See also: IRC log
<wycats_> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg02131.html
<slightlyoff> heya
<slightlyoff> on the way in
<slightlyoff> calling in now
<wycats_> congrats!
<slightlyoff> congrats!
<wycats_> plinss: Have people reviewed the Push API
<wycats_> wycats_: I have not
<wycats_> slightlyoff: can we talk about it next week?
<wycats_> plinss: let's defer until next week
<slightlyoff> apologies...I feel terrible about deferring
<wycats_> plinss: wycats posted a link
<slightlyoff> (will try to scribe)
<slightlyoff> wycats_: we haven't done anything different with 404 than we normally do
<slightlyoff> wycats_: and it's not more closed
<slightlyoff> wycats_: they don't like the process...but it's trending towards suggesting a chagne to the process
<slightlyoff> wycats_: it's probelmatic that IETF is saying they won't ever normatively reference "outside" specs
<wycats_> specifically TC39 specs
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: if I were working in IETF, I'd have seen 404 as having been rushed through and ECMA as as pay-to-play org
<dka> Could TC39 address the issues raised in some other way?
<dka> I.e. guarantee a "frozen" version of ECMA-404 at a specific URL?
<slightlyoff> wycats_: there was already a JSON grammar in ECMA
<slightlyoff> wycats_: we're trying to find out why IETF wouldn't reference that
<slightlyoff> wycats_: they found the previous embedding in ECMA-262 too conjoined iwth other stuff
<slightlyoff> wycats_: hence pulling it out into it's own spec (404)
<slightlyoff> wycats_: my broader concern here is that ECMA is the entity respoinsible for JavaScript, and it's problematic that the ECMA work product isn't sufficient for IETF's needs
<dka> It seems there are two issues here - one is aligning the IETF spec with ECMA-404 and the other is establishing the normative reference. Could we separate these two issues?
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: the problem may have been latent, and in areas with more clear ownership, it might not be a practical issue
<slightlyoff> wycats_: the first issue isn't there (Re: dka), they brought it into alignment
<slightlyoff> dka: we could give them back some positive re-enforcement about the identified incompatibilities
<slightlyoff> (solving them)
<slightlyoff> wycats_: +1
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: +1
<slightlyoff> wycats_: the thing that TC39 was concerned about was the drift over time
<slightlyoff> wycats_: in particular, if IETF doesn't treat the ECMA work-product as a normative standard
<slightlyoff> wycats_: we want them to be in sync
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: my goal is alignment
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: everyone has a reason to distrust the "other side" until they get better information
<slightlyoff> wycats_: we've got a better set of incentives than that in ECMA
<dka> Can I suggest that we "capture" this as an issue and we agree to work on a number of fronts to strengthen the relationship between IETF groups, the TAG and TC-39?
<slightlyoff> wycats_: the back-compat guarantees create an iron-clad reason for 404 not to change
<ht> I've never heard IETF suggest that referencing IEEE specs is bogus
<dka> for example - PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the TAG is happy with the progress made on aligning the IETF JSON spec. In addition, we would like to see a stronger normative reference between IETF JSON and ECMA-404 and we will work towards making this and future similar cross-SDO specs work more smoothly... [or something...]
<ht> And IEEE is for sure a pay-to-play organisation
<slightlyoff> wycats_: I'm concerned about web standards referencing the IETF spec without the normative ref to ECMA spec
<slightlyoff> wycats_: concerned about Apple's spec ref-ing the IETF spec
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: I want to get everyone to agree...wycats_, is your goal broader? to discourage ref's to the IETF spec?
<slightlyoff> wycats_: no, not so long as the iETF is a pass-through to the 404 grammar
<slightlyoff> slightlyoff: ok, I see
<wycats_> iETF is Apple's version of IETF? :P
<slightlyoff> hah
<slightlyoff> you're welcome to scribe ;-)
<wycats_> RESOLVED: the TAG is happy with the progress made on aligning the IETF JSON spec. In addition, we would like to see a stronger normative reference between IETF JSON and ECMA-404 and we will work towards making this and future similar cross-SDO specs work more smoothly.
<slightlyoff> sorry 'bout that...can continue on IRC
<slightlyoff> will try to call back in
<wycats_> dka: In terms of the developer meetup, I've been working on two possibilities
<wycats_> ... (1) The Google campus, which is close to our meeting space
<wycats_> ... we need confirmation that we can use it
<wycats_> ... (2) Backup Plan: We can hold the event at the GSMA offices
<wycats_> ... which aren't exactly walking distance to ODI, but close enough
<wycats_> ... if it's at Google it'll be the evening of the 7th
<wycats_> ... otherwise, possibly the 8th
<wycats_> ... I've been working on a venue for developer Q&A
<wycats_> plinss: are we locked down on dates?
<wycats_> dka: yes
<wycats_> dka: as far as I know we're still a go for ODI
<wycats_> ... Jeni took an action to do a logistics page
<wycats_> dka: Anne had reached out to people
<slightlyoff> Zakim: ? is me
<wycats_> ... the date would be the Friday the 4th of April
<wycats_> ... but we still don't have a venue
<slightlyoff> Zakim: aabb is me
<wycats_> ... I need to find out from Anne if he got any feedback from the people he reached out to
<wycats_> ... hopefully we can come up with some backup plans
<slightlyoff> aaaahhhh...I like this = )
<wycats_> ... the idea is to do a day-long developer "Extensible Web Summit"
<slightlyoff> good name = )
<wycats_> ... get library authors together with spec authors
<wycats_> ... we just need a venue and catering
<slightlyoff> and this is in SF?
<slightlyoff> I can see what Google can do, although large-ish facilities at Google for day-long things are hard to come by
<slightlyoff> yes, I did
<slightlyoff> do need to
<wycats_> wycats_: was there any progress on removing app store dependencies from the device API specs?
<slightlyoff> also, we had a long conversation about zip URLs
<wycats_> dka: yep... we'll discuss it next week
<slightlyoff> which we didn't do anything about
<slightlyoff> yes, got the email
<wycats_> slightlyoff: confirm
<slightlyoff> sorry to have not replied yet
<slightlyoff> I'm burned by the promises thing = (
<wycats_> slightlyoff: I need to make the gist public
<slightlyoff> I can make it public
<slightlyoff> ooooh
<slightlyoff> no worries
<slightlyoff> there wasn't much/anything htere
<slightlyoff> thanks!
<slightlyoff> later