See also: IRC log
NM: [review of agenda]
<NoahM> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/06-minutes
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 6 October 2011 approved
NM: I'm not available on 20 October -- volunteers to chair?
<Ashok> Yves and i will be at a workshop
<Larry> i'm willing to chair if there are topics to cover and a quorum
DKA: I think we should meet
NM: I think Jeni will be absent as well
<JeniT> I will be absent
NM: Tentative plan, LM can cancel,
otherwise we will meet
... I usually read minutes, check email and pending actions on
Tuesday
<ht>I note that we have at most JAR, LM, HST, DKA and PL on such a call
NM: Peter Linss is the next up to scribe
<noah> JAR agrees to scribe on the 20th if Peter can't
<noah> Note regrets from Jeni for the 20th
NM: Attendees as in minutes
... We will now plan to meet Monday p.m. and Friday a.m.
... A meeting with Rigo Wenning on Friday
<Larry> re TPAC: I might have a conflict after all, not sure I will make it now
<Larry> my conflict, if it happens, is for Tuesday evening, Wednesday & Thursday, so I'm sitll OK for MOnday, Friday, and Tuesday day
NM: News on SPDY?
YL: No new, so lets drop that
<NoahM> close ACTION-615
<trackbot> ACTION-615 Check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC closed
NM: Still leaves the question of what
we do about SPDY
... There are signs of adoption increasing
... A move to all-SSL would certainly have architectural
implications
... Should we continue to track this?
JT: I think this is important, but have too much to do to be quick to volunteer
LM: I could maybe do this
NM: YL to take lead, LM and NM to help
<NoahM> . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis of whether TAG should get involved with SPDY
<NoahM> . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis of whether TAG/W3C should get involved with SPDY
LM: Include W3C
YL: More general than just SPDY -- SSL growth partly independent
<Larry> Is SPDY a HTTP replacement or a HTTP enhancement
YL: See also Web Sockets
<Larry> HTTP isn't going to go away in any evolution of the web that I can imagine in the forseeable future -- too well entrenched
NM: Focus on SPDY, or is this about HTTP v.next?
<ht> I would prefer not to overly narrow right away
<ht> I would like to start with a landscape overview of HTTP v.next and competitors
<ht> +1 to JJ list entry
<Yves> . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket...
<JeniT> +1 on slightly wider scope
LM: Is this better to think of it as an enhancement?
NM: Could take either way in. .
.
... OK with wider action
<Larry> if the result is a W3C community group around SPDY that would be fine :)
NM, YL: [due date discussion]
<NoahM> ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... Due 2011-11-29 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/13-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-618 - With help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... Due 2011-11-29 [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-10-20].
<NoahM> ACTION-615?
<trackbot> ACTION-615 -- Yves Lafon to check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC -- due 2011-10-13 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/615
NM: Meeting with Device Access WG -- discussing timing with WG chair
AM: I have RDB2RDF on Thursday but not Friday
Let's do it Friday afternoon?
NM: I'll try to get agreement on
Friday afternoon
... With flexibility
<NoahM> ACTION-616?
<trackbot> ACTION-616 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs -- due 2011-10-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/616
<NoahM> ACTION-616 Due 2011-10-20
<trackbot> ACTION-616 Contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs due date now 2011-10-20
<NoahM> ACTION-613?
<trackbot> ACTION-613 -- Daniel Appelquist to organize deep linking breakout at TPAC -- due 2011-10-06 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/613
DKA: Just sent e-mail to Rigo
suggesting Friday morning
... Wrt Copyright/deep linking, I've invited Rigo for Friday
morning
... Breakout work ongoing
... Need a more inviting title
NM: "Follow a link, get arrested"
<NoahM> ACTION-518?
<trackbot> ACTION-518 -- Henry Thompson to henry to report back on efforts to get undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs configured into their tools -- due 2011-08-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/518
HT: I would like to abandon this. The issue of heavily used resources seems to have dropped off everyone's radar. I no longer have time or inclination, and W3C seems not to have provisioned the catalog in the necessary way
<noah> close ACTION-518
<trackbot> ACTION-518 Henry to report back on efforts to get undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs configured into their tools closed
<noah> ACTION-577?
<trackbot> ACTION-577 -- Henry Thompson to prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available -- due 2011-09-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577
HT: I would like to abandon this as
well
... With respect to XML processor profiles and browsers the situation has
simplified with the latest Processor Profile draft, and I
don't now see how to fit processor profiles into 3023bis
... Happy to replace this with an action to report on 3023bis
status after TPAC
<noah> close ACTION-577
<trackbot> ACTION-577 Prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available closed
<noah> ACTION: Henry to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/13-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-619 - Report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 [on Henry Thompson - due 2011-10-20].
<noah> ACTION-619 Due 2011-11-15
<trackbot> ACTION-619 Report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 due date now 2011-11-15
trackbot, action 477?
<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, action 477?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
<noah> ACTION-477?
<trackbot> ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
HT: I drafted a call for participation, got agreement from my co-sponsor in Edinburgh. W3M and Ian have approved. I have put it to the organizers, expect approval, but not yet officially announced.
<noah> close ACTION-477
<trackbot> ACTION-477 Organize meeting on persistence of domains closed
<scribe> ACTION: Henry, with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/13-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Henry,
<scribe> ACTION: Henry with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/13-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-620 - With help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 [on Henry Thompson - due 2011-10-20].
action-620 due 2012-01-15
<trackbot> ACTION-620 With help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 due date now 2012-01-15
<noah> ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
<jar> report = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0014.html
JR: Everyone read this?
... Relation of RDFa Core and media types
... Subsequent discussion has clarified there are two issues
here
JR: 1) Follow your nose (noting RDFa
is not a media type)
... 2) Collision between RDFa Core (which might be used with
application/(...+)xml) and 3023bis
<Larry> i've read it and i don't know what to make of it, i'm not happy with any of the options so far
<JeniT> +1 to ruling 3023bis collision out of scope
JR: The collision arises because
3023bis says XML media type fragids have to be XPointers
... Want to rule the collision is out of scope for 509
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to check XPointer semantics is the pblm
<noah> I'm in favor of separation if we open a new action now
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to talk about options & analysis
LM: I'm not sure what our action choices are, nor am I happy with what I do understand
JR: Neither am I
LM: Maybe getting clear on that is what we should focus on
<Larry> action-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
JR: I want to focus on the RDFa Core
side of 509
... as RDfa Core is heading for 3rd Last Call
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask whether RDFa core should be asked to hold up pending resolution with 3023bis
LM: Isn't it possible that RDFa Core isn't the best one to move
NM: The relative status of the two specs involved shouldn't determine which one has to move
JR: I agree with RDFa Core that it's
not their business to talk about media type registration
... The WG resolved several weeks ago that they are not a media
type
<jar_> RDFa WG decision on this matter is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-06
NM: But isn't one of their
requirements to be usable with XML
... which means they shouldn't break XML
JR: They could get away without mentioning a media type, because the current one (3023) says practically nothing about frag_ids
<Larry> i'm noticing WGs avoiding responsibility by saying things are 'out of scope' for them
NM: But we know that 3023bis is coming
NM: So we should try to stop the impending train wreck if the two specs both go ahead as we anticipate
JR: We could do that, but I was trying to work from existing TAG decisions and do the minimum necessary to declare victory
JR: That is, address the question of the RDFa Core spec. first, and only thereafter turn to negotiating between the two groups
<noah> I think I specifically asked: might it be the right role for the TAG to ask RDFa core to not proceed until a serious attempt is made to work with 3023bis folks to come to agreement on right way forward.
<noah> I'm somewhat unconvinced that it's out of scope for them, since they clearly want RDFa to be mixable into XML on the Web, and thus usable with application/xml in particular.
NM: Anyone else share my concern, that maybe they should slow down
HST: +1
<Larry> should we try to organize a workshop getting people together?
<jar_> We've had plenty of time to comment on this...
JR: If we try to take on the larger goal of working out whether/how to talk about URIs in context, we might be in a position to declare victory, but that will take a while
NM: I'm not ready to agree to what has been suggested about that larger goal at all
JT: We need to let them go ahead and publish, we've kept them waiting too long
LM: Should we try to get the parties together?
HST: I like LM's idea
HST: I like Larry's idea. Was going to say "I'm sympathetic to what Jonathan and Jeni have said", and our focus on the famous 'two words' may not have been our finest hour. That said, I don't want them to go to rec without acknowledging that the current state of specs doesn't really give them a place to stand wrt the architecture of media types and mix-ins.
<jar_> Remember two issues: (1) FYN [Follow Your Nose], (2) the potential collision—they're different. HT just touched on (1), Larry's more on (2)
<jar_> I wanted to focus on (1) FYN, and defer (2) until later..
NM: Waiting forever is bad, but moving ahead in the face of architectural uncertainty is a recipe for problems downstream
NM: I am worried that we're on the edge here and elsewhere of just asking people to hold their collective noses and move on
<Larry> the fragment identifier thing in HTML5 is only half-fixed since Hixie didn't do anything about fragids and scripting in application/xml+xhtml
<noah> This is an important part of the architecture, and repeatedly saying "yeah, the specs don't work" is very troubling
<noah> Neither am I convinced that we want to architect this by saying "he who ships the first spec wins"
HST: JR, do you mean that if we focus on FYN we can get useful advice to the RDFa Core folks quickly?
JR: Yes, I think I could get a menu of four or five modest changes to their specs which the TAG could choose from
NM: Separating the two sounds
uncontentious
... But if we only tackle the FYN issue, we better not lose sight
of the collision issue
... How soon?
JR: 3rd last call real soon now
NM: So no time for a sit-down with 3023bis folks
<Larry> could we ask them to leave a placeholder in their spec leaving this part open, or at least warning a reader that the issue is open?
<jar_> Suggesting: Ask them to put some language, now, in their doc addressing (1). Easier to fix. Separately, ask them to work on (2) with HTTPbis folks. (Maybe better if that fix goes in 3023bis.)
NM: We mostly do what JR suggested, but include in any early communication about [step 1], that we are also concerned about [step 2], which we will want to see action on in due course
<jar_> noah wants the two both raised in the same communication to the WG
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to advocate that we ask them to just put in a warning, since we don't have an answer
LM: We have an issue where we don't have the answer, where they want to get a spec. out - - can't we get a warning in
<noah> Still, even a warning will result in content out there on the Web that may or may not be impossible to make legal without special-casing in 3023bis
<jar_> lm wants a more explicit warning; compare to what's in their current draft which is quite evasive
<noah> That special casing is likely to break generalized XML processing, I think.
<noah> Whether the breakage will bother anyone in practice or often, I don't know
HT: +1 to JAR quickly giving us a
longer list of options for improving the two words wrt FYN
... and at the same time Jonathan needs to be sure Manu understands
we remain concerned about 3023 collision, and feel a resolution is
needed eventually
<jar_> By the way 3023bis is already in conflict with application/xhtml+xml, due to xhtml namespace doc's ref to RDFa—so I think it's 3023 that will have to budge
NM: That sounds like we're near consensus on next steps
JR: I believe that 3023bis will need to move, given how much RDFa content is out there
<noah> ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
<JeniT> plus 3023bis's problems aren't just about RDFa
NM: Is that one OK given today's discussion?
JR: Yes
<noah> ACTION-509 Due 2011-10-18
<trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-10-18
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ack. violent agreement and to say what I said a while ago
HST: JR, can you clarify that it's the semantics of XPointer that's the major problem.
HST: JAR to confirm that the putative pblm with 3023bis is the semantics (that XPointers identify elements) not the syntax (because there's no conflict with that)
<jar_> right
NM: But what if RDFa moved to get out
of XPointer syntax space with their own semantics
... Then the conflict is with the syntax
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
<noah> ACTION-566?
<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566
dka: Changing back to open.
<noah> Dan will reopen with reasonable date
<noah> ACTION-603?
<trackbot> ACTION-603 -- Noah Mendelsohn to mention to Ian to document level of TAG commitment in nomination info -- due 2011-11-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/603
noah: 603 overtaken by events
<noah> close ACTION-603
<trackbot> ACTION-603 Mention to Ian to document level of TAG commitment in nomination info closed
<noah> ACTION-608?
<trackbot> ACTION-608 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/608
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to talk about setting up a roadmap wiki ?
noah: We had pretty much decided that we don't have any reason to have an open (tracked) privacy action—let's be clear
larry: In discussion it was suggested that the TAG might be helpful by producing a roadmap that identifies things that are important but inactive
ashok: We could [also] communicate that we don't see how to take it forward
noah: Wiki?
larry: A one-off for privacy not helpful, but a bigger roadmap that has privacy as one piece would be
noah: Sounds too ambitious
<noah> I'm not saying too ambitious, I'm saying not making the opportunity cost cut relative to other things.
<noah> close ACTION-608
<trackbot> ACTION-608 Schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy closed
have at it
<noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately doesn't find it practical to free resourcesto pursue it at the present time.
<noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately doesn't find it practical to free resources to pursue it at the present time.
<Larry> hmmmmm
<Larry> it isn't that it's impractical
<Larry> we're still open to taking it up again
<jar_> we're not sure how to be adequately productive ? effective ?
<Larry> i'd just as soon move on now
<JeniT> +1
RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work. On consideration we have decided not to put resources on this issue at the present time, but we are open to taking it up again.
<DKA> action-566?
<trackbot> ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566
<noah> ACTION-612?
<trackbot> ACTION-612 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond to Ian suggesting a BOF but not a breakout on TAG focus, and ask again about dinner. -- due 2011-10-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/612
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Oct/0003.html
noah: I did send a note to
Ian… continuing to discuss
... TAG BOF at lunch, or spread ourselves out to other BOFs?
<Larry> i need to back off on this because it looks like i have a conflict for TPAC wed/thu
<DKA> +1 to TAG bof.
<Ashok> -1
<noah> 0
<Yves> 0
<noah> Would kind of prefer to go to other tables, but open to input on the TAG
jar: 0; will not be at TPAC
<noah> close ACTION-612
<trackbot> ACTION-612 Respond to Ian suggesting a BOF but not a breakout on TAG focus, and ask again about dinner. closed
<noah> ACTION Noah with Dan to figure out whether we want a TAG bof at TPAC
<trackbot> Created ACTION-621 - With Dan to figure out whether we want a TAG bof at TPAC [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-10-20].
ashok: Email thread starting with Manu's note is sort of related to earlier topic of RDFa, what are we thinking of doing about that?
jar_: Let's let it percolate through email for a bit
ashok: Then take it up at the F2F? (at TPAC)
noah: Start thinking about what you would like scheduled at the TPAC F2F
ADJOURNED