17:58:59 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:58:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-tagmem-irc 17:59:52 +Masinter 18:00:27 zakim, who is here? 18:00:27 On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Masinter 18:00:28 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, noah, Larry, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:00:57 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:02:56 zakim, who is here? 18:02:56 On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Masinter, Ashok_Malhotra 18:02:58 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, noah, Larry, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:03:25 +John_Kemp 18:04:33 ht has joined #tagmem 18:04:58 Sorry i'm late 18:05:03 give me a minute to get set up 18:05:06 zakim, code? 18:05:07 yes 18:05:12 the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht 18:05:17 +TimBL 18:05:59 +Yves 18:08:23 zakim, who is here? 18:08:23 On the phone I see Noah_Mendelsohn, Masinter, Ashok_Malhotra, John_Kemp, TimBL, Yves 18:08:26 On IRC I see ht, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, noah, Larry, timbl, plinss, trackbot, Yves 18:08:46 scribenicj: timbl 18:08:57 scribenick: timbl 18:09:03 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-agenda 18:09:23 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/13-agenda 18:09:27 Noah: Here is a link 18:09:33 to the agenda for this call 18:09:57 Ashok: regrets for next week 18:10:21 Noah: We have minutes from last week's call: 18:10:26 topic: Approve last week's minutes 18:10:28 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-minutes 18:10:53 RESOLVED: the minutes of 6 January 2011 ( http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/01/06-minutes ) are approved 18:11:26 Ashok: I have read the TAG draft status report 18:11:30 ... looked ok 18:11:49 Noah: After a few days, can I take silence to be assent? 18:11:52 new version of mime-web-info-02 18:12:34 the link http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info will give the "latest" 18:12:48 Larry: this shoul dgo int the report 18:12:50 RESOLVED: Noah to publish status report status report on 17 January if no objections are received in email, will update version of mime-web-info to 02 18:13:50 Noah: We need to plane the face-face meeting. Please help in the next 2-3weeks 18:13:57 topic: 18:14:00 s/plane/plan/ 18:14:44 topic: Repurposing the Hash Sign for the New Web 18:15:02 Draft is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/HashInURI-20101231.html 18:16:53 Noah: The document seems much improved. 18:17:12 ... The title of the finding needs to be rethought as it is not all about fragids. 18:17:21 q+ to talk about requirements for redefining "#" that I don't see identified 18:18:27 Noah: It needs to go further to actuallygive the reader a good sense of which technique to use. 18:18:50 ack next 18:18:51 Larry, you wanted to talk about requirements for redefining "#" that I don't see identified 18:18:52 Larry: I am looking for some things in the document: 18:19:06 ... I'd liek to understand how it works fo rnon-HTTP URI schemes. 18:19:16 ... Is it only ted to HTTP? 18:19:32 -Noah_Mendelsohn 18:19:40 ... Also, how does it apply to fradids which are used with not Javascript, but active contenet? 18:20:02 +Noah_Mendelsohn 18:20:24 ... Particularly, more than the anaylis of HTTP and HTML -- ho much applies to other situations/ 18:20:32 Ashok: I would have t think about it 18:20:41 ... it isn't obvious. 18:21:12 ht has joined #tagmem 18:21:27 Noah: I did thik the thing was funny as a TAG finding, as it mostly says look most of what I am desriving here confluct with the way the web works .. but you conclusion at th e end is that [...] 18:22:11 ... Not sure what the conclusion is a to whether this stuff is good to do and we should change thepsecs, or wheth it should be discouraged -- in fact you seem to encourage it 18:22:17 +??P5 18:22:24 Adhok: There is a section on the non-conformance. 18:22:45 there's an analog with the mime-web-info document: identify the problems with current specs and recommend changes to specs so that practice & specs are not in conflict. I'd rather see this as "What has to change" rather than "who to liase with". 18:22:47 q? 18:22:50 scribenick: ht 18:22:59 Noah: Yes, a nice part. Chap 3, "Rec bet practices", leaves teh implication that one shoul dviolate the RFC? 18:23:11 AM: What I was hoping was talk about Chap 3 vs. the RFC 18:23:20 Ashok: I had hoped to discuss this on the cal. 18:23:20 ... since this is delicate 18:23:31 NM: We'll do that next week, OK 18:24:27 scribenick ht 18:24:31 scribenick: ht 18:24:36 LM: I recommend we focus on what specs have to change 18:25:09 ... how to get docs and practice into sync 18:25:30 AM: Comment in wrt Media Fragment work, which I'll add to the doc 18:25:47 ... And also JAR wanted to talk about the RDFa situation 18:25:57 ... which likewise we'll add, but I need JAR's help 18:26:32 NM: In Lyon, LM suggested that when we're working over a period of weeks on something, we should make clear exactly what the deliverable we have in view is 18:26:49 ... So we need, perhaps at the f2f, to get there wrt this work 18:27:03 Note that the draft-masinter-mime-web-info document also talks about fragment identifiers in MIME registrations 18:27:27 action-481? 18:27:27 ACTION-481 -- Ashok Malhotra to update client-side state document with help from Raman Due: 2010-11-30 -- due 2010-10-27 -- OPEN 18:27:27 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/481 18:28:10 NM: Let's keep using this action, and bump the date 18:29:08 Topic: IETF Presentation 18:29:54 LM: I think we're too far away from something of interest 18:30:04 ... I was more optimistic in November 18:30:22 q? 18:30:33 ... What would interest the IETF is the interaction between WebApps and Security, Privacy, . . .. 18:30:45 ... We haven't gotten to that level 18:31:24 LM: To do organisational framing, more groundwork would be required before I would be ready to talk about this in Prague 18:31:46 ... We should have a product, but making it be a presentation is the wrong level 18:32:14 ... The product we need is a definition of our relation with IETF, at the level of the relation between WebArch and InternetArch 18:32:40 ... We're doing better than in the past in terms of coordination 18:33:01 zakim, who is talkin? 18:33:01 I don't understand your question, noah. 18:33:01 ... But w/o that larger context, driving the conversation up from the bottom with the WebApps topic 18:33:04 ... doesn't work 18:33:17 +1 18:33:50 AM: I'm disappointed, without disagreeing 18:34:31 TBL: When we present TAG work, a T-shaped approach is OK -- broad and narrow, diving in in a few places 18:34:35 I think we need a 'product' but the product is a coordination of Web Architecture with Internet Architecture, and starting with Web Applications is OK, but I think the product needs to be larger 18:34:41 ... mixtures of levels is OK 18:35:12 Perhaps a 12-slide talk of which web applications are the last 6... but need the first 6 too 18:35:12 TBL: In this case, we could use WebApp as a dive-deep example 18:35:33 LM: Yes, but I need the general part too! 18:37:00 NM: Did you (LM) say that introducing the work of the TAG was too high level? Whereas TBL said that was OK if we drilled down in one case? 18:37:27 q+ to put a different interp. on LM's point 18:37:55 NM: I do understand that you think WebApp is not ready yet 18:38:17 tag/iab is in the context of W3C/IETF, which is in the context of Web/Internet 18:39:02 NM: So I'm willing to close Larry's short-term actions, and open my action up to a larger goal, but TBL seemed to push back 18:39:04 ack ht 18:39:05 ht, you wanted to put a different interp. on LM's point 18:39:38 Product is how we coordinate WebApps in TAG and "WebAPps in IAB" in the context of TAG and IAB in the context of W3C and IETF which is the context of Web and Internet. 18:39:50 q+ to talk about the levels 18:40:01 HT: I heard Larry differently. I think he took the goal of the presentation to be: engage the audience in joint work going forward. Without a degree of background having been established for divying, he wasn't ready to do that. 18:40:31 HT: I didn't hear that he was unhappy with "introduce the TAG", which was Noah's proposal. 18:40:35 Ashok has joined #tagmem 18:40:41 NM: Nope, it was what Noah heard of Tim's proposal 18:40:59 LM: There are many levels at which we could approach the interaction question 18:41:15 ... All the way 'down' from InternetArch vs. WebArch 18:41:28 ... through both organisational and technical divisions 18:41:37 ... to WebApps as a specific topic 18:42:31 LM: Thinking about talking about WebApps as such w/o getting that set of levels at least a bit clearer doesn't feel right 18:42:49 NM: What next? 18:43:29 LM: Your action (ACTION-499) enlarged to look at the InternetArch and WebArch makes sense to me, and I'll help with that 18:43:54 LM: ... and suspend ACTION-497 and ACTION-500 18:44:16 NM: If that means no presentation in Prague, we need to tell Alexei that 18:44:24 LM: I will tell him 18:45:00 LM: ... by next week 18:45:14 NM: We could focus on this at the f2f, maybe turn the corner? 18:45:32 LM: We could invite the relevant app area directors to call in to the f2f? 18:45:43 NM: OK 18:46:05 NM: OK, we'll work together on a new, shinier 499 18:46:22 ... you will bump 500 and talk to Alexei 18:46:29 ... and we'll review the situation at the f2f 18:46:40 close ACTION-497 18:46:41 ACTION-497 Prepare us for a teleconference with IETF-IAB on possible prague IETF presentation. closed 18:47:12 Topic: Pending Review Action Items 18:47:25 Pending review actions: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview 18:48:03 close ACTION-464 18:48:03 ACTION-464 Coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC closed 18:48:05 close ACTION-468 18:48:05 ACTION-468 Invite Thinh to telcon where Tim will be available to discuss "forbidding of hyperlinking" closed 18:49:14 LM: Wrt ACTION-479, there is a new draft 18:49:28 NM: So I need to schedule review -- next week, or longer? 18:49:31 LM: Next week 18:50:47 close ACTION-479 18:50:47 ACTION-479 Ping Thomas again on Dec. Privacy workshop closed 18:50:51 close ACTION-490 18:50:51 ACTION-490 Noah and others(?) going to privacy workshop to report back to the TAG? closed 18:50:57 close ACTION-494 18:50:57 ACTION-494 Reach out to Device APIs chair to see about joint TAG session closed 18:51:00 close ACTION-496 18:51:00 ACTION-496 Update Guide to TAG participation on intent to set specific deliverables for each discussion closed 18:51:00 johnk has joined #tagmem 18:52:39 action-498? 18:52:39 ACTION-498 -- Noah Mendelsohn to report results of HTML5 WG consideration of conformance for extensions (their ISSUE 140), get TAG to prepare change proposal if necessary -- due 2010-11-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:52:39 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/498 18:52:41 close ACTION-498 18:52:41 ACTION-498 Report results of HTML5 WG consideration of conformance for extensions (their ISSUE 140), get TAG to prepare change proposal if necessary closed 18:53:14 close ACTION-503 18:53:14 ACTION-503 Publicize to www-tag ietf-http-wg@w3.org & chairs health warning on secondary resourc redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 closed 18:53:44 q? 18:53:46 q- 18:53:58 Topic: Overdue action items 18:54:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner 18:54:39 ACTION-341? 18:54:39 ACTION-341 -- Yves Lafon to follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 -- due 2010-11-15 -- OPEN 18:54:39 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/341 18:55:29 ACTION-341 Due 2011-01-25 18:55:29 ACTION-341 Follow up with Thomas about security review activities for HTML5 due date now 2011-01-25 18:55:39 note websec working group https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/websec/charter/ 18:55:40 ACTION-404? 18:55:40 ACTION-404 -- Yves Lafon to track HTML WG ISSUE-27 rel-ownership -- due 2011-02-12 -- OPEN 18:55:40 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/404 18:56:01 q+ 18:57:22 LM: There is a new WebSec group at the IETF 18:57:36 http://tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/charters 18:57:57 ... If there are security concerns wrt HTML5, those issues should be signalled to the WebSec group 18:58:16 ... They are already looking at e.g. cross-site issues 18:58:32 ... Good news wrt community cooperation, I think 18:59:37 ACTION-475? 18:59:37 ACTION-475 -- Ashok Malhotra to write finding on client-side storage, DanA to review -- due 2010-10-26 -- OPEN 18:59:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/475 19:01:32 ACTION-475 Due 2011-03-21 19:01:32 ACTION-475 Write finding on client-side storage, DanA to review due date now 2011-03-21 19:03:14 q+ to ask for a report from TBL to be scheduled at some point 19:03:18 Topic: AOB 19:03:52 LM: I have started pushing the TDB and ??? documents again, and this has stimulated some discussion 19:04:32 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri 19:04:33 ack next 19:05:27 s/???/DURI/ 19:05:41 NM: Do you want TAG involvement in this? 19:05:50 LM: Asking if it's important for TAG to do 19:06:14 HT: Unless the F2F schedule gets really full, I think this is worth one session. 19:06:35 NM: How would you scope the session? 19:07:12 HST: It's related to persistence 19:07:19 ... and the health of the web 19:08:26 LM: A stable document 19:08:54 ack next 19:08:55 ht, you wanted to ask for a report from TBL to be scheduled at some point 19:09:44 HT: Would like to ask Tim to report back to us at his convenience about HTML/XML task force. 19:09:47 HST: I wanted to ask TBL to report, informally and at his convenience, on the progress of the XML-HTML initiative 19:10:24 NM: I have in fact invited Norm Walsh to join us at the f2f, for just such a purpose, as he is chairing the group 19:10:36 LM: RDFa is being rechartered 19:10:47 RDFa is being rechartered 19:11:05 architecture recapitulates organizational structure 19:11:12 ... and since architecture recapitulates organizational structure 19:11:31 ... should the new RDFa charter be broadened to cover metadata on the web? 19:11:48 q+ 19:11:50 ... i.e. other kinds of embedded metadata 19:11:56 ack next 19:11:56 should RDFa charter include more about scope of media annotations, microdata, etc. 19:12:23 Hmm. Seems that giving it such a broad remit could be a recipe for nothing getting done. 19:12:25 what is the API for accessing metadata, and more general 19:12:56 TBL: A related issue has arisen, which is the RDFa WG is planning (?) to work on an RDFa API, and that might or might not be subsumed by/related to an RDF API 19:13:36 ACTION-282? 19:13:36 ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on metadata architecture. -- due 2011-04-01 -- OPEN 19:13:36 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282 19:13:42 ... so the question of where that happens, and who drives it, as well as the technical question of the nature of the relation between the two (if there are two) APIs, probably need to be clarified before the charter is baked 19:14:59 LM: I have another concern wrt registries, which I'll bring up on email 19:15:07 no prob ht 19:15:32 ... in the area of preferring URIs to registries, but there are still a lot of registries at IANA, and people are not happy with them 19:16:05 LM: Maybe worth framing as a TAG topic 19:16:22 -ht 19:16:53 -John_Kemp 19:17:41 Noah: We could have this as a f2f btopic if you could help frame it. 19:18:00 ACTION: Larry to send email framing TAG work on registries 19:18:00 Created ACTION-511 - Send email framing TAG work on registries [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-01-20]. 19:18:11 s/btopic/topic/ 19:18:14 -Masinter 19:18:15 -TimBL 19:18:15 -Noah_Mendelsohn 19:18:16 -Yves 19:18:19 johnk has left #tagmem 19:18:20 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:18:21 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:18:23 Attendees were Noah_Mendelsohn, Masinter, Ashok_Malhotra, John_Kemp, TimBL, Yves, ht 21:09:43 Larry has joined #tagmem 21:41:55 Zakim has left #tagmem 22:56:26 RRSAgent, bye 22:56:41 RRSAgent, make logs world-visible 22:56:45 RRSAgent, bye 22:56:45 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-tagmem-actions.rdf : 22:56:45 ACTION: Larry to send email framing TAG work on registries [1] 22:56:45 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-tagmem-irc#T19-18-00