17:42:46 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:42:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-tagmem-irc 17:42:47 conference is restricted? 17:43:00 Zakim has joined #tagmem 17:43:07 zakim, this will be tag 17:43:07 ok, jar; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes 17:43:50 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Overview.html was not on required reading list for today 17:44:12 i didn't think it should be 17:56:16 JeniT has joined #tagmem 17:57:05 trackbot, start telcon 17:57:08 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:57:10 Zakim, this will be TAG 17:57:10 ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 17:57:11 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 17:57:11 Date: 02 February 2012 17:57:29 Scribe: Jeni Tennison 17:57:34 ScribeNick: JeniT 17:57:36 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:57:40 noah has joined #tagmem 17:57:42 +Masinter 17:58:04 +[IPcaller] 17:58:59 Regrets: Ashok Malhotra, Peter Linss, Dan Appelquist 17:59:18 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn 17:59:26 +Noah_Mendelsohn 17:59:43 zakim, Noah_Mendelsohn is me 17:59:43 +noah; got it 17:59:48 zakim, who is talking? 17:59:59 noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Masinter (39%) 18:00:04 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-agenda 18:00:13 +jar 18:00:43 Topic: Convene 18:00:58 +plinss 18:01:11 zakim, who is here? 18:01:11 On the phone I see Masinter, JeniT, noah, jar, plinss 18:01:13 On IRC I see noah, JeniT, Zakim, RRSAgent, jar, Larry, darobin, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:01:24 + +33.1.43.14.aaaa 18:01:38 Zakim, aaaa is me 18:01:38 +darobin; got it 18:02:13 zakim, who is here? 18:02:13 On the phone I see Masinter, JeniT, noah, jar, plinss, darobin 18:02:15 On IRC I see noah, JeniT, Zakim, RRSAgent, jar, Larry, darobin, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:02:30 ht has joined #tagmem 18:03:54 Regrets: Ashok, Peter (partial), Jeni (partial) 18:04:12 +??P26 18:04:15 plinss: possible regrets next week 18:06:12 noah: Storage discussion will be on agenda next week 18:06:30 Larry: confirm scribe next week 18:06:39 Topic: Approve minutes of prior meeting(s) 18:07:23 RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of 26 January 2012 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/26-minutes 18:07:38 noah: still missing minutes of 19 January 2012 18:07:41 zakim, who is here? 18:07:41 On the phone I see Masinter, JeniT, noah, jar, plinss, darobin, ht 18:07:42 On IRC I see ht, noah, JeniT, Zakim, RRSAgent, jar, Larry, darobin, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:07:52 Topic: Administrative items 18:08:12 noah: wanted to check on status of HTML/XML unification report, and on client-side state work, wait for Yves 18:08:43 ... also waiting on Dan to provide a section on web apps for report for Jeff 18:09:14 I urge to expedite 18:09:15 darobin: I can email Dan and see what he has, and try to finalise it 18:09:18 +Yves 18:10:00 noah: context is Jeff asked for warning about topics that are high-risk 18:10:13 ... we went through list at last F2F 18:10:24 ... Dan's was on native apps vs web apps on mobile devices 18:10:46 noah: Yves, we have two notes pending, can you tell us status? 18:11:02 Yves: I've done modifications and am waiting for final OK to request publication on Raman's note 18:11:19 ... The HTML/XML report has to get approval, hopefully published Tues 18:11:47 noah: any objections to Yves' draft? 18:12:28 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/note/hashinuri.html 18:12:38 . RESOLUTION: TAG asks Yves to go ahead and publish note based on Raman's client-side FPWD, and we approve the latest frontmatter from Yves' email 18:12:55 +1 18:12:59 +1 18:13:03 RESOLUTION: TAG asks Yves to go ahead and publish note based on Raman's client-side FPWD, and we approve the latest frontmatter from Yves' email 18:13:07 +TimBL 18:13:51 Topic: ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): MIME and the Web 18:15:19 Larry: I'm at the end of what I can do on these actions alone 18:15:30 ... they might not be done, but I need guidance from the rest of the TAG about how to take them forward 18:15:48 noah: we have been doing work on mime on the web for quite some time 18:15:58 ... first round resulted in Larry publishing IETF draft 18:16:19 ... proposal was whether we should do more 18:16:19 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-02 18:16:54 q? 18:17:43 action-531? 18:17:43 ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries -- due 2011-12-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:17:43 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531 18:17:57 noah: I think Larry wants help here? 18:18:07 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:18:08 Larry: the feedback I got was that maybe there was work on registeries we could do 18:18:22 ... from the evolution document 18:18:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html 18:18:55 JeniT: I thought it was interesting and good work, that I thought we should move forward 18:19:02 jeni is saying what I was going to say: It's good work, ought to be continued 18:19:16 Larry: this tries to separate out issues about evolution, references and persistence 18:19:33 ... we have work on persistence, establishing meaning of URIs, and identifiers that are URIs or identifiers in a registry 18:19:49 ... we have some practices around registries that, in the IETF, the registries are managed by IANA 18:19:56 ... so there are some documents about IANA registries 18:20:09 ... but W3C could sponsor other registries that weren't IANA registries 18:20:10 managed by IANA *under IETF direction*, right?... 18:20:16 ... and maybe there's more to say about that 18:20:35 ... I felt like maybe it's a paper for 'Philosophy and the Web' rather than a TAG topic 18:20:45 ... I'd like to collaborate with someone else on it 18:21:04 noah: so, there's whether the work shows up as a TAG finding or in a workshop 18:21:13 ... and there's whether you do it alone or who's with you 18:21:22 ... and any set of combinations makes sense 18:21:26 ... so what's your preference? 18:21:33 Larry: I'd like someone else to lead and let me follow 18:21:36 i'd like someone else to lead and i'll follow 18:22:47 noah: is there anyone on the call who would like to do it? 18:23:10 ht: "this" is the general status of registries, the goal of registries in web architecture? 18:23:14 in particular start with http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html 18:23:20 timbl: is it with the same scope as that draft? 18:23:33 I heard him say "yes, that scope" 18:23:51 Larry: yes, as in that document 18:24:20 JT: Pick me, but only after the publishing and linking is done 18:24:44 noah: Publishing & Linking is the one that worries me about winding up needing multiple tries 18:25:04 ... I'm worried that if you can't overlap them then this will really put off work on registries 18:25:57 JT: I'm interested, but can't take on more work right now 18:26:02 ditto 18:26:03 mainly i want to close this action item 18:26:12 I am happy to review it, but can't lead 18:26:30 Larry: let's close the action item, and if someone else takes it on, open another action item 18:27:01 noah: we'll close this action, and I'll take a long-term action that when the copyrighting/linking stuff wraps, we can talk about Jeni taking this on 18:27:03 +1 18:27:10 close ACTION-531 18:27:10 ACTION-531 Draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries closed 18:27:40 ACTION: Noah to check, when publishing and linking wraps, whether it's time to reinvest in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html 18:27:40 Created ACTION-667 - Check, when publishing and linking wraps, whether it's time to reinvest in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-02-09]. 18:28:00 ACTION-667 Due 2012-04-01 18:28:00 ACTION-667 Check, when publishing and linking wraps, whether it's time to reinvest in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html due date now 2012-04-01 18:28:13 ACTION-595? 18:28:13 ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to draft a report on Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:28:13 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595 18:28:36 NM: Your thoughts, Larry? 18:29:20 Larry: mime provides a way of giving a persistent name for a language, which is different from a persistent name for a specification 18:29:35 ... it's another issue where I think I understand it, but I don't know what we as a group want to say about it 18:29:45 ... I get the impression that other TAG members aren't really into this 18:29:59 ... that it's on the periphery 18:30:14 timbl: I don't think it's on the periphery, I think that these are important 18:30:16 q+ to talk about worries about versioning 18:30:36 ack next 18:30:37 ... other issues such as Javascript modules interact, and RDFa and HTML, which are more salient (?) 18:30:37 noah, you wanted to talk about worries about versioning 18:30:38 should we wait until we're done with registries to tackle mime? 18:31:02 noah: I'm interested, but I'm worried that it leads into territory that the TAG has shown itself to not be good at closing on 18:31:21 ... I thought the specific thing about the registration of media types where the specifications evolve 18:31:36 ... lots of people think they know how it works, but we all think about it differently 18:31:49 jenit, timbl said: rdfa and html are more topical (current), compared to mime, which is a keystone 18:31:55 ... it's not lack of interest, just a sense that I'm not confident that we could get there 18:32:19 maybe 'versioning' has become a bogeyman for the TAG? aversion to versioning 18:32:28 q? 18:32:30 ... if we could do something in 2-4 pages that was a how-to, then that would be great work 18:32:36 ... but I think we'd thrash on it 18:32:59 jar: I'd like the more scientific approach rather than the prescriptive approach 18:33:07 ... I think someone should write it down 18:33:19 noah: that's why I thought a wiki would be a good space to start 18:33:28 ... but we didn't get to an agreement on how to do that 18:33:43 ... the default is to close it and walk away 18:34:00 Larry: one thing to do, once we've done registries, we could take another task on the mime registry in particular 18:34:08 ... it's the media type registry that's of interest here 18:34:23 well, and the charset registry 18:34:36 and the 'willful violation' issues around registries whose values are ignored for some purposes 18:34:58 noah: minute that we might want to revisit the issues of mime and mime registration after the registries work is done 18:35:12 Larry: yes, add media type and charset registries to the reminder 18:35:37 there's http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/MIME.html 18:35:44 noah: why don't you take responsibility to make sure that's included in scope when we look at registries 18:36:03 Larry: there is a document on MIME in particular (linked here) 18:36:24 ... which points to the registry document, and raises specific issues around what MIME tries to name, and polyglot/multi-views etc 18:36:36 ... some of the issues that would have to be done in a full exposition of MIME and the web 18:36:53 ... so this document is a draft of what such a report might look like 18:37:35 noah: I thought the point was to not do the MIME-specific stuff, except in so far as it informs the general story 18:37:37 ACTION-595? 18:37:37 ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to draft a report on Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:37:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595 18:37:59 NM: Right, and we're proposing to put that off until at least after the general registries work is done, right? 18:38:21 Larry: I've added a link in that action item to the report 18:38:28 ... so the action item is done 18:39:15 noah: usually a draft means that we're going to carry it forward, but I think you're saying put that draft down for now 18:39:30 Larry: yes, until someone else wants to do the work on turning that into a TAG document 18:39:38 noah: is there anyone else who wants to pick this up? 18:39:52 and perhaps this is to just serialize this work so that the tag can take up things one at a time 18:40:19 Larry: basically there's a big raft of work and we need to focus on one thing at a time 18:40:34 ... taking it up after doing registries is fine 18:41:01 noah: how should we track this? 18:41:30 close ACTION-595 18:41:30 ACTION-595 Draft a report on Mime and the Web closed 18:42:10 JT: suggest long-term action 18:42:13 ACTION: Noah to eventually, probably after registries work is done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31 18:42:13 Created ACTION-668 - Eventually, probably after registries work is done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-02-09]. 18:42:26 might put http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/MIME.html in -668 as a starting point 18:42:31 ACTION-668 Due 2013-01-31 18:42:31 ACTION-668 Eventually, probably after registries work is done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31 due date now 2013-01-31 18:42:41 ACTION-636? 18:42:41 ACTION-636 -- Larry Masinter to update product page for Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:42:41 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636 18:43:07 noah: purpose of project pages is to set down goals/dates/success criteria on big work 18:43:12 ... we have draft pages on mime work 18:43:29 ... my impression is that it doesn't tell the story of the first round of work, about the IETF draft 18:43:46 ... I think it would be good to include that, and talk about what future work we might do 18:43:55 ... such as registries 18:44:09 +1 18:44:18 ScribeNick: jar 18:44:25 -JeniT 18:44:28 the product page depends on waht others are willing to do, which i didn' thave a good view 18:45:14 lm: the product page is a commitment, so since there is no commitment - well, let's turn it into a wrapup page. 18:45:35 noah: Briefly tell the story of the successful work that happened 18:45:54 noah: Say we considered another round, and this is just on hold 18:46:03 action-636 18:46:10 action-636? 18:46:10 ACTION-636 -- Larry Masinter to update product page for Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-17 -- OPEN 18:46:10 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636 18:46:28 ACTION-636 Due 2012-02-03 18:46:28 ACTION-636 Update product page for Mime and the Web due date now 2012-02-03 18:46:45 noah: thank you 18:46:55 ok 18:47:18 topic: References to specifications that may update 18:47:20 action-350? 18:47:20 ACTION-350 -- Larry Masinter 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 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:47:20 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350 18:47:24 ACTION-350? 18:47:24 ACTION-350 -- Larry Masinter 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 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:47:24 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350 18:47:42 "Best practice for referring to specifications which may update" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html 18:47:42 noah: Henry had written ... 18:48:19 noah: Larry took action 350, where he came up with a different approach 18:48:49 lm: I can't say it's an alternate proposal - I just didn't like where it was going 18:49:16 i didn't really think i had something 'better' except a direction 18:49:19 I put Larry's proposed test in an e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0043.html 18:50:01 noah: some people liked Larry's writeup more than others. left off with discussion of QA group's rec 18:51:11 lm: action started in 2009. we talked, investigated. I suggested closing. 18:51:25 http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice 18:51:37 Thanks Larry 18:51:38 ht: I need to review in more detail 18:52:03 ht: what I wrote was what I understood to be practice that several WGs have been following 18:52:38 … so those wgs were not following the QA advice -or maybe I did a poor job of reconstructing their practices? 18:53:01 … I can't contribute to a decision since I haven't formed an opinion 18:53:19 lm: ht to take an action? 18:53:34 HT: I'd only get to it this summer, but will do it if you like. Else you can close it. 18:53:41 NM: Preferences? Worth waiting that long? 18:53:42 ht: sure, but understand that there's no rush, sodue maybe this summer. 18:54:57 . ACTION: Henry to review http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs 18:55:22 ACTION: Henry to review http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs Due: 2012-08-01 18:55:22 Created ACTION-669 - Review http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs Due: 2012-08-01 [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-02-09]. 18:56:25 close ACTION-530 18:56:25 ACTION-530 Draft slides for IETF meeting, with help from Larry Due 2011-02-22 closed 18:56:52 topic: HTML5 Last Call 18:56:57 ACTION-644? 18:56:57 ACTION-644 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed alternative text to e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due 2012-01-10 -- due 2012-01-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:56:57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/644 18:57:55 noah: I wrote draft email announcement, LM revised it 18:58:11 noah: I'm fine with LM's 18:58:43 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review.html ? 18:59:07 Draft page from Larry: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review 18:59:57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review-2011-12-21.html 19:00:17 you already did that, Noah 19:00:59 close ACTION-644 19:00:59 ACTION-644 Draft proposed alternative text to e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due 2012-01-10 closed 19:01:00 noah: all done here. 19:01:12 this was done a long time ago, we just overlooked closing the action 19:01:24 -plinss 19:01:27 topic: Mime/Web 19:01:32 Please look at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/index-2012-01-12.html 19:01:40 topic: MIME and the Web product 19:02:17 noah: No longer a priority product, OK? 19:02:55 . RESOLUTION: The TAG is closing its work on MIME/Web, noting successful completion of 1st round of work 19:02:56 we'll do that after TAG reviews the final product page 19:02:58 lm: Let me finish product page and get review before dropping priority? 19:03:34 . RESOLUTION: The TAG is closing its work on MIME/Web, noting successful completion of 1st round of work. Product priority list to be updated after closing product page approved. 19:03:50 RESOLUTION: The TAG is closing its work on MIME/Web, noting successful completion of 1st round of work. Product priority list to be updated after closing product page approved. 19:04:18 . ACTION: Noah to update product priority list to mark MIMEWeb completed after final product page available Due 2012-03-01 19:04:24 ACTION: Noah to update product priority list to mark MIMEWeb completed after final product page available Due 2012-03-01 19:04:24 Created ACTION-670 - Update product priority list to mark MIMEWeb completed after final product page available Due 2012-03-01 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-02-09]. 19:05:17 topic: Pending review items 19:05:32 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview?sort=owner 19:06:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0021.html 19:06:45 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.html 19:06:46 HT: Maybe discuss e-mail from robin http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0021.html 19:07:33 Product page draft is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.html 19:08:23 q+ to make a chair's comment on scope\ 19:09:11 ack next 19:09:12 noah, you wanted to make a chair's comment on scope\ 19:09:22 oops forgot to scribe, listening too hard. 19:09:41 rb: Broadened scope [see cover email linked from minutes] 19:09:46 just a little bit of background on fingerprinting if it helps: http://panopticlick.eff.org/ 19:09:57 rb: … that would make the finding more coherent. 19:10:11 q+ jar to push back a tiny bit 19:11:01 noah: I'd prefer to get this little piece out sooner, then broader thing as followon 19:12:00 rb: I understand, but I''m fairly confident that (a) can draft before next f2f, (b) problem with only minimization is that it is not timely - not relevant to APIs currently be designed - fingerprinting is a priority 19:12:28 … designs of APIs have changed since we started looking at this 19:12:49 … not a huge difference in workload to tackle entire thing instead of just part of it 19:13:13 noah: There's a bad history behind this general approach. 19:13:16 ack next 19:13:18 jar, you wanted to push back a tiny bit 19:13:29 -ht 19:13:44 there's more to API minimization tahn what we're talking about 19:14:08 JAR: I don't disagree with any of that, but... it seems to me fingerprinting is different from minimization. Not convinced it has to do with privacy. Not sure others agree. I tend to feel things that are mainly technical in practice feel more like security than privacy. 19:14:21 rb: minimization is on the fence between security and privacy 19:14:23 RB: I somewhat agree. It's a bit on the fence between the two. 19:14:38 for example, geopriv in IETF took a policy approach that all locale information should be accompanied by an minimal expiration policy and a distribution policy . API minimization is only one part 19:15:07 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25 19:15:31 NM: Continue or take it to e-mail...this was an unplanned discussion 19:15:44 JAR: We have 15 mins 19:16:01 lm: I've been worried about the TAG pulling on a htread in this area… there's a huge body of work on this 19:16:13 … don't know how to part without getting sucked into something much bigger 19:16:27 http://www.w3.org/2009/policy-ws/papers/Tschofenig.pdf 19:16:36 rb: Agree. can't extract API minimisation from privacy context 19:17:13 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3693.txt 19:17:41 noah: What I assumed scope was narrow, about granularity of requests -> might help privacy goals. People disagreed 19:18:26 rb: How to present to users choices (in UI) about what info to give 19:18:36 rb: Very similar to fingerprinting 19:18:44 … user gets to pick which camera to expose 19:18:47 look at RFC 3693 section 1 for a broader set of requirements 19:19:10 noah: Min. was cast as a JS API thing, fingerprinting was about what was on the wire? 19:19:36 rb: You can do some MITM fingerprinting, but that doesn't go as far as JS-based fingerprinting 19:19:53 rb: Don't want to discuss every possible kind of fingerprinting, only scope is JS APIs 19:20:11 q+ 19:20:15 rb: I forgot there were other kinds of APIs 19:20:33 noah: I'm OK with doing something broader, but keep your eyes open, don't thrash 19:21:01 I think this touches on too much and that a TAG document in this area without addressing the broad scope is really unlikely to be constructive to the privacy community 19:21:08 -1 19:21:13 +1 :) 19:21:39 lm: Field is large, complex , many people working on it, TAG contribution unlikely to be helpful to people working on the area 19:22:02 rb: To be clear, the primary customer is not the privacy comnty, it's the API design comnty 19:22:39 lm: Motivation for talking about APIs - there are lots of guidelines for API design, we don't want to get into that business either - too big similarly 19:22:54 … another comnty to integrate with 19:23:08 API design guidelines for web APIs? 19:23:16 I agree with Larry in the following sense: if we're going to say that minimization is related to fingerprinting...well...anything we do with API design is going to drag us into the many broader issues of good API design. 19:23:17 rb: There are lots of guidelines, but very few for Web APIs, they are sorely missing, this is a real need 19:23:26 I think that Dan A may say that it would be worth just having the API minimization ndoe say just that before doing stg larger 19:23:34 so the client side storage finding might recommend API design? 19:23:37 … very useful, a comnty we need to engage with. This is a good start, test the waters 19:24:16 … I propose, let me start on broader scope, then retreat if necessary 19:24:17 i don't think it's foolish, it's more a matter of setting context 19:25:15 noah: I hear some concern APIs get us in hot water 19:25:30 I think we need a framework for understanding how the work fits into webarch and other things 19:25:59 timbl: If Dan were on the call, he'd advocate for API minimization *because* it's limited… that was the approach he favored for TAG publications, small 19:26:12 … later aggregation works 19:26:33 Would it make sense to do a product page which is, for a few weeks, not settled on scope, and sets April as a decision time on scope? 19:27:57 rb: My problem - I don't think this is such a big broadening of scope. Let me clarify in followup. Dan & I have talked to other groups, and they don't really care, too fuzzy, whereas fingerprinting comes up all the time 19:28:16 I'm personally not that enamored of minimization, but the question is only partly whether other people like it: the question is whether there's a sound architectural principle they should learn 19:28:45 i'm still not clear about whether this is 'good practices for API design' in general, or 'good practices for Privacy' or something else. 19:28:56 Larry, the former 19:28:57 noah: (listing options) 19:29:07 design principles and recommendations need to be in the context of a problem they're solving 19:30:06 adjourned. 19:30:14 -noah 19:30:15 -darobin 19:30:17 -Yves 19:30:17 -Masinter 19:30:23 -jar 19:31:07 -TimBL 19:31:08 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:31:08 Attendees were Masinter, JeniT, noah, jar, plinss, +33.1.43.14.aaaa, darobin, ht, Yves, TimBL 19:31:39 rrsagent, make logs public 19:32:11 rrsagent, pointer 19:32:11 See http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-tagmem-irc#T19-32-11 19:36:04 Norm has joined #tagmem 21:28:41 Zakim has left #tagmem 23:01:32 timbl has joined #tagmem 23:46:42 timbl has joined #tagmem