See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: timeless
jeff: glazou wanted to be
here
... he is speaking [elsewhere] at this time
... he requested the meeting minutes be available
promptly
... i sent the draft agenda last night, i hope people received
it
... first, i want to overview what we're trying to achieve in
this project
... the AB at the beginning of its term has tried to identify
work to do
... this year, it selected what are the most important things
to do for the year
... i put ideas into the Wiki
... but it doesn't depend on me/AB, it depends on all of
us
... what we put in/what we make out of it
... i'd like to share w/ you the relationships w/ other
efforts
... another is a dialogue i started at extensible-web
summit
... and then team, and TPAC
... the details of that are in the email i sent yesterday
... that's one perspective of how to think of core web
technologies for the future
... i view that as an input to this effort
... i'd be honored if this TF said it was a useful starting
point
... and enhanced/changed it
... another thing i'd like to call out, is another AB project,
called Multilingual W3C
... one of the other things i noted was for W3C to have a
global-slate of stakeholders
... we might deprecate that, concluding that a different AB TF
chartered 2 weeks ago, being led by key participants from
Korea+Japan
... it might be that that TF can manage that
... and thus, it may no longer need to be a focus of our work
here
... another thing, is... our capacity to take on work is
somewhat finite
... only so many people in our community/team
... a companion effort that Mike_Champion is leading
... is identifying work
... that isn't properly matching stakeholders
... and stop that work early
[ pause ]
<jeff> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_most_important
jeff: to identify
priorities
... it might make sense to identify stakeholders
... for browser vendors, they might ask what will be next
generation technologies for the core
... for companies in important vertical industries
... digPub, digEntertain, digMarket
... they might ask a different question about bringing the
total web to its full potential
... a different category is making the web more friendly for
developers
... a fourth category is making the web more friendly for end
users
... a fifth category is geographic needs/emerging areas
... next i'd like to get input of those attending
... people should say if things are valuable/waste of
time
... if people want to brainstorm, ...
[ pause ]
wseltzer: thanks jeff
... perhaps i can help kick off conversations
... Wendy Seltzer
... i work on the Technology+Privacy domain
... one of the things i see as a priority is increasing
privacy+security features of the web
... while i see it as a component of core
... sometimes it's a horizontal
... should we fit it in Core, or set up a different
category
jeff: from my perspective, Security+Privacy is definitely core
Pdanet: Pierre Danet
... as you know, the DigPub WG is working on EduPub
... education globally
... which is much more than text books, including
accessibility
... this is more than the WG, and should be a priority for the
Web/W3C
jeff: i think that's a great
idea, and thanks for your email
... if we adopt something like education, we'd need to shape
that, what problems should we work on
marcosc: from the browser
vendors' perspective
... we're interested in what is the platform missing
... things that come out of the education discussions
... if we get too focussed on a specific domain
... we risk going down -- standardizing formats
... which might be ok
... or look at it as a software platform
jeff: i see that as a fair summary
brucel: Bruce Lawson with
Opera
... i agree w/ marcosc
... looking at where the web can't compete w/ native
... wondering about the fourth category, making the web more
friendly for end users
... for me, the web being user-friendly or not is UI
... in browsers/web clients
... i don't think we should look at product differentiators
jeff: i'd agree that UI is a big
piece of the end user experience
... one could take the perspective that w/ 7 billion
people
... struggling to figure out browser sniffing/security
exceptions
... one could argue that to lead the web to its full
potential
... it would be good to not leave that to companies
... i'm not pushing hard for it
brucel: i think we agree
... "is the web private", "can i do conferencing on the
web"
... are firmly in W3C
jeff: back to wseltzer's point,
we can put all the tech we want into the core of the web
... if at the end of the data what's surfaced to end
users
... obscures what they need, or doesn't help them in edge
cases
... then we won't have a secure web
... 10-20% of security, a lot of the way security gets broken
is human-engineering
... sloppy usage/maintenance of passwords
brucel: i think we agree
jeff: in the write-up, i kind of
differentiated
... between the core web and developers
... it could be in making the APIs usable
... training sites
... caniuse
... developer training, validation service
... w3c doesn't do much in that area, just as UI is vendor
specific today
... we've done a bit, the browser vendors asked us to make
webplatform.org
... question to browser folks,
... would it be useful to look at what we can do for devs
... or focus on our core areas
Pdanet: do we receive questions/complaints from dev community?
jeff: there's a whole industry
training web developers
... i have two children who went through boot camp to be web
developers
... there's no certification to be web developers
... there appears to be work needed
... we recently had pressure to make Webizens, the name will
probably be changed
marcosc: we need to evaluate
whether webplatform.org was successful/not
... for developers to find the info they need
... the value of certification, i'm not sure
... i saw 3-4 developing for web mobile
... people learned a lot
... i still think competitively, other institutions are
doing/can do it much better
... it's there core focus
... i think we did a fantastic job
... you can look at the feedback
... but other organizations are doing it just as good as
w3c
jeff: strong interest for
core
... some interest from Pdanet for verticals
... insufficient interest for devs/users/geographic
... next, i'd like to organize subefforts
... if TF would allow it, i'd suggest breaking into
subefforts
... 1. most important efforts for core
... 2. Pdanet, i, looking into verticals
... should we enhance education on the web
... in the era of MOOC
... education is transformative
Pdanet: education for developers, is also a way to use MOOCs
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
jeff: for core, we should use
[core] on the ML
... for verticals, we should use [verticals] on the ML
... +1's/-1's to that proposal?
marcosc: my concern is looking at
MOOCs
... is the wrong focus
... how to improve education vs. platform
jeff: "what are the enhancements
to the web platform which are sufficiently general that it
would be useful for multiple applications
... but in particular are vital for applications for education
on the web"
... k12 education on web, textbooks
... creative activity on the web, more than traditional
textbooks can do
... all the way to MOOCs
<brucel> [btw, if I disappear abruptly, it's because I have to get the front door for my kids coming back from school. Not sulking or fallen out with you all.]
marcosc: concerned about too much focus on one domain
<jeff> +1 to bruce for supporting education
marcosc: but that sounds good
Pdanet: MOOCs are only an
example
... a way to educate
... we should think about what w3c should do to give to the
education community
... exercising, videos, tests, assessments, adaptive
learning
... adults, kids, teachers
marcosc: that's exactly what i'm
interested in
... 1. what doesn't the web provide today that enables the
things you described
... creating exercises, ... doing all that stuff is
particularly interested to me
... the burden of proof that the web doesn't do something
... that's on you guys
... "the web is deficient in this area"
... "this is too slow -- it doesn't matter what we do"
jeff: it's quite likely that what
can be done
... it's often a case of connecting authors of materials for
education
... to existing technologies
... it's possible we'll find unique requirements, in
education...
... people have domain specific needs
... complex Math notation in college course
... Music notation
... it's an interesting exercise
... if we come up with nothing new, at least we've organized
things
... and can share with the education community
marcosc: as an ex-academic, i'm
excited
... i'll help in any way i can
jeff: so far education focus doesn't have a technology focus in it
jeff: My proposal is that each
sub-effort should have a leader and some number of people on
the team.
... i'm happy to chair, or have someone else chair
... volunteers to chair either efforts?
marcosc: i could volunteer to chair core, but i'll be limited capacity for four months
jeff: i'm not necessarily an
expert, but i can drive a schedule
... marcosc, i'd be happy to welcome you as a cochair
... you can be a cochair for technology
RESOLUTION: jeff + marcosc will cochair Core subeffort, jeff on administrative, and marcosc on technology
jeff: chairing for education vertical?
Pdanet: i could do it, but i'm
very shy
... i'd need training/education for cochairing
RESOLUTION: jeff + Pdanet will cochair Education subeffort, jeff on administrative, and Pdanet on domain expertise
jeff: i'd further propose
... we should have two 1 hour calls
... i can send out doodle polls
... education call will probably talk about what's already been
discussed in DigPub IG
... core, i'll probably push for people to comment on App
Foundation discussion
... shred / embrace / modify
... how do people feel about using weekly calls + wiki for
communication?
... two votes for biweekly
Pdanet: i think we should schedule now
jeff: we'll need to do a doodle
poll
... glazou and others weren't available for today's call
... i'd like to use most-important ML to let people sign
up
... we'll set the times w/in the next week
jeff: probably schedule calls
through May
... nominal completion date is AC meeting in Paris
... there's a AC meeting in Tokyo along the way
... we've been talking about structure
... we could do AOB or Content
marcosc: it'd be interesting to get people's perspective about Core perspective
jeff: with bringing HTML5 to
REC
... it was an important point w/in W3C to take a step back,
look at where we are
... we're at an inflection point, what are the important
priorities for the web
... for a long time we've talked about the Gap between Native
and the Web
... too many developers are writing apps for native
platforms
... because there's something missing from the Web
... we talked internally, and then externally at extensible-web
summit
... if you put yourself in the shoes of a developer
... and your platform is Web
... it's very disorganized
... there's a lot you want, some including
usability/performance tuning/lifecycle
... we in W3C have an inside out perspective
... we focus on core tech, how to make things available to
users
... but we don't put them into the terms of how users look for
them
... from that discussion, it would be refreshing to use outside
in terminology
... "how do i get security"
... "how do i get performance"
... "how do i get device interaction"
... we're doing work on Crypto APIs
... on Service Workers for offline/application lifecycle
... we're working on streaming media/realtime
communication
... but maybe look at the needs of devs
... are we addressing them, are there additional gaps
... "app foundations" is a taxonomy to speak about core
... it allows us to sweep up existing work that's underway in
Web Standards community
... but frame it in language useful to developer
... at a TPAC breakout
... glazou pushed for User Interaction
... an example of using framework to test ideas
marcosc: sounds good in
principle
... particularly w/ the proposal of rebranding the domain areas
W3C focuses on
... your blog post
... let's refocus how we communicate
... using more developer language
... i think we need to go through the exercise
... "what does education need"
... the language used in Pedagogical setting is different
... than used in Software Development settings
... -- grouping various specs wrt the columns you've
defined
... that'd be a good step forward, we don't have that
jeff: a good question is are the
8 items in the taxonomy right
... should we reframe/add/remove?
... then inventory
... gaps
... +1000 to core subTF looking at all apps on the web
... i like the idea of one project looking at needs for
everyone
... but sometimes trying to address all problems
simultaneously
... it's nice to drill down and test assumptions, while
recognizing it's one vertical
marcosc: Q for education
subTF
... what access do we have?
... how would that work
... what software would we look at?
jeff: our ability to succeed in
that area will depend on bringing in
subject-matter-experts
... Pdanet if you're aware of stakeholders anywhere in the
world
... not necessarily in W3C, it's an open TF
... principally Authors, but also publishers
... we need that perspectives
Pdanet: of course
... but the first i'm thinking is Pearson publishing
... there's W3C members
jeff: there are probably
individual authors somewhere in the world
... but hitting problems faster than big publishers
... i think we're at a good stopping point
... i'll probably put out a summary of what we decided
(including the minutes) to the ML, and the doodle polls for the
meetings
... i think having fewer than 10 people on the call is
under-representation
... if you have friends/neighbors who'd be helpful, please
invite them to the call
... thanks for your participation
<brucel> hugs all xxx
[ Adjourned ]
<Pdanet> Bye ! Tnx
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: i/chair:/Topic: Overview of project Succeeded: s/.. a fo/... a fo/ Succeeded: s/QQ/EduPub/ Succeeded: s/+q/q+/ Succeeded: s/+q/q+/ Succeeded: s/natie/native/ Succeeded: s/+q/q+/ Succeeded: s/web/web"/ Succeeded: i/probably/topic: Overall schedule Succeeded: s/Pdanet: XXX/Pdanet: Pierre Danet/ Succeeded: s/+33.1.43.92.aaaa, // Succeeded: s/[IPcaller], // Succeeded: s/+1.416.440.aabb, // Succeeded: s/zaki, this is most// Succeeded: s/zaki, schedule?// Succeeded: s/OOO/Bruce Lawson/ Succeeded: s/It was Pierre, yes// Succeeded: i/Q for education/Topic: Attracting experts to TF Succeeded: s/Pierre_Danet?/Pierre_Danet/ Succeeded: s/Bruce_Lawson?/Bruce_Lawson/ Succeeded: s/timeless, do you know offhand which do you need from me?// Succeeded: s/PPW/Opera/ Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Default Present: Jeff, Wendy, Pierre_Danet, Bruce_Lawson, Marcos, timeless Present: Jeff Wendy Pierre_Danet Bruce_Lawson Marcos timeless Regrets: glazou Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-most-important-priorities/2014Nov/0007.html Got date from IRC log name: 14 Nov 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/14-most-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]