See also: IRC log
<Yves> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/23-agenda
<noah> JohnK, can you scribe next week please?
NM: Call next week -- AM is up to
scribe, but not here. . .
... Regrets from AM
JR: Probably not here
<johnk> it will be difficult for me to scribe or attend next week (I'll be at risk it seems)
<johnk> but I will check
NM: Working to get TBL's dates. . .
NM: YL is next
YL: I could if necessary
NM: Minutes of the 16th: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/16-minutes
... Approved
<masinter> +1 minutes are ok
JR: I read them, they're good
NM: F2F arrangements as in the past,
no local arrangements page yet
... TVR has a hard stop at 1700 each day, at which point we will
have to leave. . .
HT: I have to leave after lunch on
Thursday.
... If we could interest others from Google to be interested in
meeting, perhaps we do not have a hard stop?
NM: Outside visitor session?
HT: Yes.
JR: You do not have to agree to the
NDA in order to enter the building
... you just get a black spot on your badge
LM: I have an IRI editors' call at
1700 on Tuesday
... other TAG members would be welcome on the call
... but that would require a space at Google. . .
NM: Official action?
LM: Perhaps not. . .
NM: How best to make use of visitors'
presence?
... Silence gives consent to my proceeding with this
<masinter> of the people you mentioned, the relationship of web to ECMAscript seems to be a common topic... Javascript being an important component of WebApps
NM: Still would like to hear from anyone who has writing in progress, or could have, wrt WebApps
<noah> ACTION-463?
<trackbot> ACTION-463 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond positively to Mark Nottingham regarding meeting with Alexey at TPAC -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/463
<noah> ACTION-464?
<trackbot> ACTION-464 -- Yves Lafon to coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC -- due 2010-10-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464
YL: I spoke with Alexey, but he is headed out on vacation
NM: Mark Nottingham said Alexey was
pbly more flexible than the TAG would be
... How about Thursday p.m.?
YL: As long as we avoid the AC
NM: So it's TBL, YL, NM and LM -- YL, liaise with Amy to find a time which works for TBL?
YL: Will do
<noah> ACTION-463?
<trackbot> ACTION-463 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond positively to Mark Nottingham regarding meeting with Alexey at TPAC -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/463
<noah> close ACTION-463
<trackbot> ACTION-463 Respond positively to Mark Nottingham regarding meeting with Alexey at TPAC closed
<noah> ACTION-464?
<trackbot> ACTION-464 -- Yves Lafon to coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC -- due 2010-10-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464
<masinter> Until we have something scheduled, should this action be closed?
YL: I'm looking at other possible IETF participants
NM: Be clear that only a small part of the TAG will be there
<masinter> is there a TAG report or section at TPAC/AC meeting?
NM: There is currently no slot in either agenda as far as I know
LM: I would be uncomfortable if the
TAG never reports f2f to the AC
... not every time, but not never
NM: We got dropped around the time a
lot of pruning was done to reporting sessions
... in favour of topical sessions
LM: Repeating a written report is not necessary, but having e.g. a 15-minute Q&A session might be a good thing. . .
NM: Should I reach out to the AC agenda person(s)?
LM: We should offer to be held accountable
HST: +1
NM: Will do
<masinter> e.g., offer a 15-minute Q&A session, ask members to read TAG status and answer any questions they have about what the TAG is doing
<noah> ACTION: Noah to offer to organizers of AC to do short session answering questions and/or giving TAG status report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/23-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-469 - Offer to organizers of AC to do short session answering questions and/or giving TAG status report [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-09-30].
LM: We've talked about the
mismatch/shortfall in the coverage of the whole MIME/Web space
between W3C and IETF
... And so I wrote a 'personal submission' to the IETF to get
something started which both groups could endorse
... Four questions:
1) 1) does the document make sense?
2) Is it missing anything?
3) Do you agree with the analysis of current state?
4) Do you agree with the recommendations for future action?
NM: : 5) Will the TAG stand up and back this?
<masinter> right
LM: And maybe will the TAG publish this as its own?
[Not all TAG members on the call have read the document]
NM: Q1: Does the document make sense?
LM: Or, what parts don't?
JK: I only knew what has happened, as
it were, since the transfer to the Web of the mime system. So I
found the background helpful
... but still not sure where we go from here. . .
... Is your goal to address the problems which arose as a result of
the move?
LM: The doc't builds towards section
6, where in particular it says to add info to the registration
process which the Web needs, which the email environment
didn't
... and then more suggestions about W3C's place in the reg.
process, and about sniffing
JK: I like the sound of that
NM: I like this a lot, at the high
level that I have reviewed it
... Making clear that we're headed for chapter 6 early on would
help
... I found the section on polyglot a bit unclear, without
necessarily disagreeing
... "treated as two different mime types" -- what is meant by
'document' in that case?
<johnk> specific comment: I'd like to see "prompt an evolution..." in the introduction note that the suggested evolution is written as specific recommendations in section 6
NM: On versioning and forking, as it
stands this one is a bit too unaware of the tarpits here---we need to
clarify what's uncontroversial and what is more speculative in this
section
... In section 6, you often are a bit too elliptical---some of the
recommendations need to be expressed at somewhat greater
length
... to avoid misunderstanding
LM: A bit rough, was expecting controversy
NM: Fine, most important then to be as crisp as possible
<masinter> Section 6 is really rough, i was just trying to evoke things we might do.... it's certainly rough
LM: Looking for help here, for sure
<masinter> specific comments on what is unclear would help me a lot
NM: Editorial work could reduce the
risk of thrashing from misunderstandings
... An excellent start
<jar> masinter, noah said in particular that "Allow commenting or easier update" was unclear (e.g.)
YL: Adam Barth's draft 05 is the origin of the baked-in list problem
LM: Do you like the proposal?
YL: I think having a single place
where sniffing is described is good
... Lists will need to be kept up-to-date
... Doing that via the mime type registry might well be a good way
to do that
NM: Anything else?
<masinter> are you willing to consider action 5: make this a TAG submission rather than an individual one?
<Yves> I agree with that
NM: Can we revisit this next week? -- yes, so please read it in detail by next week.
<johnk> I'm happy to spend time on this
NM: I read the situation as TAG agreeing to pursue that, without prejudice as to the outcome
<jar> +1
LM: Good -- I don't feel a strong sense of ownership -- what I want most is for this to go forward, with TAG help
<noah> ACTION-467?
<trackbot> ACTION-467 -- Larry Masinter to revise Mime & Web blog entry, perhaps leading to Internet Draft -- due 2010-09-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/467
<noah> close ACTION-467
<trackbot> ACTION-467 Revise Mime & Web blog entry, perhaps leading to Internet Draft closed
<noah> ACTION-458
<noah> ACTION-458?
<trackbot> ACTION-458 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities -- due 2010-09-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458
<noah> ACTION-458?
<trackbot> ACTION-458 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities -- due 2010-09-28 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458
ACTION-460?
<trackbot> ACTION-460 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on privacy policy -- due 2010-09-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/460
NM: This meeting is scheduled for 8,9
December in Cambridge MA
... HST queried whether we should approximate the next TAG f2f to
that meeting
... It is a little close to our October and TPAC meetings
HST: I think we don't have enough people here today
NM: I am interested in attending the workshop
<noah> ACTION: Noah to ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/23-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-470 - Ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-09-30].
<jar> Dan is already involved...
NM: I'm inclined to ask Thomas
Roessler what kind of TAG involvement he would like
... We'll talk about f2f scheduling at the f2f
NM: See thread in www-tag
... Using local storage for more persistent cookies
... was being done ad-hoc, now the Evercookie library automates
this
... which works hard to preserve itself
<jar> it was very clear that the purpose was to raise an alarm.
LM: This cuts across webarch
... there's no simple fix
NM: We are writing about good
practice
... for webapps
... including privacy and client-side storage
... and had noted some confusion between cookies and client-side
storage
... So we could push for some good practice in this area
... Clear cookies, user says sure, clear storage -- oh no, that's
my email
JK: That's the problem, these are generic mechanisms, it's hard to see how a UA could offer anything appropriately targetted
NM: You could ask "Do you want to delete storage from site: xxx"
<masinter> there are several parts of what it takes to actually use the web & support it that might not be part of web architecture as originally designed, and that retrofitting them is difficult; phishing, for example, attacks something that was never directly part of what we thought was "web architecture"
LM: Note that "Delete my history" is
not currently part of any spec or recommendation
... it's just something that browsers do
NM: Indeed, Web Apps can go places we haven't gone before
LM: Phishing is another example --
where the exploit does involve some aspects of Web Arch
... there is no where that specifies that UAs should show you where
you are in non-spoofable ways
HST: I don't think we've ever said "UAs should show you where you are" in so many words, at all???
<masinter> there's probably a lot more things like this
<jar> what are the requirements for the web?
HST: AM is going to include something about this in his paper on client-side storage for the F2F
HST: I worry about calling for an
arms race. Could happen whether we do or don't, but it's a
worry.
... Client-side stored material is used for so many different
things. Making the evercookie look like email, for example, is
going to make it hard for browsers to do the right thing.
Impossible task.
NM: Yes, maybe we just need the press to do this for us by raising the alarm
<jar> Secure Information Flow Analysis ??
YL: Studying all the ways Client-side storage is happening is a good idea independently of the Evercoookie issue
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
<noah> ACTION-416?
<trackbot> ACTION-416 -- John Kemp to work on diagrams in "From Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/416
<jar> action-416 due 2010-10-11
<trackbot> ACTION-416 Work on diagrams in "From Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material due date now 2010-10-11
<noah> action-417 due 2010-10-11
<trackbot> ACTION-417 Frame section 7, security due date now 2010-10-11
<noah> ACTION-280?
<trackbot> ACTION-280 -- John Kemp to (with John K) to enumerate some CSRF scenarios discussed in Jun in Cambridge -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/280
<noah> action-280 due 2010-10-11
<trackbot> ACTION-280 (with John K) to enumerate some CSRF scenarios discussed in Jun in Cambridge due date now 2010-10-11
<noah> action-341?
<trackbot> ACTION-341 -- Yves Lafon to follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/341
<noah> ACTION-341 due 2010-11-15
<trackbot> ACTION-341 Follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 due date now 2010-11-15
<noah> ACTION0404?
<noah> ACTION-404?
<trackbot> ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership -- due 2010-09-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404
<Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0043.html
<noah> NM: Discuss in email?
<masinter> action-379?
<trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML language reference has been published -- due 2010-09-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379
<Yves> action-404 due 2010-12-02
<trackbot> ACTION-404 Track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership due date now 2010-12-02
<noah> ACTION-379?
<trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check whether HTML language reference has been published -- due 2010-09-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379
<johnk> bad cell zone.... I dropped off
<masinter> question is whether http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ meets the original requirements from TAG discussion
NM: Propose to close this . . .
<jar> Aug 19 "On 19 August call, members weren't clear on level of commitment to author-spec. Noah needs to chase down references."
LM: The TAG asked for something, there's a document, does it do what we want?
HST: No
NM: The action was smaller than that -- just to check that it would really be taken further
HST: OK, so, I don't think you get off the hook until they publish as a REC
LM: And, when there's a Last Call on this document, we should evaluate whether it meets the requirements
<jar> scribenick: jar
noah: OK, let's keep it open until their Last Call (or other precipitating event)
<noah> ACTION-429 due 2010-10-15
<trackbot> ACTION-429 Work on arrangements for a TAG F2F, probably @ Google early Oct (self-assigned) due date now 2010-10-15
<noah> ACTION-449?
<trackbot> ACTION-449 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449
<noah> ACTION-453?
<trackbot> ACTION-453 -- Noah Mendelsohn to let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns. -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/453
<noah> ACTION-466?
<trackbot> ACTION-466 -- Larry Masinter to ask Norm, Roy and Martin for concrete use cases where generic processing of fragment ids is important -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/466
masinter has 466 on this topic; it's pending review
<noah> close ACTION-453
<trackbot> ACTION-453 Let 3023bis folks know that we are aiming to resolve generic processing concerns in Sept, after Larry returns. closed
<noah> ACTION-449?
<trackbot> ACTION-449 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/449
noah: propose to close the other two, 453 and 449
<noah> close action-449
<trackbot> ACTION-449 Schedule discussion of pushback on generic handling of fragment IDs in application/xxx+xml media types (self-assigned) closed
masinter: i used wrong action number
in email, so it didn't get linked, sorry
... please look at resolution of 466
noah: Do you want discussion next week?
masinter: If no response, nothing to discuss. If response, maybe something to discuss.
ADJOURNED