See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Peter Linss
<scribe> Scribenick: plinss
Yves confirmed to scribe next week
<Noah> Minutes of 6 December: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes
RESOLUTION: minutes from Dec 6 approved
NM: administrative items
... f2f meeting jan 14-16
... regrets from Jeni
<JeniT> NM: regrets from Henry
NM: Norm Walsh may join us from some of the f2f
Above regrets are for f2f
<Noah> Call on the 27th is cancelled
NM: There will be a call on the
20th if we have an agenda
... and on Jan 3rd, possibly on Jan 10th
<trackbot> ACTION-771 -- Jeni Tennison to draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? -- due 2012-12-13 -- OPEN
AM: I've read the email, looks very good, I recommend we send it
LM: it's fine, send it
NM: Other opinions?
JT: I incorporated Henry's comments
<Noah> close ACTION-771
<trackbot> ACTION-771 Draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? closed
<Noah> ACTION: To send https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2012Dec/0017.html to Henri Sivonen, public-html, HTML chairs and www-tag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find To. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users>.
NM: anything else in this area?
JT: we discussed if we want to pursue saying something deeper on this. Is there more to do? Note vs Rec?
<masinter> Raising the "Normative" definition, should go in to the "follow up on QA activity" pile
NM: we considered that but it should be considered in the context of priorities, so not now
NM: Larry suggested inviting
outsiders, I'd like to list existing work items and first, then
go to proposals for outsiders
... Jeni you're doing fragments?
JT: there are no last call comments so far
NM: do we need f2f discussion on this? or can we jut vote to publish?
AM: I think we should ask specific people for comments
NM: Jeni what do you recommend for fragments?
JT: if we go to CR is that when we need to decide exit criteria?
YL: we need to define the exit criteria, if it needs a test suite that can be built during CR
JT: I suggest we have some f2f discussion about exit criteria for fragments
<masinter> this document may need other kinds of 'implementation'. Every "best practice" should have some example of practice
NM: Can you put some thought into framing that for discussion?
<Noah> OK, so one F2F agenda item will be to settle CR exit criteria for the fragids draft
LM: I can write something.
<Noah> ACTION: Larry with help from Jeni to propose CR exit criteria for fragids finding Due 2013-01-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-772 - With help from Jeni to propose CR exit criteria for fragids finding Due 2013-01-08 [on Larry Masinter - due 2012-12-20].
NM: Ashok, you were saying it didn't feel right to proceed on publishing without hearing from the community?
AM: right, there are at least five people I'd like to see review it
<masinter> I've asked people for review but haven't gotten back anything recently
NM: we could invite some of the to them f2f
<masinter> at some point you just go to CR and use that as the trigger
<masinter> working on 'exit criteria' might drive us
<Noah> ACTION: Ashok to line up reviewers for Publishing and Linking and invite to participate in F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-773 - Line up reviewers for Publishing and Linking and invite to participate in F2F [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2012-12-20].
NM: I'd like to look at some of the other projects
<masinter> form an independent task force
NM: I think the f2f would be a good time to decide where we go with issue 57, but it will be difficult without Jeni and Henry
<masinter> 1+ to not talking about issue 57
NM: I propose we make issue 57 not a significant item for the f2f
JT: fine be me
<Noah> Proposal ISSUE-57 NOT on F2F
NM: privacy by design is aimed for a note
<Noah> Privacy by design is aimed at Note, need F2F slot to consider a review Peter will do
PL: I should have time to do the edits before the f2f
AM: Larry and I asked the privacy guys to take a look at this, the seemed agreeable but nothing has happened
<Noah> ACTION: Peter to frame F2F discussion of Privacy by design note, and possible followup up with privacy group. Due: 2013-01-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-774 - Frame F2F discussion of Privacy by design note, and possible followup up with privacy group. Due: 2013-01-08 [on Peter Linss - due 2012-12-20].
AM: Nick Doty is writng a document on fingerprinting, Robin added fingerprinting to privacy by design, we should discuss whether to integrate or hand over
NM: HTML/XML unification
LM: I don't see anything else to do
<Noah> . ACTION: Noah to sort out status of HTML/XML Unification -- believed to be WE'RE DONE in time for F2F planning.
NM: persistence of identifiers
<Noah> Peristence of identifiers: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/persistence.html
NM: Web apps storage
<Noah> AM: I ran a TPAC sessions on offline storage
<masinter> I think "persistence of identifiers" is based on poor theory of semantics and doomed
AM: Alex Russell is going to create a blog post about architecture
NM: I'd like the TAG to write a piece about when to use URIs offline or not
(discussion about offline email)
NM: we've been carrying this for a year but nothing has happened
<masinter> local + backup nearly equivalent to remote + cache
AM: I think it's OK to wait for the elections, if we get Alex he'll have some ideas on this
<Noah> AM: Propose to NOT do storage at F2F, wait for new composition of TAG
<Noah> NM: Can I convince you to try to get the right people involved to make a good plan for January.
<Noah> AM: Maybe
<Noah> NM: OK, it's a maybe for the F2F
<masinter> 'nearly equivalent'
<Noah> NM: Please let me know
<masinter> note dropbox URLs now
NM: Larry, you wanted to talk about reforming the tag
<masinter> i'm surprised by the 'reform' platform only because we haven't heard it before
NM: we're always limited by who shows up. If people had asked us to do these things we may not have been able to.
<masinter> i agree with many of the problem statements, but not necessarily with the proposed solutions
<Noah> LM: For the moment, I have no specifics on F2F and TAG futures until we discuss more details of the ideas
<masinter> I wouldn't mind inviting any TAG nominee to join us
<masinter> it would allow them to plan to attend whether or not they win
<masinter> anyone who is seriously nominated by a member, and who is willing to write about what the TAG should do, could be invited
<masinter> even to regular TAG meetings and calls, to open up the TAG
<Noah> PL: Mostly said what I wanted to in my blog post. I don't think we're connecting w/rest of W3C very well. There are lots of places people could use guidance and not getting it. We spend a lot of time talking about talking about things.
NM: as chair, I try to let this
be directed by the members, when these things come up, no one
wants to do it
... I'd like you all to give some thought as to how we can do this better
LM: I think if the problem is a lack of interest in the TAG, then we need members interested in the topics
<masinter> but I'm interested in the topics the reformers want to talk about
<masinter> and i'm more interested in them than the topics the TAG talks about
<masinter> AWWW *is* out of date
AM: one of the comments was that the AWWW doc is out of date
<masinter> it's for the web-of-documents and we've moved to a web-of-applications
<Noah> We spent 2 years trying to solve that problem. I think it was the right problem. We wound up doing a few pieces on things like Web app state.
<masinter> and give up on taking pride in AWWW
AM: I think it's correct but I don't quite know what to do about it
NM: we identified this problem 3 years ago, we didn't say it was wrong, just incomplete
<masinter> we need a work plan for updating AWWW
<masinter> what needs to change, in what ways?
<masinter> there's more than one "architecture", likely.
<Noah> We spent a year making a work plan to update AWWW to account for Web apps and other modern Web developments. We did some pieces, but a disappointing fraction of what one would want. We had a table of contents (several actually)
AM: I think we need to make an effort to redo it or add to it
<Noah> We did findings covering a few parts of a few chapters
LM: AWWW talks about a web of documents but not of applications
<masinter> but then when we schedule meetings, we let legacy issues take up meeting time
<masinter> it's a matter of prioritization
NM: we tried to do work here, but didn't do to well, I want to figure out how to do it differently
<masinter> I like Alex Russell's blog post the best, because it's very specific
<masinter> importance of JS, it seemingly doesn’t see the threat."
NM: It's also a matter of deciding how comprehensive we want to be
LM: we don't take votes on priorities
NM: no but we look for
... if we agree that browser focused is more important than semantic web then we'd focus there
<masinter> I have made my objections to continuing to talk about ISSUE 57 clear in the TAG. I'd join an independent task force to work on it, but I think it should be off TAG agenda
<Noah> LM: Task forces has worked well.
NM: I want to figure out how to do things better
<Noah> NM: I agree completely.
LM: I think having task forces would be profitable
NM: maybe the TAG should play more of a coordinating role and less of a legislating role
<Noah> NM: Maybe a good idea underlying the task force idea is for the TAG to play more of a coordinating role, involving more of the community in our day-to-day work
<masinter> more sponsored task forces to work on specific technology
<masinter> "The TAG is the right group to formulate and articulate a theory of good layering in the web platform’s architecture"
NM: the pattern is often that a member has a specific goal but the rest of the group doesn't always engage with it
<masinter> I think the "web" has changed, and the boundary between "web" and "apps" has just erased
LM: I think the web of documents is history, most are now apps
NM: there's a balance between documents and apps and we have to get that right
<masinter> alexa "top 100 web sites" used in HTTP benchmarks
<masinter> those are mainly dynamic sites with lots of scripting
<masinter> cnn.com is dynamic, not static
LM: if you look at cnn.com. it's an app
AM: who are we writing the
architecture document for?
... I think we're writing it for young guys starting to create web sites
... I think the document we have is not oriented that way
NM: can we agree that we have
concluded that the web of applications is important and that it
would be wonderful if the TAG could find the right to way to
make a contribution to help peolpe understand it
... how can we do differently so we find we have more impact?
<Noah> NM: We concluded that three years ago. The question is, how can we focus differently to have more useful impact
<masinter> i think the TAG needs a work plan to do the AWWW update
<masinter> schedule more meeting time for it
NM: how is it going to be different from the last two we had?
<masinter> I'd start with Alex's blog post
NM: between now and the f2f, can someone go over the history of this work and let's learn from that experience
<masinter> Katz writes "Here’s another example a layer deeper: many parts of the DOM API have magic behavior that are extremely difficult to explain in terms of the exposed API of ECMAScript 3. For example, the innerHTML property has side-effects, and ES3 does not provide a mechanism for declaring setters. The ECMAScript 5 specification provides some additional primitives that make it possible to explain more of the existing DOM behavior in terms
<masinter> I'd invite Alex & Yehuda to review the draft AWWW update
<masinter> updating AWWW doesn't appear in the TAG work plan
<Noah> It did for several years, Larry. When that finally proved too much, we said "let's start by writing some findings, then use those to update AWWW. Seems to have resulted in a 10 year plan"
<masinter> people take the product pages as a list of TAG priorities
NM: maybe we need to organize this differently, maybe bring in more people who work with the browsers and sketch out the pain points
<masinter> looking at WebIDL
<masinter> and TC39 liaison
<Noah> I think Larry is summarizing ideas from http://infrequently.org/2012/12/reforming-the-w3c-tag/
NM: we need to iterate on these things, and determine where the TAG wants to focus
<masinter> i don't see as much specific in the others
NM: do we want to continue discussion about this next week?
<Noah> MAY cancel call next week if no topics
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/documents/first, then go to proposals for outsiders/ Succeeded: s/the/them/ Succeeded: s/??/Nick Doty/ Succeeded: s/reform// Succeeded: s/NM:/LM:/ Found Scribe: Peter Linss Found ScribeNick: plinss Default Present: Masinter, plinss, Noah_Mendelsohn, JeniT, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra Present: Masinter plinss Noah_Mendelsohn JeniT Yves Ashok_Malhotra Regrets: Tim Berners-Lee WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/13-agenda Got date from IRC log name: 13 Dec 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-tagmem-minutes.html People with action items: ashok from help jeni larry peter to with WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]