17:55:36 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:55:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-tagmem-irc 17:55:38 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:55:38 Zakim has joined #tagmem 17:55:40 Zakim, this will be TAG 17:55:40 ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 17:55:41 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 17:55:42 Date: 14 February 2013 17:55:59 Chair: Noah Mendelsohn 17:57:03 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:57:10 + +1.415.997.aaaa 17:57:46 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/02/14-agenda 17:57:51 ScribeNick: JeniT 17:58:15 Scribe: Jeni Tennison 17:59:14 - +1.415.997.aaaa 17:59:16 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 17:59:16 Attendees were +1.415.997.aaaa 18:00:04 noah has joined #tagmem 18:00:32 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 18:00:39 +[IPcaller] 18:01:07 +[IPcaller.a] 18:01:09 zakim, this will be TAG_Weekly 18:01:09 ok, noah, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started 18:01:32 +[IPcaller.a] 18:01:49 zakim, [IPcaller] i sme 18:01:49 I don't understand '[IPcaller] i sme', noah 18:01:53 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:01:53 +noah; got it 18:02:32 zakim, who is here? 18:02:32 On the phone I see noah, JeniT, [IPcaller.a] 18:02:33 On IRC I see noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves 18:04:13 zakim, who is here? 18:04:13 On the phone I see noah, JeniT, marcos 18:04:14 On IRC I see noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves 18:04:38 ht has joined #tagmem 18:05:40 +??P10 18:05:50 zakim, ? is me 18:05:50 +ht; got it 18:05:51 zakim, who is here? 18:05:51 On the phone I see noah, JeniT, marcos, ht 18:05:52 On IRC I see ht, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves 18:06:23 Larry has joined #tagmem 18:06:44 + +1.415.997.aaaa 18:07:02 zakim, who is here? 18:07:02 On the phone I see noah, JeniT, marcos, ht (muted), +1.415.997.aaaa 18:07:04 On IRC I see Larry, ht, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves 18:07:08 sorry 'bout that...my luck with Zakim was increidbly spotty 18:07:13 +Masinter 18:07:16 it kept saying the code was invalid 18:07:25 good to go 18:08:08 Topic: Administrative Items 18:08:15 close ACTION-783 18:08:15 Closed ACTION-783 Send https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2013Jan/0044.html to PING. 18:08:17 noah: I sent email to PING group, gonna close the action 18:08:46 … we need to get another F2F in before the summer break 18:09:06 … trying to get dates around Tim's availability over next few days 18:09:14 … think this is likely to be in UK 18:09:24 … probably options for hosting in both London & Edinburgh 18:10:08 topic: polyglot 18:10:10 Topic: Polyglot and DOM support of XML 18:10:21 slightlyoff: I want to understand what the TAG is expected to do now 18:10:27 … there seems to be active debate on the topic 18:10:43 … the current TAG need to decide what to do wrt the previous membership's positions 18:11:01 noah: yes, we can change our minds 18:11:25 … let's discuss if we want to reopen it and why 18:11:32 slightlyoff: what's the history? 18:11:49 q+ to uplevel wrt Polyglot and XML 18:12:07 zakim, ack next 18:12:08 unmuting ht 18:12:08 ht, you wanted to uplevel wrt Polyglot and XML 18:12:08 I see no one on the speaker queue 18:12:17 ack next 18:12:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0038.html 18:13:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0087.html 18:13:35 ht: one of the things that the TAG has done in the past is that when there are entrenched disagreements between WGs 18:13:59 … the TAG has sometimes intervened to give what they think is the architecturally sound answer is 18:14:46 ht: one thing we could do is try to mediate 18:15:04 … about DOMs, between the XML & HTML WGs, 18:15:04 Email from Noah in Dec 2012 to HTML WG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Dec/0082.html 18:15:38 … on polyglot, we've said that it is a valuable part of the family of XML-related recommendations [ht please check] 18:15:50 This traces to 2010: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0703.html 18:15:57 Thanks Masinter! 18:16:11 Sam Ruby: 18:16:11 s/XML-related/HTML-related/ 18:16:13 I took an action item from the TAG yesterday to convey the following 18:16:13 request: 18:16:13 The W3C TAG requests there should be in TR space a document 18:16:13 which specifies how one can create a set of bits which can 18:16:13 be served EITHER as text/html OR as application/xhtml+xml, 18:16:14 which will work identically in a browser in both bases. 18:16:14 (As Sam does on his web site.) 18:16:52 Nov 2012: Henri Sivonen wrote: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.html 18:17:03 "Rescinding the request to the HTML WG to develop a polyglot guide" 18:17:12 q+ to offer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Feb/0018.html as an architectural principle for polyglot in general 18:17:28 On behalf of the TAG I sent: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Dec/0082.html 18:17:35 Note that this _is_ a doc't in TR space at the moment: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/ 18:17:45 The TAG has decided not to rescind the request, but we do observe that both 18:17:45 Working Group Notes and W3C Recommendations appear in TR space, and 18:17:45 therefore the HTML WG could satisfy our request by publishing the Polyglot 18:17:45 draft [2][3] either as a Note or a Recommendation. 18:18:07 q? 18:18:09 ack next 18:18:10 Masinter, you wanted to offer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Feb/0018.html as an architectural principle for polyglot in general 18:18:43 Masinter: thinking about polyglot as a general technique not just for languages, but for APIs and network protocols, as a transition technique from one version to another or one language to another, or one extension to another 18:18:58 … if you need to make changes, "polyglot" is a transition technique 18:19:17 … Appendix C in XHTML was a transition technique from HTML to XHTML 18:19:20 I don't want top copy all of it here, but it's worth reading all of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Dec/0082.html as there are more details. 18:19:31 q+ to speak to utility 18:19:31 … HTML polyglot is a transition technique from XHTML to HTML5 18:19:36 ack next 18:19:38 noah, you wanted to speak to utility 18:19:48 … if people are concerned about applicability, that can be narrowed in the Scope section 18:19:58 noah: I think people are talking past each other in the email threads 18:20:13 Anne's email is relevant 18:20:14 … there's a community that says that they want to use polyglot and would appreciate a Recommendation 18:20:24 q+ 18:20:35 (I'm happy to represent the HTML-heads) 18:20:35 … and another group that says that those people don't need it, and it shouldn't be standardised 18:20:46 … I think we should address this correctly 18:21:25 ack next 18:21:26 … I think if people are saying that they have XML servers, and want to use polyglot, we need to do some studies about how many of those kinds of people there are, and move past anecdote 18:21:29 ack next 18:21:48 slightlyoff: to put a different tint on what might be motivating people from the "is this really necessary?" camp view 18:21:56 … XML imposes restrictions that HTML doesn't 18:22:01 q+ to question somewhat the "need studies" point 18:22:18 … there might be concerns that polyglot will restrict the evolution of HTML 18:22:23 q+ to respond to putting restrictions on evolution 18:22:33 … to what extent must you be able to express all documents in the polyglot variant 18:22:41 … I agree that we've been talking past each other 18:22:58 i don't think that expressing _all_ of the semantics is necessary 18:23:25 … I'd like to understand, from a procedural basis, about how the TAG's request fits with Sam's personal position 18:23:40 in fact it is likely impossible 18:23:52 noah: we had a joint F2F between TAG & HTML WG, we discussed this, there was enough agreement in the room such that Sam took the action to take it forward 18:23:57 … he wasn't speaking for himself 18:24:06 … one WG like the TAG can make a request of another 18:24:12 No, No No 18:24:18 That's not what happened! 18:24:19 … they asked if we'd care to withdraw it, and we said no 18:24:40 q+ to clarify that it was H. Sivonen _as an individual_ who asked 18:24:47 … if they choose not to agree, we can either say 'ok' or we can stand in their way 18:24:56 q- 18:25:06 ack next 18:25:07 noah, you wanted to respond to putting restrictions on evolution 18:25:11 thank you so much for the clarification 18:25:11 … ok, yes, it wasn't the HTML WG that asked us to rescind, it was Henri 18:25:40 q+ to question somewhat the "need studies" point 18:26:04 -ht 18:26:17 noah: I don't think it was the TAG's intention to bound the evolution of HTML5 18:26:30 … what we said was that we see emerging a useful intersection that people are using 18:26:38 … and we thought it would be valuable to document it 18:26:49 +??P10 18:26:49 … one thing we could do is clarify that 18:27:04 if polyglot couuld only express XHTML 1.0 semantics and not anything else it would be OK, wouldn't it? 18:27:49 ht: on procedure, the HTML WG is thrashing on a difficult problem 18:27:51 Masinter: yeah, that's sort of the question...or perhaps more broadly, if it becomes a *subset* of what XHTML 1.0 can express, is that also OK? 18:27:57 … there are points on both sides of the debate, some more sound than others 18:28:13 … the TAG's recommendation is part of the landscape within which they're trying to resolve it 18:28:26 Could you clarify "what difficult problem"? 18:28:29 … at the moment, polyglot is on the Rec track 18:28:36 … the HTML WG will have to change something to take it off 18:29:02 slightlyoff: XHTML 1.0 is fixed, it can't "become" anything. If it's a subset of XHTML 5 or whatever, that shouldn't be a problem, should it? 18:29:03 … those that wanted change see the TAG's request as standing in the way of making that change 18:29:26 … as far as I know, the discussion hasn't been escalated to the HTML resolution mechanism 18:29:35 q? 18:29:37 ack next 18:29:38 Masinter: I mean, what if what polyglot markup is possible becomes subset of XHTML as a result of HTML evolution, what does that mean in any direction,good or bad? 18:29:39 ht, you wanted to question somewhat the "need studies" point 18:29:49 … I'm not sure we need to debate the merits of the case 18:30:11 slightlyoff: polyglot markup has to be a subset, if only because of document.write 18:30:12 … I'm not convinced that kicking this into the long grass until we have quantitative studies is the way forward 18:30:33 … I hope the HTML WG's guidelines make clear that web constituencies should be respected unless there's good reason not to 18:30:43 Masinter: well, it has to be a subset of HTML if you're going from XML -> HTML and XML is growing (but XHTML isn't) 18:30:45 … there are people who create application/xml and publish it as text/html 18:30:56 … and I think that means we should respect that constituency 18:31:04 I agree that there are folks publishing from XML toolchains. You're saying it's "undoubtedly true". I hear people doubting. 18:31:20 … questioning how many users there are to say whether a constituency is worthwhile is something the HTML WG has always resisted, and I don't think we should go there 18:31:23 -marcos 18:31:47 noah: Alex suggested that it would constrain HTML5's evolution 18:32:05 +[IPcaller] 18:32:11 +1 to that. I would like to suggest we issue that clarification. 18:32:22 … we could say that there's no request to restrict HTML5's evolution to just those things that can be expressed in XML 18:32:28 Sure 18:32:31 I think it's easy 18:32:33 sure 18:32:38 sure 18:32:45 Polyglot is a statement of fact as of a certain date 18:32:52 if i got a vote i'd +1 18:33:05 noah: I don't want to do something thinking it would help and then cause more confusion 18:33:10 I'm happy to say it doesn't change the fact that _any_ change to HTML5 has to be argued on the merits 18:33:12 … Alex, do you think it would help? 18:33:34 and I do think we should gather data 18:33:38 slightlyoff: I think the potential for confusion is high, because the different constituencies have different goals 18:33:44 And 'breaking' Polyglot doesn't have any _de jure_ standing in that discussion 18:34:20 +1 18:34:20 noah: anyone could say something on the HTML list to suggest that we provide that clarification, and see whether that's welcomed or not 18:34:54 who needs to be reassured? Henri? 18:34:55 There's nothing the TAG or anyone else can do to prevent someone from ever _saying_ "You can't do that, it makes Polyglot impossible", all we can do is say that such statements, in our view, have no force 18:34:57 I think being careful about this and being informal to start is a good way to help understand if we can help with a clarification 18:35:09 Agree with Alex 18:35:32 Agree with Noah -- I said that above 18:35:45 one way to record this is to ask the polyglot editor to revise the Scope section 18:35:46 yes, you are 18:35:52 Marcos: I agree with Alex 18:36:03 if the polyglot draft actually said this? 18:36:21 JeniT: WDYT? 18:36:31 I don't see a 'Scope' section??? 18:36:53 it needs one 18:37:05 "Introduction" 18:37:38 Separate bug on "no scope section at all" 18:37:58 JeniT: Alex, if you can raise informally, that would be great 18:38:06 I will do that. 18:38:15 i think this was useful 18:38:17 … hopefully the Scope section which Henri raised as a bug will get into the spec 18:38:29 yep, happy for that 18:38:54 noah: can I raise an action? 18:39:14 . ACTION: Alex to solicit informal discussion on HTML WG list of clarifying: polyglot doesn't restrict html5 futures 18:39:21 +1 18:39:23 +1 18:39:34 i was planning to blog about polyglot as a general versioning/transition strategy and the "not restrict future growth" is a good additional point, thanks 18:39:48 ACTION: Alex to solicit informal discussion on HTML WG list of clarifying: polyglot doesn't restrict html5 futures - Due 2013-02-25 18:39:48 Created ACTION-787 - solicit informal discussion on HTML WG list of clarifying: polyglot doesn't restrict html5 futures [on Alex Russell - due 2013-02-25]. 18:40:01 Topic: Fragment identifier semantics 18:41:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Feb/0017.html 18:41:50 JT: What's proposed for this call? Considering revisions to our draft, or other things we might do? 18:42:05 JeniT: I'd like to understand the scope of the things that Alex feels need fixing 18:42:24 AR: The outline I posted is trying to get authors of spec to think about extensibility points is most important. 18:42:24 slightlyoff: I'd like to get the spec authors to think about extensibility points 18:42:26 it's possible that the current document combines advice for too many audiences 18:43:39 AR wrote "This 18:43:39 arises because the XML processing algorithm does not specify any such 18:43:39 extensibility point (nor define itself in terms of such a thing)" 18:43:59 Actually, I think there is an extensibility architecture. It's got hierarchical MIME types. The problem is that the subclassing rules aren't clear, and different subtypes have made conflicting choices on compatibility with the base. 18:44:27 thanks 18:44:34 JT: I am interested in how we can alter text or take different approach to being clear extensibility needed. 18:44:37 I agree with what Jeni is saying that the extensibility point is right, but it's not XML's problem, it is, or rather _was_, the media-type system's problem, and to a large extent this has been fixed 18:44:39 q? 18:44:42 I think I might have lost the thread a bit and feel as though I owe the list a more detailed set of comments 18:45:07 noah: we have an extensibility system that's been used inconsistently 18:45:15 So what the doc's goal needs to be is to clarify how the system has been fixed, to the extent that it has, and how we should all proceed as a result 18:45:20 … there's media types which are extensible, and there's a subtyping mechanism 18:45:31 … the problem is that people make different assumptions about what the rules are 18:45:51 … if you're a subtype, people thought that the name resolutions should be compatible with those of the super-type 18:46:00 … but then we found that there were examples that broke that rule 18:46:07 … it's not helpful to say there's no extensibility 18:46:18 … the problem is that we have an extensibility mechanism that is already being used in incompatible ways 18:46:32 q+ 18:46:34 … and no one can decide how to resolve the incompatibilities 18:46:40 ack ht 18:46:40 q+ 18:46:41 ack next 18:46:52 q+ slightlyoff 18:46:59 ht: I don't disagree with much of what you (noah) said 18:47:17 … except to say that the IETF has adopted a compromise to that problem 18:47:22 Is 3023bis adopted, or are you talking about something else? 18:47:30 … the revised goal of the document is to clarify how we *have* solved the problem 18:47:54 Can we get the link. This is very important. Let's minute carefully. 18:47:55 … the whole story about sub typing has been officially documented by IETF in the last 6 months, in a way which is compatible with the TAG's request 18:47:58 … and with 3023bis 18:48:00 q- 18:48:19 noah: I want to know whether Alex thinks that's fixed the issue that he's concerned about 18:48:32 +1, would like to hear about the fix 18:48:41 apologies for being out of date 18:48:50 ht: it's reasonable to ask how it's been fixed 18:48:53 You and almost everyone else -- not your fault! 18:49:26 zakim, who is here? 18:49:26 On the phone I see noah, JeniT, slightlyoff, Masinter, ht (muted), [IPcaller] 18:49:28 On IRC I see Masinter, ht, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, JeniT, Marcos, slightlyoff, plinss, trackbot, wycats, Yves 18:49:31 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838 18:50:11 See in particular http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#page-23 -- Section Structured Syntax Suffix Registration Procedures 18:50:58 ht: I think we should put this to one side until Jeni is happy with the document 18:51:06 how does 4.11 resolve the tension? 18:51:14 JT: It is already. 18:51:54 ahhh...I seee, MUST -> SHOULD 18:52:11 JT: I have an action to draft exit criteria. As far as content goes, it's there I think. But new TAG members are confused, suggesting there's a problem. Need feedback on how to do better. 18:52:29 Not sure that's the right IETF doc 18:52:32 Hold on 18:52:45 RFC 6838 18:52:46 Hs structure syntax procedures 18:52:52 s/Hs/Has/ 18:52:55 darobin has joined #tagmem 18:53:49 don't assume my ignorance is a way forward ;-) 18:54:03 q+ 18:54:13 ack next 18:54:22 slightlyoff: there are two issues that I spoke to Jeni about, the first was about scripts 18:54:22 4.1 in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6839 actually has the solution, but it's specific to +xml in that doc't 18:54:39 … we talked about changing from MUST --> SHOULD which I think is in line with the power that scripts have 18:54:42 AR: One change I asked from MUST to SHOULD was already made, so OK on that. 18:54:44 I thought there was a general statement to the same effect, but I'm looking for it 18:55:00 ack ht 18:55:16 AR: Still trying to understand 4.11 in 6839. Do XML fragments not have to resolve to an element. 18:55:23 HT: Yes, but it doesn't say it there. 18:55:44 ht: … that's where the solution to the rdf+xml problem is stated 18:55:55 q+ 18:55:59 I thought Henry said it was somewhere else 18:56:30 ack next 18:56:35 … I believe that the apps directorate has acknowledged that the solution in 4.1 should be a generic solution, not just +xml 18:56:38 zakim, mute ht 18:56:38 ht should now be muted 18:57:16 So, for instance, if you look in the definition for +json, in section 3.1, you can see that using the same solution 18:57:27 slightlyoff: from the scripting perspective, we've seen that applications are treating fragids as things other than elements 18:57:34 q+ to mention TAG finding on application state 18:57:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState 18:57:42 … these applications deserve to have their content able to not follow these rules 18:57:48 ack next 18:57:49 noah, you wanted to mention TAG finding on application state 18:58:06 … it would be best if they could without carving out a new media type 18:58:28 actually...I misspoke. I have read this 18:58:33 So, Alex's more recent point is not about suffixes 18:58:49 ht: I observe that suffixes are part of the general case 18:59:05 The IETF resolution I was talking about is for the suffix vs. generic case, not the media-type vs. script case 18:59:17 noah: the Identifying Application State doc says that if you're using fragids for application states, use a syntax that's disjoint from ones that are used to identify elements 18:59:30 … reserve the ids for your elements, and make sure the Javascript works for other ones 19:00:25 ht: I'm observing that you can assume that any media type has "scripting", and that content-defined addressing is not unique to HTML 19:00:38 http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/12/w3c_tag_publishes_finding_on_i.html 19:00:50 Argh...status says finding, boilerplate says working draft. 19:01:20 slightlyoff: I think it's good advice, and I agree on that without hesitation 19:01:40 … I'm concerned that it's not general, that it doesn't talk about the architecture that underpins what it is to be a fragment 19:01:56 q? 19:01:59 if there were an updated URI/IRI spec, that would be once place to put it 19:02:10 slightlyoff: I'd like more time to think about this 19:02:12 I don't know if Anne's dropped the ball on his URL spec 19:02:18 Not a waste 19:02:52 noah: it's useful to go over this 19:03:11 we're scheduled for 90 min 19:03:13 Larry, "Last updated 14 February" on http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ 19:03:14 we have plenty of time = ) 19:03:22 Topic: F2F Planning 19:03:32 Topic: Bringing TAG members up to speed 19:04:02 noah: it occurred to me that it's important to give new members context about (1) some of the specific work the TAG has done in the past 19:04:16 … (2) not everyone has noticed the range of technologies that we have in scope 19:04:41 … I'm proposing that incumbent TAG members to propose a few things from the TAG's past to talk about 19:05:02 … eg the buffer bloat issue, and SPDY 19:05:22 http://masinter.blogspot.com/2012/12/reinventing-w3c-tag.html "Recommendation: Review TAG Findings and triage; either (a) update and bring the Finding to Recommendation, (b) obsolete and withdraw, or (c) hand off to a working group or task force." 19:05:54 … I'd ask that TAG members draft a page or so of background material 19:06:09 … I thought at the F2F we could review those at 15 mins / piece 19:06:19 … to give a broad sense of where we've been 19:06:28 +1 -- I will contribute remotely if we do this 19:06:44 … in part to inform which things we should drop 19:06:47 -ht 19:06:53 … in part to understand what's in scope 19:07:01 good thing 19:07:48 Topic: Pending Review Items 19:07:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview 19:08:07 ACTION-745? 19:08:07 ACTION-745 -- Jeni Tennison to get LCWD of fragids & media types published and respond to comments -- due 2013-01-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:08:07 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/745 19:08:43 NM: you have action on exit criteria 19:08:48 close ACTION-745 19:08:48 Closed ACTION-745 Get LCWD of fragids & media types published and respond to comments. 19:09:02 ACTION-754 19:09:02 ACTION-754 -- Jeni Tennison to with Larry work out what the exit criteria from CR for fragids best practices should be -- due 2012-12-11 -- OPEN 19:09:02 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/754 19:09:03 ACTION-754 19:09:03 ACTION-754 -- Jeni Tennison to with Larry work out what the exit criteria from CR for fragids best practices should be -- due 2012-12-11 -- OPEN 19:09:03 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/754 19:09:26 ACTION-746? 19:09:26 ACTION-746 -- Jeni Tennison to raise a bug on registerContentHandler and registerProtocolHandler to ask for specification of how fragids are handled -- due 2012-10-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:09:26 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/746 19:09:46 originally i thought it just didn't say anything 19:09:48 it was me 19:10:11 NM: Are you OK with dropping this? 19:10:26 LM: It doesn't say much, but feature is at risk anyway. 19:10:57 JT: Seemed clear to me. 19:11:08 JT: Fragids are passed in, then app decides. 19:11:10 LM: OK 19:11:13 close ACTION-746? 19:11:13 Closed ACTION-746 Raise a bug on registerContentHandler and registerProtocolHandler to ask for specification of how fragids are handled. 19:11:40 ACTION-759? 19:11:40 ACTION-759 -- Larry Masinter to frame for telcon discussion possible TAG work relating to DWIM and Issue errorHandling-20 -- due 2012-11-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:11:40 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/759 19:11:54 if I had any qualms about this i'd raise a bug on the HTML spec 19:12:15 LM: There's a pointer to message I sent. 19:12:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0171.html 19:12:34 Masinter: the action was to tee up something for TAG discussion, which I did 19:12:48 LM: TAG can choose to discuss or not? 19:12:50 noah: TAG, should we discuss this? 19:13:20 … I'll close the action, but if someone pops up to ask that we revisit, that's fine 19:13:32 Masinter: this dates back to discussion with Robin about error handling 19:13:46 closing the action is fine with me 19:13:57 close ACTION-759 19:13:57 Closed ACTION-759 frame for telcon discussion possible TAG work relating to DWIM and Issue errorHandling-20. 19:14:06 ACTION-777? 19:14:06 ACTION-777 -- Jeni Tennison to draft proposed response to Richard Cyganiak's comments on Fragids -- due 2013-01-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW 19:14:06 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/777 19:14:25 NM: You did that, did he answer. 19:14:33 JT: Don't think so. 19:14:40 close ACTION-777 19:14:40 Closed ACTION-777 Draft proposed response to Richard Cyganiak's comments on Fragids. 19:15:01 noah: there are a ton of outstanding actions 19:15:07 … it'd be great if people could sort them out 19:15:33 regrets for next week 19:15:53 thanks for clarifying the rules 19:15:59 -Masinter 19:16:00 noah: officially the call for next week is on, but if I don't see anything we'll cancel 19:16:03 ADJOURNED 19:16:05 -[IPcaller] 19:16:07 -JeniT 19:16:09 You're welcome, they are a bit of a nuissance. 19:16:10 -slightlyoff 19:16:59 -noah 19:17:00 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:17:00 Attendees were JeniT, noah, marcos, ht, +1.415.997.aaaa, slightlyoff, Masinter, [IPcaller] 19:17:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:17:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-tagmem-minutes.html JeniT 19:23:21 noah has joined #tagmem 19:37:58 ht_home has joined #tagmem 21:12:31 noah has joined #tagmem 21:17:04 noah has joined #tagmem 21:28:36 Zakim has left #tagmem 21:42:01 JeniT has joined #tagmem 23:36:58 Masinter has joined #tagmem