See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
Regrets from JK, JR and Tim
Next calls: Aug 6 and 13
Noah: Larry, can you scribe on 8/6?
LM: Yes, if need be
<DanC> Date: 2009/07/21 19:39:15 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-minutes.html 2009/07/21 20:50:04 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/24-minutes.html 2009/07/21 22:17:44 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/25-minutes.html
<noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes for June 23-25 f2f approved w/o objection.
Noah: Asks about end-date for Calls for Exclusions
Dan: Ends Oct 22
Noah: Reminds people of future meetings
Sept 23-25, TPAC Nov 2-6, Dec 8-10
<noah> DC: Tech plenary program committee is forming
Dan: Asks about TPAC committee
... if you have nominations talk to Ralph Swick
Noah: I have organized agenda around the 3 major themes
... we will discuss action items and have technical discussions as needed.
Re. Action 283:
LM: I have not done that
<DanC> ACTION-283 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-283 Update document on version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion due date now next week
LM: let's postpone by one week
LM: Delay a bit.
... HT has assigned sections to people to review
... Let's withdraw 287. We will figure out reviews as needed
<DanC> ACTION-287: we'll figure out where these issues fit in the course of review
<trackbot> ACTION-287 Schedule telcon time for Larry to walk us through a few short sections of HTML 5 document notes added
<DanC> close ACTION-287
<trackbot> ACTION-287 Schedule telcon time for Larry to walk us through a few short sections of HTML 5 document closed
Henry proposes division in above mail
HT: I broke up sections to get to right granularity and tried to make sure everyone got about the same number of pages
... everything gets read once most get read twice
... just a suggestion to get us started
<DanC> (it works quite well for me)
HT: I have no investment in this. Happy to modify
Noah: Surprised me a liitle in terms of amount of reading
... but once I started worked well.
DC: Seems good
... we will run into issue of overlap with other specs
LM: More concerned with robustness principles
... emphasises what you shd accept rather than what/how you create material
Noah: I suggest we withhold judgement till we do the readings
... lets go read and then discuss
LM: There have been comments on general issues which seem like interesting architectural perspectives
... you may want to keep claims made by others in mind
... Look at spec and look for examples of what people have commented on.
... Where things are specified algorithmically rather than constraints on results
... and things not required in the spec
... New note today:
<masinter> and discussion around it
Noah: Helping the HTML effort succeed is one of our big themes ... so we should look for how to do that
TVR: Depends on your definition of success.
... HTML folks may say "stay our of our way"
Noah: No, they have listened to us
... so we shd discuss what success would mean
... Thinks about schedule
... is end of Aug too late?
HT: That's what it has to be for me
Noah: Asks about Last Call
<DanC> See http://www.whatwg.org/issues/data.html w.r.t. last call
Dan: Look at graph above ... trending towrads zero in next month or two. Started 2 yrs ago
... This is Ian Hicksons view
... supports an Oct Last Call
Noah: Hixie sent an authoring spec
<DanC> DanC: Ian Hickson's count of issues is trending toward 0, but the WG has another issues list that doesn't have much momentum
<noah> One of 3 things better be true:
<noah> 1) Authoring spec looks good on the first try
<noah> 2) Authoring spec isn't so good, but we don't care that the HTML 5 spec in its current from, so it's OK for the HTML 5 browser spec to head out to last call
<noah> 3) Authoring spec isn't looking so good, and we said the core spec would be a base for the authoring spec, so we need to slow down and make sure what we're taking to last call is indeed a good base for authoring
<noah> I'm not predjudging which is the case, but timing suggests it better be (1) or (2) because we're not leaving room for (3).
Noah: This is going to Last Call in Oct. We cannot finish reading till end-August.
... we could push back on Last Call
HT: No problem. Last Call is when we can comment
Noah: Shall I ask TAG members to complete reading by end-August?
Dan and HT: Checking Tim's schedule
Dan: End August is good
... someone should reach Tim by phone
Noah: I will do that
<noah> ACTION: noah to tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Tell Tim about HTML Reading plan [trivial] [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-30].
Noah: We are agreed that everyone will have their reading done by end-August
Noah: We agreed this would be one of our focus areas
... Summarizes that status of this item.
... (Aside) I need to create a TAG Report... I will start on this and send to folks for review
Re: Action 264
Ashok: Done. Close it.
Re. Action 273
<DanC> close action-264
<trackbot> ACTION-264 Draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy closed
Noah: Change due date to August 4
<trackbot> ACTION-264 -- Ashok Malhotra to draft agenda item for upcoming telcon discussion of geolocation and privacy -- due 2009-08-04 -- OPEN
Ashok: There is a Last Call for the GeoLocation API spec. This punts privacy to the implementations
... I think this is a concern.
... wanted to point this out to the TAG
<noah> The question is, should we review: http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/
Ashok: I think TAG should review the GeoLocation API spec
<noah> NM: What do other TAG members think?
LM: I will discuss draft at IETF mtg. I will know more after that
NM: We have a week to respond
Dan: Suggest Noah quote para in AM's mail and send mail to WG saying we will comment
<masinter> I would like to tell them we're going to discuss it
Noah: I will say "we have receieved this. This is summer. I will point to para and say we may have comments on this."
<masinter> My concern is whether there is an architectural mismatch between IETF and W3C architecture for geographic information.
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to write to Geolocation WG saying "we have concern that the spec does not say enough about user privacy" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-290 - Write to Geolocation WG saying "we have concern that the spec does not say enough user privacy" [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-30].
LM: Explains his concern: IETF is looking at related issues for the Web and we want to understand their impact
<trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Ashok Malhotra to carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and LM -- due 2009-06-15 -- OPEN
<masinter> Concern is about architectural coherence, of which user privacy is an example technical issue
Re: Action 273.
Noah: Shall we leave open?
... it is a big theme. We have a draft TOC.
<DanC> ACTION-273 due 11 Aug
<trackbot> ACTION-273 Carry forward framing issues around Archicture of APIs, with help from JK and LM due date now 11 Aug
Noah: AM can you act as shepherd on the issue?
... LM, JK and AM will be shepherds.
... Next due date Aug 11
Re: Action 275:
Dan: I talked with Phillipe and Matt Womer. They said IETF has an architecture but deployment is sparse.
LM: I think it is a policy issue
... that it is not deployed, we should not have a policy
<raman> Sir Humphrey: the administration of the policy of administration vs the policy of the administration of policy:-)
Dan: IETF has proposed just policy but mechanism. W3C spec has policy not mechanism.
Ashok as scribe: I don't think I got the above line correctly.
<masinter> The IETF has a policy that user privacy preferences should be transmitted with user location, and has also endorsed a mechanism for accomplishing that policy
<DanC> to some extent, anyway
<DanC> " A conforming
<DanC> implementation of this specification must provide a mechanism that
<DanC> protects the user's privacy and this mechanism should ensure that no location information is made available without the user's express permission.
<masinter> The W3C specification does not implement the mechanism, but also does not provide any other mechanism for accomplishing the IETF policy
<noah> AM: I disagree. The W3C spec hasn't any policy. The implementation should handle privacy.
<noah> DC: No, "MUST" handle, and that IS a policy
<ht> I want to remind myself when we come back to action 279 that a) Safari/WebKit(maybe) and Mozilla will shortly ship CORS support but that b) There has been essentially no response to a large set of detailed set of security issues raised by Frederick Hirsch on 30 June
LM: W3C has no mechanism that would provide policy
Dan: Deployed implementations do have some policies
<masinter> IETF policy is that all mechanisms for transmission of user location should also include a mechanism for transmitting privacy preferences
<masinter> I should amend what I'm saying is: this is what the concern is, and what we should investigate
<masinter> and the nature of what we should discuss
Re. Action 275
Dan: Kill the action
<DanC> kill as in declare victory
Re. Action 276
<DanC> close action-275
<trackbot> ACTION-275 Propose concrete steps wrt GeoPriv after consultion with W3C members/staff closed
<DanC> action-276 due 4 Aug
<trackbot> ACTION-276 Take GeoPriv discussion with IETF forward in person in July due date now 4 Aug
LM: I will report back in 2 weeks. Chg due date to Aug 4
<DanC> ACTION-278 due 4 Aug
<trackbot> ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case due date now 4 Aug
Re. Action 278
Re. Action 279
<DanC> <ht> I want to remind myself when we come back to action 279 that a) Safari/WebKit(maybe) and Mozilla will shortly ship CORS support but that b) There has been essentially no response to a large set of detailed set of security issues raised by Frederick Hirsch on 30 June
NM: HT did this. This is pending review. Can we close
<noah> DC: But, is there different action.
<noah> ACTION-279 CLOSE
Dan: Close this but is there another action that shd arise
<noah> CLOSE ACTION-279
<trackbot> ACTION-279 Draft a message to webapps chairs relaying TAG concerns around CORS closed
NM: Shd we discuss in more detail on 8/6?
<noah> Henry, you there?
<noah> Can we give you new action to plan followup on lack of response on CORS?
Noah: What if we assign new action to HT to help decide what to do in face of lack of response
<scribe> ACTION: noah to follow up with HT re Action 279 next steps [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/07/23-minutes#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Follw up with HT re Action 279 next steps [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-07-30].
Re. Action 280
<DanC> ACTION-280 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-280 (with John K) to enumerate some CSRF scenarios discussed in Jun in Cambridge due date now next week
Dan: No progress. New date
Re. Action 284
Noah: Make 284 due on Aug 25
<noah> ACTION-284 DUE 25 Aug
<trackbot> ACTION-284 Flesh out the Web Application (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html) outline with as many sentences as he can due date now 25 Au