IRC log of tagmem on 2013-02-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:55:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:55:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:55:38 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:55:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:55:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
17:55:40 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
17:55:41 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
17:55:42 [trackbot]
Date: 14 February 2013
17:55:59 [JeniT]
Chair: Noah Mendelsohn
17:57:03 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
17:57:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.997.aaaa
17:57:46 [JeniT]
17:57:51 [JeniT]
ScribeNick: JeniT
17:58:15 [JeniT]
Scribe: Jeni Tennison
17:59:14 [Zakim]
- +1.415.997.aaaa
17:59:16 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
17:59:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.415.997.aaaa
18:00:04 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
18:00:32 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
18:00:39 [Zakim]
18:01:07 [Zakim]
18:01:09 [noah]
zakim, this will be TAG_Weekly
18:01:09 [Zakim]
ok, noah, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started
18:01:32 [Zakim]
18:01:49 [noah]
zakim, [IPcaller] i sme
18:01:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[IPcaller] i sme', noah
18:01:53 [noah]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:01:53 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
18:02:32 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, JeniT, [IPcaller.a]
18:02:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves
18:04:13 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, JeniT, marcos
18:04:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves
18:04:38 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
18:05:40 [Zakim]
18:05:50 [ht]
zakim, ? is me
18:05:50 [Zakim]
+ht; got it
18:05:51 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:05:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, JeniT, marcos, ht
18:05:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ht, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves
18:06:23 [Larry]
Larry has joined #tagmem
18:06:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.997.aaaa
18:07:02 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:07:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, JeniT, marcos, ht (muted), +1.415.997.aaaa
18:07:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Larry, ht, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves
18:07:08 [slightlyoff]
sorry 'bout luck with Zakim was increidbly spotty
18:07:13 [Zakim]
18:07:16 [slightlyoff]
it kept saying the code was invalid
18:07:25 [slightlyoff]
good to go
18:08:08 [JeniT]
Topic: Administrative Items
18:08:15 [noah]
close ACTION-783
18:08:15 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-783 Send to PING.
18:08:17 [JeniT]
noah: I sent email to PING group, gonna close the action
18:08:46 [JeniT]
… we need to get another F2F in before the summer break
18:09:06 [JeniT]
… trying to get dates around Tim's availability over next few days
18:09:14 [JeniT]
… think this is likely to be in UK
18:09:24 [JeniT]
… probably options for hosting in both London & Edinburgh
18:10:08 [Masinter]
topic: polyglot
18:10:10 [JeniT]
Topic: Polyglot and DOM support of XML
18:10:21 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: I want to understand what the TAG is expected to do now
18:10:27 [JeniT]
… there seems to be active debate on the topic
18:10:43 [JeniT]
… the current TAG need to decide what to do wrt the previous membership's positions
18:11:01 [JeniT]
noah: yes, we can change our minds
18:11:25 [JeniT]
… let's discuss if we want to reopen it and why
18:11:32 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: what's the history?
18:11:49 [ht]
q+ to uplevel wrt Polyglot and XML
18:12:07 [ht]
zakim, ack next
18:12:08 [Zakim]
unmuting ht
18:12:08 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to uplevel wrt Polyglot and XML
18:12:08 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
18:12:17 [noah]
ack next
18:12:19 [Masinter]
18:13:28 [Masinter]
18:13:35 [JeniT]
ht: one of the things that the TAG has done in the past is that when there are entrenched disagreements between WGs
18:13:59 [JeniT]
… the TAG has sometimes intervened to give what they think is the architecturally sound answer is
18:14:46 [JeniT]
ht: one thing we could do is try to mediate
18:15:04 [JeniT]
… about DOMs, between the XML & HTML WGs,
18:15:04 [noah]
Email from Noah in Dec 2012 to HTML WG
18:15:38 [JeniT]
… on polyglot, we've said that it is a valuable part of the family of XML-related recommendations [ht please check]
18:15:50 [noah]
This traces to 2010:
18:15:57 [slightlyoff]
Thanks Masinter!
18:16:11 [noah]
Sam Ruby:
18:16:11 [JeniT]
18:16:13 [noah]
I took an action item from the TAG yesterday to convey the following
18:16:13 [noah]
18:16:13 [noah]
The W3C TAG requests there should be in TR space a document
18:16:13 [noah]
which specifies how one can create a set of bits which can
18:16:13 [noah]
be served EITHER as text/html OR as application/xhtml+xml,
18:16:14 [noah]
which will work identically in a browser in both bases.
18:16:14 [noah]
(As Sam does on his web site.)
18:16:52 [noah]
Nov 2012: Henri Sivonen wrote:
18:17:03 [noah]
"Rescinding the request to the HTML WG to develop a polyglot guide"
18:17:12 [Masinter]
q+ to offer as an architectural principle for polyglot in general
18:17:28 [noah]
On behalf of the TAG I sent:
18:17:35 [ht]
Note that this _is_ a doc't in TR space at the moment:
18:17:45 [noah]
The TAG has decided not to rescind the request, but we do observe that both
18:17:45 [noah]
Working Group Notes and W3C Recommendations appear in TR space, and
18:17:45 [noah]
therefore the HTML WG could satisfy our request by publishing the Polyglot
18:17:45 [noah]
draft [2][3] either as a Note or a Recommendation.
18:18:07 [noah]
18:18:09 [noah]
ack next
18:18:10 [Zakim]
Masinter, you wanted to offer as an architectural principle for polyglot in general
18:18:43 [JeniT]
Masinter: thinking about polyglot as a general technique not just for languages, but for APIs and network protocols, as a transition technique from one version to another or one language to another, or one extension to another
18:18:58 [JeniT]
… if you need to make changes, "polyglot" is a transition technique
18:19:17 [JeniT]
… Appendix C in XHTML was a transition technique from HTML to XHTML
18:19:20 [noah]
I don't want top copy all of it here, but it's worth reading all of as there are more details.
18:19:31 [noah]
q+ to speak to utility
18:19:31 [JeniT]
… HTML polyglot is a transition technique from XHTML to HTML5
18:19:36 [noah]
ack next
18:19:38 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to speak to utility
18:19:48 [JeniT]
… if people are concerned about applicability, that can be narrowed in the Scope section
18:19:58 [JeniT]
noah: I think people are talking past each other in the email threads
18:20:13 [Masinter]
Anne's email is relevant
18:20:14 [JeniT]
… there's a community that says that they want to use polyglot and would appreciate a Recommendation
18:20:24 [slightlyoff]
18:20:35 [slightlyoff]
(I'm happy to represent the HTML-heads)
18:20:35 [JeniT]
… and another group that says that those people don't need it, and it shouldn't be standardised
18:20:46 [JeniT]
… I think we should address this correctly
18:21:25 [noah]
ack next
18:21:26 [JeniT]
… I think if people are saying that they have XML servers, and want to use polyglot, we need to do some studies about how many of those kinds of people there are, and move past anecdote
18:21:29 [noah]
ack next
18:21:48 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: to put a different tint on what might be motivating people from the "is this really necessary?" camp view
18:21:56 [JeniT]
… XML imposes restrictions that HTML doesn't
18:22:01 [ht]
q+ to question somewhat the "need studies" point
18:22:18 [JeniT]
… there might be concerns that polyglot will restrict the evolution of HTML
18:22:23 [noah]
q+ to respond to putting restrictions on evolution
18:22:33 [JeniT]
… to what extent must you be able to express all documents in the polyglot variant
18:22:41 [JeniT]
… I agree that we've been talking past each other
18:22:58 [Masinter]
i don't think that expressing _all_ of the semantics is necessary
18:23:25 [JeniT]
… I'd like to understand, from a procedural basis, about how the TAG's request fits with Sam's personal position
18:23:40 [Masinter]
in fact it is likely impossible
18:23:52 [JeniT]
noah: we had a joint F2F between TAG & HTML WG, we discussed this, there was enough agreement in the room such that Sam took the action to take it forward
18:23:57 [JeniT]
… he wasn't speaking for himself
18:24:06 [JeniT]
… one WG like the TAG can make a request of another
18:24:12 [ht]
No, No No
18:24:18 [ht]
That's not what happened!
18:24:19 [JeniT]
… they asked if we'd care to withdraw it, and we said no
18:24:40 [ht]
q+ to clarify that it was H. Sivonen _as an individual_ who asked
18:24:47 [JeniT]
… if they choose not to agree, we can either say 'ok' or we can stand in their way
18:24:56 [ht]
18:25:06 [noah]
ack next
18:25:07 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to respond to putting restrictions on evolution
18:25:11 [slightlyoff]
thank you so much for the clarification
18:25:11 [JeniT]
… ok, yes, it wasn't the HTML WG that asked us to rescind, it was Henri
18:25:40 [ht]
q+ to question somewhat the "need studies" point
18:26:04 [Zakim]
18:26:17 [JeniT]
noah: I don't think it was the TAG's intention to bound the evolution of HTML5
18:26:30 [JeniT]
… what we said was that we see emerging a useful intersection that people are using
18:26:38 [JeniT]
… and we thought it would be valuable to document it
18:26:49 [Zakim]
18:26:49 [JeniT]
… one thing we could do is clarify that
18:27:04 [Masinter]
if polyglot couuld only express XHTML 1.0 semantics and not anything else it would be OK, wouldn't it?
18:27:49 [JeniT]
ht: on procedure, the HTML WG is thrashing on a difficult problem
18:27:51 [slightlyoff]
Masinter: yeah, that's sort of the question...or perhaps more broadly, if it becomes a *subset* of what XHTML 1.0 can express, is that also OK?
18:27:57 [JeniT]
… there are points on both sides of the debate, some more sound than others
18:28:13 [JeniT]
… the TAG's recommendation is part of the landscape within which they're trying to resolve it
18:28:26 [noah]
Could you clarify "what difficult problem"?
18:28:29 [JeniT]
… at the moment, polyglot is on the Rec track
18:28:36 [JeniT]
… the HTML WG will have to change something to take it off
18:29:02 [Masinter]
slightlyoff: XHTML 1.0 is fixed, it can't "become" anything. If it's a subset of XHTML 5 or whatever, that shouldn't be a problem, should it?
18:29:03 [JeniT]
… those that wanted change see the TAG's request as standing in the way of making that change
18:29:26 [JeniT]
… as far as I know, the discussion hasn't been escalated to the HTML resolution mechanism
18:29:35 [noah]
18:29:37 [noah]
ack next
18:29:38 [slightlyoff]
Masinter: I mean, what if what polyglot markup is possible becomes subset of XHTML as a result of HTML evolution, what does that mean in any direction,good or bad?
18:29:39 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to question somewhat the "need studies" point
18:29:49 [JeniT]
… I'm not sure we need to debate the merits of the case
18:30:11 [Masinter]
slightlyoff: polyglot markup has to be a subset, if only because of document.write
18:30:12 [JeniT]
… I'm not convinced that kicking this into the long grass until we have quantitative studies is the way forward
18:30:33 [JeniT]
… I hope the HTML WG's guidelines make clear that web constituencies should be respected unless there's good reason not to
18:30:43 [slightlyoff]
Masinter: well, it has to be a subset of HTML if you're going from XML -> HTML and XML is growing (but XHTML isn't)
18:30:45 [JeniT]
… there are people who create application/xml and publish it as text/html
18:30:56 [JeniT]
… and I think that means we should respect that constituency
18:31:04 [noah]
I agree that there are folks publishing from XML toolchains. You're saying it's "undoubtedly true". I hear people doubting.
18:31:20 [JeniT]
… questioning how many users there are to say whether a constituency is worthwhile is something the HTML WG has always resisted, and I don't think we should go there
18:31:23 [Zakim]
18:31:47 [JeniT]
noah: Alex suggested that it would constrain HTML5's evolution
18:32:05 [Zakim]
18:32:11 [slightlyoff]
+1 to that. I would like to suggest we issue that clarification.
18:32:22 [JeniT]
… we could say that there's no request to restrict HTML5's evolution to just those things that can be expressed in XML
18:32:28 [ht]
18:32:31 [ht]
I think it's easy
18:32:33 [Marcos]
18:32:38 [JeniT]
18:32:45 [ht]
Polyglot is a statement of fact as of a certain date
18:32:52 [Masinter]
if i got a vote i'd +1
18:33:05 [JeniT]
noah: I don't want to do something thinking it would help and then cause more confusion
18:33:10 [ht]
I'm happy to say it doesn't change the fact that _any_ change to HTML5 has to be argued on the merits
18:33:12 [JeniT]
… Alex, do you think it would help?
18:33:34 [slightlyoff]
and I do think we should gather data
18:33:38 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: I think the potential for confusion is high, because the different constituencies have different goals
18:33:44 [ht]
And 'breaking' Polyglot doesn't have any _de jure_ standing in that discussion
18:34:20 [slightlyoff]
18:34:20 [JeniT]
noah: anyone could say something on the HTML list to suggest that we provide that clarification, and see whether that's welcomed or not
18:34:54 [Masinter]
who needs to be reassured? Henri?
18:34:55 [ht]
There's nothing the TAG or anyone else can do to prevent someone from ever _saying_ "You can't do that, it makes Polyglot impossible", all we can do is say that such statements, in our view, have no force
18:34:57 [slightlyoff]
I think being careful about this and being informal to start is a good way to help understand if we can help with a clarification
18:35:09 [ht]
Agree with Alex
18:35:32 [ht]
Agree with Noah -- I said that above
18:35:45 [Masinter]
one way to record this is to ask the polyglot editor to revise the Scope section
18:35:46 [slightlyoff]
yes, you are
18:35:52 [JeniT]
Marcos: I agree with Alex
18:36:03 [Masinter]
if the polyglot draft actually said this?
18:36:21 [slightlyoff]
JeniT: WDYT?
18:36:31 [ht]
I don't see a 'Scope' section???
18:36:53 [Masinter]
it needs one
18:37:05 [Masinter]
18:37:38 [noah]
Separate bug on "no scope section at all"
18:37:58 [JeniT]
JeniT: Alex, if you can raise informally, that would be great
18:38:06 [slightlyoff]
I will do that.
18:38:15 [Masinter]
i think this was useful
18:38:17 [JeniT]
… hopefully the Scope section which Henri raised as a bug will get into the spec
18:38:29 [slightlyoff]
yep, happy for that
18:38:54 [JeniT]
noah: can I raise an action?
18:39:14 [noah]
. ACTION: Alex to solicit informal discussion on HTML WG list of clarifying: polyglot doesn't restrict html5 futures
18:39:21 [slightlyoff]
18:39:23 [JeniT]
18:39:34 [Masinter]
i was planning to blog about polyglot as a general versioning/transition strategy and the "not restrict future growth" is a good additional point, thanks
18:39:48 [noah]
ACTION: Alex to solicit informal discussion on HTML WG list of clarifying: polyglot doesn't restrict html5 futures - Due 2013-02-25
18:39:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-787 - solicit informal discussion on HTML WG list of clarifying: polyglot doesn't restrict html5 futures [on Alex Russell - due 2013-02-25].
18:40:01 [JeniT]
Topic: Fragment identifier semantics
18:41:29 [noah]
18:41:50 [noah]
JT: What's proposed for this call? Considering revisions to our draft, or other things we might do?
18:42:05 [JeniT]
JeniT: I'd like to understand the scope of the things that Alex feels need fixing
18:42:24 [noah]
AR: The outline I posted is trying to get authors of spec to think about extensibility points is most important.
18:42:24 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: I'd like to get the spec authors to think about extensibility points
18:42:26 [Masinter]
it's possible that the current document combines advice for too many audiences
18:43:39 [ht]
AR wrote "This
18:43:39 [ht]
arises because the XML processing algorithm does not specify any such
18:43:39 [ht]
extensibility point (nor define itself in terms of such a thing)"
18:43:59 [noah]
Actually, I think there is an extensibility architecture. It's got hierarchical MIME types. The problem is that the subclassing rules aren't clear, and different subtypes have made conflicting choices on compatibility with the base.
18:44:27 [slightlyoff]
18:44:34 [noah]
JT: I am interested in how we can alter text or take different approach to being clear extensibility needed.
18:44:37 [ht]
I agree with what Jeni is saying that the extensibility point is right, but it's not XML's problem, it is, or rather _was_, the media-type system's problem, and to a large extent this has been fixed
18:44:39 [noah]
18:44:42 [slightlyoff]
I think I might have lost the thread a bit and feel as though I owe the list a more detailed set of comments
18:45:07 [JeniT]
noah: we have an extensibility system that's been used inconsistently
18:45:15 [ht]
So what the doc's goal needs to be is to clarify how the system has been fixed, to the extent that it has, and how we should all proceed as a result
18:45:20 [JeniT]
… there's media types which are extensible, and there's a subtyping mechanism
18:45:31 [JeniT]
… the problem is that people make different assumptions about what the rules are
18:45:51 [JeniT]
… if you're a subtype, people thought that the name resolutions should be compatible with those of the super-type
18:46:00 [JeniT]
… but then we found that there were examples that broke that rule
18:46:07 [JeniT]
… it's not helpful to say there's no extensibility
18:46:18 [JeniT]
… the problem is that we have an extensibility mechanism that is already being used in incompatible ways
18:46:32 [ht]
18:46:34 [JeniT]
… and no one can decide how to resolve the incompatibilities
18:46:40 [ht]
ack ht
18:46:40 [slightlyoff]
18:46:41 [noah]
ack next
18:46:52 [noah]
q+ slightlyoff
18:46:59 [JeniT]
ht: I don't disagree with much of what you (noah) said
18:47:17 [JeniT]
… except to say that the IETF has adopted a compromise to that problem
18:47:22 [noah]
Is 3023bis adopted, or are you talking about something else?
18:47:30 [JeniT]
… the revised goal of the document is to clarify how we *have* solved the problem
18:47:54 [noah]
Can we get the link. This is very important. Let's minute carefully.
18:47:55 [JeniT]
… the whole story about sub typing has been officially documented by IETF in the last 6 months, in a way which is compatible with the TAG's request
18:47:58 [JeniT]
… and with 3023bis
18:48:00 [slightlyoff]
18:48:19 [JeniT]
noah: I want to know whether Alex thinks that's fixed the issue that he's concerned about
18:48:32 [slightlyoff]
+1, would like to hear about the fix
18:48:41 [slightlyoff]
apologies for being out of date
18:48:50 [JeniT]
ht: it's reasonable to ask how it's been fixed
18:48:53 [ht]
You and almost everyone else -- not your fault!
18:49:26 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
18:49:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see noah, JeniT, slightlyoff, Masinter, ht (muted), [IPcaller]
18:49:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Masinter, ht, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves
18:49:31 [ht]
18:50:11 [ht]
See in particular -- Section Structured Syntax Suffix Registration Procedures
18:50:58 [JeniT]
ht: I think we should put this to one side until Jeni is happy with the document
18:51:06 [slightlyoff]
how does 4.11 resolve the tension?
18:51:14 [noah]
JT: It is already.
18:51:54 [slightlyoff]
ahhh...I seee, MUST -> SHOULD
18:52:11 [noah]
JT: I have an action to draft exit criteria. As far as content goes, it's there I think. But new TAG members are confused, suggesting there's a problem. Need feedback on how to do better.
18:52:29 [ht]
Not sure that's the right IETF doc
18:52:32 [ht]
Hold on
18:52:45 [Masinter]
RFC 6838
18:52:46 [noah]
Hs structure syntax procedures
18:52:52 [noah]
18:52:55 [darobin]
darobin has joined #tagmem
18:53:49 [slightlyoff]
don't assume my ignorance is a way forward ;-)
18:54:03 [slightlyoff]
18:54:13 [noah]
ack next
18:54:22 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: there are two issues that I spoke to Jeni about, the first was about scripts
18:54:22 [ht]
4.1 in actually has the solution, but it's specific to +xml in that doc't
18:54:39 [JeniT]
… we talked about changing from MUST --> SHOULD which I think is in line with the power that scripts have
18:54:42 [noah]
AR: One change I asked from MUST to SHOULD was already made, so OK on that.
18:54:44 [ht]
I thought there was a general statement to the same effect, but I'm looking for it
18:55:00 [ht]
ack ht
18:55:16 [noah]
AR: Still trying to understand 4.11 in 6839. Do XML fragments not have to resolve to an element.
18:55:23 [noah]
HT: Yes, but it doesn't say it there.
18:55:44 [JeniT]
ht: … that's where the solution to the rdf+xml problem is stated
18:55:55 [slightlyoff]
18:55:59 [noah]
I thought Henry said it was somewhere else
18:56:30 [noah]
ack next
18:56:35 [JeniT]
… I believe that the apps directorate has acknowledged that the solution in 4.1 should be a generic solution, not just +xml
18:56:38 [noah]
zakim, mute ht
18:56:38 [Zakim]
ht should now be muted
18:57:16 [ht]
So, for instance, if you look in the definition for +json, in section 3.1, you can see that using the same solution
18:57:27 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: from the scripting perspective, we've seen that applications are treating fragids as things other than elements
18:57:34 [noah]
q+ to mention TAG finding on application state
18:57:38 [noah]
18:57:42 [JeniT]
… these applications deserve to have their content able to not follow these rules
18:57:48 [noah]
ack next
18:57:49 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to mention TAG finding on application state
18:58:06 [JeniT]
… it would be best if they could without carving out a new media type
18:58:28 [slightlyoff]
actually...I misspoke. I have read this
18:58:33 [ht]
So, Alex's more recent point is not about suffixes
18:58:49 [slightlyoff]
ht: I observe that suffixes are part of the general case
18:59:05 [ht]
The IETF resolution I was talking about is for the suffix vs. generic case, not the media-type vs. script case
18:59:17 [JeniT]
noah: the Identifying Application State doc says that if you're using fragids for application states, use a syntax that's disjoint from ones that are used to identify elements
18:59:30 [JeniT]
… reserve the ids for your elements, and make sure the Javascript works for other ones
19:00:25 [slightlyoff]
ht: I'm observing that you can assume that any media type has "scripting", and that content-defined addressing is not unique to HTML
19:00:38 [ht]
19:00:50 [noah]
Argh...status says finding, boilerplate says working draft.
19:01:20 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: I think it's good advice, and I agree on that without hesitation
19:01:40 [JeniT]
… I'm concerned that it's not general, that it doesn't talk about the architecture that underpins what it is to be a fragment
19:01:56 [noah]
19:01:59 [Masinter]
if there were an updated URI/IRI spec, that would be once place to put it
19:02:10 [JeniT]
slightlyoff: I'd like more time to think about this
19:02:12 [Masinter]
I don't know if Anne's dropped the ball on his URL spec
19:02:18 [ht]
Not a waste
19:02:52 [JeniT]
noah: it's useful to go over this
19:03:11 [slightlyoff]
we're scheduled for 90 min
19:03:13 [ht]
Larry, "Last updated 14 February" on
19:03:14 [slightlyoff]
we have plenty of time = )
19:03:22 [JeniT]
Topic: F2F Planning
19:03:32 [JeniT]
Topic: Bringing TAG members up to speed
19:04:02 [JeniT]
noah: it occurred to me that it's important to give new members context about (1) some of the specific work the TAG has done in the past
19:04:16 [JeniT]
… (2) not everyone has noticed the range of technologies that we have in scope
19:04:41 [JeniT]
… I'm proposing that incumbent TAG members to propose a few things from the TAG's past to talk about
19:05:02 [JeniT]
… eg the buffer bloat issue, and SPDY
19:05:22 [Masinter] "Recommendation: Review TAG Findings and triage; either (a) update and bring the Finding to Recommendation, (b) obsolete and withdraw, or (c) hand off to a working group or task force."
19:05:54 [JeniT]
… I'd ask that TAG members draft a page or so of background material
19:06:09 [JeniT]
… I thought at the F2F we could review those at 15 mins / piece
19:06:19 [JeniT]
… to give a broad sense of where we've been
19:06:28 [ht]
+1 -- I will contribute remotely if we do this
19:06:44 [JeniT]
… in part to inform which things we should drop
19:06:47 [Zakim]
19:06:53 [JeniT]
… in part to understand what's in scope
19:07:01 [slightlyoff]
good thing
19:07:48 [JeniT]
Topic: Pending Review Items
19:07:58 [noah]
19:08:07 [noah]
19:08:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-745 -- Jeni Tennison to get LCWD of fragids & media types published and respond to comments -- due 2013-01-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:08:07 [trackbot]
19:08:43 [noah]
NM: you have action on exit criteria
19:08:48 [noah]
close ACTION-745
19:08:48 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-745 Get LCWD of fragids & media types published and respond to comments.
19:09:02 [JeniT]
19:09:02 [trackbot]
ACTION-754 -- Jeni Tennison to with Larry work out what the exit criteria from CR for fragids best practices should be -- due 2012-12-11 -- OPEN
19:09:02 [trackbot]
19:09:03 [noah]
19:09:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-754 -- Jeni Tennison to with Larry work out what the exit criteria from CR for fragids best practices should be -- due 2012-12-11 -- OPEN
19:09:03 [trackbot]
19:09:26 [noah]
19:09:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-746 -- Jeni Tennison to raise a bug on registerContentHandler and registerProtocolHandler to ask for specification of how fragids are handled -- due 2012-10-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:09:26 [trackbot]
19:09:46 [Masinter]
originally i thought it just didn't say anything
19:09:48 [Masinter]
it was me
19:10:11 [noah]
NM: Are you OK with dropping this?
19:10:26 [noah]
LM: It doesn't say much, but feature is at risk anyway.
19:10:57 [noah]
JT: Seemed clear to me.
19:11:08 [noah]
JT: Fragids are passed in, then app decides.
19:11:10 [noah]
19:11:13 [noah]
close ACTION-746?
19:11:13 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-746 Raise a bug on registerContentHandler and registerProtocolHandler to ask for specification of how fragids are handled.
19:11:40 [noah]
19:11:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-759 -- Larry Masinter to frame for telcon discussion possible TAG work relating to DWIM and Issue errorHandling-20 -- due 2012-11-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:11:40 [trackbot]
19:11:54 [Masinter]
if I had any qualms about this i'd raise a bug on the HTML spec
19:12:15 [noah]
LM: There's a pointer to message I sent.
19:12:31 [noah]
19:12:34 [JeniT]
Masinter: the action was to tee up something for TAG discussion, which I did
19:12:48 [noah]
LM: TAG can choose to discuss or not?
19:12:50 [JeniT]
noah: TAG, should we discuss this?
19:13:20 [JeniT]
… I'll close the action, but if someone pops up to ask that we revisit, that's fine
19:13:32 [JeniT]
Masinter: this dates back to discussion with Robin about error handling
19:13:46 [Masinter]
closing the action is fine with me
19:13:57 [noah]
close ACTION-759
19:13:57 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-759 frame for telcon discussion possible TAG work relating to DWIM and Issue errorHandling-20.
19:14:06 [noah]
19:14:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-777 -- Jeni Tennison to draft proposed response to Richard Cyganiak's comments on Fragids -- due 2013-01-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:14:06 [trackbot]
19:14:25 [noah]
NM: You did that, did he answer.
19:14:33 [noah]
JT: Don't think so.
19:14:40 [noah]
close ACTION-777
19:14:40 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-777 Draft proposed response to Richard Cyganiak's comments on Fragids.
19:15:01 [JeniT]
noah: there are a ton of outstanding actions
19:15:07 [JeniT]
… it'd be great if people could sort them out
19:15:33 [JeniT]
regrets for next week
19:15:53 [slightlyoff]
thanks for clarifying the rules
19:15:59 [Zakim]
19:16:00 [JeniT]
noah: officially the call for next week is on, but if I don't see anything we'll cancel
19:16:03 [JeniT]
19:16:05 [Zakim]
19:16:07 [Zakim]
19:16:09 [noah]
You're welcome, they are a bit of a nuissance.
19:16:10 [Zakim]
19:16:59 [Zakim]
19:17:00 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:17:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were JeniT, noah, marcos, ht, +1.415.997.aaaa, slightlyoff, Masinter, [IPcaller]
19:17:06 [JeniT]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:17:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JeniT
19:23:21 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
19:37:58 [ht_home]
ht_home has joined #tagmem
21:12:31 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
21:17:04 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
21:28:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
21:42:01 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
23:36:58 [Masinter]
Masinter has joined #tagmem