17:59:50 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:59:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-irc 18:01:26 trackbot, start the meeting 18:01:28 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:01:30 Zakim, this will be TAG 18:01:30 ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 18:01:31 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 18:01:31 Date: 08 March 2012 18:01:51 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:01:53 Chair: Noah 18:02:18 Scribe: Ashok_Malhotra 18:02:23 scribenick: Ashok 18:02:27 ? 18:02:43 zakim, who is talking 18:02:43 I don't understand 'who is talking', noah 18:02:48 +jar 18:03:13 regrets: Tim. Peter, Robin, Larry 18:03:46 zakim, who is here? 18:03:46 On the phone I see ht, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Noah_Mendelsohn, jar 18:03:47 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, noah, JeniT, jar, ht, timbl, trackbot, plinss, Yves 18:04:53 +Yves 18:05:21 Present: Noah, Ashok, Jeni, Yves, Henry, Jonathan 18:05:36 Topic: Convene 18:05:56 Noah: There will be a call next week. 18:06:09 Approval of minutes from March 1 18:06:12 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/01-minutes.html 18:06:16 I thought they were very good 18:06:30 Minutes approves w/o objection 18:07:14 Noah: Re. IETF meeting in Paris 18:07:29 Yves: Larry and I will be there. 18:08:01 I would like to delegate the TAG coordination to Yves, if that's agreeable? 18:08:09 +1 18:08:19 ... will try and schedule meeting with Robin 18:09:22 Noah: Thomas wantd to know which seession TAG members would attend 18:09:37 ... Yves, could you coordinate, please 18:09:47 -Noah_Mendelsohn 18:10:15 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:10:41 HT: We can get a free pass if we ask the Director 18:13:08 Noah: There is a another URI scheme being discussed http+aes 18:13:18 ... should we discuss this? 18:13:54 jar: We don't have TAG consensus on how this issue 18:14:26 HT: I would like to discuss, please 18:14:31 Ashok: +1 18:14:34 +1 18:14:37 +1 18:14:45 Noah: I will schedule discussion next week. 18:15:08 Topic: f2f Planning 18:16:18 Noah: I put in a number of links in the agenda 18:16:33 ... we should look at our workplan 18:16:47 ... Jeni had some suggestions 18:17:04 ... some about parallel sessions 18:17:42 ... I have a list of items people wanted to discuss at f2f 18:17:59 Larry` has joined #tagmem 18:18:21 +Masinter 18:18:33 Hi Larry, we're just now starting on the F2F discussion 18:18:36 See the Agenda 18:18:37 present+: Larry 18:19:01 q+ 18:19:38 Jeni discusses parallel session and some longer session and some sessions with external people 18:19:50 s/session/sessions/ 18:20:11 q? 18:20:25 ack next 18:20:48 Yes, Larry. We discussed IETF. Yves has the lead on getting IETF/TAG coordination set. 18:21:18 AM: I somewhat disagree on parallel sessions. Work on smaller groups should be done ahead of the meeting. The plenary meeting is an opportunity to work with the group as a whole. 18:21:42 AM: I feel that one of the valuable things about speaking to everybody is that someone whom you haven't been speaking with has a fresh perspective. 18:21:51 AM: So, I'm negative on breakout panels. 18:21:51 reminder, someone else brought up the idea of parallel sessions, maybe John Kemp or Dan Appelquist, about a year to two years ago, so we've already had this discussion (don't remember exactly how it came out) 18:22:17 JT: In the ideal case you're right, but in practice we're distributed. 18:24:13 Noah: I hear that parallel session take away from group interaction. OTOH, talking to people some f2f is very productive. 18:25:02 ... perhaps make a topic list and see how the times work out and then we can see how to split the allocate the time 18:25:34 I'd also say, that we definitely should have full-group time on these sessions: I absolutely agree with Ashok's point that other people have valuable input 18:25:40 TAG Work Plan: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/ 18:27:05 Noah: Asks about Frad Ids 18:27:07 +TimBL 18:27:26 HT: I have not done any work on this for a while 18:27:47 ... we can discuss this but not put this as a high priority item 18:28:01 present+: Tim 18:29:09 This is one of the topics where I thought some small-group F2F time would be valuable 18:29:14 Noah: We should discuss how important this work is 18:29:37 HT: It's important for 3023bis reasons 18:29:52 HT: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-01-05.html is important mainly for 3023bis reasons. 18:30:09 ... we should meet with Chris and find out how important this really is 18:31:37 HT: It's important because specs are heading towards giving conflicting about semnatics of Frag Ids 18:32:24 ... specifically because 3023 is going in the direction that Frag Id semantics are generic and this conflicts with RDFa usage 18:32:25 Proposed action: ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers 18:32:54 HT: I will try and produce something to frame the discussion 18:33:41 This is also a topic I would like us to nail, to the extent that after the F2F it is possible for HT and others to document what we have agreed 18:34:07 / 18:34:08 ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers - Due 2012-03-13 18:34:08 Created ACTION-674 - encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-13]. 18:35:32 ACTION: Henry to frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis - Due 2012-03-27 18:35:32 Created ACTION-675 - frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-03-27]. 18:36:00 Noah: Next is Publishing and Linking 18:36:00 NM: On to publishing and linking 18:36:35 Jeni: We should get agreement and publish as a WD 18:36:37 JT: I would like to use F2F agreement that the draft sent a week or two ago can be published as a WD. Might require line-by-line review 18:37:05 Q+ 18:37:29 JT: Would like to work on examples 18:37:31 NM: You want small group time specifically for examples? 18:37:37 JT: Yes, for motivational examples 18:37:39 ack next 18:38:22 AM: We had spoken of publishing this as a recommendation rather than finding. Thinking about it...what are we actually recommending here? We are basically laying out the landscape. No recommendations. 18:38:35 JT: It has best practices rather than new technologies. 18:39:06 the goal was to get community consensus 18:39:34 Jeni... you said there was a draft a couple of weeks ago...do you have the link and announcement e-mail please? 18:39:44 yeah, I'll find it 18:39:48 Thank you! 18:40:05 we're recommending that people use this framework to talk about the problem 18:40:13 Tempted to cut off discussion of whether it's a rec 18:40:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0087.html 18:40:30 Jar: If we want to get community review and consensus then a Rec is the way to do it 18:40:40 If the goal is to gather consensus, then Rec track is our only choice. 18:41:00 Could we ask someone else to talk about us on the topic? 18:41:12 maybe Rigo? 18:41:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html 18:41:23 although we've already had him in at TPAC... 18:41:24 TAG Product: URI Documentation Discovery 18:41:43 httpRange-14 change proposals seem like the main focus for now, right? 18:41:44 Next Topic: URI Documentation and Discovery 18:43:02 Noah: How should be organize discussion? 18:43:07 NM: I just need to know how to plan F2F sessions. How many sessions, how long? Anything special I need to do to focus the discussion. 18:43:26 q+ 18:43:27 Jar: I hope we get more input and then decide what advice to give 18:44:08 JAR: Hope to have more input than we have so far, goal is (ideally) to figure out what our consensus message should be moving forward. Then we can figure out how to document it. In any case, no separate sessions. 18:44:10 ack next 18:44:17 JT: When are the proposals due? 18:44:22 JT: Will the change proposals be in by the f2f? 18:44:22 JAR: 29 March 18:44:41 jar: I asked then to submit by March 29 18:45:08 AM: What if we get nothing? 18:45:12 darobin has joined #tagmem 18:45:15 I'm more convinced than ever that the document makes fundamental assumption that are incorrect, that URIs are intrinsically ambiguous carrying "meaning" and that the "change proposal" process presumes agreement about the problem statement and only want to argue about solutions 18:45:36 JAR: Seems to mean those people don't care to participate in consensus process. We then move down the rec track and see if that gets attention, or kick it onto a different path. 18:45:39 Is there anyone willing to spend an hour or two on the phone with me talking about this? 18:45:41 jar: Then people are saying they don't care or don't want to engageg with us 18:46:03 ... that's what we should decide at f2f ... or try a different tack 18:46:07 -JeniT 18:46:38 Larry: I can talk with JAR on the phone about this before the f2f 18:47:07 s/JAR/JAR or anyone else/ 18:48:15 i don't want to spend TAG time on the discussion if I can't make progress convincing anyone 1-1 18:49:06 NM: Uhh... 18:49:14 contrapositive: if no one is willing to talk about it 1-1, we shouldn't spend TAG time on it 18:49:16 JAR: I can talk to Larry, with or without Ashok. 18:49:34 NM: For now, I won't schedule httpRange14 next week, but just ask if you want it 18:49:56 Next topic: MIME type 18:50:54 Larry: There is stuff happening at IETF e.g. Happiana ... maybe we can review that 18:51:07 s/type/Types/ 18:51:51 s/stuff/work/ 18:52:27 Noah: Larry, you wanted to do other things with other TAG members 18:53:18 Larry: There are some workshops e.g. Language Evolution that may be intersting ... 18:53:27 Noah: This is after the f2f? 18:53:43 Larry: Yes, about 10 days after 18:54:00 The PhiloWeb 2012 workshop might 18:54:19 Noah: We can decide this is no longer a major effort 18:54:42 ... you were going to draft a close-out page 18:54:55 Noah: I need to know what success is 18:55:05 I don't have an opinion about TAG planning for future work 18:55:12 I have opinions about the technology 18:57:01 Noah: OK, then I will make the decision that we ramp this down as a high priority effort for now...one of us needs to update the product page to say that (TBD). We can continue to track the IETF happiani work as you suggest 18:58:30 Noah: Should we have a seesion on happiana and related things or a session on what happened at IETF? 18:58:32 I defer to Yves for votes on what he thinks will be helpful for the TAG to discuss 18:58:50 zakim, who's here 18:58:50 masinter, you need to end that query with '?' 18:58:54 it will depends on what happens during IETF 18:58:59 NM: Will later need input on what IETF-related sessions we want at the F2F. Could be overall debrief on Paris meetings and/or more specific sessions, e.g. on hiappiana and registries. 19:00:30 Noah: Should we discuss TAG effectiveness ... we can think about this and discuss later 19:00:39 HT: No, thank you! 19:01:19 Tim: Supports Henry! 19:02:04 Noah: I will schedule session on API Minimization 19:02:18 has there been any feedback on the documents now released? 19:02:32 Noah: Re: XML/HTML Unification not sure if there is anything new 19:02:39 wait for feedback 19:03:07 Tim: We should have a session if we get sufficient feedback 19:03:13 ACTION-657? 19:03:13 ACTION-657 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of possible XML/HTML Unification next steps -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN 19:03:13 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/657 19:03:24 encourage feedback? Ask for feedback at WWW2012? 19:03:41 ACTION: Noah to check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion 19:03:42 Created ACTION-676 - Check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-03-15]. 19:03:45 -Noah_Mendelsohn 19:04:05 +Noah_Mendelsohn 19:05:13 Noah: Should we discuss PhiloWeb at f2f? 19:05:23 NM: Do you think the PhiloWeb thing merits TAG F2F discussion? 19:05:26 Larry: Henry will you be there? 19:05:34 HT: Yes, I will be there 19:09:45 Yes, I will be at PhiloWeb 2012 and will likely present slides I originally put together for TAG talking about versioning, registries, etc. 19:09:53 Next Topic: Persistence of Identifiers 19:10:10 HT: Nothing new since January 19:10:25 ... nothing will happen between now and the f2f 19:10:41 ... I do not want f2f time for this 19:10:46 HT: No F2F time on persistence of identifiers please 19:11:14 -ht 19:11:20 NM: Web app storage...will you have a draft for F2F 19:11:53 AM: If we agreed on Product page today, I could start working with Robin and maybe Larry, and then depending on how that goes, we see what I can draft. 19:13:07 NM: If I switch to discussing storage now, does that buy you a week of preparing drafts? 19:13:14 AM: Not needed, I'll move ahead. 19:13:27 AM: So, yes...you can go ahead with F2F planning. 19:13:40 NM: Should I assume a session on storage draft? 19:13:49 AM: Will tell you next week. 19:13:57 NM: Fine, but please remind me if I forget to ask. 19:15:10 Next Topic: Items TAG members have asked to discuss at f2f 19:17:07 ACTION-594? 19:17:07 ACTION-594 -- Yves Lafon to with Peter and Henry produce partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2012-03-13 -- OPEN 19:17:07 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594 19:17:33 ACTION-619? 19:17:33 ACTION-619 -- Henry Thompson to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC -- due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN 19:17:33 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/619 19:18:40 ACTION-672? 19:18:40 ACTION-672 -- Jeni Tennison to work with PLH to create W3C-sponsored registry of HTML extensions, and get that referenced from HTML media type registration, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0048.html -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN 19:18:40 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672 19:19:20 LM: Some e-mail, but so far no need for F2F discussion. 19:19:34 ACTION-590? 19:19:34 ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html -- due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED 19:19:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590 19:19:43 ACTION-560? 19:19:43 ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2012-02-28 -- OPEN 19:19:43 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560 19:20:48 NM: I'll check with Henry on ACTION-560 19:20:58 ACTION-572? 19:20:58 ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN 19:20:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572 19:21:30 YL: We can discuss at F2F. 19:21:33 AM: I agree 19:21:44 Yves: We can discuss at f2f when we discuss client-side storage 19:22:20 ACTION-658? 19:22:20 ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN 19:22:20 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658 19:22:28 ACTION-659? 19:22:28 ACTION-659 -- Yves Lafon to track IETF efforts on HTTP 2.0 & SPDY Due: 2012-03-20 -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN 19:22:28 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/659 19:22:55 YL: Following charter work on IETF mailing list 19:23:35 YL: For websockets and hybi we decided not a big issue...related to death of protocol for Edinburgh. 19:23:42 ... we might drop this one 19:23:53 ACTION-658? 19:23:53 ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN 19:23:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658 19:24:03 fine with me to close 19:24:08 NM: Any objection to closing ACTION-658? 19:24:12 close ACTION-658 19:24:12 ACTION-658 Prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) closed 19:24:54 NM: On SPDY you are saying let's just watch what IETF is saying 19:25:04 Yves: Yes 19:25:20 AM: What happened to CA authority item. 19:25:56 s/item./item?/ 19:26:28 NM: Good question. Just now, I'm not seeing any actions. 19:26:36 AM: probably OK. 19:27:18 NM: Do we want F2F discussion of CA problems this time? 19:27:41 TBL: A lot of people have been rushing to "fix" this. Firefox has made significant updates. 19:28:09 Tim: This is separate from general security and privacy issues 19:28:39 NM: Right, sorry, I agree. I meant to ask if we need another F2F session on CA in particular. 19:28:52 TBL: Not unless we have news from an expert on late breaking details? 19:29:33 -Masinter 19:29:43 Noah: For now we will leave this issue off the agenda 19:29:52 ADJOURNED 19:29:53 -TimBL 19:29:54 -Yves 19:29:54 -Noah_Mendelsohn 19:30:02 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:30:05 -jar 19:30:07 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:30:07 Attendees were Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, ht, JeniT, jar, Yves, Masinter, TimBL 19:30:12 timbl, I pinged you in email about f2f support 19:30:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:30:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html Yves 21:16:31 Zakim has left #tagmem 23:16:52 timbl__ has joined #tagmem