18:00:40 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 18:00:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-tagmem-irc 18:00:42 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:00:44 Zakim, this will be TAG 18:00:44 ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 18:00:45 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 18:00:45 Date: 15 December 2011 18:01:16 noah has joined #tagmem 18:01:46 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:02:28 +??P4 18:03:08 +[IPcaller] 18:03:24 +Yves 18:03:29 zakim, +[ipcaller] is me 18:03:29 sorry, noah, I do not recognize a party named '+[ipcaller]' 18:03:38 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:03:38 +noah; got it 18:04:01 +Masinter 18:05:03 Larry has joined #tagmem 18:05:19 plh has joined #tagmem 18:05:26 ScribeNick: ht 18:05:32 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 18:05:36 +Plh 18:05:36 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn 18:05:43 Meeting: TAG telcon 18:06:04 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/15-agenda.html 18:06:40 Topic: Convene 18:07:07 NM: There will be a call on 22 December 18:07:15 NM: Regrets from YL 18:07:19 JT: Regrets 18:07:32 NM: LM, can you scribe? 18:07:35 LM: Yes 18:07:44 Topic: Minutes of last meeting 18:07:48 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/08-minutes 18:08:01 RESOLUTION: Approve the minutes of telcon of 2011-12-08 18:08:12 Topic: Administrivia 18:08:48 Local arrangements at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0004.html 18:09:17 NM: HST, please arrange for a telephone bridge 18:09:21 HST: Will do 18:10:02 Agenda for f2f is building at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda 18:10:21 NM: Mark Nottingham will join us for the SPDY discussion 18:10:55 Ashok has joined #tagmem 18:11:20 NM: Mark's time is limited, will have to fit in on Friday morning 18:11:41 LM: Like to involve him on registries as well, as he's been taking the lead on the HAPPIANA work 18:12:13 NM: Given time constraint, let's start the registries topic earlier, so we're well prepared to use Mark's time well 18:12:48 NM: Wrt XML-HTML unification work, chasing with Norm Walsh 18:14:42 Topic: HTML.next 18:15:27 NM: This topic was suggested at the Edinburgh f2f, suggesting we should look at what involvement we might want to have wrt HTML after HTML5 18:15:48 ... PLH has joined us, and will do so again at the F2F to help 18:16:09 ... References to possibly relevant material in the agenda 18:16:11 ACTION-637? 18:16:11 ACTION-637 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask PLH to join us in Dec. to bring us up to speed on HTML.next, and also join in F2F discussion -- due 2011-12-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW 18:16:11 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/637 18:16:18 close ACTION-637 18:16:18 ACTION-637 Ask PLH to join us in Dec. to bring us up to speed on HTML.next, and also join in F2F discussion closed 18:16:33 NM: Most notably, a wiki at http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next 18:16:58 PLH: Some background on HTML.next 18:17:05 ... Not very far yet 18:17:30 ... The HTML WG is focussed on HTML5, given the number of open issues, some of which are tricky 18:17:56 ... So the discussions on .next have not gotten very far so far, most recently at TPAC 18:18:14 PLH: Modularization of the spec. has been mentioned several times 18:18:27 Modularization work might benefit from some planning, even though it is premature to actually start with the work 18:18:28 PLH: Some new features have been suggested 18:18:57 PLH: Media ?? WG has brought some suggestions for some changes in their area 18:19:18 PLH: A element has been suggested by Ian Hickson 18:19:43 common protocol elements with other protocols as a big theme 18:20:10 Larry, would you elaborate. Do mean things like HTTP-ish stuff in the tag, for example? 18:20:25 NM: There's a sort of process issue about whether the future will be understood as working on a monolithic HTML6 or whether feature (group) by feature (group) will be specced through to REC independently 18:20:50 when we reviewed HTML a while back, we had a list of things which we filtered to leave out things that weren't timely 18:20:58 PLH: Yes, but until we see a specific proposal, it's hard to know if/how this will work 18:21:59 HT: A large architectural issue, which might arise, is whether there is any expectation within the WG (as opposed to rest of W3C) that they might want think about differing requirements for Web app delivery platform vs. browser. 18:22:35 I'd characterize what HT said was WebApps vs. HTML WG in W3C ... is that the right boundary in the long term 18:22:47 NM: There's a background issue mentioned sometimes as to whether security has been well-treated in the current round 18:23:01 NM: Doug Crockford has weighed in on this 18:23:05 JavaScript & API rules 18:23:09 Doug Crockford on HTML and Security: http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072 18:24:01 Title of article is "Discoverer of JSON Recommends Suspension of HTML5" 18:24:02 NM: This new spec. is chock-full of new features, and not only have you not done much to address existing issues, you've significantly expanded the surface area, and hence the risk of vulnerabilities 18:24:41 He specifically criticizes the lack of clear resolution to cross site scripting problems, among others. 18:24:58 PLH: But DC has not pointed to any specific vulnerabilities. An EU study [???] surveyed the spec. from this perspective, and identified some moderate issues, but nothing that stands out as a major problem 18:25:35 LM: It's not clear that the kind of security review that is needed even _can_ be done 18:25:46 Crockford is quoted as saying: "The XSS problem comes from two fundamental problems. The first is that the language of the web is unnecessarily complicated. HTML can be embedded in HTTP, and HTML can have embedded in it URLs, CSS, and JavaScript. " 18:25:59 s/evan _can_ be done/can be done properly/ 18:26:05 "JavaScript can be embedded in URLs and CSS. Each of these languages has different encoding, escapement, and commenting conventions. Statically determining that a piece of text will not become malicious when inserted into an HTML document is surprisingly difficult. There is a huge and growing set of techniques by which an attacker can disguise a payload that can avoid detection. New techniques are discovered all the time, and usually the attackers find them 18:26:12 PLH: It's always possible that there are holes, but we're trying hard not to let that happen 18:26:19 "The second problem is that all scripts on a page run with the same authority. " 18:26:38 s/even _can_ be done/can be done properly/ 18:27:36 LM: When we discussed HTML issues a while ago, we left some things off the list because they weren't timely -- should we pull them up again? 18:28:00 NM: I can't easily find that list -- someone needs to take an action to find the list and prepare a discussion 18:28:17 ... so that we don't waste time 18:28:34 LM: I will find the list, if someone else will do the review 18:29:42 --> http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/application-security/web-security/a-security-analysis-of-next-generation-web-standards A Security Analysis of Next Generation Web Standards 18:29:43 NM: I will take an action to find the list and email a link to the group 18:30:05 ACTION: Noah to try and find list of review issues relating to HTML5 from earlier discussions 18:30:05 Created ACTION-641 - Try and find list of review issues relating to HTML5 from earlier discussions [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-12-22]. 18:30:07 q+ 18:30:14 ack mext 18:30:14 NM: After that, I'll wait for specific requests for action wrt something there. 18:30:43 PLH: That security review [link] covers not just HTML5, but also related specs. 18:31:04 ... It is often, as was the case with CSS, that it's combinations of specs that create security risks 18:31:07 q+ to ask if there are items for HTML.next that overlap with other WG's previous work? 18:31:10 perhaps ability to to security review is a goal for modularization 18:31:16 q? 18:31:27 PLH: The CSS risk was not CSS alone, but in combination with the DOM 18:31:36 q+ to ask if review really covered Doug C.'s concern 18:31:37 ack next 18:31:40 ack next 18:31:42 JeniT, you wanted to ask if there are items for HTML.next that overlap with other WG's previous work? 18:32:05 JT: From what you've seen about possible HTML.next features, is there potential overlap with other WGs? 18:32:17 ... Because that's where problems have arisen in the past 18:32:23 q+ to talk about modularization guideilnes, reasons for, requirements for... examples of where modularizaiton helps, things to avoid... is this something TAG could talk about 18:32:34 zakim, who is talking? 18:32:46 noah, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Plh (31%) 18:32:52 ack next 18:32:53 PLH: Not that I'm aware of, but only in-so-far as we often don't have WGs in the areas that have been mentioned 18:32:54 noah, you wanted to ask if review really covered Doug C.'s concern 18:33:34 NM: PLH mentioned the existing study, but DC's interview does mention some specifics 18:33:40 NM: For example 18:33:49 Doug Crockford (in article linked above): "HTML can be embedded in HTTP, and HTML can have embedded in it URLs, CSS, and JavaScript. JavaScript can be embedded in URLs and CSS. Each of these languages has different encoding, escapement, and commenting conventions. Statically determining that a piece of text will not become malicious when inserted into an HTML document is surprisingly difficult. T" 18:34:14 http://www.contextis.co.uk/resources/blog/webgl/poc/index.html for an example of shaders timing attack. 18:34:57 q? 18:35:02 NM: Is that the kind of thing which that EU survey looked at? We're carrying a huge historical overhang which it's hard to untangle, or get away from 18:35:03 ack next 18:35:04 Larry, you wanted to talk about modularization guideilnes, reasons for, requirements for... examples of where modularizaiton helps, things to avoid... is this something TAG could 18:35:06 for example, our recent finding on web applications and URIs for application state -- could we get that into HTML.next 18:35:07 ... talk about 18:35:21 PLH: I don't know whether that issue was covered by the survey 18:35:43 LM: One of the requirements for modularization is that it makes security reviews _easier_. 18:36:15 LM: That needs to feed in to any discussion of _why_ modularize, and _how_, which the TAG might contribute to 18:36:22 I agree, but I think another way of saying this is: separation of concerns is a good characteristic of a design. If that's achieved, then one benefit will be that specs can be reviewed in pieces. 18:37:02 NM: Didn't quite get that. 18:37:37 LM: We've recently published a REC on Application State, and are headed for something on API Minimization 18:37:48 HT: He said, that we've published some things that weren't well timed to affect last year's work. Things like Storage and API work in the TAG could be focused on impacting html.next 18:37:54 ... Those should feed in early to get the chance of impact 18:38:04 q? 18:38:30 s/get the chance/improve the chance/ 18:38:58 PLH: There is very low interest in the WebApps WG in working on the Web Storage API 18:39:22 ... But it will go forward simply because it is so widely used 18:39:41 PLH: Momentum is moving toward IndexDB 18:39:43 ... Even though there is a widely known bug, in the area of concurrent access to the API 18:40:11 PLH, AM: It's called out in the current spec. draft, in fact 18:40:47 q+ to talk about TAG work on storage 18:40:53 AM: People have been saying the Web Storage is a very simple API, IndexDB is more complicated, they don't _need_ that complexity. 18:41:10 ack next 18:41:12 PLH: It will get done, but it won't get improved or extended 18:41:12 noah, you wanted to talk about TAG work on storage 18:41:50 NM: The TAG has discussed the whole question of client-side storage, and whether we should gear up to look at this area 18:42:32 NM: The Web started out pretty stateless, then along came cookies, and now various forms of client-side persistent data, Web Storage, IndexDB, etc. . . 18:43:08 NM: I think the TAG's concern should be at the architectural level, comparing these mechanisms to a local HTTP caching proxy 18:43:24 ... and looking at the question of accessing it via an index rather than a URI 18:43:48 NM: We need to find out what people _want_ from these, that they can't get from a caching proxy 18:43:58 ... and maybe feed back to developers 18:44:25 NM: So even if Web Storage isn't complicated, or likely to be extended, there may be work for the TAG to do 18:44:39 ? 18:44:59 YL: We did also review the relation of App Cache to 18:45:24 App Cache to the HTTP caching model 18:45:42 and Ashok wanted to make a relation between caches and storage as well 18:45:42 AM: In our recent document, we looked also at the relation of App Cache to Web Storage 18:46:04 s/document/discussion/ 18:46:24 NM: Not sure how much we need to devote to this going forward 18:46:43 ... but without more evidence of new ideas, we may have to reconsider using f2f time 18:47:09 NM: Thank you Philippe for joining us 18:47:32 -Plh 18:47:35 plh has left #tagmem 18:48:00 Topic: F2F Planning 18:48:06 List of topics: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-agenda.html#agendaInProgress 18:49:21 NM: Embedded in agenda format, but focus on timeline fixed points, and Working List of Agenda Items 18:49:34 AM: 7:30 end on Friday? 18:49:50 NM: No, usual goal -- aim for 4 p.m. 18:50:34 s/7:30/11:30/ 18:50:40 NM: What's up with Privacy? 18:50:52 AM: Not yet connected with DA on this 18:51:03 +q to ask to add brainstorm on bold messages on copyright & brief feedback on microdata/RDFa 18:51:49 AM: I have written a short doc't, arguing that although the W3C now has a Do Not Track WG, there are other problem areas which are worrying 18:52:20 AM: But it's not clear what W3C can do in these areas 18:52:52 ... Perhaps we should make a few statements on such things: Net Neutrality, ??? 18:53:19 HT: Questions: you said "we" a few times...we the TAG or we the W3C. 18:53:21 AM: W3C 18:54:52 ack next 18:54:54 JeniT, you wanted to ask to add brainstorm on bold messages on copyright & brief feedback on microdata/RDFa 18:55:01 NM: Maybe this will fit in no problem, will see how the schedule goes 18:55:48 JT: Previous agenda discussion included, wrt Publishing and Agenda on the Web, there is now probably _not_ going to be a new document, because we haven't had any legal input 18:56:24 ... But we _did_ talk about having a brainstorming session on what kinds of punchy short outputs we should aim for 18:56:39 JT: This is a good thing for f2f 18:56:42 HST: +1 18:56:43 JT: I would like to have a brainstorming on bold messages on copyright and linking] 18:56:44 AM: +1 18:56:52 s/linking]/linking 18:57:09 AM: Also need to think about how they should be delivered 18:57:22 NM: Right, I'll plan to do that 18:57:49 NM: Aiming to wrap the agenda in the coming week, please note 18:58:26 JT: I would like to have a brief slot to bring us up to date on the Microdata/RDFa situation 18:58:32 NM: 30 minutes? 18:58:38 JT: Yes 18:58:46 NM: 10 minute update, 20 minute discussion 18:59:08 JT: I'm not aware of any specific thing we need to do, but did want to report 18:59:32 NM: There are several major document promises wrt preparation time before the f2f 18:59:37 ... So the sooner the better 18:59:55 ... Please get behind this and push if you're on the hook 19:00:19 Topic: ACTION-509, Response to RDFa WG 19:00:37 NM: Are we good to go here? 19:00:58 JT: Yes, given recent agreement to the amended wording, I think we're ready to go 19:01:05 NM: No objections? None. 19:01:12 Can we record a resolution pointing to the email with the agreed text? 19:01:16 JT: I'll go ahead then 19:01:20 Since this is communication with an outside group 19:02:14 Final email in thread is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0077.html 19:03:13 RESOLUTION: TAG agrees that Jeni Tennison will send the text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Dec/0026.html to the RDFa WG and thereby close ACTION-509 19:03:15 In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with fragment 19:03:17 identifiers that are local to the document containing the RDFa 19:03:18 fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom, which 19:03:20 is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF 19:03:21 serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities 19:03:23 described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the 19:03:24 expressive power of RDFa. The precise meaning of IRIs which include 19:03:26 fragment identifiers when they appear in RDF graphs is given in 19:03:27 Section 7 of [RDF-CONCEPTS]. To ensure that such fragment identifiers 19:03:29 can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations for markup 19:03:31 languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or indirectly 19:03:32 reference this specification (RDFa Core). 19:04:29 Topic: ACTION-631 Microdata referenced from HTML5 spec 19:04:30 ACTION-631? 19:04:31 ACTION-631 -- Jeni Tennison to suggest how is best to deal with explicit reference to only Microdata (not RDFa) from HTML spec -- due 2011-11-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:04:31 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/631 19:04:55 NM: Near consensus that not much needs to be done 19:05:15 JT: At the moment the HTML5 mentions neither Microdata or RDFa 19:05:48 ... But that means there's no FYN route from the soon-to-be text/html media type definition to either of these 19:06:10 s/mentions/spec mentions/ 19:06:11 maybe this belongs in the MIME document 19:06:43 NM: No action on FYN for HTML5, I don't think 19:07:15 HST: Needs to be a specific action wrt HTML5 19:07:19 HT: I think this needs to be against HTML5 - unconvinced focusing on mime doc now is the right way to go 19:08:06 JT: I'll take an action 19:08:10 LM: I'd like to help 19:08:33 . ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for microdata and RDFA from HTML5 19:08:40 . ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5 19:08:59 I think we need to address the issue of media type registration in the compound specifications and media type registration and use.... 19:09:29 NM: Due date just ahead of the f2f, so at least we can discuss this there 19:09:58 JT: It might also make sense to discuss it in the HTML.next session, as it's larger than just microdata and RDFa 19:10:15 s/this there/this there by expanding the microdata nd RDFa session/ 19:10:46 NM: Doesn't really fit with HTML.next -- time frame wrong, for one thing 19:10:55 JT: It was mostly that I was hoping PLH would be there 19:11:25 NM: OK, I'll expand both the time slot _and_ the topic for what was called above the Microdata and RDFa reporting session 19:11:33 ACTION: Jeni with help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 19:11:34 Created ACTION-642 - With help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 [on Jeni Tennison - due 2011-12-22]. 19:11:54 ACTION-642 Due 2012-01-02 19:11:54 ACTION-642 With help from Larry to make plan of action for getting "follow your nose" for (at least) microdata and RDFA from HTML5 Due: 2 January 2012 due date now 2012-01-02 19:12:19 NM: So, close ACTION-631? 19:12:21 close ACTION-631 19:12:21 ACTION-631 Suggest how is best to deal with explicit reference to only Microdata (not RDFa) from HTML spec closed 19:12:25 ACTION-614? 19:12:25 ACTION-614 -- Jeni Tennison to report on progress relating to RDFa and Microdata -- due 2011-12-15 -- OPEN 19:12:25 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/614 19:12:55 ACTION-614 Due 2012-01-06 19:12:55 ACTION-614 Report on progress relating to RDFa and Microdata due date now 2012-01-06 19:13:25 Topic: Pending review actions 19:13:27 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview 19:13:41 ACTION-528? 19:13:41 ACTION-528 -- Henry Thompson to create and get consensus on a product page and tracker product page for persistence of names -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:13:41 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/528 19:14:08 HT: Was planning to discuss minutes of the workshop today, but someone asked for more time 19:14:18 ACTION-588? 19:14:19 ACTION-588 -- Noah Mendelsohn to work with Larry to update mime-web product page Due 2011-08-18 -- due 2011-12-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:14:19 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/588 19:14:22 Overtaken by ACTION-636 (Noah successfully fobs this off on Larry). Marking PENDING REVIEW. 19:14:43 close ACTION-588 19:14:43 ACTION-588 Work with Larry to update mime-web product page Due 2011-08-18 closed 19:14:58 ACTION-625? 19:14:58 ACTION-625 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule followup discussion of http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options (per agreement in Santa Clara) -- due 2011-12-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:14:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/625 19:16:38 HT: There is a plan we hatched in Edinburgh 19:16:55 Include ACTION-625 in F2F agendum on URI Definition Discovery -- new work to be available for discussion 19:17:07 ACTION-639? 19:17:07 ACTION-639 -- Noah Mendelsohn to invite Mark Nottingham to SPDY/HTTP F2F session -- due 2011-12-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:17:07 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/639 19:17:08 s/Edinburgh/Edinburgh, JAR will be letting us all know about it/ 19:17:13 close ACTION-639 19:17:14 ACTION-639 Invite Mark Nottingham to SPDY/HTTP F2F session closed 19:17:58 Topic: Overdue actions 19:18:14 ACTION-560? 19:18:14 ACTION-560 -- Henry Thompson to review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN 19:18:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/560 19:20:06 HST: Some progress behind the scenes, but nothing definite to report on yet 19:20:55 ACTION-560 due 2011-12-20 19:20:55 ACTION-560 Review HTML polyglot last call Due 2011-06-06 due date now 2011-12-20 19:21:19 ACTION-635? 19:21:19 ACTION-635 -- Henry Thompson to update product page for Frag IDS and Mime types, to include realistic goals and dates -- due 2011-12-08 -- OPEN 19:21:20 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/635 19:21:36 HST: I'll scope a session on this for the f2f, in case it's needed 19:22:09 ACTION-635 due 2011-12-20 19:22:09 ACTION-635 Update product page for Frag IDS and Mime types, to include realistic goals and dates due date now 2011-12-20 19:23:08 HST: The updated page will not promise anything in time for the f2f 19:23:14 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner 19:23:30 ACTION-501? 19:23:30 ACTION-501 -- Ashok Malhotra to follow up on whether GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per site/app etc [self-assigned] -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN 19:23:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/501 19:23:42 ACTION-633? 19:23:42 ACTION-633 -- Ashok Malhotra to drive TAG review of Geolocation last call Due 2011-12-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN 19:23:42 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/633 19:23:46 NM: It _really_ matters that Product pages really need to tell the truth about when substantial documents will be forthcoming 19:24:16 AM: I think these are done, I sent email about them, saying the spec. looked OK to me and no action was required 19:24:26 NM: Right, we need that especially as input to the F2F...otherwise we will burn time there editing the product pages to reflect earlier decision 19:24:35 +1 19:24:37 close ACTION-501 19:24:37 ACTION-501 Follow up on whether GeoLocation finds reasonable answer on giving permission per site/app etc [self-assigned] closed 19:24:42 close ACTION-633 19:24:42 ACTION-633 Drive TAG review of Geolocation last call Due 2011-12-06 closed 19:25:13 AM: I've done my half of ACTION-634 19:25:26 ACTION-634? 19:25:26 ACTION-634 -- Noah Mendelsohn to with help from Noah to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState-20111130 as a TAG Finding -- due 2011-12-20 -- OPEN 19:25:26 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/634 19:25:27 ... Waiting on NM for the other half 19:25:28 I will bump the dates on my open actions 19:25:37 ACTION-632? 19:25:37 ACTION-632 -- Ashok Malhotra to frame issues around client-side storage work Due 2011-12-06 -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN 19:25:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/632 19:26:00 NM: I do want to talk about this at the f2f, so need it before then 19:26:06 ACTION-632 Due 2012-01-02 19:26:07 ACTION-632 Frame issues around client-side storage work Due 2011-12-06 due date now 2012-01-02 19:27:27 LM: I have been working on xxx, and would welcome review from everyone 19:28:19 i've been making good progress, i'm ready for 1-1 review of the document i'm working on, but not in a mode where you read something and give me feedback days later... 19:28:43 NM: Adjourned 19:29:01 i posted a couple of "uncool URLs must change" links 19:29:06 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:29:08 -noah 19:29:09 -Masinter 19:29:09 -Yves 19:29:10 -JeniT 19:29:12 -ht 19:29:13 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:29:15 Attendees were JeniT, Ashok_Malhotra, ht, Yves, noah, Masinter, Plh 19:29:17 and HTTP status cats as a new registry 19:29:34 +1 for HTTP status cats 19:29:48 every new registry entry SHOULD come with a picture of a cat illustrating the meaning of the registry entry 19:30:30 cv http://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_proposal.html "Modest proposal: no powerpoint, illustrate your talk with dance" 20:08:52 ht has joined #tagmem 21:09:30 Zakim has left #tagmem 22:00:32 Larry has joined #tagmem 22:03:22 timbl has joined #tagmem 22:10:15 trackbot has joined #tagmem