17:59:55 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:59:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-irc 18:00:02 Zakim has joined #tagmem 18:00:10 zakim, this will be tag 18:00:10 ok, plinss, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 18:00:17 zakim, call thomas-781 18:00:17 ok, tlr; the call is being made 18:00:19 +Thomas 18:00:47 noah has joined #tagmem 18:00:49 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:01:05 zakim, code? 18:01:05 the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), rigo 18:01:14 zakim, who is here? 18:01:14 On the phone I see Masinter, plinss, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra 18:01:15 On IRC I see noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, rigo, tlr, darobin, masinter, timbl_, timbl, trackbot, plinss, Yves 18:01:43 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:02:00 zakim, Noah_ is me 18:02:00 +noah; got it 18:02:13 wseltzer has joined #tagmem 18:02:44 +Rigo 18:03:06 +Wendy 18:03:22 +Yves 18:03:37 scribe: Yves 18:03:47 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:03:49 Zakim, this will be TAG 18:03:49 ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 18:03:50 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 18:03:50 Date: 20 December 2012 18:03:50 chair: Noah 18:04:13 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-agenda 18:04:21 topic: Minutes of previous teleconference 18:04:29 RESOLUTION: minutes approved 18:04:31 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/13-minutes are approved 18:05:03 darobin has joined #tagmem 18:05:09 Topic: Publishing and linking on the Web 18:05:16 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-20121015.html 18:05:36 W3C Working Draft 25 October 2012 18:06:33 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 q+ 18:06:49 ack thomas 18:06:55 ack next 18:07:33 q+ 18:07:34 i'm not convinced we can't make a consensus document which is useful to multiple audiences 18:07:56 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 +TimBL 18:08:34 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 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 i'd like more specific details as examples 18:09:05 q+ 18:09:06 zakim, I am thomas 18:09:06 ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas 18:09:08 zakim, mute me 18:09:08 Thomas should now be muted 18:09:09 q- later 18:09:23 q? 18:09:30 q- wseltzer 18:09:40 ack next 18:09:43 q+ 18:10:24 larry: I'm not convinced yet that we can't create a document for multiple audiences 18:10:54 ack next 18:10:58 I would like Thomas to elaborate on why it's not possible 18:11:20 wendy: putting several audiences in the same document bring some techno-determinism. 18:11:35 "code is law" 18:12:05 http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html 18:12:07 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 q+ to talk about goals 18:12:43 q- 18:13:31 q+ 18:13:37 ack next 18:13:45 Wendy, are you're advising us not to say things that you think are true but just shouldn't be said? 18:14:08 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 q+ 18:14:46 ack next 18:14:47 masinter, I'm suggesting that the document would be stronger if it omitted the references to law 18:15:30 Wendy, why would it be stronger? for whom? Why is what it says weak? 18:16:01 masinter, because once it starts down the advocacy path, it's easily dismissed as *mere* advocacy 18:16:10 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 q+ 18:16:30 I thought our goal was to set out terminology that would be useful to those working in the legal domain. 18:16:33 ack next 18:16:34 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 i just think the results wouldn't be as useful 18:17:27 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 i agree it isn't there 18:17:47 tlr: ...and I think addressing one audience will be easier than addressing many 18:17:58 s/i agree/i can believe/ 18:18:03 q+ 18:18:25 q+ to talk about terminology 18:18:46 tlr: the question is where the TAG can make a difference for the good on that topic and for which audience 18:19:09 tlr: using simpler language and being away from legal implications 18:19:10 q- 18:19:13 q+ 18:19:17 q+ to talk about working through sections 18:19:21 ack next 18:19:21 zakim, mute me 18:19:22 Thomas should now be muted 18:19:30 tlr: right now the document is untargeted and doesn't work for any audience 18:20:18 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 ack next 18:23:36 ack thomas 18:23:46 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 q? 18:24:16 *how* are embedding and linking different? 18:24:34 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 like the definition of linking in HTML is way too complicated for lawyers, it seems written for technologists 18:25:33 ack next 18:25:35 noah, you wanted to talk about working through sections 18:26:32 q+ 18:26:57 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 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 squeeze section 2 18:27:24 i'd rather elaborate or preface what we have 18:27:57 tlr: your foundation seems to be explaining difference between linking and embedding to lawyers 18:28:10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecs_Content_Model 18:28:13 for reuse 18:28:27 q+ 18:28:31 q+ to talk about changing the target audience 18:29:06 ack next 18:29:08 noah: the comments about technical details depends on the technicality of the audience, which vary 18:29:46 q+ 18:29:53 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 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 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 q+ 18:32:04 ack next 18:32:13 but not everyone who uses the protocol knows or agrees with those intents 18:32:46 q- 18:32:56 The HTML5 spec says of iframe "The iframe element represents a nested browsing context." Seems pretty vague to me. 18:33:00 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#the-iframe-element 18:33:01 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 rigo: also we need to assess the intent between user clicking, a robot following a link. 18:34:40 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 ack next 18:35:49 masinter, you wanted to talk about changing the target audience 18:36:40 Larry: the goal was to try to represent the consensus of the web community 18:37:09 if the W3C endorse a document that explains how the web works, that has more value than any random statement. 18:37:32 q+ rigo 18:37:36 Also the document is not explaining the meaning of life, so rigo's comment is strange 18:37:41 ack next 18:39:32 is the statement wrong, or just 'not enough' ? 18:40:14 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 "often needs" 18:41:26 on what basis does it need to? 18:42:04 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 q+ 18:42:43 Thomas, would more detail help in the example sentence? 18:43:00 q? 18:43:38 ack next 18:43:50 5.1.6 Licensing 18:43:53 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/PublishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-20121015.html#licensing 18:43:56 Websites indicate a license that describes how the information within the website can be reused by others. 18:44:08 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 " Websites indicate a license that describes how the information within the website can be reused by others. 18:44:16 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 timbl: rigo, can you give a concrete example? 18:45:58 Tim, I think I've quoted the licensing bit that Rigo's talking about in the IRC log just above 18:46:16 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 what does 5.1.6 say about policy? 18:46:41 there seems to be some concern about things being out of scope "for the TAG to say" 18:47:45 tlr: in 5.1.6 the "should" list could be the subject of debates 18:48:40 another example is offline applications, where it's not really about obscuring following links 18:49:36 q+ to talk about long term thrashing 18:50:13 ack next 18:50:18 zakim, mute e 18:50:18 sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to e 18:50:20 zakim, mute me 18:50:20 Thomas should now be muted 18:50:21 ack next 18:50:22 noah, you wanted to talk about long term thrashing 18:50:44 i needed detailed examples to understand the high-level comments 18:51:35 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 we removed all of the "best practices", although they're still there if you view source 18:52:13 q+ 18:52:26 -Rigo 18:52:41 it is likely that even after processing all those comments we would receive the same kind of comments 18:52:44 view-source:http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb.html and look for

18:53:11 +Rigo 18:53:15 ack next 18:54:16 rigo: some people, including in the TAG underestimate the complexity, difficulty, etc... of explaining even a single issue to policy makers 18:54:49 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 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 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 masinter, a survey of issues doesn't belong on the recommendation track 18:56:05 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 larry: we started more with a survey in mind. I hear that the survey does not belong to the REC track 18:56:38 q+ 18:57:00 ack next 18:57:02 i think we have a couple of choices of where to go 18:57:09 q+ 18:57:27 ashok: we expect to have more reviews of that document, so we shouldn't hurry up 18:58:10 ack next 18:58:11 ack thomas 18:58:45 tlr: it would be very useful to give clear expectations "what the TAG want to achieve with that document" 18:59:51 the low-level point is that the LC announcement was not sent to the chairs ML 18:59:59 zakim, mute me 18:59:59 Thomas should now be muted 19:00:20 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 zakim, unmute me 19:00:40 Thomas should no longer be muted 19:01:00 zakim, mute me 19:01:00 Thomas should now be muted 19:02:01 we 19:02:17 we've gotten several different suggestions on how to move forward 19:02:35 saying less, fixing errors, pick one of several audiences 19:02:38 [leaves, thanks] 19:02:38 q+ 19:02:47 -Wendy 19:02:59 noah: needs guidance on how to proceed, rewrite, rescind, etc... 19:03:11 Want to hear from Jeni & Dan, who did most of the initial work 19:03:29 yes 19:03:31 timbl: how about having thomas, rigo or wendy work with the editors? 19:03:45 +1 ti 19:03:49 maybe a task force? 19:03:53 noah: if we have a focus that can attract their interest, then sure 19:04:03 I'm happy to agree to being a reviewer. 19:04:25 great! 19:04:39 q+ 19:06:34 1+ to working with a small group to work on one section 19:06:58 I identified the following goals in the document: 19:07:01 noah: does it include refocusing? 19:07:05 ashok: maybe 19:07:17 - Daniel Glazman's issue: "you can't link to my site" 19:07:18 - censorship and the web (various appearances thereof)/ illegal and harmful content 19:07:20 - social meaning of linking 19:07:21 - deep linking problems and access control 19:07:23 - copyright, robots.txt and search engines 19:07:24 - youth protection 19:07:26 - linking 19:07:33 ack thomas 19:07:42 . action: tim to recruit task force to work on one section? 19:08:55 tlr: is one goal to explain the technicality of linking, or the social aspect of linking? 19:09:09 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 q? 19:09:32 Law enforcement might require that a site owner keep => eDiscovery (big issue in US at the moment) 19:09:40 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 what does the web community need? To remove uncertainty 19:10:23 tlr: I could send a detailed review, but the document should not focus on details 19:10:29 zakim, mute me 19:10:29 Thomas should now be muted 19:10:38 q? 19:10:42 q- timbl 19:10:43 q+ to get back to the fundamentals 19:10:47 s/document should not focus/document should not be fixed by focusing 19:10:48 ack next 19:10:50 masinter, you wanted to get back to the fundamentals 19:11:15 larry: we were asked to address concerns about regulatory governance not matching the technology 19:11:46 still more: reuse material => DRM 19:12:02 q+ 19:12:10 you pick a specific audienc 19:12:14 you pick specific topics 19:12:16 you pick specific messages 19:12:21 you write them up in a way that works for that audience 19:12:25 larry: I didn't hear from the commentor how to respond to the need of the web community 19:12:35 ack next 19:13:48 this is a place where governance doesn't match the technology, or matches awkwardly, how can we help bring the web 19:14:47 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 side note, the material about "re-users" doesn't make much sense in the context it shows up in. 19:19:12 q+ 19:19:23 ack thomas 19:19:25 q? 19:19:26 [re-statements of comments made earlier] 19:19:28 ack next 19:19:48 I find actors and agents very useful! 19:20:11 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-056-en.pdf 19:21:23 what's the group that produced that? 19:21:25 tlr: the document above is descriptive on issues about content-blocking 19:21:30 not prescriptive 19:21:41 zakim, mute me 19:21:41 Thomas should now be muted 19:21:43 q+ to suggest a task force 19:21:49 zakim, mute me 19:21:49 Rigo should now be muted 19:21:53 (just as an example for a well-written technology meets policy document) 19:21:57 ack next 19:21:58 masinter, you wanted to suggest a task force 19:23:49 q+ 19:24:54 Noah, you asked for discussion about next steps, so i gave a process answer 19:25:11 ack next 19:25:45 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 Noah: the TAG needs to assess if it is a good use of our time 19:27:07 alternative next step: uncomment the "findings" and publish as "NOTE" 19:27:27 suggest that W3C "should" take this up but not in TAG 19:27:39 timbl has left #tagmem 19:27:53 ack thomas 19:27:55 thanks indeed 19:28:01 Larry, did you mean uncomment the best practices? 19:28:04 noah: let me know if we need to discuss this on jan 3rd, it will be on the f2f agenda 19:28:08 -TimBL 19:28:09 -Thomas 19:28:10 -Rigo 19:28:19 ACTIOn-753? 19:28:19 ACTION-753 -- Larry Masinter to do first draft of technical issues list for Jeff -- due 2012-10-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:28:19 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/753 19:28:26 close ACTION-753 19:28:27 ACTION-753 do first draft of technical issues list for Jeff closed 19:28:27 rigo has left #tagmem 19:28:30 Topic: actions 19:28:31 ACTION-766? 19:28:31 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/766 19:28:42 close ACTION-766 19:28:42 ACTION-766 Respond to e-mail on AWWW "typo" saying TAG did not agree that a change was needed closed 19:29:45 ADJOURNED 19:29:50 -noah 19:29:51 -Masinter 19:29:51 -plinss 19:29:53 -Yves 19:29:55 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:29:55 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:29:55 Attendees were Masinter, plinss, Thomas, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, noah, Rigo, Wendy, Yves, TimBL 19:30:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-tagmem-minutes.html Yves 19:51:17 tlr has left #tagmem 21:29:57 Zakim has left #tagmem 22:25:54 masinter has joined #tagmem 22:58:45 timbl has joined #tagmem