IRC log of tagmem on 2012-05-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
16:58:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:58:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
16:58:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
16:58:35 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
16:58:36 [trackbot]
Date: 17 May 2012
16:58:53 [masinter]
scribe: Masinter
16:58:59 [masinter]
ScribeNick: masinter
16:59:55 [masinter]
17:00:38 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
17:00:45 [Zakim]
17:01:02 [Zakim]
17:01:10 [Zakim]
17:02:47 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:03:27 [Zakim]
17:03:42 [Zakim]
17:04:12 [masinter]
17:04:34 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see plinss, JeniT, Masinter, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn
17:04:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, JeniT, noah, jar, trackbot, plinss, Yves
17:04:54 [noah]
No regrets
17:05:03 [masinter]
topic: administration
17:05:11 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
17:05:21 [masinter]
17:05:28 [masinter]
17:05:35 [masinter]
topic: approval of minutes of may 3
17:05:39 [noah]
17:05:57 [noah]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 3 May are approved
17:06:07 [Zakim]
17:06:15 [masinter]
topic: administrative items
17:06:16 [noah]
17:06:26 [Zakim]
17:06:41 [noah]
Jonathan can scribe next week
17:07:32 [Ashok]
17:07:35 [noah]
NM: Who might work with us on DANE?
17:08:33 [noah]
LM: Hannes ???? is interested in working with the TAG
17:08:41 [noah]
ack next
17:08:47 [masinter]
17:09:11 [noah]
I'm not sure that PERL matches well on ???? special characters
17:09:53 [noah]
17:09:53 [trackbot]
ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare overview of DANE for TAG consideration -- due 2012-05-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:09:53 [trackbot]
17:10:33 [masinter]
Larry: bump date
17:12:57 [noah]
17:12:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-697 -- Larry Masinter to prepare for discussion of CA infrastructure weakness (e.g. DANE) -- due 2012-05-29 -- OPEN
17:12:57 [trackbot]
17:14:52 [masinter]
noah: everyone knows f2f is in boston, logistics should be familiar to all (perhaps except Robin)
17:15:08 [Ashok]
17:15:09 [noah]
The +1/-1 is for who will be at F2F
17:16:18 [noah]
We're not sure about Robin
17:17:39 [masinter]
topic: closing action-703
17:18:10 [noah]
close ACTION-703
17:18:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-703 Put health warning in "Booth Script" for formatting minutes closed
17:19:01 [masinter]
topic: issue-66 mime and web
17:20:07 [noah]
17:20:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-690 -- Jeni Tennison to sort next steps on Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types -- due 2012-05-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:20:07 [trackbot]
17:20:14 [noah]
17:20:17 [masinter]
s/mime and web/Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types
17:21:25 [masinter]
discussion of topic, content, logistics
17:22:21 [masinter]
Jeni: not much changed from the content that was there before, building on the negotiations on the media type registration document, and making the recommendations more concrete
17:23:06 [masinter]
Jeni: Having now written a draft on this, the topics that make sense to cover are the structure syntax suffix registration, also for anyone writing fragment definitions ....
17:23:40 [masinter]
jeni: we want to do this fairly rapidly, the timeline is based on having something we can review at F2F, going through drafting
17:24:31 [ht]
q+ to mention
17:24:43 [masinter]
ashok: If you want to recommend what people ought to write or how they are to write fragment id specifications. But most of this is fixing bugs in things, that doesn't look like recommendation to me.
17:24:53 [noah]
17:25:31 [noah]
ack next
17:25:32 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to mention
17:26:22 [masinter]
ht: the IETF is gearing up to standardize the "+" suffix practice such as used in +xml
17:26:33 [JeniT]
suggest to cover: what people should write in media type registrations, structured syntax suffix registrations, guidelines for defining fragment structures (eg XPointer / media fragment URIs), and guidelines for publishers and authors that refer to URIs with fragment identifiers
17:26:45 [masinter]
ht: it includes specifically a (slightly broken) reference to 3023
17:26:59 [masinter]
ht: hoping Chris Lily will respond
17:27:02 [noah]
q+ to ask about the split between success criteria and deliverables, and also what should be in IETF documents vs. what should be in our new Recommendation
17:27:12 [masinter]
ht: I would like people to review it, and especially section 8
17:27:26 [masinter]
ht: it seems to amend 3023 on the fly
17:28:10 [masinter]
discussion of comments
17:28:26 [noah]
ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
17:28:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-706 - Keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=?? [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-05-24].
17:28:38 [noah]
arghh...meant to put a dot in front of that
17:28:44 [noah]
close ACTION-706
17:28:44 [trackbot]
ACTION-706 Keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=?? closed
17:28:49 [noah]
. ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due: 2012-??=??
17:29:07 [noah]
LM: I'm feeling we should act sooner
17:29:33 [masinter]
discussion of how to send comments to the IETF and what to say on the document and how we would review it
17:31:01 [masinter]
Henry: I will do that (raise the issue with Tony Hansen)
17:31:14 [noah]
ACTION: Henry to keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis - Due 2012-05-05
17:31:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-707 - keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-05-05].
17:31:28 [noah]
ACTION-707 Due 2012-06-05
17:31:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-707 keep an eye on and relation to RFC 3023bis due date now 2012-06-05
17:31:55 [masinter] is a better document
17:32:50 [noah]
ACTION: Henry to check with Chris Lilley on likely near term progress of RFC 3023bis
17:32:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-708 - Check with Chris Lilley on likely near term progress of RFC 3023bis [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-05-24].
17:33:28 [noah]
17:33:41 [noah]
ack next
17:33:42 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to ask about the split between success criteria and deliverables, and also what should be in IETF documents vs. what should be in our new Recommendation
17:34:14 [masinter]
q+ to talk about why 'rec'
17:34:53 [masinter]
noah: concern about the product page, so that the dependency between IETF and Rec? What is left that is extra?
17:35:44 [masinter]
Jeni: if you look at the media type registration document, it contains very little guidelines about fragment identifiers
17:35:47 [noah]
From the 2nd success criteria: "The TAG will work with the IETF and the W3C to update the templates for MIME type registrations as necessary to promote consistent and accurate documentation of fragment id semantics"
17:36:16 [noah]
NM: If that's done, what's left for the Recommendation?
17:36:19 [masinter]
the template should point to our rec once we have one
17:36:38 [masinter]
jeni: it includes in the template an area where people can talk about fragment identifiers in depth
17:36:41 [noah]
JT: It's done, but it only gives us an area in which to put.
17:36:52 [masinter]
noah: if you could update the product page to clarify, that would be helpful
17:37:27 [noah]
17:37:34 [masinter]
noah: say taht the template has been updated, but the template doesn't ahve guideance
17:38:08 [noah]
NM: I have some preference for updating the product page to make clear what's not in the IETF templates, and what therefore should in our Recommendation
17:38:35 [noah]
LM: The IETF stuff should, ideally, point to the Recommendation saying "look over there at the helpful guidance the W3C has given you for doing this well"
17:39:07 [noah]
LM: Might or might not be W3C, but yes. And that's why we need Recommendation, so there is formal community consensus.
17:39:17 [noah]
17:39:22 [noah]
ack next
17:39:24 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to talk about why 'rec'
17:39:27 [masinter]
17:40:30 [masinter]
discussion of whether this is a top priority
17:40:41 [masinter]
getting buy-in
17:40:51 [noah]
NM: So, are we all agreed that Jeni's plan in is what we want to do, and as a top priority.
17:40:58 [noah]
Agreed with no objections.
17:42:15 [noah]
JT: Larry's reviewing a draft, will soon go the TAG for review, hoping for lots of time at F2F.
17:42:22 [noah]
NM: Absolutely, it's a top priority.
17:42:26 [noah]
LM: It looks close to me.
17:43:01 [masinter]
lm: Ned already said he likes it.
17:43:30 [masinter]
noah: I would rather be early than late in the schedule
17:45:04 [masinter]
noah: question on tag members listed .. everyone sitll ant to be listed?
17:45:07 [masinter]
17:45:22 [masinter]
topic: f2f agenda
17:45:23 [JeniT]
17:46:19 [masinter]
noah: for F2F, most important thing is things that we should have written
17:46:51 [masinter]
noah: what do we need to know about range-14 at F2F?
17:47:04 [masinter]
jar: hopefully we can wrap it up without a lot of discussion
17:47:19 [masinter]
jar: Jeni, Henry and I are working on getting a statement we can agree on
17:47:37 [masinter]
jar: let's wait a week or two before deciding how much time to schedule
17:48:11 [masinter]
jar: I've been meaning to go over the product page. Given the lack of consensus in the community, i don't know if we can succeed.
17:48:37 [masinter]
jar: We might need to defer the issue to some other group
17:48:39 [noah]
17:49:05 [masinter]
noah: there's a sense in which we're punting on a goal. If we punt on a goal, i want to be careful that we justify that.
17:49:48 [masinter]
noah: (more about prioritizing)
17:51:13 [noah]
JAR: Give me a week or two before we settle the F2F plan on ISSUE-57
17:51:59 [masinter]
noah: next topic is publishing and linking. Should we have a session on it?
17:52:01 [noah]
NM: Publishing and linking?
17:52:14 [noah]
JT: Can you give me a couple of weeks to see if I manage some time?
17:52:16 [masinter]
jeni: let me see if i can get some time on it in the next couple of weeks
17:52:22 [noah]
NM: Absolutely. Thank you for trying.
17:53:07 [masinter]
noah: (discussion of balance of work and whether list of topics represents what we are doing)
17:53:59 [masinter]
noah: I am inclined to schedule a session on TAG effectiveness, without structure
17:54:08 [masinter]
s/without/without much/
17:54:36 [noah]
LM: It could be organized, based on threads, such as finding vs. rec
17:55:18 [JeniT]
+1 to having a session about general TAG effectiveness/goals
17:55:35 [jar]
+1 too
17:57:29 [masinter]
q+ to propose meeting with W3C staff to talk about this
17:57:32 [Ashok]
17:58:19 [noah]
NM: My inclination is to look at things somewhat top down, starting with our charter
17:58:28 [noah]
LM: I'd be inclined to invite Jeff
17:59:06 [masinter]
nm: i think it would be useful to have a discussion among ourselves also
17:59:34 [jar]
18:00:23 [noah]
ack next
18:00:23 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to propose meeting with W3C staff to talk about this
18:01:29 [noah]
. ACTION: Noah to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures
18:01:58 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures
18:01:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-709 - Talk to Jeff & W3M about TAG futures [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-05-24].
18:02:30 [masinter]
nm: discussion of survey
18:02:55 [Zakim]
18:03:12 [ht]
Next AB meeting is on ... 11 June!
18:04:06 [masinter]
if AB is meeting 11 june, could we meet with them?
18:04:10 [noah]
18:06:48 [Zakim]
18:07:17 [ht]
Which reminds me -- HST regrets for next week
18:07:26 [masinter]
discussion of XML / HTML task force and next steps
18:08:09 [masinter]
lm: +1 to xml/html topic
18:09:05 [noah]
JAR: doing AWWSW wrapup
18:09:29 [noah]
JAR: distinct from other ISSUE-57 work
18:10:09 [masinter]
q+ to propose F2F time to review and triage
18:10:14 [noah]
JAR: Will try to get a draft done June 1, then we can decide F2F
18:11:07 [noah]
AM: Storage session to decide what we're doing
18:12:16 [masinter]
nm: Ashok, can you put something together to review what the issues are?
18:12:53 [masinter]
ashok: the TAG might want to write a finding, "look, there are these mechanisms, here are the pros nd cons". That i think is relatively easy to write up.
18:12:53 [noah]
NM: Specifically, can we do something that will identify the points of disagreement we've been thrashing on regarding what goals and success criteria should be, so we can try to settle them ahead of F2F?
18:13:32 [noah]
AM: Difficult issues as to whether local items have URIs, synchronization, etc. Those are hard.
18:13:41 [noah]
q+ to talk about architecture vs. detail
18:13:48 [masinter]
18:13:52 [masinter]
18:14:01 [noah]
ack next
18:14:03 [noah]
ack next
18:14:04 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to talk about architecture vs. detail
18:14:28 [masinter]
nm: I think the tag's job in all this is to look after things that are architectural in scope, and things that are part of web architecture
18:14:49 [masinter]
nm: some of the proposals look like they mix architectural issues with lower level things like IndexDB.
18:15:07 [masinter]
nm: what you say seems to sort things by 'hard' vs 'easy'
18:15:38 [masinter]
nm: Our question should be: if there is a design choice between storing things locally vs. remotely, how does that affect the design?
18:15:59 [noah]
18:16:01 [masinter]
ashok: i'm trying to find how people handle this case, like offline email. I've had some difficulty finding out.
18:16:22 [masinter]
nm: should we cancel the effort on storage? I can't tell where you're going.
18:17:18 [Ashok]
18:17:41 [jar]
I thought that post was very informative
18:17:57 [masinter]
ashok: this is an interesting post. Would a larger version of this be interesting? larger in that we spoke about other local storage mechanisms
18:18:41 [masinter]
ashok: or, should we take up a narrower issue, like the local/global URI question, and the problems of synchronization
18:18:51 [masinter]
q+ to reply
18:19:05 [noah]
ack next
18:19:06 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to reply
18:19:41 [noah]
NM: I see stuff like dropbox, iCloud, Adobe Creative/Cloud, blurring the line between local storage and Web storage. This should be part of Web architeture.
18:19:50 [noah]
18:19:57 [noah]
18:20:18 [noah]
LM: I'm more interested in surveying what people are doing than making recommendations, because I don't think we know what to recommend.
18:20:40 [masinter]
the web is moving toward blurring the line between local storage and remote storage, and these new services will grow
18:21:17 [masinter]
zakim, who's here
18:21:17 [Zakim]
masinter, you need to end that query with '?'
18:21:22 [masinter]
zakim, who's here?
18:21:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see plinss, Masinter, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Jonathan_Rees
18:21:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ht, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, JeniT, noah, jar, trackbot, plinss, Yves
18:21:49 [noah]
I note that in the blog post, they do what I recommend, which is use local storage as a cache for URL-id's content.
18:22:04 [noah]
See e.g. this line of code: document.body.innerHTML = localStorage.getItem( urlPath );
18:22:20 [noah]
Note that it's indexing the local store with the urlPath
18:22:42 [masinter]
jar: it seems that what we call 'web architecture', the original design of the web; you could imagine another path that included things like dropbox and distributed storage
18:23:07 [masinter]
jar: if there were a place for architecture, and there's some analysis for people who are designing things
18:23:15 [noah]
Is it really clear that Web arch is completely unprepared to integrate w/persistent store like Dropbox? I'm unconvinced.
18:23:17 [masinter]
jar: I don't know what kind of thing one could say, though.
18:23:44 [masinter]
jar: where to put the boundary of such an analysis ?
18:23:59 [masinter]
nm: this is useful, but we're drifting scoping F2F sessions
18:24:22 [masinter]
jar: there's probably a lot to talk about if we cast a broader scope
18:24:54 [masinter]
18:24:59 [masinter]
18:25:23 [noah]
LM: We have a list of TAG findings, and we have approved findings and draft findings. I look at the charter and how we could lead the community.
18:25:59 [noah]
LM: I think it would be worth the TAG time to go through the findings, to see whether the community is following them up to either get recs with community consensus, or "drop" them.
18:26:26 [Zakim]
18:27:23 [masinter]
nm: i think it's more effective for people to do this offline individual review, and then come together to discuss
18:28:16 [masinter]
lm: suggest a survey
18:29:07 [noah]
18:36:12 [Zakim]
19:01:13 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
19:10:51 [Zakim]
19:42:21 [Zakim]
19:42:22 [Zakim]
19:42:22 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
19:42:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were plinss, Masinter, JeniT, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah_Mendelsohn, Jonathan_Rees, ht
19:47:33 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
20:05:40 [masinter]
rrsagent, stop log
20:05:40 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop log', masinter. Try /msg RRSAgent help
20:06:15 [masinter]
rrsagent, stop