See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 06 May 2010
<scribe> scribe: DanC
JAR: yes, I can scribe next week
TVR: regrets next week
i.e. 13 May
NM: proposed to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/04/22-minutes.html
+1
so RESOLVED.
NM: looks like we'll have group activities Mon, Tue
DanC: my travel plans for June have fallen through. Regrets.
action-418?
<trackbot> ACTION-418 -- Noah Mendelsohn to initiate discussion of what the TAG thinks of JJ's proposed scoping work, and whether and if so how the TAG will participate -- due 2010-05-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/418
NM: Jeff Jaffe is organizing task forces around W3C priorities/vision
AM: about how much time?
NM: sort of email and a few calls model, I think
AM: so sporadic?
DC: well, no, fairly regular
<noah> I dont think sporadic, but I doubt there's travel, and I assume a call or two a week plus email
TBL: what I like to do when
looking at things at a high level is reviewing goals and work
items and how they relate ... how/why diagrams...
... I think Jeff is looking to the TAG to set out the
[goals/missiong?] in terms of the architecture
TVR: I'm less motivated to put together abstract models of W3C work; I'm more interested in driving actual tasks
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say I >think< jeff means mission at a higher level
TBL: yes, there may be some high-level platitudes a la "do good things" but the job here is to figure out which good things
TVR: ok, yes
... that's pretty much what I was saying
NM: I hear Jeff saying they're crafting higher level prinicples that would help us choose which things to do
AM: I'm willing, but I sympathize with what TVR was saying re concrete/specific work
NM: ok, of course you'll bring your own biases; just be clear about them
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok contact Jeff/PLH regarding particiapation in W3C core mission TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-431 - Contact Jeff/PLH regarding particiapation in W3C core mission TF [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2010-05-13].
NM: Ordinarily I'd leave this to the end, but the number of overdue items is getting unwieldy. We started this last week, but several people weren't there.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/overdue
action-381?
<trackbot> ACTION-381 -- Jonathan Rees to spend 2 hours helping Ian with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ -- due 2010-04-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/381
action-381 due +3 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-381 Spend 2 hours helping Ian with http://www.w3.org/standards/webarch/ due date now +3 weeks
action-403?
<trackbot> ACTION-403 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ensure that TAG responds to Murata Makoto's request for RelaxNG Schemas for XHTML (self-assigned) -- due 2010-05-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/403
action-403 due 11 May
<trackbot> ACTION-403 Ensure that TAG responds to Murata Makoto's request for RelaxNG Schemas for XHTML (self-assigned) due date now 11 May
action-422?
<trackbot> ACTION-422 -- T.V. Raman to examine the current text of his client state finding and update appropriately with Noah's email from ACTION-353 -- due 2010-04-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/422
TVR: I did that but just didn't send mail
NM: you covered the maps case?
TVR: I think that's covered by nearby material
<scribe> ACTION: NM to review client state finding update w.r.t. maps case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-432 - Review client state finding update w.r.t. maps case [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-05-13].
action-422: see action-432
<trackbot> ACTION-422 Examine the current text of his client state finding and update appropriately with Noah's email from ACTION-353 notes added
<noah> action-432 due 2010-05-28
<trackbot> ACTION-432 Review client state finding update w.r.t. maps case due date now 2010-05-28
<noah> action-432 due 2010-05-18
<trackbot> ACTION-432 Review client state finding update w.r.t. maps case due date now 2010-05-18
action-422?
<trackbot> ACTION-422 -- T.V. Raman to examine the current text of his client state finding and update appropriately with Noah's email from ACTION-353 -- due 2010-04-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/422
action-428?
<trackbot> ACTION-428 -- T.V. Raman to sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility -- due 2010-04-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/428
action-428?
<trackbot> ACTION-428 -- T.V. Raman to sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility -- due 2010-04-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/428
action-430?
<trackbot> ACTION-430 -- Ashok Malhotra to propose a plan for his contributions to section 5: Client-side state -- due 2010-04-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/430
action-430: AM: I've been thinking about this...
<trackbot> ACTION-430 Propose a plan for his contributions to section 5: Client-side state notes added
action-420 due +2 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-420 What is different about xhtml basic 1.1 (in particular re: namespaces) due date now +2 weeks
NM: note end of May is about a week before the ftf
oops! got that number wrong...
ACTION-430 due +2 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-430 Propose a plan for his contributions to section 5: Client-side state due date now +2 weeks
action-420 due 29 Apr
<trackbot> ACTION-420 What is different about xhtml basic 1.1 (in particular re: namespaces) due date now 29 Apr
action-322?
<trackbot> ACTION-322 -- Dan Connolly to ask W3C management for writing resources re hyperlinking -- due 2010-03-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/322
<noah> DC: I've done it N times
<noah> DC: Recent time I said "punt", nothing will happen, and people went "whoa, not sure I like that"
"Personally, I think the issue is too important to ignore but I
appreciate how hard it must be to find the specialised resources to
address it.
---Rotan"
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to say I spoke to Thinh Nguyen about this
JAR: I talked with Science
Commons counsel about this...
... he says there's little/no law in this area; the courts
follow the technical standards and the technical
community...
... he suggested that the way to make progress in the legal
setting is actually to work on specs/standards
... he's willing to speak with us
NM: is he in the BOS area?
JAR: yes, and he's an IP/copyright/patent laywer
DC: sounds like he could be the missing resource we've been looking for; if not to do writing, at least to review and let us know which things are likely to be helpful
NM: in these deep linking cases,
how do standards get into the conversation?
... do you put stuff like "intended purpose..." in specs?
JAR: yes, I gather that's
helpful
... I'm not sure what the technical scope of the spec would be,
but it would have to be reviewed/ratified by the technical
community
... Thinh may be able to help us out in this area
DC: so I could summarize for Thinh
ACTION-322: I'll try to summarize for Thinh
<trackbot> ACTION-322 Ask W3C management for writing resources re hyperlinking notes added
action-322?
<trackbot> ACTION-322 -- Dan Connolly to ask W3C management for writing resources re hyperlinking -- due 2010-05-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/322
action-322: note "the lengths that sites go to today to disable deep linking."
<trackbot> ACTION-322 Ask W3C management for writing resources re hyperlinking notes added
NM: noting LMM's regrets, not sure how far we can get on this...
action-379?
<trackbot> ACTION-379 -- Larry Masinter to check whether HTML language reference has been published -- due 2010-03-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/379
DanC: I've seen interest to publish something a la "HTML 5 syntactic tools" noting schemas, code, test suites, but wouldn't say "this is the golden schema"
TVR: things have shifted; HTML 5
was once a reaction to everything XML; e.g. "validation? rules?
no way." that group feels they've won...
... but there's an appreciation for checking tools
... that's the part we should gently encourage... machine
processable rules
AM: if you allow multiple schemas, you have to show that they accept the same sets of sentences
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say I think this is about a RelaxNG schema that they already have
TVR: well, no, I think a good
target is a lattice of schemas
... take the table/tbody stuff...
... having one schema saying tbody is mandatory and another
that says it's optional is sort of OK because [subtleties that
are hard to summarize]
NM: re moving on from schemas...
I got the impression that there _was_ a schema that was being
maintained, and we'd encourage publishing it...
... re multiple schemas... what usually happens is that none of
the schemas expresses *exactly* the language... they accept all
the valid documents and perhaps some others
... so how do we wrap up? well, without LMM and HT, with
reluctance, we'll just leave this action pending
<johnk_> ACTION-407?
<trackbot> ACTION-407 -- Henry S. Thompson to propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does -- due 2010-04-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/407
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/thread.html#msg1131
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/0103.html
same as http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1052.html ?
ah... 1052 is too old
<noah> Response from Maciej: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/0104.html
<noah> DC: I think we wanted to check that things went well, seems to me they did
DC: I'm content with where things are / where they're headed
NM: so I guess we're done...
TVR: well, it seems we've abandoned it
DanC: We have succeeded on this one. It is not abandoned.
TVR: isn't the media type registration closely related to the schemas stuff, which we've left in the someday pile?
DanC: well, that's an interesting question, but separate from this one, which is about treatment of HTML 2/3.2/4
action-407: indeed, the spec is being updated w.r.t. treatment of HTML 2/3.2/4
<trackbot> ACTION-407 Propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does notes added
close action-407
<trackbot> ACTION-407 Propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does closed
action-384?
<trackbot> ACTION-384 -- Noah Mendelsohn to cVS usage edits -- due 2010-05-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/384
NM: done in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/coordination/TAGGuide.html
... 14 April 2009
close action-384
<trackbot> ACTION-384 CVS usage edits closed
close action-418
<trackbot> ACTION-418 Initiate discussion of what the TAG thinks of JJ's proposed scoping work, and whether and if so how the TAG will participate closed
action-428?
<trackbot> ACTION-428 -- T.V. Raman to sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility -- due 2010-04-22 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/428
TVR: I wonder if "distributed extensibility" is a useful term; perhaps XML/HTML unification
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about dist extensibility and RDFa 1.1
NM: there was a lot of discussion
about RDFa 1.1 at WWW2010...
... I think they have a draft that uses head/@profile
... also, facebook has initiated stuff with RDFa and
namespaces...
... though a developer of the facebook stuff was there and said
they expect missing namespaces and they expect to make up the
difference
<raman> subject: Apr 22 . me - [ISSUE-41: Facebook open graph protocol]
TVR: note mail of Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:09:20 -0700 with details
TBL: they are producing RDFa, though they're perhaps not using RDF best practices... though they're just a few rules away
timbl: The facebook RDFa has the problem that there are statements that are about things that the page is about, but they are instead written as statements about the page.
NM: what's interesting to me is that just when the HTML 5 people were saying "nobody will use these namespace things", facebook goes and uses them
TBL: there's the question of whether people will write code that recovers from missing namespace declarations
<DanC_> [I wonder if they handle prefixes other than go:]
<noah> I thought they made some use of dc:
TBL: how about talking with Microsoft's AC rep re extensibility support?
TVR: yeah... good idea...
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to express desire for brainstorming session
JAR: I can imaging ftf
brainstorming about this would be useful
... even over breaks
close action-428
<trackbot> ACTION-428 Sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility closed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0038.html
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0040.html
<noah> > The TAG, under the leadership of Tim create a small focused
<noah> > task-force charged with fixing XML namespaces to bring about
<noah> > convergence of HTML and XML.
TBL: yes, that makes sense,
though we should be careful not to pre-judge which things will
change
... I'm heartened by the optimism about getting these things
together
TBL polls for interest in participation... NM and TVR express interest
NM: I'm particularly interested in a consensus that goes beyond the TAG
TVR: yes, of course
TBL: in fact, the suggestion is to "hatch" it outside the TAG
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to help Tim get in touch with staff etc. re XML/HTML unification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-433 - Help Tim get in touch with staff etc. re XML/HTML unification [on Dan Connolly - due 2010-05-13].
close action-428
<trackbot> ACTION-428 Sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility closed
ADJOURN