See also: IRC log
<jar> scribe: Jonathan Rees
<jar> scribenick: jar
<masinter> yay chair
noah: We have everyone here except Tim and Dan.
regrets for Feb 12: Henry
<masinter> postpone approving previous minutes
noah: Problem with truncations for 22nd minutes
<scribe> ACTION: Noah make sure minutes for 22nd are dealt with [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-220 - Make sure minutes for 22nd are dealt with [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-12].
<masinter> they're ok
RESOLUTION: Minutes of Jan 29 are approved http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/01/29-minutes
<noah> Email: Organizing TAG work in 2009 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jan/0081.html
<noah> Announcement email for TAG participation guide: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0006.html
noah: I encourage TAG members to read recent email re getting organized
... Request to returning TAG members to summarize what they did over past year, etc. in next week
<noah> Announcement email for TAG participation guide: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Feb/0006.html
<noah> Draft of Guide: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html
noah: This is an attempt to reduce overhead, explain details about actions, minutes, etc.
... John said it was helpful
... Wants to uncover places where we disagree over little things, but not discuss these disagreements for a few weeks necessarily
... Review process at F2F, not now.
<masinter> no disagreements about content of document so far, want to edit for readability, e.g., separate out policy from process
noah: Please help in staying on top of issues. Think about which issues you care about
... Current telecon time OK?
HT: Will continue to have to leave at quarter past
... [that's not an objection]
noah: 4 weeks until F2F. Agenda work starts in earnest in 1 week
(no objections to telecon time heard)
noah: What's our AC reporting obligation, exactly?
<noah> Previous summary to AC was at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/sum10.html
stuart: We often make our reports public, btw. Group is on the hook to prepare 3 month summary
noah: Agenda - anything to add?
ashok: New item please at end... ...
noah: Do we want to actively consider reopening httpRange-14?
<noah> scribenick: noah
JR: I started a review of how this {ISSUE-57] got started. Saw under original aims to consider how 303 might be used, and other ways to get information about resource, warning about cacheing behavior, and question of how browsers treat the URL window in case or redirects. I haven't checked what browsers do.
... but I think browsers leave old URI in place.
<masinter> I think there's a 'category error', mixing specifications of languages and their semantics with recommendations about best practice for operational behavior, and making the semantics depend on the operational behavior actually following best practice
JR: I don't know what needs to be resolved, but a lot of activity has been happening independent of the TAG. I.e. link header, sitemetadata, and protocol that uses both of those to get information about resource (XRD)
AM: Where is 3rd one discussed?
JR: Not sure, maybe www-talk or httpbis WG, though it doesn't have to do with that. [www-talk@w3.org]
LM: Link header is an http header, so pertinent to httpbis.
JR: This is at next level up. None of these things are published or standardized yet. Link hdr is on standards track, the protocol is not.
<johnk> resource descriptor discovery
NM: Speaking as chair, is our de-facto short term goal to help these three groups land in a good place, separately or together?
<johnk> POWDER have mentioned the 'describedBy' attribute in this context
JR: Not sure about TAG as a whole, but I am interested.
<masinter> think we should discuss priorities before committing to do a lot more work on this
NM: Would like to know what TAG thinks it's doing here.
LM: Also want to talk about higher level issue I typed in above.
<jar> scribenick: jar
masinter: Problem with separation of concerns. Mismatch between HTTP layer and [something else]
... It's confused
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say I'm interested in this issue, will contribute review effort
ht: Happy to abide by ruling over priority of this issue, but would be happy to contribute if it is part of our work
<masinter> (a) organize priorities first (b) if we talk about this, let's talk about why it's a hard problem, see note about 'category error' in IRC log above
noah: Do you (HT) and Jonathan want to go off for a while?
ht: Don't come back to it until someone asks for it.
raman: Re 4 weeks coming up to F2F, good to get closure on old issues, but not expense of new ones.
noah: Please bring up the new ones.
<noah> JR: I think I can put issue 200 down a bit.
<noah> NM: Whatever you're doing, please update ISSUE-200 to reflect true status and expected date.
<noah> JR: I did ask httpbis to clarify what's meant by resource.
<noah> HT: A small request, eh?
<noah> JR: So, I acknowledge the TAG didn't tell me to do that.
<masinter> IMHO, HTTP document should defer to URI document about definition 'resource'
<noah> TVR: You don't have to ask TAG permission to do things.
<noah> JR: Just wanted to alert TAG I did this.
<masinter> and if you don't like what URI says, update it
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to discuss HTTPbis and httpRange-14
masinter: IMO http should defer to URI RFC re def of resource.
<noah> Chair alert -- I'm about to go on to next issue.
ashok: Ashok will bring up an item under 'any other business' which is related to uniform access to metadata
noah: Draft is out for quiet review. No TAG responses, silence = assent.
<masinter> i'm unhappy that this wasn't published before my term began, because now I have to review it
noah: Responses from Daniel - editorial
(apparent assent on Daniel's suggestions)
<johnk_> specific assent from me on Daniel's changes
ht: Are you sure that's the draft you want us to look at? Warning about 3023, etc.
<noah> The draft you should be looking at is: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2009-01-29.html
noah: The agenda was wrong
... Noah will proceed with publication as group has allowed him to.
<ht> HST has now checked the bits of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2009-01-29.html that he was on the hook for, and is happy
noah: Did not settle disposition of action items
ashok: 'Working group' note, which WG is that?
ht: The TAG is a WG for many Process purposes.
noah: What about DO's ACTION-165, about AWWW erratum?
<noah> ISSUE-41 has a link to http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/version_identifiers_reconsider.html
<noah> Quoting from the AWWW:
<noah> Proposal for Future Architecture Document: Version information
<noah> If a language or data format will change in incompatible ways, then indicate the language version used for each instance.
stuart: I believe there is an erratum document for AWWW. The action was to come up with an actual proposed change to AWWW
<masinter> wish there were better summaries of the issues in the agenda
<noah> AWWW says: A data format specification SHOULD provide for version information.
noah: Any volunteers to take this?
<masinter> I think the issue isn't just the version identifiers, it's also the policy for making new versions and keeping backward compatibility
john: Would be willing to take a crack at it. Not clear on status of doc as WG note
<Stuart> See also: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/errata.html
<Stuart> John... in your earlier status question, was that about AWWW or about the WG Note that David is yet to publish?
jar: jar: volunteers to assist...
noah: go to ISSUE-41 in tracker, follow link to QA blog for context
<masinter> I volunteer to get more data, from experience PDF versioning, which went through long discussion and policy questions
<Stuart> AWWW itself is a W3C Recommendation
<johnk_> basically, what is the relationship between the TAG, this WG note and Dave?
action-165 reassigned to John Kemp
<Stuart> action-165?
<trackbot> ACTION-165 -- John Kemp to formulate erratum text on versioning for the web architecture document -- due 2009-01-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165
masinter: SUccess in using version identifier may depend on [...scribe lapse...]. Recent experience with PDF
noah: Larry, we may have looked at some of the relevant issues; consider going through the issue logs
... There's this line in AWWW that doesn't seem quite right
... Let's try to do a simple correction to AWWW
... rather than pulling on the ball of string
raman: Do it *only* if it can be done in one line
<masinter> I have an action item to deal with versioning in HTML5
noah: Two more actions to dispose of. Now action-181 on JAR
<noah> NM: Jonathan, do you want to do more on the formalism?
<noah> JAR:I don't need to, but TAG has asked.
<noah> NM: Propose we close this, since we've changed the context.
<noah> JR: I feel some obligation to Dave. Maybe I should work it out with him.
<johnk_> Can we extend the deadline for the action and revisit?
noah: Propose to close this as a TAG issue... even if stays open with JAR & DO
<Stuart> yes
<scribe> ACTION: jar to work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-02-12].
action-221 due 2009-02-19
<trackbot> ACTION-221 Work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two weeks due date now 2009-02-19
<noah> Close action-181
<trackbot> ACTION-181 Update versioning formalism to align with terminology in versioning compatibility strategies closed
stuart: Propose to push due date for ACTION-183 out.
<Stuart> action-183?
<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- David Orchard to incorporate formalism into versioning compatibility strategies -- due 2009-03-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/183
<masinter> why is this an issue?
noah: There were concerns that the notion of doing an incompatible serialization of XML would be disruptive (this is history)
... Some people felt use cases and requirements didn't hang together so well
... So TAG met with them in France. They talked about compactness, which was not really such a concern...
... then about performance. In my recollection we are waiting for this. The work here is to figure out who owes whom what.
masinter: These issues came out when W3C was first considering starting this work
noah: Two efforts started at the workshop. Use cases & goals hunt led to 32 use cases.
... This seemed like a lot. There seemed to be methodology problems.
<Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2005/09/exi-charter-final.html
noah: We need to make sure we don't owe them anything at this point (or figure out what's owed).
masinter: Was this raised with the TAG?
noah: TAG chose to be proactive.
masinter: Still? [Does anyone on the TAG still want to be practive?]
noah: I do
raman: let it happen and see what happens
<masinter> i think the only appropriate response is to add an applicability statement that restricts the recommended domain of applicability
<masinter> or that adds some cautions etc
ht: I don't feel the speed issue continues to be a determine factor regarding whether this will be damaging to XML.
... The more important issue is, exactly how this stuff is served.
... Close the issue down for now, but we'll keep an eye on it.
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0118.html
noah: Volunteer?
<masinter> general operational problem with all W3C specs
jar: Can't we make the link work?
<johnk> +1
<masinter> either leave it, or fix it for W3C publications in general
<johnk> doesn't preclude other more wide-ranging efforts
<masinter> if you fix this, ask staff to deal with general issue
<Stuart> IMO it has always been open to the TAG to go back and revise a finding.
noah: Do we mean to futureproof links to specs that can change?
<masinter> working groups change, so the W3C webmaster needs to have a way of dealing with broken links even when working group isn't active
<Stuart> W3C has a strong policy wrt to updating TR page docs... we can, and have on one occassion published a TR page finding.
(jar notices these are links to IETF... retracts offer to try to make them work)
<noah> Proposal: the TAG will ask the W3C staff to come up with a general policy for dealing with links that become broken in W3C publications
<Stuart> As an institution the W3C principal output is a document collection; and as the collection grows, document maintenance becomes an institutional problem.
noah: Objections?
(none)
<noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will ask the W3C staff to come up with a general policy for dealing with links that become broken in W3C publications
<masinter> I will draft a note
<scribe> ACTION: masinter to draft a note to W3C staff regarding maintaining working links, for TAG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-222 - Draft a note to W3C staff regarding maintaining working links, for TAG review [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-02-12].
<masinter> The broken links are broken because it is IETF official policy to remove documents that have been expired
<scribe> ACTION: John to attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-223 - Attempt to fix the broken links in Mapping between URIs and Internet Media Types [on John Kemp - due 2009-02-12].
<masinter> is there a pointer to the issue we're discussing?
<Stuart> Related links [WSRA, URIs, and metadata]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jan/0036.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Nov/0008.html
ashok: ... You guys are specifying SOAP messages, but they want metadata. If you are in URI world, there are other ways to get it under development
... Why don't you think about allowing access differently in the SOAP and HTTP worlds?
<masinter> wonder if a metadata workshop would be useful -- too many different approaches to metadata going on to necessarily do this in tag
masinter: Would an access to metadata workshop be of some interest?
noah: Does this fit under ISSUE-57?
masinter: No, broader
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to schedule discussion of metadata (scope, issue, coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/05-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-224 - Schedule discussion of metadata (scope, issue, coordination, workshop, etc) as item on next telecon [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-02-12].
ADJOURNED.
<Stuart> Good job Noah.