16:44:55 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:44:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/17-tagmem-irc 16:50:28 DKA has joined #tagmem 16:51:21 jar has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-agenda (jar) 16:55:58 Larry has joined #tagmem 16:56:09 zakim, call me 16:56:09 Sorry, Larry; you need to be more specific about your location 16:56:44 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 16:56:51 +Masinter 17:00:24 +DKA 17:00:32 +Jonathan_Rees 17:01:15 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-agenda 17:01:35 +Yves 17:02:01 yves, you in via SIP? 17:02:10 I'm losing :-( 17:03:21 regrets: Peter 17:03:31 zakim, code? 17:03:31 the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht 17:03:45 +??P6 17:04:02 Chair: Jonathan Rees 17:04:06 Ashok has joined #tagmem 17:04:07 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 17:04:12 ScribeNick: ht 17:04:19 Meeting: TAG telcon 17:04:29 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/17-agenda 17:05:14 + +1.202.626.aaaa 17:05:14 s/Rees/Rees (pro tem) 17:05:25 s/Rees/Rees (pro tem)/ 17:05:34 s/Rees/Rees (pro tem)/ 17:05:46 Topic: Admin 17:05:58 Regrets for 24 March: tbl, hst 17:06:05 Scribe for 24 March: pl 17:06:12 Minutes 10 March OK with me. 17:06:18 JR: RESOLVED: Minutes of 10 March approved 17:06:29 IETF agenda is https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/agenda.html 17:06:41 Topic: IETF Meeting in Prague 17:07:18 /me quotes: 4. Technical Session: 17:07:18 "The Future of Applications" 17:07:18 Panel session moderated by Jon Peterson 17:07:18 Speakers: 17:07:21 Jonathan Rosenberg (Skype) 17:07:24 Harald Alvestrand (Google) 17:07:27 Henry S. Thompson (W3C) 17:07:29 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IAB_Prague_2011_slides.html 17:07:31 Possibly more 17:07:35 17:07:47 (checked in) 17:08:06 HST: Thanks to AM and NM for input 17:09:09 HST: I've included versions of the material they sent 17:09:47 HST: Plan to use a subset as appropriate 17:10:13 LM: You're supposed to be talking about the Future of APplications 17:10:19 ... So change the title of the talk 17:10:28 HST: WIll do 17:11:03 LM: Applications are going away, to be replaced by Web sites 17:11:18 ... We may not like this, but it's happening 17:11:22 +1 to LM. 17:11:27 ... So Web Arch _is_ application architecture 17:11:51 LM: Put this earlier 17:12:19 ... to clarify why webarch is _relevant_ to talk about the future of apps 17:13:12 YL: You can see the replacement happening both ways 17:13:26 some sites might be replacing a web site of documents with a web site of one application, but it's still "web architecture" 17:13:30 ... Website has only one URL, all content is computed 17:13:57 YL: Web Arch is not cast in stone -- Web evolves, TAG tries to keep up 17:14:03 q+ to argue against 5 and 6 just because i don't like them much 17:14:05 HST: Yes 17:14:27 LM: Remove 5 & 6 because I don't like what they say 17:14:51 +1 to Yves' comment re. evolution 17:14:51 HST: Noted 17:15:30 lm: URIs don't have owners. resources maybe 17:15:31 HST: May be cut if time is short 17:15:55 LM: How relevant are they to the question before the panel? 17:16:28 LM: Slide 7 _was_ true -- are they true of Web Apps? 17:16:40 s/are/are those assertions/ 17:17:02 HST: Every single one needs to be re-examined 17:17:28 Under slide 11, you might want to include a link to the joint IAB/W3C/ISOC workshop on privacy from last year: http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/ 17:18:08 LM: Historically there is an Arch of the Web of Docs 17:18:24 ... Now we have to migrate that to the Arch of the Web of Docs _and_ Apps 17:18:33 ... Make that clear earlier 17:19:15 LM: That gives us a context for 5, 6, 7, #!, etc. 17:19:51 ... Side-effect free? View source less helpful if it's all JS? 17:20:18 I would note that the issue about media types is a good example of possible cooperation 17:21:04 HST: Valuable as both source of fixes and as guidance for rhetorical stance 17:21:34 Maybe we should work either now or by email on what the design issues are in moving from web of docs to web of apps... e.g., does "view source" still work? Do redirect, cache and proxy still work with web applications? 17:21:40 Presentation is Mon 28 March 17:21:42 JR: Presentation is on 28 March 17:22:26 slide 8: "how we see ourselves" "how we saw ourselves" 17:22:27 HST: I will not be on the call 17:22:32 q+ 17:22:42 q? 17:22:44 q- Larry 17:22:46 ack next 17:22:56 AM: Wrt Privacy 17:23:28 AM: There's been a lot of discussion of this on the IETF privacy mailing list 17:23:45 ... There will be people there who know a lot about this -- more than we do, pbly 17:24:11 HST: Happy to convey that we are the junior partners in this 17:24:18 ... need IETF help 17:24:51 LM: The TAG is tracking more than leading 17:25:01 ... W3C is running workshops 17:25:08 lm: We're asking help in some cases, putative authority in others 17:25:26 LM: In contrast, slide 15 is our lead 17:25:39 "a mess" isn't very informative 17:25:58 AM: What's the polite way of saying that 17:26:03 s/that/that?/ 17:26:40 LM: We have a work in progress, which tries to move this forward, so not "a mess" 17:26:51 ... This is an example of an evolution point 17:26:59 it might be a mess, but it is natural 17:27:03 q? 17:28:10 LM: Lead with W3C priorities, put TAG's second on slide 10 17:29:24 HST: Not sure 17:29:43 LM: Top-level goal is improving IETF/W3C engagement 17:30:02 ... so the W3C goals are the highest-level agenda-setters 17:30:52 JR: HSt, are we done? 17:30:55 HST: Yes 17:31:23 LM: This is thought-provoking, which is just right 17:31:48 ... We can use this to organise how we think about organising our Web App arch. work 17:31:54 JAR: Yes, that makes sense 17:32:13 s/work/work -- it gave me a new perspective -- anyone else?/ 17:32:27 Topic: IETF meeting on registries 17:33:45 LM: MNot noticed a change proposal from Mike Smith wrt content types for in HTML5, which proposes a registry 17:33:59 ... Is the W3C gearing up to run more registries? 17:34:20 ... Is this a way we should go for extensible vocabularies? 17:35:01 LM: There was a reason IANA moved registration management from one person to a 'political' process 17:35:12 ... Such tasks shouldn't be taken on lightly 17:35:21 lm: registry steward looks after fairness, safety, ... 17:35:38 LM: When we have web-based protocols that need an extensible vocabulary of parameters 17:36:01 ... and looking at ISOC's sponsorship of W3C 17:36:31 LM: IETF, ICANN and IANA are independent organisations -- is there coordination needed here? 17:37:07 ... Should W3C stumble in to running registries -- has the membership committed to resourcing the indefinite provisioning of this service? 17:37:29 JR: In the IETF case, I thought new registry entries were declared by RFCs. . . 17:37:54 LM: Not always. IANA has a contract to perform registry services, under the direction of IETF. 17:38:29 ... So if the IETF publishes an RFC which creates a registry, it has to specify how registrations are managed 17:38:55 ... It can be first-come, first-served, or managed by IETF, or devolved in part to other organizations 17:39:26 LM: In some cases there is an appointed expert reviewer or panel of reviewers, e.g. Graeme Kline for URI schemes 17:39:32 JeniT has joined #tagmem 17:40:02 ... But the RFC that covers URI scheme registration is being revised to accommodate IRIs 17:40:13 HST: So life is complex 17:40:47 ht: these things ramify. it's nice that the xpointer scheme registry is simple; that doesn't mean all registries are like that 17:41:01 HST: Just because the XPointer scheme registry is simple to operate doesn't mean it's always that way 17:41:33 LM: The ownership of the text/html media type semantics is an example of why the process matters 17:41:50 ... Mostly it doesn't matter, but when it does, there has to be a clear story 17:42:09 LM: Sniffing isn't disconnected from this either 17:42:34 q? 17:42:35 LM: Not sure W3C has taken on board all the potential complexity of running a registry 17:43:18 YL: Consider image/svg+xml took a long time to be defined, only officially registered a few months ago, but successfully in use for years 17:43:36 I share your concerns, Larry. 17:43:37 YL: Move to have everything defined by RFC is not necessarily helpful 17:43:48 +[IPcaller] 17:43:54 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:43:54 +JeniT; got it 17:44:02 LM: There have been gaps in the processes, that needs to be resolved 17:44:13 HST: Thinks TLR will be in Prague 17:44:36 tlr will be in Prague 17:45:01 LM: It would be good if someone from W3C staff who is up to speed on registry issues was at [some meeting] 17:45:21 LM: What to do about the now-rejected link relation registry 17:45:41 LM: Anyone from HTML WG at the IETF meeting? 17:45:59 YL: I will check 17:46:22 HST: LM should maybe brief TLR 17:47:12 ACTION Larry to liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background 17:47:12 Created ACTION-539 - Liaise with Thomas Roessler about the registries issue background [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-03-24]. 17:48:41 ACTION Larry to try to arrange for Thomas Roessler to participate in the meeting about Registries at the IETF meeting in Prague 17:48:41 Created ACTION-540 - Try to arrange for Thomas Roessler to participate in the meeting about Registries at the IETF meeting in Prague [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-03-24]. 17:49:19 + +1.858.216.aabb 17:49:34 zakim, aabb is plinss 17:49:34 +plinss; got it 17:49:36 zakim, +1 is plinss 17:49:36 sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named '+1' 17:49:47 zakim, 1 is plinss 17:49:47 sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named '1' 17:49:54 zakim, who's here 17:49:54 Larry, you need to end that query with '?' 17:49:59 zakim, who's here? 17:49:59 On the phone I see Masinter, DKA, Jonathan_Rees, Yves, ht, Ashok, JeniT, plinss 17:50:01 On IRC I see JeniT, Ashok, Larry, DKA, RRSAgent, jar, Zakim, ht, Norm, plinss, Yves, trackbot 17:50:17 Topic: Copyright and deep linking 17:50:52 JR: Links in the agenda for the background 17:51:19 ... including discussion with Thinh Nguyen in December 2010: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-minutes.html#item01 17:51:38 JR: DKA, what about ACTION-505? 17:51:50 ACTION-505? 17:51:50 ACTION-505 -- Daniel Appelquist to start a document wrt issue-25 -- due 2011-03-01 -- OPEN 17:51:50 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/505 17:51:56 q+ 17:52:18 DKA: Shell document exists, needs content 17:52:34 ... What is the audience, what is the point? 17:52:54 DKA: The recent legal issue has put some energy behind it 17:52:55 q+ to talk about some drafting 17:53:02 q+ to talk about a Best Practice 17:53:25 q? 17:53:33 DKA: Guidance for a court? Focussed on difference between link and transclusion? 17:53:48 ... That needs action on people to contribute content 17:53:54 ... I can do some, but not all 17:53:57 q? 17:54:10 ack next 17:54:17 AM: Thanks DKA 17:54:27 AM: Typically the TAG writes on technical stuff 17:54:39 ... this is not quite technical 17:54:56 ... So what can we write, and for whom? We are not lawyers. . . 17:55:14 q? 17:55:15 ... Where is the TAG in this difficult controversial situation? 17:55:19 ack next 17:55:20 JeniT, you wanted to talk about some drafting 17:55:31 zakim, mute me 17:55:31 DKA should now be muted 17:55:49 JT: I'm trying to draft something, as an aid to thinking this through 17:55:52 q+ to wonder if there is some 'expert' testimony we could use as guidance for what technical facts are useful. 17:56:17 JT: We can contribute some terminology: how information moves, by fetching, caching, etc. 17:56:31 ... And what happens with it: linked, transcluded, etc. 17:56:55 JT: That could then be used and referred to be the people involved in the legal discussion 17:57:21 I want it to move through "recommendation" stage, and turn into a W3C (and IETF?) consensus document, to give more weight to it than just "TAG as another group of experts" 17:57:38 JT: We could also give guidance/good practice to web masters about putting acknowledgements in to pages etc. 17:57:40 q? 17:57:47 ack next 17:57:47 ack next 17:57:48 ht, you wanted to talk about a Best Practice 17:57:52 Larry, you wanted to wonder if there is some 'expert' testimony we could use as guidance for what technical facts are useful. 18:00:26 q? 18:00:31 Sorry, by webmaster/web developer I meant author 18:01:05 HST: [experience with lecture notes] 18:01:07 q? 18:02:05 LM: To be useful legally, but w/o legal opinions -- maybe we should look at existing expert testimony 18:02:18 ... to get some guidance as to what might be useful 18:02:21 Do we know where to find those? 18:02:40 LM: I feel pretty strongly that we need to take this through broader review, by putting it on the REC track 18:02:49 ... so it gets community review 18:03:07 JR: That's what Thinh said 18:03:25 zakim, unmute me 18:03:25 DKA should no longer be muted 18:03:28 q? 18:03:31 q+ 18:03:39 JR: The minutes of that meeting are very useful 18:03:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Dec/0014.html 18:04:04 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-minutes.html 18:04:11 JR: How do we coordinate with the rest of W3C? 18:04:26 q+ to say REC track _is_ coordination 18:04:45 AM: Maybe speak to Danny Weitzner? [sp?] 18:05:00 YL: May be too busy, in gov't these days 18:05:10 JR: I can talk to Hal Abelson. . . 18:05:25 q+ to note that TAG hasn't done many rec track documents. suggest: draft something, invite AC and public comment 18:05:37 q? 18:05:46 JR: Maybe the first thing is to let DKA and JL get something written and that will let us 18:05:47 ack next 18:05:53 JR: get started 18:06:21 DKA: With respect to what can/should we be saying, I like JT's suggestion that we start with terminology 18:06:41 ... aimed at informing the legal community 18:07:03 DKA: After the conversation with Thinh, I thought we had consensus on a bit more than that 18:07:28 ... That would clarify that "[quote]" 18:07:54 ... Documenting the parts of WebArch that support that proposition are what JT is suggesting 18:07:59 q? 18:08:01 yes :) 18:08:02 HST, AM, JAR: +1 18:08:06 i would like to separate out the opinion part from the definition and architectural part, even in separate documents 18:08:26 q? 18:08:35 ack ht 18:08:35 ht, you wanted to say REC track _is_ coordination 18:08:50 I don't know either :) 18:09:05 ACTION Jeni helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. 18:09:06 Created ACTION-541 - Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-03-24]. 18:09:28 ACTION-541 due 2011-03-30 18:09:28 ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. due date now 2011-03-30 18:09:43 ack ht 18:10:25 HST: REC track gives us all the coordination we need 18:10:33 ack next 18:10:34 Larry, you wanted to note that TAG hasn't done many rec track documents. suggest: draft something, invite AC and public comment 18:11:25 LM: We haven't done many REC-track documents -- we might want to work harder than W3C Process requires at the early stage 18:11:32 ... to let people know what we're doing 18:11:55 LM: Part of that would be to solicit additional material 18:12:13 q? 18:12:54 JR: Maybe see that as the doing the equivalent of chartering 18:13:06 well not exactly.. 18:13:30 LM: We have to be careful about describing what we think we are doing 18:13:56 :) 18:14:27 LM: For the time being, that's a pointer to some requirements on the Introduction to the document being drafted 18:14:44 q+ being a good web citizen 18:14:56 JR: No-one wants to give legal advice, which is one reason why there is no guidance wrt HST's problem 18:15:05 q+ 18:15:29 q? 18:15:31 JR: THere are at least some non-legal issues, such as giving credit (as opposed to licensing) 18:15:33 ack jenit 18:15:54 we want to give advice which is useful in a legal context, but doesn't itself make legal recommendations, since the technical issues are balanced against societal and financial ones to come to a conclusion about what is or should be legal or not legal 18:15:54 JR: where some advice could be given w/o serious repercussions 18:16:19 +1 good citizen 18:16:20 JT: So, aim to talk more about being a good web citizen/being responsible 18:16:28 ... rather than making any legal claims 18:16:36 q? 18:16:37 That fits with giving credit 18:16:38 q+ to argue against 'good citizen' 18:16:48 ack larry 18:16:48 Larry, you wanted to argue against 'good citizen' 18:16:57 q+ to ask what legal status of share-alike wording is 18:17:03 But will the good practice protect you legally? 18:17:18 LM: Balancing the technical facts versus societal goals 18:17:53 ... A lot of societal goals are mixed in here, and they are much harder to give advice about 18:18:01 ... than getting the facts clear 18:18:13 q? 18:18:21 ack ht 18:18:21 ht, you wanted to ask what legal status of share-alike wording is 18:18:26 oops/.. 18:18:48 LM: In particular there are access-control mechanisms, say passwords, by which material can be 18:18:55 ... barred to some and allowed to others 18:19:15 LM: Then you say something about conventions for using such mechanisms 18:19:18 q? 18:19:25 LM: Those are facts 18:19:51 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 18:21:18 HST: Asks a complicated question about "give me credit" really means 18:21:38 ... as a way of asking how we could safely give guidance on how to give credit 18:23:06 JR: I was thinking more along the lines of what the form of a credit notice should be, _a la_ Chicago Manual of Style, in a social context such as academia 18:23:18 ... Even if something is in the public domain, you can still credit someone 18:24:11 JT: I'll work with DKA and we'll get something out 18:24:42 +1 18:24:51 thx! 18:24:52 JR: Adjourned 18:24:56 +1 18:25:05 +1 to great chairing and organizing, JAR 18:25:07 Tutti: Thanks to JR for chairing 18:25:14 -DKA 18:25:16 -JeniT 18:25:18 -Yves 18:25:20 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:25:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/17-tagmem-minutes.html ht 18:25:21 -Masinter 18:25:22 -Jonathan_Rees 18:25:23 -Ashok 18:25:26 -plinss 18:25:30 rrsagent, make minutes world-visible 18:25:30 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-visible', ht. Try /msg RRSAgent help 18:25:52 zakim, bye 18:25:52 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Masinter, DKA, Jonathan_Rees, Yves, ht, +1.202.626.aaaa, Ashok, JeniT, +1.858.216.aabb, plinss 18:25:52 Zakim has left #tagmem 18:26:01 rrsagent, bye 18:26:01 I see no action items