trackbot, start the meeting

<trackbot> Date: 08 March 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Ashok_Malhotra

<scribe> scribenick: Ashok

<ht> ?

Convene

Noah: There will be a call next week.

Approval of minutes from March 1

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/03/01-minutes.html

<JeniT> I thought they were very good

Minutes approves w/o objection

Noah: Re. IETF meeting in Paris

Yves: Larry and I will be there.

<noah> I would like to delegate the TAG coordination to Yves, if that's agreeable?

<JeniT> +1

Yves: will try and schedule meeting with Robin

Noah: Thomas wantd to know which seession TAG members would attend
... Yves, could you coordinate, please

HT: We can get a free pass if we ask the Director

Noah: There is a another URI scheme being discussed http+aes
... should we discuss this?

jar: We don't have TAG consensus on how this issue

HT: I would like to discuss, please

Ashok: +1

<JeniT> +1

<Yves> +1

Noah: I will schedule discussion next week.

f2f Planning

Noah: I put in a number of links in the agenda
... we should look at our workplan
... Jeni had some suggestions
... some about parallel sessions
... I have a list of items people wanted to discuss at f2f

<noah> Hi Larry, we're just now starting on the F2F discussion

<noah> See the Agenda

Jeni discusses parallel session and some longer session and some sessionss with external people

<noah> Yes, Larry. We discussed IETF. Yves has the lead on getting IETF/TAG coordination set.

<noah> 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.

<noah> 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.

<noah> AM: So, I'm negative on breakout panels.

<jar> 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)

<noah> JT: In the ideal case you're right, but in practice we're distributed.

Noah: I hear that parallel session take away from group interaction. OTOH, talking to people some f2f is very productive.
... perhaps make a topic list and see how the times work out and then we can see how to split the allocate the time

<JeniT> 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

<noah> TAG Work Plan: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/

Noah: Asks about Frad Ids

HT: I have not done any work on this for a while
... we can discuss this but not put this as a high priority item

<JeniT> This is one of the topics where I thought some small-group F2F time would be valuable

Noah: We should discuss how important this work is

HT: It's important for 3023bis reasons

<noah> HT: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids-2012-01-05.html is important mainly for 3023bis reasons.

HT: we should meet with Chris and find out how important this really is
... It's important because specs are heading towards giving conflicting about semnatics of Frag Ids
... specifically because 3023 is going in the direction that Frag Id semantics are generic and this conflicts with RDFa usage

<noah> Proposed ACTION: ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers

HT: I will try and produce something to frame the discussion

<JeniT> 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

<timbl> /

<noah> ACTION: Noah to encourage Chris Lilley to meet with us to discuss 3023bis and semantics of Fragment Identifiers - Due 2012-03-13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> 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].

<noah> ACTION: Henry to frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis - Due 2012-03-27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-675 - frame discussion of semantics of fragids and rfc 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-03-27].

Noah: Next is Publishing and Linking

<noah> NM: On to publishing and linking

Jeni: We should get agreement and publish as a WD

<noah> 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

JT: Would like to work on examples

<noah> NM: You want small group time specifically for examples?

<noah> JT: Yes, for motivational examples

<noah> 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.

<noah> JT: It has best practices rather than new technologies.

<masinter> the goal was to get community consensus

<noah> Jeni... you said there was a draft a couple of weeks ago...do you have the link and announcement e-mail please?

<JeniT> yeah, I'll find it

<noah> Thank you!

<masinter> we're recommending that people use this framework to talk about the problem

<noah> Tempted to cut off discussion of whether it's a rec

<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0087.html

Jar: If we want to get community review and consensus then a Rec is the way to do it

<jar> If the goal is to gather consensus, then Rec track is our only choice.

<masinter> Could we ask someone else to talk about us on the topic?

<JeniT> maybe Rigo?

<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html

<JeniT> although we've already had him in at TPAC...

<noah> TAG Product: URI Documentation Discovery

<noah> httpRange-14 change proposals seem like the main focus for now, right?

Next Topic: URI Documentation and Discovery

Noah: How should be organize discussion?

<noah> 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.

Jar: I hope we get more input and then decide what advice to give

<noah> 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.

<noah> JT: When are the proposals due?

JT: Will the change proposals be in by the f2f?

<noah> JAR: 29 March

jar: I asked then to submit by March 29

<noah> AM: What if we get nothing?

<masinter> 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

<noah> 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.

<masinter> Is there anyone willing to spend an hour or two on the phone with me talking about this?

jar: Then people are saying they don't care or don't want to engageg with us
... that's what we should decide at f2f ... or try a different tack

Larry: I can talk with JAR or anyone else on the phone about this before the f2f

<masinter> i don't want to spend TAG time on the discussion if I can't make progress convincing anyone 1-1

<noah> NM: Uhh...

<masinter> contrapositive: if no one is willing to talk about it 1-1, we shouldn't spend TAG time on it

<noah> JAR: I can talk to Larry, with or without Ashok.

<noah> NM: For now, I won't schedule httpRange14 next week, but just ask if you want it

Next topic: MIME Types

Larry: There is work happening at IETF e.g. Happiana ... maybe we can review that

Noah: Larry, you wanted to do other things with other TAG members

Larry: There are some workshops e.g. Language Evolution that may be intersting ...

Noah: This is after the f2f?

Larry: Yes, about 10 days after

<masinter> The PhiloWeb 2012 workshop might

Noah: We can decide this is no longer a major effort
... you were going to draft a close-out page
... I need to know what success is

<masinter> I don't have an opinion about TAG planning for future work

<masinter> I have opinions about the technology

<noah> 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

Noah: Should we have a seesion on happiana and related things or a session on what happened at IETF?

<masinter> I defer to Yves for votes on what he thinks will be helpful for the TAG to discuss

<Yves> it will depends on what happens during IETF

<noah> 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.

Noah: Should we discuss TAG effectiveness ... we can think about this and discuss later

HT: No, thank you!

Tim: Supports Henry!

Noah: I will schedule session on API Minimization

<masinter> has there been any feedback on the documents now released?

Noah: Re: XML/HTML Unification not sure if there is anything new

<masinter> wait for feedback

Tim: We should have a session if we get sufficient feedback

<noah> ACTION-657?

<trackbot> ACTION-657 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of possible XML/HTML Unification next steps -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/657

<masinter> encourage feedback? Ask for feedback at WWW2012?

<noah> ACTION: Noah to check with Norm whether there is sufficient feedback on HTML/XML to merit F2F discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> 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].

Noah: Should we discuss PhiloWeb at f2f?

<noah> NM: Do you think the PhiloWeb thing merits TAG F2F discussion?

Larry: Henry will you be there?

HT: Yes, I will be there

<masinter> Yes, I will be at PhiloWeb 2012 and will likely present slides I originally put together for TAG talking about versioning, registries, etc.

Next Topic: Persistence of Identifiers

HT: Nothing new since January
... nothing will happen between now and the f2f
... I do not want f2f time for this

<noah> HT: No F2F time on persistence of identifiers please

<noah> NM: Web app storage...will you have a draft for F2F

<noah> 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.

<noah> NM: If I switch to discussing storage now, does that buy you a week of preparing drafts?

<noah> AM: Not needed, I'll move ahead.

<noah> AM: So, yes...you can go ahead with F2F planning.

<noah> NM: Should I assume a session on storage draft?

<noah> AM: Will tell you next week.

<noah> NM: Fine, but please remind me if I forget to ask.

Next Topic: Items TAG members have asked to discuss at f2f

<noah> ACTION-594?

<trackbot> ACTION-594 -- Yves Lafon to with Peter and Henry produce partial revision of fragment id finding -- due 2012-03-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/594

<noah> ACTION-619?

<trackbot> ACTION-619 -- Henry Thompson to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC -- due 2012-02-14 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/619

<noah> ACTION-672?

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/672

<noah> LM: Some e-mail, but so far no need for F2F discussion.

<noah> ACTION-590?

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590

<noah> ACTION-560?

<trackbot> ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2012-02-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560

<noah> NM: I'll check with Henry on ACTION-560

<noah> ACTION-572?

<trackbot> ACTION-572 -- Yves Lafon to look at appcache in HTML5 -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/572

<noah> YL: We can discuss at F2F.

<noah> AM: I agree

Yves: We can discuss at f2f when we discuss client-side storage

<noah> ACTION-658?

<trackbot> ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658

<noah> ACTION-659?

<trackbot> ACTION-659 -- Yves Lafon to track IETF efforts on HTTP 2.0 & SPDY Due: 2012-03-20 -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/659

<noah> YL: Following charter work on IETF mailing list

<noah> YL: For websockets and hybi we decided not a big issue...related to death of protocol for Edinburgh.

Yves: we might drop this one

<noah> ACTION-658?

<trackbot> ACTION-658 -- Yves Lafon to prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) -- due 2012-03-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/658

<masinter> fine with me to close

<noah> NM: Any objection to closing ACTION-658?

<noah> close ACTION-658

<trackbot> ACTION-658 Prepare telcon discussion of protocol-related issues, e.g. Websockets/hybi (but not SPDY) closed

NM: On SPDY you are saying let's just watch what IETF is saying

Yves: Yes

<noah> AM: What happened to CA authority item?

<noah> NM: Good question. Just now, I'm not seeing any actions.

<noah> AM: probably OK.

<noah> NM: Do we want F2F discussion of CA problems this time?

<noah> TBL: A lot of people have been rushing to "fix" this. Firefox has made significant updates.

Tim: This is separate from general security and privacy issues

<noah> NM: Right, sorry, I agree. I meant to ask if we need another F2F session on CA in particular.

<noah> TBL: Not unless we have news from an expert on late breaking details?

Noah: For now we will leave this issue off the agenda

ADJOURNED

<jar> timbl, I pinged you in email about f2f support

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/session/sessions/
Succeeded: s/JAR/JAR or anyone else/
Succeeded: s/type/Types/
Succeeded: s/stuff/work/
Succeeded: s/item./item?/
Found Scribe: Ashok_Malhotra
Found ScribeNick: Ashok
Default Present: Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, ht, JeniT, jar, Yves, Masinter, TimBL
Present: Noah Ashok Jeni Yves Henry Jonathan Larry Tim
Regrets: Tim._Peter Robin Larry
Found Date: 08 Mar 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-tagmem-minutes.html
People with action items: henry noah