Technical Architecture Group Teleconference -- 28 Jan 2010

<DanC> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 28 January 2010

<jar> Scribe: Larry Masinter

<jar> scribenick: masinter

DanA is opitional, regrets from Tim

noah notes his tag work is backing up, tempted to cancel, but hoping John can scribe and leaving meeting schedule

approval of minutes from 21st

minutes of 21st are approved

<DanC> to wit http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes

administrative items

Noah: prioritizing agenda: good news in that there is work happening. difficulty getting balance
... request: active in any discussion? please step up and moderate discussion to reach conclusion, summarize different positions, etc.

W3C TAG position on policy mechanisms for Web APIs and Services

<noah> Email from Frederick Hirsch: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0014.html

<noah> The DAP WG is only beginning to consider the privacy topic and would

<noah> appreciate all help it can obtain from anyone that can help us

<noah> achieve a good practical result in a reasonable time. Our initial

<noah> starting point will be to examine the decision of the Geolocation

<noah> Working Group in more detail.

<noah> [...describes a proposa...]

<noah> While we intend to look at each of the assertions made in that

<noah> resolution and see if and how they would apply to our own set of

<noah> APIs, we would very much welcome the TAG�s perspective on that

<noah> resolution

<noah> LMM: There was significant unhappiness with geolocation resolution, and I think we should say it's not a good precedent.

<noah> DAK: As a member of that WG, not sure I can concur

<noah> LM: Don't concur there was unhappiness?

<noah> Noah things LM meant "the TAG was unhappy"

<noah> LM: There was a letter from IETF, and formal objections from Cisco and Center for Privacy and Freedom

<noah> Did I scribe that right?

<DanC> no

<noah> DAK: I spoke to the area director for IETF recently.

<DanC> "the TAG was unhappy" needs a pointer to records. I'm pretty sure the TAG hasn't decided anything in this space

<noah> Right, Dan. My recollection is that we had discussion of the unhappiness of TAG members. I also think we did send an email, but not sure "unhappiness" quite characterizes what that email said. Can't find reference now. Can anyone?

dka: there was a meeting. The browser vendors, Google, and our (whose?) opinions were that it was inappropriate things to put privacy hooks into the API
... the input from the EFP and GeoPriv working group was taken very seriously by the group chairs, and there was a lot of text put into the document. I wasn't a direct participant but I was mentoring someone who was, and my understanding was there was a lot of outreach. Still we still got a formal objection.

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask whether this decision predates those objections

dka: i think it was last call, and it was not a single decision

(discussion about chronology)

danc: decision in the GeoLocation working group resolution

<jar> danc: Did the Geolocation decision (see the email we've been reading) come before the IETF letter, or vice versa?

<noah> DC: Trying to figure out if the asserted "unhappiness" is cause or effect

<DanC> I concur with "don't generalize"

What i am trying to say is that the GeoLocation decision was reached after much discussion which seemed to be localized to a single decision about a single API to access a single bit of information: geographic location. Because this was so finely argued and the compromise reached after much discussion and contextualized, the Device API working group should not use this decision as a precedent.

<noah> Larry mentioned this note from me: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0102.html , agreed with reasons why issues for Geolocation may not generalize, even if we posit that the geolocation solution was OK for that.

dka: there was some politics around the responses

<Zakim> noah, you wanted to get back to Frederick's request

danc: Frederick Hirsch seems to be happy with the email exchange, are we done?

noah: gets back to question. His note says:

<noah> From Frederick's note:

<noah> Our initial

<noah> starting point will be to examine the decision of the Geolocation

<noah> Working Group in more detail. This decision was *not* to include

<noah> privacy rules as part of the API. That decision is documented with

<noah> the following Geolocation WG resolution:

noah: what he's saying that we're taking this as a possible starting point. Some of us weighed in and the TAG discussed it.
... we could more formally say something as the TAG, given the concerns, the TAG wishes to signal real reservations

<noah> LM: I spent two hoursin IETF meeting in Stockholm with IETF area directors and WG chairs. Their concern was that a compromise may have been reached, but that was not a good prededent.

<DanC> (Noah, is what you're saying in your msg? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0046.html )

noah: I have suggested several times: if you're not going to put it in the API, show that your API has sufficient extensibility mechanism, possibly those that allow you to decide whether extensions are present.... and show how this can be used. (noah explains details of how this can be written, not able to scribe but remember Noah's email)

naoh: I'm unhappy to have the document not at least talk about that

<Zakim> noah, you wanted to discuss technical solution

dka: on the issue of what we tell Frederick, it's appropriate to say that you should not take this as a precedent. There are some specific technical reservations that Google, Opera and Mozilla have to the kind of approach that Noah is suggesting, that essentially boil down to something that is non-enforcable

noah: worth nothing, but shouldn't resolve this

<DanC> (stronger than "not enforceable"; as I recall, it was "misleading")

noah: ask DanA with help from Larry to draft a short response that you think the TAG should send.

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to try "Don't take it as precedent" today

larry: agrees to review what DKA writes

<DanC> trackbot, status?

<scribe> ACTION: Daniel to draft response to Fredrick, short and to the point. Larry to review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Draft response to Fredrick, short and to the point. Larry to review. [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-02-04].

note: Daniel in tracker is DKA

ACTION-351: Workshop on persistence

ht: We've been talking off and on since last summer's F2F about persistent domain names as one component of the reservations people have about using URIs for persistent identifiers
... 100 years for now if W3C doesn't exist and MIT screws up, we've discussed many solutions, including new IANA top level domain, or creating some public body to insure the persistence of these domain names. At our discussion in December consensus was we shouldn't take this on, and that we should hold a workshop.
... have spoken to director of Digital Curation Center

<DanC> Digital Curation Centre

ht: might be in June

<noah> I believe Henry said DCC as @ University of Edinburgh

ht: procedural question

<noah> What does sponsoring involve? Money? Our good name?

ht: do we agree to sponsoring such a workshop
... and colocate a TAG meeting in Edinburgh in June

noah: might have difficulty with late June

(discussion about scheduling and conflict)

<ht> in Edinburgh

<noah> and a TAG meeting before or after.

<amy> ok

<amy> TAG1?

<DKA> I'm happy with Edinburgh in June.

noah explains to Amy scheduling issues

<DKA> ...or I would be happy to host the TAG meeting in London around this time as well...

http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/program.html

<DanC> workshp should be at least 1.5 days

<scribe> (continued discussion of scheduling)

<noah> LM: I would argue against this as a priority

noah: could be independent of having a TAG meeting at all

<jar> The TAG doesn't need to be involved, but it ought to be

noah: you asked that we 'sponsor' this?

ht: be one of the two organizations that is holding the meeting

larry: I wonder about XRI and persistence as another constituency

noah: change action back to open with new due dates

danc: wants this to be W3C workshop and not TAG
... stop discussion for now

ht: let's talk about this offline (to DanC)

larry: I'm not interested enough to do more as TAG

authoritative metadata

JK not here, moving on

Item 7

<ht> HST has updated http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/351

TAG Contributions to W3C Web Site

<noah> Ian sent a note asking if TAG want to contribute to new W3C Web Site content:

<noah> "Another of the 7 areas is "Web Architecture" [3]. We've not yet had

<noah> the opportunity to flesh out the

<noah> introduction pages that are linked from there. Right now, the titles

<noah> of those intros (drawn from Webarch,

<noah> "

<noah> Architecture Principles

<noah> Identifiers

<noah> Protocols

<noah> Meta Formats

<noah> Protocol and Meta Format Considerations

<noah> Internationalization (already done by Richard Ishida)

noah: notes that structure reflects the WebArch document
... we talked about this at an early meeeting but didn't find the resoures to do it

<noah> I also said I thought not just any resource will do. We need people who can write for some particular audience(s), write it well, etc.

<noah> LM: Who does work?

<noah> DC: We do.

<jar> http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

noah: this is where people come to talk about the web. Would the TAG like to help the W3C tells the story
... if we could allocate the person-months of writing skill etc.
... seeing these things done well is person-weeks or person-months

<jar> masinter: another approach is to start with what they have and improve it

<DanC> "This intro text is boilerplate for the beta release of w3.org." -- http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/protocols

larry: I'm willing to help, but more on the order of hours rather than weeks

noah: whatever they do, we'll review it?

danc: let individuals volunteer

<DanC> (may I record actions on larry and jonathan?)

<jar> ACTION jar to spend 2 hours helping Ian with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/

<trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Spend 2 hours helping Ian with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ [on Jonathan Rees - due 2010-02-04].

raman: this should allow comments and saying we will do it is needed

<jar> action-381 due 2010-02-11

<trackbot> ACTION-381 Spend 2 hours helping Ian with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ due date now 2010-02-11

<noah> ACTION-381?

<trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2010-02-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381

<noah> Looks good to me.

<DanC> (I concur, larry, that findings don't communicate stuff well... though I have advocated using the blog genre; I'm not opposed to using the buckets as well or instead.)

larry: i'm wondering whether we should focus on the web site vs. working on findings and web arch and findings.

noah: the charter says how we are supposed to publish results

Even if this means updating TAG charter

<scribe> ACTION: larry to review Web Arch web material and make proposals for changes or TAG action [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Review Web Arch web material and make proposals for changes or TAG action [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-02-04].

resource vs. representation

<noah> Discussion from last week: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/01/21-minutes#item04

<DanC> action-378?

<trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR -- due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378

larry: htmlwg was going to close the issue, but i asked that it stay open to allow the tag to volunteer to produce a change proposal

<noah> LM: HTML WG is keeping issue open until tomorrow, 29 January. Does anyone on the TAG want to draft proposed text for them?

lm: they don't need us to produce the proposal, just for someone to commit to produce it

<noah> DC: I made some progress? Between me and Noah we didn't get it on the agenda for today. I could work on it, but promising dates is hard.

<noah> NM: Implicitly, not for tomorrow?

<noah> LM: By tomorrow, we just need a committed date.

<noah> DC: Maybe we can pick a date.

i suggest March 31

<noah> LM: How about March 31, after our next F2F?

<noah> DC: Wonder if they'll accept that.

<noah> LM: Well, the concern expressed was that Roy couldn't even start for 4 months.

<DanC> -1 definitoins

noah: proposed action, the TAG will by march 31, deliver definitions plus sample text showing use of those terms in a couple of example sections

danc: this is an editorial exercise, and his opinion is that isn't a good way to go

<noah> DC: My opinion, now, is that definitions is not a good way to go.

I suggest we make a commitment to produce, by March 31, a change proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue

<DanC> I can go with that proposal, as it's silent on definitions

<noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will commit to produce, by March 31, a change proposal that meets the stated HTML-WG requirements for change proposals, to address the resource vs. representation issue

<DKA> +1

<DanC> action-378?

<trackbot> ACTION-378 -- Dan Connolly to draft suggested text re resource/representation in HTML 5 for discussion with LMM and JAR -- due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/378

action-372?

<trackbot> ACTION-372 -- Larry Masinter to tell the HTML WG the TAG encourages the direction Roy's headed on resource/representation and endorse his request for more time. -- due 2010-01-20 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/372

<noah> NM: Does ACTION-378 cover it for now?

<noah> DC: Yes

"Speaks for" formalism

<noah> DC: Did the examples I sent work for you, Larry?

<DanC> "Larry and everybody, Do the examples in this make sense? " -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0105.html

<noah> See: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html

<noah> DC: Don't know is OK.

<scribe> ACTION: larry to review DanC's email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Review DanC's email [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-02-04].

<noah> LM: I'll take an action for next week to review.

<noah> DC: Hmm, action is pending review.

<DanC> action-368?

<trackbot> ACTION-368 -- Dan Connolly to write up version change ontology as blog item http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 -- due 2010-03-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/368

<DanC> ^ an action related to language versioning terminology

Review of Pending Actions

<DanC> close ACTION-371 (edit)

<DanC> close ACTION-375

<trackbot> ACTION-375 Schedule discussion of TAG contributions to W3C Web Site (self-assigned, TRIVIAL) closed

<DanC> close ACTION-371

<trackbot> ACTION-371 Schedule TAG discussion of DAP WG query on policy (self-assigned) closed

<DanC> ACTION-163 due 1 Mar

<trackbot> ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog due date now 1 Mar

<DanC> . close ACTION-231

<DanC> ACTION-232?

<trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Henry S. Thompson to follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg -- due 2010-02-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232

<DanC> close ACTION-231

<trackbot> ACTION-231 Draft replacement for \"how to use conneg\" stuff in HTTP spec closed

<DanC> action-232 due 29 Jan

<trackbot> ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now 29 Jan

<DanC> action-232?

<trackbot> ACTION-232 -- Larry Masinter to follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg -- due 2010-01-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/232

adam barth updated mime sniff last week

i haven't reviewed

action-308

action-308?

<trackbot> ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing -- due 2010-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308

action-326

action-326?

<trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Henry S. Thompson to track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on polyglot documents -- due 2010-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/326

- DRAFT -

Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

28 Jan 2010

Attendees

Contents