17:02:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:02:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-tagmem-irc
17:03:18 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:03:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, JeniT, ??P9
17:03:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, JeniT, timbl, noah, Marcos, annevk, slightlyoff, wycats_, plinss, Yves, trackbot
17:03:22 <Zakim> + +1.415.997.aaaa
17:03:32 <noah> zakim, $$P9 is Marcos
17:03:33 <Zakim> sorry, noah, I do not recognize a party named '$$P9'
17:03:54 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:03:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, JeniT, Marcos, +1.415.997.aaaa
17:03:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, JeniT, timbl, noah, Marcos, annevk, slightlyoff, wycats_, plinss, Yves, trackbot
17:04:17 <slightlyoff> scribenic
17:04:22 <Zakim> +Yves
17:04:24 <slightlyoff> scribenick: slightlyoff
17:04:24 <annevk> Zakim, passcode?
17:04:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), annevk
17:04:31 <slightlyoff> annevk: 0824
17:04:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:04:42 <noah> date: 18 April 2013
17:04:53 <annevk> Zakim, [IP is me
17:04:53 <Zakim> +annevk; got it
17:04:55 <noah> meeting: W3C TAG Teleconference of 18 April 2013
17:05:10 <noah> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/04/18-agenda
17:05:15 <noah> chair: Noah Mendelsohn
17:05:19 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #tagmem
17:05:52 <noah> regrets: Henry Thomposon
17:06:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:06:00 <slightlyoff> are those nicks or names?
17:06:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TAG
17:06:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started
17:06:03 <trackbot> Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
17:06:03 <trackbot> Date: 18 April 2013
17:06:03 <slightlyoff> thanks
17:06:15 <Zakim> + +1.718.877.aabb
17:06:25 <noah> zakim, who is here?
17:06:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, JeniT, Marcos, +1.415.997.aaaa, Yves, annevk, +1.718.877.aabb
17:06:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see marcos_, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeniT, timbl, noah, Marcos, annevk, slightlyoff, wycats_, plinss, Yves, trackbot
17:07:43 <noah> Marcos will scribe on 2 May
17:08:36 <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 18-20 March 2013 F2F at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/03/18-agenda are approved
17:08:44 <noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/04/04-minutes
17:09:05 <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 4 April at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/04/04-minutes are approved
17:09:47 <noah>  TPAC 2013
17:09:47 <noah>  11-15 November 2013
17:09:47 <noah>  Shenzhen, China
17:09:48 <slightlyoff> present: Yehuda Katz, Marcos Cáceres, Jeni Tennison, Anne van Kesteren, Noah Mendelshon, Tim Berners-Lee, Yves Lafon, Peter Linss
17:10:04 <slightlyoff> topic: logistics
17:10:14 <JeniT> (TimBL isn't on the call, just in IRC)
17:10:27 <slightlyoff> thanks...is there a way to minus?
17:11:00 <slightlyoff> noah: we haven't talked much about TPAC, but it's a productive opportunity to talk with other groups and unless there are objections, will ask for a room
17:11:11 <slightlyoff> topic: fragment identifier semantics
17:11:22 <noah> ACTION-790?
17:11:22 <trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Jeni Tennison to do new Editor's Draft of fragids spec for approval to publish as CR -- due 2013-04-16 -- OPEN
17:11:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/790
17:11:36 <noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html
17:11:46 <wycats_> I can commit to reviewing it for the next meeting
17:11:47 <slightlyoff> noah: we have a draft from Jeni, comments were received, and the new draft is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html
17:11:55 <slightlyoff> noah: current status is review to go to CR
17:11:58 <JeniT> wycats_, I did email it to you privately too
17:12:01 <slightlyoff> noah: do we need to review anything in detail?
17:12:19 <slightlyoff> JeniT: lets review the changes and then we can decide what to go over in detail
17:12:25 <JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Apr/0033.html
17:12:59 <JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html#publishers
17:13:02 <slightlyoff> JeniT: have added a note to emphasize that if you have conneg, not all versions must resolve all identifiers
17:13:05 <wycats_> JeniT: I somehow missed the email (I see it now)
17:13:23 <noah> Note
17:13:23 <noah> Note that this best practice does not imply that every structure that is addressable within one content-negotiated representation must have an equivalent structure addressable by the same fragid in all other content-negotiated representations. It is likely that some fragids will have meaning only in one of the content-negotiated representations, for example because they are interpreted by a
17:13:24 <noah> script within an HTML representation but not in any others.
17:13:24 <wycats_> JeniT: I'm sure it's fine
17:13:44 <noah> Looks very good to me.
17:14:33 <JeniT> Scripts can also be used to map a fragid on a document that contains an embedded resource (such as an image or video) into a fragid that applies to that embedded resource. Scripts can use the fragid of the location navigated to within an iframe to alter the display of the embedding document.
17:14:36 <slightlyoff> JeniT: second point: pages that embed images/video and use fragids in the outer page to resolve to the sub-resource content is addressed just following the previous note (see link above)
17:15:11 <JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html#fragid-structures
17:15:24 <slightlyoff> JeniT: final major change is the addition of an appendix: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html#fragid-structures
17:15:33 <wycats_> if I recall correctly, my concern was just to make sure that people knew to try to create their own key/values for fragments that they didn't expect to be interoperable with other mime types
17:15:47 <slightlyoff> JeniT: this goes thorough many formats that define fragids and outlines them
17:15:56 <wycats_> looks like Best Practice 8 covers this
17:16:15 <wycats_> 8 and 9 I should say
17:16:41 <slightlyoff> JeniT: the point is to make authors aware of the other prevalant formats to avoid overlap
17:17:32 <slightlyoff> noah: the TAG has published a finding, and there's specific practices around hashbang...it's addressed in B7, but not mentioned elsewhere and the finding isn't referenced...should it be?
17:17:39 <slightlyoff> JeniT: it's referenced but not linked
17:19:25 <slightlyoff> wycats_: we're revisiting a lot of this now
17:19:57 <slightlyoff> wycats_: the outcome will be that people won't do this any more
17:20:37 <wycats_> specifically, insofar as we're telling people not to conflict with existing practices for other MIME types, the fact that we're calling out the use of #! on the web means that people won't use it in other contexts
17:21:05 <noah> I'm fine with going to CR
17:21:05 <slightlyoff> JeniT: the other change is the exit criteria
17:21:22 <slightlyoff> wycats_: what will we do about the potential JSON-pointer conflict?
17:21:48 <slightlyoff> JeniT: it says this is a fragid syntax you *can* use with JSON, it's not a "must"
17:22:30 <slightlyoff> JeniT: will expand that section in the appendix and make it explicit that if you use it as-is, it may conflict with thigns that use #/ in a different way
17:22:42 <slightlyoff> wycats_: if you conneg this way, yes, this is probably a bad idea
17:23:49 <slightlyoff> JeniT: if they're declaring conneg'd content with pointers that will map to both, the advice will be to make up your own pointer syntax in the fragid
17:24:03 <slightlyoff> wycats_: I care about this because I have systems that do this
17:24:44 <slightlyoff> JeniT: the other conflict we're likely to see will be the "+json" mimetype registration
17:24:54 <slightlyoff> wycats_: will take this offline and reply to your email
17:25:39 <slightlyoff> JeniT: if people can get back to me within the week, I'll work around wrapping up the exit criteria and JSON-pointer points and get this to Yves next week for publication
17:25:56 <wycats_> I'm fine with provisional approval
17:25:56 <slightlyoff> noah: this is about provisional approval for this...objections?
17:26:11 <JeniT> Yves: we agreed exit criteria at F2F, I just somehow didn't include them in the draft from what I can see
17:26:12 <wycats_> slightlyoff: provisional approval to go ahead with the CR with the document as-is
17:26:12 <noah> ACTION-790
17:26:12 <trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Jeni Tennison to do new Editor's Draft of fragids spec for approval to publish as CR -- due 2013-04-16 -- OPEN
17:26:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/790
17:26:13 <slightlyoff> no objection from me. Thanks JeniT for getting this done!
17:26:44 <noah> ACTION-790
17:26:44 <trackbot> ACTION-790 -- Jeni Tennison to do new Editor's Draft of fragids spec for approval to publish as CR -- due 2013-04-25 -- OPEN
17:26:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/790
17:27:35 <JeniT> Yves, oh yes, they are there!
17:27:41 <noah> . RESOLUTION: We will publish Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions
17:27:41 <noah> W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 23 April 2013
17:27:44 <JeniT> just in the wrong place
17:27:51 <Yves> I was looking for then in the SoTD, but here is fine
17:28:09 <Yves> I'll add a pointer from the SoTD when publishing
17:28:16 <noah> W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 25 April 2013
17:28:38 <wycats_> no objection here
17:28:40 <noah> RESOLUTION: We will publish W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 25 April 2013
17:28:56 <slightlyoff> RESOLUTION: We will publish W3C Editor's Draft 04 April 2013 www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html (with minor mods at Jeni's discretion) as a CR draft, unless objections received by 25 April 2013
17:29:10 <slightlyoff> noah: anything else to do on this? don't think so
17:29:16 <noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
17:29:25 <slightlyoff> noah: we have a product page for this work...thought we had a plan to update it
17:29:56 <slightlyoff> do product pages see much traffic?
17:30:01 <noah> ACTION: Jeni to tweak product page for Fragment ids - Due 2013-04-30
17:30:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-797 - tweak product page for Fragment ids [on Jeni Tennison - due 2013-04-30].
17:30:11 <JeniT> slightlyoff, maybe Yves can find out
17:30:23 <noah> topic: Authoritative Metadata
17:30:24 <slightlyoff> Yves: is that possible? do we have analytics on our pages?
17:30:30 <noah> ACTION-793?
17:30:30 <trackbot> ACTION-793 -- Anne van Kesteren to draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata -- due 2013-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:30:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/793
17:30:34 <slightlyoff>  topic: Authoritative Metadata
17:30:49 <noah> Finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412
17:30:51 <Yves> a bit difficult, but I can ask for some stats
17:30:51 <noah> ACTION-793?
17:30:52 <trackbot> ACTION-793 -- Anne van Kesteren to draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata -- due 2013-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:30:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/793
17:31:19 <slightlyoff> noah: annevk to review and draft disclaimer text because there's controversy about sniffing.
17:31:19 <noah> Anne's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Apr/0007.html
17:31:46 <slightlyoff> noah: annevk's mail has generated some discussion and noah likes it
17:31:57 <slightlyoff> annevk: no comments for now about the proposal or responses
17:32:00 <slightlyoff> wycats_: seems fine
17:32:00 <JeniT> happy with it
17:32:09 <slightlyoff> I'm alright with it
17:32:13 <Yves> same
17:32:38 <slightlyoff> noah: are you proposing that the typography is the same as in the draft?
17:32:42 <wycats_> that is how I would prefer the typography
17:32:55 <slightlyoff> annevk: hoping the typography would be pretty obvious
17:32:56 <noah> Take a look at the proposed formatting: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html
17:32:59 <slightlyoff> noah: what do we think?
17:33:08 <slightlyoff> I'm fine wit hthat
17:33:15 <wycats_> question: is Content-Type the only header for which this is true?
17:33:29 <wycats_> btw: Chrome has started allowing servers to opt into authoritative metadata
17:33:33 <noah> We don't have much precedent for doing things this way. I don't think this point is more important than many others that are made in the finding.
17:33:33 <annevk> wycats_: afaik
17:33:35 <wycats_> and Github has started using that
17:33:35 <slightlyoff> JeniT: is there any standard way to put notices in specs?
17:33:40 <slightlyoff> Yves: ?
17:33:58 <slightlyoff> JeniT: is there a standard way to put in notices for things like version succession
17:34:06 <annevk> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/ <- has a similar warning
17:34:09 <noah> I would prefer adding it in two places:
17:34:18 <noah> in ordinary text as a 2nd para in the abstract
17:34:25 <annevk> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/
17:34:30 <slightlyoff> annevk: we've put warning in REC's, e.g. CSS1
17:34:31 <noah> Following point 4 in the summary at the top
17:34:35 <wycats_> X-Content-Type-Options:nosniff
17:34:39 <wycats_> is what Chrome and IE support
17:34:41 <slightlyoff> annevk: it's been a big red box
17:35:03 <slightlyoff> noah: I think this is important, but not more important than other things the finding says
17:35:09 <wycats_> q+
17:35:17 <annevk> wycats_: I believe that doesn't actually remove all sniffing
17:35:28 <slightlyoff> noah: counter is to put it in 2 place: 2nd paragraph of abstract and below/near summary of key points
17:35:38 <slightlyoff> noah: won't stand in the way, but it doesn't feel like an emergency
17:36:14 <annevk> wycats_: e.g. <img> will still sniff, it'll only check if Content-Type mentions an image type of sorts if that header is present
17:36:16 <slightlyoff> noah: feeling that the right way to fix this in the long run is to fix 2016
17:36:57 <slightlyoff> wycats_: don't think that's true. Recollection is that it tells you to do it, not based on "do what the specs say"
17:37:04 <slightlyoff> s/2016/2616/
17:37:22 <slightlyoff> wycats_: IE + chrome have a header for authoritative metadata
17:37:31 <slightlyoff> wycats_: github is using it to prevent hot-linking
17:37:53 <slightlyoff> I'll just note that the idea of metadata opting into authoritative metadata is HALARIOUS
17:38:30 <slightlyoff> wycats_: the desire for a big-red-box is to help people who are in the mind of thinking about sniffing to see the point
17:38:50 <slightlyoff> wycats_: should we be investigating the state of nosniff?
17:39:08 <slightlyoff> noah: suggesting that we deal with formatting first, then nosniff in a sec
17:39:31 <slightlyoff> noah: there's no publication process for TAG findings
17:39:32 <wycats_> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941(v=vs.85).aspx
17:39:41 <wycats_> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471020
17:39:44 <slightlyoff> noah: we just put it up and send a couple of emails
17:39:53 <wycats_> http://philip.html5.org/tests/ie8/cases/content-type-nosniff.html
17:39:57 <slightlyoff> noah: the way to do this might be to just re-publish the finding
17:39:58 <annevk> wycats_: I think it might be interesting to look into the specifics of that if we think we can make it work
17:39:59 <wycats_> ^^ some nosniff links
17:40:05 <slightlyoff> noah: objections? (none heard)
17:40:27 <noah> RESOLTUION: The TAG will republish the authoritative metadata finding to include the content and formatting proposed in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html
17:40:29 <annevk> wycats_: and maybe define it as part of http://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/ if it actually does what it suggests (which I'm doubting to some extent)
17:40:45 <slightlyoff> RESOLUTION: The TAG will republish the authoritative metadata finding to include the content and formatting proposed in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html
17:41:01 <slightlyoff> action: noah will republish
17:41:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-798 - Will republish [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-04-25].
17:41:02 <noah> ACTION: Noah to republish authoritative metadata finding
17:41:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-799 - Republish authoritative metadata finding [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-04-25].
17:41:10 <slightlyoff> oh balls
17:41:14 <wycats_> "This is not needed because Gecko doesn't violate the Http RFC unlike IE and doesn't do content-sniffing at all if a content-type is given."
17:41:18 <wycats_> I suspect that that is incorrect
17:41:22 <slightlyoff> I think I just did something automated and incorrect
17:41:23 <noah> ACTION-793?
17:41:23 <trackbot> ACTION-793 -- Anne van Kesteren to draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata -- due 2013-04-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:41:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/793
17:41:29 <noah> close ACTION-793
17:41:29 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-793 draft disclaimer text for Authoritative Metadata.
17:41:31 <annevk> noah: fwiw, smaller type as in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/ would work for me
17:41:41 <slightlyoff> me? or wycats_ ?
17:41:42 <annevk> noah: it being super clear is what's most important
17:42:20 <slightlyoff> wycats_: it seems like Chrome has adopted it, there are publishers using it, and FF is loooking to adopt
17:42:23 <noah> Can we gt a link to the spec for this header?
17:42:27 <noah> s/gt/get/
17:42:32 <slightlyoff> wycats_: we might want to revisit the conclusions in light of the world changing
17:42:43 <slightlyoff> noah: is there a spec?
17:42:58 <slightlyoff> wycats_: linked to  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941(v=vs.85).aspx
17:43:05 <noah> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
17:43:13 <noah> MIME-Handling Change: X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
17:43:17 <slightlyoff> wycats_: annevk has raised a legit question: does it do what it says? or are there caveats?
17:43:26 <slightlyoff> noah: ugg...X-?
17:43:33 <slightlyoff> wycats_: IE created, others followed
17:43:58 <annevk> Seems Gecko is awaiting a spec
17:44:20 <slightlyoff> noah: Yves, do you have a sense for who we might coordinate with?
17:44:26 <wycats_> https://github.com/mozilla-services/cornice/issues/102
17:44:33 <slightlyoff> Yves: there's no need to register experimental headers
17:44:34 <wycats_> apparently the sniffing can trigger XSS attacks
17:44:42 <annevk> (from skimming the bug, which matches what I'd like us to do)
17:45:23 <slightlyoff> noah: was talking about something else: some future change to the flag might make it legit, and there's a coordination question around who owns "content-type"
17:45:27 <wycats_> everyone always says the "I really mean it" thing, but it never actually turns out to be true
17:45:32 <slightlyoff> noah: what's the best role for the TAG?
17:45:34 <annevk> I think http://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/ should own this.
17:45:35 <wycats_> it's usually just unfortunate legacy behavior
17:45:41 <wycats_> see: <!doctype html>
17:45:43 <annevk> It's an explicit opt out for the thing defined there...
17:46:01 <slightlyoff> Yves: it was discussed in the HTTP WG so there's not a ton of need to cooridnate
17:46:42 <slightlyoff> wycats_: used to be sympathetic to the "I really mean it" argument, but as I've seen it play out over time, you can imagine that people MIGHT misuse, but I don't observe that
17:46:45 <noah> To be clear, I was raising a point relating to coordination across groups, not the "I really mean it" technical point
17:47:30 <annevk> I filed a bug on MIME Sniffing: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21742
17:47:43 <slightlyoff> wycats_: happy to investigate with annevk and slightlyoff
17:48:00 <slightlyoff> wycats_: if annevk is correct in that it doesn't actually mean what it says, we might come to different conclusions
17:48:12 <slightlyoff> noah: a group to collect and report seems good
17:48:24 <slightlyoff> yes
17:48:31 <slightlyoff> doing it now
17:48:45 <Yves> relevant thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0104.html
17:49:17 <slightlyoff> ACTION: wycats, slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status
17:49:17 <trackbot> Error finding 'wycats,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users>.
17:49:48 <slightlyoff> sorry
17:49:52 <slightlyoff> I'm not great at this = \
17:50:00 <slightlyoff> due before F2F?
17:50:03 <slightlyoff> would prefer that
17:50:05 <annevk> Seems I filed a duplicate :-)
17:50:08 <annevk> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19865 is the bug
17:50:22 <noah> ACTION: yehuda with help from slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status - Due 2013-05-14
17:50:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-800 - with help from slightlyoff, and annevk to investigate nosniff current status [on Yehuda Katz - due 2013-05-14].
17:50:46 <noah> Note: this may be a topic for F2F, we will decide after telcon on 16 May
17:51:18 <slightlyoff> topic: Publishing & Linking
17:51:36 <noah> F2F disussion: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/03/19-minutes#item02
17:51:54 <slightlyoff> noah: my recollection is that we'll put out P&L as a NOTE
17:52:00 <slightlyoff> noah: couldn't find a formal decision to do that
17:52:11 <slightlyoff> noah: there was an action for Ashok to update it, and he has done it
17:52:20 <slightlyoff> noah: can others confirm that that's true?
17:52:33 <slightlyoff> annevk: yes, to be published as a note and then perhaps go forward from there
17:52:42 <noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08
17:52:53 <wycats_> no objections
17:52:56 <slightlyoff> noah: with that clarification, latest draft is above, and the question is: are we ready to publish as a NOTE?
17:53:00 <wycats_> would love to get this off our plate
17:53:03 <slightlyoff> no objections
17:53:28 <noah> . RESOLUTION: We will publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note. The TAG does not commit to further work.
17:53:30 <annevk> wycats_: might still get updated though ;)
17:53:41 <noah> We note that Ashok may choose to propose some updates.
17:53:53 <JeniT> +1
17:53:58 <noah> RESOLUTION: We will publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note. The TAG does not commit to further work.
17:54:01 <slightlyoff> RESOLUTION: We will publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note. The TAG does not commit to further work.
17:54:32 <noah> ACTION: Yves to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note and announce - Due 2013-04-30
17:54:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-801 - publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb-2013-04-08 as a W3C Note and announce [on Yves Lafon - due 2013-04-30].
17:54:43 <noah> ACTION-776?
17:54:43 <trackbot> ACTION-776 -- Ashok Malhotra to with help from Larry to redraft Publishing and Linking, responding to comments, for review at F2F -- due 2013-04-02 -- OPEN
17:54:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/776
17:54:48 <noah> close ACTION-776?
17:54:48 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-776 With help from Larry to redraft Publishing and Linking, responding to comments, for review at F2F.
17:55:28 <slightlyoff> noah: nothing else formal on the agenda, so inclination is to close the call
17:55:43 <slightlyoff> noah: adjourned! call in 2 weeks and Marcos will scribe
17:55:43 <Zakim> -Marcos
17:55:44 <Zakim> -JeniT
17:55:45 <Zakim> -Noah_Mendelsohn
17:55:47 <Zakim> -Yves
17:55:49 <Zakim> -wycats_
17:55:50 <Zakim> -annevk
17:55:50 <Zakim> -Alex
17:55:51 <Zakim> TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
17:55:51 <Zakim> Attendees were Noah_Mendelsohn, JeniT, +1.415.997.aaaa, Marcos, Yves, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.718.877.aabb, wycats_, Alex
18:14:53 <JeniT> JeniT has joined #tagmem
19:08:05 <JeniT> JeniT has joined #tagmem
19:38:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tagmem
20:45:05 <marcosc> marcosc has joined #tagmem