W3C | TAG | Previous: (Telcon) Prev: 12th March Next: 19 March 2009

Agenda of 26 March 2009 TAG teleconference

Nearby: Teleconference details - issues list and Issue Tracker (handling new issues) - www-tag archive - tag archive

1. Convene
   • Chair: Noah, Scribe: Henry (confirmed)
   • Roll call -- Regrets: Larry
   • Note future regrets: Larry (26 March)
   • Agenda Review - this agenda
   • Next Telcon: Propose 2 April 2009; Chair: Noah; Scribe: Larry
   • Future scribes: Larry > Jonathan > Dan > Ashok
2. Approval of Minutes from previous telcon
   • 12th March 2009
3. Administrative items (Brief)
   • We are still awaiting draft minutes for 4 March 2009 (Wed. F2F session)
   • WBS Survey on proposed 2-6 November 2009 W3C Technical Plenary (TPAC) (W3C member only) to be held in Santa Clara, CA.
     • Recent tradition is that those TAG members who are at TPAC anyway meet for a half day Monday, and a half day Friday, and we also attempt to make ourselves available to other working groups on a best effort basis during the week. Typically we do not have a quorum and thus don't make binding decisions. Do we want to continue the tradition at the November 2009 TPAC? Would anyone prefer attempting a more formal TAG meeting at TPAC?
     • Note that the W3C team is still deciding whether to hold the TPAC as proposed, or perhaps at some other place and time, or perhaps not at all.
     • Survey response is due from the chair by 2 April 2009. We should indicate whether we expect to attend, likely number of attendees, etc.
   • Reminder that chair has sent a summary of materials relating to TAG priorities and a request that the next round of discussions of goals and priorities be done using email, starting now.
4. HTML
   • Background:
     • Proposals from W3C team (W3C member-only — see subsection labeled 'Relation of HTML to XHTML2 and XForms')
     • Request from Larry and request from T.V. Raman(member-only) that we schedule this discussion soon.
     • Detailed discussion of this topic on the previous TAG teleconference.
     • New: Discussion of HTML at just completed W3C Advisory Committee meeting.
     • New: Dan Connolly and Michael Sperberg-McQueen draft Web addresses in HTML 5, which is factored from the HTML t draft. (see email from Dan announcing the draft). This seems also to relate to ACTION-188 on Dan Connolly: Investigate the URL/IRI/Larry Masinter possible resolution of the URL/HTML5 issue. - due 2009-03-17 - open.
   • Goals:
     • There were some very interesting discussions of HTML and XHTML at the just completed W3C Advisory Committee Meeting. Those who were there will briefly review those discussions, for the benefit of TAG members who were not present.
     • Decide whether to close ACTION-188.
5. webApplicationState-60 (ISSUE-60): Web Application State Management
   • Background:
     • Note: the version of the agenda used for the meeting had the wrong reference, which cause confusion at the start of discussion:
       • SHOULD HAVE REFERENCED: Draft TAG findining Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters (Version: 20 March 2008)
       • ACCIDENTALLY REFERENCED INSTEAD: Draft TAG findining State in Web application design (Version: 19 April 2006)
     • Request from T.V. Raman that we publish this as a W3C Working Draft.
     • The following actions are open or pending review for ISSUE-60:
       • ACTION-193 on Dan Connolly to Try to draft a blog posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, with help from TVR - due 2009-02-25, pending review
       • ACTION-234 on John Kemp to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication - due 2009-03-11, pending review
       • ACTION-247 on to Noah to schedule followup on Raman proposal: publish issue 60 draft - due 2009-03-24, pending review
       • ACTION-235 on Ashok Malhotra to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication - due 2009-03-11, open
   • Goals:
     • Decide whether to publish a W3C working draft.
     • Review status of actions.
     • Consider whether there is other work to be scheduled now, or whether we should await reaction to the WD.
6. CURIEs in RDFa, @rel, and the HTML profile attribute
   • Background:
     • The TAG been asked to help resolve concerns with the use of CURIEs in RDFa and with the HTML profile attribute.
     • See also athe very long email thread that began with an email message from Mark Nottingham to www-tag titled "Using XMLNS in link/@rel", which in turn led to a message to the public-html list from Julian Reschke titled @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel. The long thread starts with that; early messages in the thread were not cross-posted to www-tag, but later ones were (starting with this one).
   • Goals:
     • Review www-tag discussion of this issue
     • Decide what steps, if any, the TAG wants to take to help the community resolve these concerns.
7. contentTypeOverride-24 (ISSUE-24):
   • Background:
     • Dan Connolly suggests that we discuss the draft Content-Type Processing Model, by Ian Hickson and Adam Barth; the draft proposes interoperable rules for Content-type "sniffing" in browsers. Note that the draft acknowledges at one point that it is in "... willful violation of the HTTP specification. [RFC2616]".
   • Goals:
     • Decide whether TAG wants to respond to the Content-Type Processing Model draft.
8. XMLVersioning-41 (ISSUE-41).
   • Background:
     • The TAG had earlier decided not to actively pursue development of the finding on versioning.
     • HTML working group action 108 requests that the TAG consider HTML when working on versioning
     • See thread starting with John Kemp email on updating AWWW good practice note on versioning
     • At 23 March 2009 AC meeting there was at least an informal sense that the AC wanted the TAG to help with the extensibility issue, primarily in the context of HTML. Tim took an action (from the AC, not the TAG) to see that the TAG takes a look at this.
     • The following actions are open under ISSUE-41, but the chair proposes not to discuss them in detail on this call:
       • ACTION-183 (David Orchard) Incorporate formalism into versioning compatibility strategies. Due 3 March 2009.
       • ACTION-229 (Noah Mendelsohn) Noah to respond to John Kemp proposal of Feb 17 on versioning. Due 13 March 2009.
   • Goals:
     • Decide whether, given the background referenced above, we want to again work actively on versioning, and if so, with what specific goals.
9. Pending Review Items:
   • Pending review actions in Tracker
10. Overdue Action Items:
    • Overdue actions in Tracker
11. Any other business