conclusion of the TF was that it was unlikely to be effective in practice, because it wouldn't be adopted by people using XML now 21:24:02 ndw: the draft doesn't say that, it was just that the TF wasn't the right body to do that 21:24:26 Norm: The taskforce did not think this was central to their concerns 21:24:28 timbl has joined #tagmem 21:24:29 q? 21:24:33 q+ to talk about where XML forgiveness is discussed 21:25:13 ack next 21:25:18 ack next 21:25:19 JeniT, you wanted to ask about HTML toolchains consuming XML 21:25:55 Norm: We should charter a WG if we want this work to get done 21:26:38 q+ jar 21:27:02 JT: Why bother discussing the usecase in 2.2? 21:27:29 Norm: For balance ... I think it comes to the right conclusions 21:27:47 Tim: What was the most important point? 21:28:06 Norm: How to make XML more forgiving of errors 21:28:07 q+ to ask about embedding XML islands in polyglot/XHTML 21:29:07 Discussion of how to make XML more forgiving of errors 21:29:55 Norm: The XML states it should be well formed 21:30:06 s/XML/XML spec/ 21:31:07 Noah: Spec does not talk about errors and perhaps how to deal with them. 21:31:40 Norm: My take away was -- just put an HTML parser in front. And that works. 21:31:55 s/important/hardest/ 21:32:20 q? 21:32:24 ack noah 21:32:24 noah, you wanted to talk about where XML forgiveness is discussed 21:32:28 masinter has joined #tagmem 21:32:35 q? 21:32:40 q? 21:32:51 q+ to review comments 21:33:28 ack jar 21:33:48 Noah: The conclusion section should restate earlier material. So, ... 21:34:19 Specifically, I noted that the sentence "However, it's entirely unclear that the XML community would be motivated to adopt such changes and, in any event, making such proposals is outside the scope of this Task Force." is in the conclusions only. That thought should also be in 2.5, I think. 21:34:23 Norm agreed. 21:34:42 jar: "HTML parser" is not defined ... perhaps use "standard HTML parser" 21:35:06 Yves: Perhaps "HTML5 parser" 21:36:00 jar: Rewrite for the naive user ... define terms 21:37:19 Norm: Define HTML parser as something that conforms to HTML5 spec 21:37:59 jar: In 2.2 can you make a stronger statement if input is XHTML 21:38:21 Norm: It's likely to get XHTML right 21:38:42 jar: It is worth saying that 21:39:20 s/Perhaps "HTML5 parser"/It should be HTML5 Parser as it is the first spec to define parsing model/ 21:39:51 jar: Does not discuss XSLT 21:40:10 Norm: XSLT is a XML tool, not an HTML tool 21:40:41 JT: Use XSLT to covert XML to HTML? 21:41:25 ... the document says that 21:41:27 q? 21:43:17 jar: Says in 2.5 "the HTML parser", earlier it says "an HTML parser". 21:43:40 ack JeniT 21:43:40 JeniT, you wanted to ask about embedding XML islands in polyglot/XHTML 21:44:48 Norm: Should always say "an HTML5 parser" 21:46:27 Tim: Cannot substitue XML parser for HTML parser ... they produce different DOMs 21:46:48 Norm: Eventually, there will be a single DOM 21:47:36 JeniT: section 2.4 should mention (a) that you can embed any old XML in XHTML without