IRC log of tagmem on 2012-12-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:59:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:59:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-irc
18:00:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
18:00:10 [plinss]
zakim, this will be tag
18:00:10 [Zakim]
ok, plinss, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started
18:00:17 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
18:00:17 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
18:00:19 [Zakim]
+Thomas
18:00:47 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
18:00:49 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
18:01:05 [rigo]
zakim, code?
18:01:05 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), rigo
18:01:14 [masinter]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Masinter, plinss, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra
18:01:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, rigo, tlr, darobin, masinter, timbl_, timbl, trackbot, plinss, Yves
18:01:43 [Zakim]
+Noah_Mendelsohn
18:02:00 [noah]
zakim, Noah_ is me
18:02:00 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:02:13 [wseltzer]
wseltzer has joined #tagmem
18:02:44 [Zakim]
+Rigo
18:03:06 [Zakim]
+Wendy
18:03:22 [Zakim]
+Yves
18:03:37 [Yves]
scribe: Yves
18:03:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:03:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
18:03:49 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started
18:03:50 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
18:03:50 [trackbot]
Date: 20 December 2012
18:03:50 [Yves]
chair: Noah
18:04:13 [Yves]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-agenda
18:04:21 [noah]
topic: Minutes of previous teleconference
18:04:29 [Yves]
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
18:04:31 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/13-minutes are approved
18:05:03 [darobin]
darobin has joined #tagmem
18:05:09 [Yves]
Topic: Publishing and linking on the Web
18:05:16 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-20121015.html
18:05:36 [rigo]
W3C Working Draft 25 October 2012
18:06:33 [Yves]
Ashok: I wanted to thank Rigo, Thomas for their comments, I'm quite open to comments; if it means that we need to rescind the document, so be it.
18:06:43 [tlr]
q+
18:06:49 [tlr]
ack thomas
18:06:55 [noah]
ack next
18:07:33 [wseltzer]
q+
18:07:34 [masinter]
i'm not convinced we can't make a consensus document which is useful to multiple audiences
18:07:56 [Yves]
tlr: as I wrote, the document tries to do lots of things for lots of different people, there is value in exploring the topics of this documents
18:08:13 [Zakim]
+TimBL
18:08:34 [masinter]
i think we're at a point of trying to improve the document along multiple dimensions; i want thomas to say why he thinks that's impossible
18:08:49 [Yves]
what I would recommend is to find an author for the specific goal of rewriting the document with one audience (policy makers has my preference)
18:08:58 [masinter]
i'd like more specific details as examples
18:09:05 [masinter]
q+
18:09:06 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
18:09:06 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
18:09:08 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
18:09:08 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
18:09:09 [wseltzer]
q- later
18:09:23 [noah]
q?
18:09:30 [noah]
q- wseltzer
18:09:40 [noah]
ack next
18:09:43 [wseltzer]
q+
18:10:24 [Yves]
larry: I'm not convinced yet that we can't create a document for multiple audiences
18:10:54 [noah]
ack next
18:10:58 [Yves]
I would like Thomas to elaborate on why it's not possible
18:11:20 [Yves]
wendy: putting several audiences in the same document bring some techno-determinism.
18:11:35 [masinter]
"code is law"
18:12:05 [masinter]
http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html
18:12:07 [noah]
I think the intention is not to say: "the policy must follow the technology". I think the intention IS to say: "please be aware of how hundreds of millions of copies of software that people use today actually work"
18:12:30 [noah]
q+ to talk about goals
18:12:43 [noah]
q-
18:13:31 [noah]
q+
18:13:37 [noah]
ack next
18:13:45 [masinter]
Wendy, are you're advising us not to say things that you think are true but just shouldn't be said?
18:14:08 [Yves]
it is stronger to not allude to the law but demonstrate technically some outcomes and reach policy conclusions that might trigger clarification of the law
18:14:23 [Ashok]
q+
18:14:46 [noah]
ack next
18:14:47 [wseltzer]
masinter, I'm suggesting that the document would be stronger if it omitted the references to law
18:15:30 [masinter]
Wendy, why would it be stronger? for whom? Why is what it says weak?
18:16:01 [wseltzer]
masinter, because once it starts down the advocacy path, it's easily dismissed as *mere* advocacy
18:16:10 [noah]
NM: I don't want to completely avoid terms like "copying". I think it's OK to say: "here are the things the Web actually does as it operates. If some law were to outlaw "XXX" then we would likely have to turn off all proxies on the Web, and performance would tank."
18:16:22 [tlr]
q+
18:16:30 [noah]
I thought our goal was to set out terminology that would be useful to those working in the legal domain.
18:16:33 [noah]
ack next
18:16:34 [Yves]
Larry: I don't understand why it would be stronger if laws are not referenced, as the goal is to remain technical
18:17:23 [masinter]
i just think the results wouldn't be as useful
18:17:27 [Yves]
tlr: I wasn't saying that writing a document for multiple audience is impossible, just that this document is not doing that effectively
18:17:30 [masinter]
i agree it isn't there
18:17:47 [noah]
tlr: ...and I think addressing one audience will be easier than addressing many
18:17:58 [masinter]
s/i agree/i can believe/
18:18:03 [Ashok]
q+
18:18:25 [noah]
q+ to talk about terminology
18:18:46 [Yves]
tlr: the question is where the TAG can make a difference for the good on that topic and for which audience
18:19:09 [Yves]
tlr: using simpler language and being away from legal implications
18:19:10 [noah]
q-
18:19:13 [timbl_]
q+
18:19:17 [noah]
q+ to talk about working through sections
18:19:21 [noah]
ack next
18:19:21 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
18:19:22 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
18:19:30 [Yves]
tlr: right now the document is untargeted and doesn't work for any audience
18:20:18 [Yves]
Ashok: I'm puzzled by those comments. THe audience is people who make laws and make policies. There are no legal analysis in the document, just wording saying that there are legal disputes, for examples
18:20:57 [noah]
ack next
18:23:36 [tlr]
ack thomas
18:23:46 [Yves]
timbl: embedding or linking is different and socially different. Clarifying that for the press, policy makers, etc... will help not making mistakes with using "linking"
18:24:01 [noah]
q?
18:24:16 [wseltzer]
*how* are embedding and linking different?
18:24:34 [Yves]
tlr: the document identifies an audience, it doesn't work for that audience, and some parts of the documents are clearly written for different audiences
18:25:12 [Yves]
like the definition of linking in HTML is way too complicated for lawyers, it seems written for technologists
18:25:33 [noah]
ack next
18:25:35 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about working through sections
18:26:32 [wseltzer]
q+
18:26:57 [masinter]
i like having motivating examples, though. i'd want to leave the background section because most people don't understand there are such issues
18:26:59 [Yves]
noah: the background section might go deeper than necessary for legal issues, while the intro stays at a fairly high level, could we do something with Thomas' comments?
18:27:18 [Yves]
squeeze section 2
18:27:24 [masinter]
i'd rather elaborate or preface what we have
18:27:57 [Yves]
tlr: your foundation seems to be explaining difference between linking and embedding to lawyers
18:28:10 [rigo]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecs_Content_Model
18:28:13 [rigo]
for reuse
18:28:27 [rigo]
q+
18:28:31 [masinter]
q+ to talk about changing the target audience
18:29:06 [noah]
ack next
18:29:08 [Yves]
noah: the comments about technical details depends on the technicality of the audience, which vary
18:29:46 [timbl_]
q+
18:29:53 [Yves]
wendy: the premise is that linking and embedding are different, in which sense they are different? it might be difficult to infer from the markup the intent of the user
18:30:08 [noah]
NM: I'm asking how much savy we should assume on the part of our audience. Clearly some lawyers have very little technical knowledge, yet Judge Posner apparently hacks Java. I'm assuming that lawyers who work on Web policy can be assumed to have at least a vague notion of the role of HTML on the Web.
18:30:58 [Yves]
timbl: this have nothing to do with intent, as you can tell what you want is your intent. If you use an iframe, and make a link there is an underlying intent
18:31:11 [wseltzer]
q+
18:32:04 [noah]
ack next
18:32:13 [wseltzer]
but not everyone who uses the protocol knows or agrees with those intents
18:32:46 [wseltzer]
q-
18:32:56 [noah]
The HTML5 spec says of iframe "The iframe element represents a nested browsing context." Seems pretty vague to me.
18:33:00 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#the-iframe-element
18:33:01 [Yves]
rigo: if you look at the document, and compare to what Tim just said, the conclusion is that what Tim said is useful, but the document doesn't say that.
18:33:30 [Yves]
rigo: also we need to assess the intent between user clicking, a robot following a link.
18:34:40 [Yves]
rigo: I have identified 8 goals in that document, one of them is the copyright issue. This issue alone is at the root of the creation in policital groups
18:35:47 [noah]
ack next
18:35:49 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to talk about changing the target audience
18:36:40 [Yves]
Larry: the goal was to try to represent the consensus of the web community
18:37:09 [Yves]
if the W3C endorse a document that explains how the web works, that has more value than any random statement.
18:37:32 [tlr]
q+ rigo
18:37:36 [Yves]
Also the document is not explaining the meaning of life, so rigo's comment is strange
18:37:41 [noah]
ack next
18:39:32 [masinter]
is the statement wrong, or just 'not enough' ?
18:40:14 [masinter]
Rigo "Legislation that governs the possession and distribution of unlawful material (such as child pornography, information that is under copyright or material that is legally suppressed through a gag order) often needs to exempt certain types of services, "
18:41:22 [tlr]
"often needs"
18:41:26 [tlr]
on what basis does it need to?
18:42:04 [noah]
FWIW, I'm inclined to let this discussion go for awhile, but pretty soon we'll have to start thinking about how we move forward.
18:42:11 [tlr]
q+
18:42:43 [Ashok]
Thomas, would more detail help in the example sentence?
18:43:00 [noah]
q?
18:43:38 [noah]
ack next
18:43:50 [rigo]
5.1.6 Licensing
18:43:53 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-20121015.html#licensing
18:43:56 [rigo]
Websites indicate a license that describes how the information within the website can be reused by others.
18:44:08 [rigo]
Just as with HTTP headers, robots.txt and sitemaps, there can be no technical guarantees that crawlers will honor license information within a site.
18:44:16 [noah]
" Websites indicate a license that describes how the information within the website can be reused by others.
18:44:16 [noah]
Just as with HTTP headers, robots.txt and sitemaps, there can be no technical guarantees that crawlers will honor license information within a site. However, to give well behaved crawlers a chance of identifying the license under which a page is published, websites should: "
18:45:46 [Yves]
timbl: rigo, can you give a concrete example?
18:45:58 [noah]
Tim, I think I've quoted the licensing bit that Rigo's talking about in the IRC log just above
18:46:16 [Yves]
rigo: in the publishing area, there can be business models attached to it, and some business models may requires some tehcnologies and obstacles
18:46:22 [masinter]
what does 5.1.6 say about policy?
18:46:41 [masinter]
there seems to be some concern about things being out of scope "for the TAG to say"
18:47:45 [Yves]
tlr: in 5.1.6 the "should" list could be the subject of debates
18:48:40 [Yves]
another example is offline applications, where it's not really about obscuring following links
18:49:36 [noah]
q+ to talk about long term thrashing
18:50:13 [noah]
ack next
18:50:18 [tlr]
zakim, mute e
18:50:18 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to e
18:50:20 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
18:50:20 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
18:50:21 [noah]
ack next
18:50:22 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about long term thrashing
18:50:44 [masinter]
i needed detailed examples to understand the high-level comments
18:51:35 [Yves]
noah: we receive comments, iterate, and produce new versions. at long as it converge it is good. Looks like we are thrashing here
18:51:42 [masinter]
we removed all of the "best practices", although they're still there if you view source
18:52:13 [rigo]
q+
18:52:26 [Zakim]
-Rigo
18:52:41 [Yves]
it is likely that even after processing all those comments we would receive the same kind of comments
18:52:44 [masinter]
view-source:http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb.html and look for <div class="practice">
18:53:11 [Zakim]
+Rigo
18:53:15 [noah]
ack next
18:54:16 [Yves]
rigo: some people, including in the TAG underestimate the complexity, difficulty, etc... of explaining even a single issue to policy makers
18:54:49 [noah]
RW: The main critique from me is: trying to do too many things, each of which if done right would take much more work than you probably would think.
18:55:06 [masinter]
i think the detailed description of the interaction of policy and technology probably belongs in a working group, and that this is more of a survey of issues
18:55:13 [noah]
RW: e.g. could focus on bits such as "difference between embedding and linking". That alone would be substantial work if done right.
18:55:31 [tlr]
masinter, a survey of issues doesn't belong on the recommendation track
18:56:05 [noah]
LM: I think we intended more of a survey...hearing you say a survey doesn't belong on REC track. Not sure, maybe.
18:56:06 [Yves]
larry: we started more with a survey in mind. I hear that the survey does not belong to the REC track
18:56:38 [Ashok]
q+
18:57:00 [noah]
ack next
18:57:02 [masinter]
i think we have a couple of choices of where to go
18:57:09 [tlr]
q+
18:57:27 [Yves]
ashok: we expect to have more reviews of that document, so we shouldn't hurry up
18:58:10 [noah]
ack next
18:58:11 [tlr]
ack thomas
18:58:45 [Yves]
tlr: it would be very useful to give clear expectations "what the TAG want to achieve with that document"
18:59:51 [Yves]
the low-level point is that the LC announcement was not sent to the chairs ML
18:59:59 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
18:59:59 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
19:00:20 [masinter]
I think we got down this road because we were asked if we could bring some clarity with respect to screwy legal decisions.
19:00:40 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
19:00:40 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
19:01:00 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
19:01:00 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
19:02:01 [masinter]
we
19:02:17 [masinter]
we've gotten several different suggestions on how to move forward
19:02:35 [masinter]
saying less, fixing errors, pick one of several audiences
19:02:38 [wseltzer]
[leaves, thanks]
19:02:38 [timbl_]
q+
19:02:47 [Zakim]
-Wendy
19:02:59 [Yves]
noah: needs guidance on how to proceed, rewrite, rescind, etc...
19:03:11 [masinter]
Want to hear from Jeni & Dan, who did most of the initial work
19:03:29 [masinter]
yes
19:03:31 [Yves]
timbl: how about having thomas, rigo or wendy work with the editors?
19:03:45 [Ashok]
+1 ti
19:03:49 [masinter]
maybe a task force?
19:03:53 [Yves]
noah: if we have a focus that can attract their interest, then sure
19:04:03 [tlr]
I'm happy to agree to being a reviewer.
19:04:25 [Ashok]
great!
19:04:39 [tlr]
q+
19:06:34 [masinter]
1+ to working with a small group to work on one section
19:06:58 [rigo]
I identified the following goals in the document:
19:07:01 [Yves]
noah: does it include refocusing?
19:07:05 [Yves]
ashok: maybe
19:07:17 [rigo]
- Daniel Glazman's issue: "you can't link to my site"
19:07:18 [rigo]
- censorship and the web (various appearances thereof)/ illegal and harmful content
19:07:20 [rigo]
- social meaning of linking
19:07:21 [rigo]
- deep linking problems and access control
19:07:23 [rigo]
- copyright, robots.txt and search engines
19:07:24 [rigo]
- youth protection
19:07:26 [rigo]
- linking
19:07:33 [tlr]
ack thomas
19:07:42 [masinter]
. action: tim to recruit task force to work on one section?
19:08:55 [Yves]
tlr: is one goal to explain the technicality of linking, or the social aspect of linking?
19:09:09 [noah]
I think the TAG's competence is more toward explaining technical details that are in fact important. So, I'd err on the side of low level, with the goal that it be competent to lawyers, not programmers.
19:09:15 [noah]
q?
19:09:32 [rigo]
Law enforcement might require that a site owner keep => eDiscovery (big issue in US at the moment)
19:09:40 [Yves]
tlr: I started to review section by section the document, but it didn't help as the main issues was the one I highlighted first, the goal and the audience
19:09:48 [masinter]
what does the web community need? To remove uncertainty
19:10:23 [Yves]
tlr: I could send a detailed review, but the document should not focus on details
19:10:29 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
19:10:29 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
19:10:38 [noah]
q?
19:10:42 [noah]
q- timbl
19:10:43 [masinter]
q+ to get back to the fundamentals
19:10:47 [Yves]
s/document should not focus/document should not be fixed by focusing
19:10:48 [noah]
ack next
19:10:50 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to get back to the fundamentals
19:11:15 [Yves]
larry: we were asked to address concerns about regulatory governance not matching the technology
19:11:46 [rigo]
still more: reuse material => DRM
19:12:02 [rigo]
q+
19:12:10 [tlr]
you pick a specific audienc
19:12:14 [tlr]
you pick specific topics
19:12:16 [tlr]
you pick specific messages
19:12:21 [tlr]
you write them up in a way that works for that audience
19:12:25 [Yves]
larry: I didn't hear from the commentor how to respond to the need of the web community
19:12:35 [noah]
ack next
19:13:48 [masinter]
this is a place where governance doesn't match the technology, or matches awkwardly, how can we help bring the web
19:14:47 [masinter]
this isn't intended to be a statement by the TAG, it's intended to be a statement by the web community, as represented by W3C, and as originated by the TAG. That's the reason for going to REC rather than Finding
19:17:14 [tlr]
side note, the material about "re-users" doesn't make much sense in the context it shows up in.
19:19:12 [tlr]
q+
19:19:23 [tlr]
ack thomas
19:19:25 [noah]
q?
19:19:26 [Yves]
[re-statements of comments made earlier]
19:19:28 [noah]
ack next
19:19:48 [rigo]
I find actors and agents very useful!
19:20:11 [tlr]
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-056-en.pdf
19:21:23 [masinter]
what's the group that produced that?
19:21:25 [Yves]
tlr: the document above is descriptive on issues about content-blocking
19:21:30 [Yves]
not prescriptive
19:21:41 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
19:21:41 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
19:21:43 [masinter]
q+ to suggest a task force
19:21:49 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
19:21:49 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
19:21:53 [tlr]
(just as an example for a well-written technology meets policy document)
19:21:57 [noah]
ack next
19:21:58 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to suggest a task force
19:23:49 [rigo]
q+
19:24:54 [masinter]
Noah, you asked for discussion about next steps, so i gave a process answer
19:25:11 [noah]
ack next
19:25:45 [noah]
Process answer is fine, but I'm hoping the process will focus real soon on a set of goals that people believe are achievable either soon, or incrementally.
19:26:57 [Yves]
Noah: the TAG needs to assess if it is a good use of our time
19:27:07 [masinter]
alternative next step: uncomment the "findings" and publish as "NOTE"
19:27:27 [masinter]
suggest that W3C "should" take this up but not in TAG
19:27:39 [timbl]
timbl has left #tagmem
19:27:53 [tlr]
ack thomas
19:27:55 [masinter]
thanks indeed
19:28:01 [Ashok]
Larry, did you mean uncomment the best practices?
19:28:04 [Yves]
noah: let me know if we need to discuss this on jan 3rd, it will be on the f2f agenda
19:28:08 [Zakim]
-TimBL
19:28:09 [Zakim]
-Thomas
19:28:10 [Zakim]
-Rigo
19:28:19 [noah]
ACTIOn-753?
19:28:19 [trackbot]
ACTION-753 -- Larry Masinter to do first draft of technical issues list for Jeff -- due 2012-10-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:28:19 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/753
19:28:26 [noah]
close ACTION-753
19:28:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-753 do first draft of technical issues list for Jeff closed
19:28:27 [rigo]
rigo has left #tagmem
19:28:30 [Yves]
Topic: actions
19:28:31 [noah]
ACTION-766?
19:28:31 [trackbot]
ACTION-766 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond to e-mail on AWWW "typo" saying TAG did not agree that a change was needed -- due 2012-11-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:28:31 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/766
19:28:42 [noah]
close ACTION-766
19:28:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-766 Respond to e-mail on AWWW "typo" saying TAG did not agree that a change was needed closed
19:29:45 [Yves]
ADJOURNED
19:29:50 [Zakim]
-noah
19:29:51 [Zakim]
-Masinter
19:29:51 [Zakim]
-plinss
19:29:53 [Zakim]
-Yves
19:29:55 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
19:29:55 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:29:55 [Zakim]
Attendees were Masinter, plinss, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, noah, Rigo, Wendy, Yves, TimBL
19:30:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-minutes.html Yves
19:51:17 [tlr]
tlr has left #tagmem
21:29:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
22:25:54 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
22:58:45 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem