See also: IRC log
RESOLUTION: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/20-minutes agreed as a correct record
NM: Two goals for the near
term:
... 1) Focus for the TAG, as membership changes
... Suggestions welcome, by email, I'll schedule discussion when it
looks likely to be productive
... I need help moving beyond good top-level visions, which need
filling in
... 2) Ongoing work, some nearing completion, others less
concrete
... Need to either complete, or drop
NM: 17-19 March no longer possible
for TimBL
... And earlier hope that we might try London the preceding weekend
is fading
<noah> Two options: London Fri-Sun 15-17 & Cambridge 19-21 USA
<Marcos> MC: Any WFM
<slightlyoff> can make london, although the friday is iffy thanks to TC39 flight back
<JeniT> either ok
<slightlyoff> unlikely to make cambridge
<plinss> either works
<wycats> I am with slightlyoff vis a vis TC39
<Yves> can make cambridge but will miss one day, can't for london (I can make 1 day)
<Ashok> London No, Cambridge Yes
<HST> I can only do 16-17 in London, but I have always been at risk for this meeting
<wycats> can we push it forward?
<noah> How far forward
<wycats> these weeks seem pretty contended
<noah> ?
<noah> No, Tim's calendar is incredibly booked. We typically have to get on it 3 months in advance
<slightlyoff> thanks for the clarification
<wycats> It looks like slightlyoff and my preference is both London
<wycats> I am reviewing my calendar
<slightlyoff> I won't be in Cambridge, no
<slightlyoff> but i'm not more important than tim...break the tie on his calendar
<HST> I can't do Cambridge
<wycats> I have an existing obligation during the Cambridge time period but I could cancel
<slightlyoff> no objection, but regrets
<slightlyoff> no, my regrets for not being able to make it...not anyone's fault
RESOLUTION: Next TAG f2f will be Cambridge, MA on 19--21 March
Note from the TAG chair: the above may be a true record of the resolution as reached at the meeting, but the TAG subsequently decided to move the meeting ahead to 18-20 March. (see e-mail announcement)
<slightlyoff> agree with Henry
HST: XML Core group is
discussing this
... There's a concern that the
XML Declaration is in the XML Infoset
HST: Noah's agenda includes
a contested assertion
... There's email reporting that a number of current
browsers continue to support it.
NM: Should TAG do anything right now?
HST: Tempted to recuse myself. I'm active in the XML Core group. Not clear on TAG-level issue. Dropping it does seem inappropriate, or confusing at best.
HST: I will certainly come back to the TAG on this if I think there's a genuine architectural issue here
NM: Not clear we're ready to address this -- we would need to have some reason to suppose that we could get community engagement on the TAG's involvement
NM: We have a project ongoing at the moment: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
NM: That page describes goals, deliverables, success criteria
<noah>
NM: And we have a public WD: Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions at http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-fragid-best-practices-20121025/
<noah> ACTION-772?
<trackbot> ACTION-772 -- Larry Masinter to with help from Jeni to propose CR exit criteria for fragids finding Due 2013-01-08 -- due 2013-01-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/772
NM: And the current leading edge is
recorded in this ACTION:
... We are heading for CR, and we were going to discuss exit
criteria at the (cancelled) F2F
JT: I don't know where we are on exit criteria, I don't think I've heard from LM, who has that action
JT: I have made a new editors' draft (undated: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids, dated: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-01-05.html), which incorporates comments from Richard Cyganiak
JT: I think we can still go direct to
CR at this point
... I'll take over the CR exit criteria action
NM: Thanks
<noah> ACTION-772?
<trackbot> ACTION-772 -- Jeni Tennison to with help from Larry to propose CR exit criteria for fragids finding -- due 2013-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/772
<slightlyoff> +1
<noah> NM: Notes that Yehuda and Alex favor discussing the DOM at the F2F
NM: Happy to have any topic raised by
member on our telcon agenda
... Often good to prepare stuff on telcons before we take them up
at a f2f
<noah> ACTION-773?
<trackbot> ACTION-773 -- Ashok Malhotra to line up reviewers for Publishing and Linking and invite to participate in F2F -- due 2012-12-20 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/773
AM: We need a fair amount of work on
this still
... The two editors, AM and LM, are both on their way off the
TAG
... It would be great if a new member would take this up
... Or perhaps JT could pick it up
NM: Points taken
... What do people think -- should we continue to pursue this one?
If so, then we'll look at how
<wycats> I'm not personally interested in pursuing it with my time
HST: I'm conficted. I think it's potentially very important. I get profoundly frustrated when, knowledgeable journalists seem not to distinguish linking and embedding when reporting on serious cases involving extradition or other serious matters.
HST: Yes, different jurisdictions are different. I wish we could do the service of helping. We gave it a good shot. The comments from people who understand better what's needed have not been supportive. So, I'd love to see it move forward, but I can't do it. We may have to drop it.
YL: The legal side gave us feedback that suggests working, as we have, only on the technical side, we won't get there -- to take this forward we need to recruit help on the legal side
NM: This feels that something we should have been able to make work, if we had managed to stay focussed
<slightlyoff> it may be the case that the legal community is improvising too in a vacuum of settled case law
NM: but the feedback we got from the
legal side was not all consistent, and in attempting to follow it
we lost focus
... When we tried to focus on the technology, I think we made some
progress, but we couldn't quite close it
... I do hate to close something after so much effort
JT: Yes, but that is a sunk cost, and
it probably is time to move on
... So maybe a finding or a REC is not the right vehicle for
achieving our limited goal
... So maybe realising that blog posts or articles in the press are
legitimate TAG outputs
... is the right thing to do for this
NM: So keep it as a work item, or not?
JT: Keep it on the list of things to include in strategic priorties at the F2F
AR: What was the driver in the first place, for taking this on?
NM: There has been a steady trickle
of legal cases [in US and UK] which involved sites with links
and/or embedding, where public discussion was just muddled. And we
did get, I think, requests from [the W3C's legal guy] Rigo Wenning,
to help with this.
... We thought that a TAG finding on this would have more value
than an individual's blog post
AR: So there was a specific request from lawyers for an explicit technical guidance?
<JeniT> Jonathan brought Thinh along
<JeniT> Thinh from Creative Commons
HST: I am not sure we had an explicit request to start us off -- certainly some positive feedback once we got started
<Ashok> Yes. we had a chat with Thinh
AR: I think it would be a possible way forward to publish something pithy that says "Here's the relevant bits, in the TAG's opinion"
<noah> Hmm. Did I not hear Alex suggest pointing to existing explanations?
<slightlyoff> I'm not trying to
NM: I think the problem is that the RFCs and related material are not at the right level for public consumption
HST: I think JT's suggestion is the best we've got
<noah> . ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to pursue Publishing and Linking
<HST:> +1
<slightlyoff> and don't think we should try to in an absence of compelling demand from a userbase with authority
PL: Couldn't we simply put this on an official TAG blog
NM: We do indeed have such a
blog
... But we've used it for personal posting, rather than
corporate
<HST:> http://www.w3.org/blog/tag/ [link was broken, now fixed, see action on YL below]
<noah> ACTION: Yves to figure out where our old TAG blog stuff is. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-778 - Figure out where our old TAG blog stuff is. [on Yves Lafon - due 2013-01-31].
NM: The entire finding?
AM: It's long for a blog post, isn't
it?
... Maybe take one part of it -- extract highlights?
<JeniT> +1 for a series
PL: Break it up into a series of articles would be fine
AM: One on copyright, one on linking vs. embedding
NM: I'm concerned about the archival
status of blog posts, compared to, say, W3C notes
... Putting smaller pieces where they could be useful, yes, but not
sure about doing it via a blog
... So what about notes?
... So some dimensions: how formal; what mechanism; how much TAG
consensus required
... And beyond the TAG, e.g. LM had been interested in the fact
that REC-track gives some community buy-in
PL: CSS has its own blog. . .
NM: Sure, just there is a history which we need to hook up with
[Anne van Kesteren joins the call]
PL: OK, let's try moving that forward
again
... tweet about it, and improve its visibility
<noah> . ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to pursue Publishing and Linking
AM: Yes
<noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to pursue Publishing and Linking - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-779 - schedule F2F discussion of whether and how to pursue Publishing and Linking [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-03-01].
<noah> ACTION-774?
<trackbot> ACTION-774 -- Peter Linss to frame F2F discussion of Privacy by design note, and possible followup up with privacy group. Due: 2013-01-08 -- due 2012-12-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/774
NM: This started with work by Dan Appelquist wrt Javascript APIs for minimal disclosure
<slightlyoff> "object capabilities"
AM: Minimization
NM: Then Robin Berjon shifted the
focus, as Dan A. left the TAG
... And then Robin left
... And PL was given the action to take the existing content,
slightly cleaned up, and publish it as a Note
AM: And we also agreed to ask the
Privacy Interest Group (PING) to take this over
... Also, Nick Doty is writing a document about
fingerprinting, which makes up about half the content of our
draft
NM: So?
AM: Abandon it
AM: I have had no answer from PING
NM: Draft me an email and I'll send it
PL: The idea was that by publishing it as a Note we could hand it over to PING
<noah> ACTION: Ashok to draft note to PING asking them to pick up our incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-780 - Draft note to PING asking them to pick up our incomplete work on privacy by design by APIs [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-01-31].
NM: I'll wait a few days for comments from TAG members and then send it -- use tag@w3.org for that, please
<Ashok> PING: public-privacy@w3.org
<Ashok> Here is a link to the Privacy by Design document: http://darobin.github.com/api-design-privacy/api-design-privacy.html
HST: JAR and I made some progress at MIT in December, JT has improved her draft, and is awaiting comments. I hope we will make some progress before the f2f, but not much in the next few weeks
<noah> Try this link http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
<noah> It's really more than ISSUE-57, we sort of use that as a shorthand name.
NM: How about a briefing at the F2F?
HST: Maybe -- ask me in a month
<noah> ACTION: Jeni to prepare reading and discussion on Defining URIS (ISSUE-57) for March F2F - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-781 - prepare reading and discussion on Defining URIS (ISSUE-57) for March F2F [on Jeni Tennison - due 2013-03-01].
JT: Yes -- I think it's appropriate to aim for feedback on the Primer and discussion about next steps
noah: this is also known as
httpRange14
... this issue is about how to get information about things that
aren't documents using HTTP
... why don't we have a session on F2F topics on next week's
telcon
... please send emails with suggestions to the public mailing
list
<wycats> noah: can you put a "layering" item on the F2F agenda. I could write up a sentence or paragraph if that would be helpful
noah: is there anything useful we can
do about this today?
... I have an action to announce that it's done
noah: I took an action to schedule
discussion of the DOM stuff at the F2F
... there's a raging discussion
on polyglot on both the HTML and TAG mailing lists
... in part in reaction to the
TAG's reply to Henri
<wycats> I am happy to wait until the F2F to discuss so that the new members can get a high-bandwidth dump of existing perspectives
<slightlyoff> sorry
... I'll wait to see what else
people ask for me to schedule around this topic
<slightlyoff> my fault
<wycats> 1+
Alex: I'd like to understand what's
driving our interest here?
... what's the architectural
principle, or is it because there's a disagreement?
noah: can we defer that to when Tim
and/or Henry are with us?
... while HTML&JSON are
increasingly being used, XML is still an important technology
... some people feel that
publishing polyglot could help meet the requirements of those that
want to publish HTML with an XML flavour
... we asked for the publication
of the polyglot document
Anne: I was on the TF, and maybe the TAG asked for polyglot, but the TF didn't
noah: the TF surveyed the field,
yes
... the TAG went further than
the TF
Yehuda: I think this is related to
some of the issues that the new TAG members are interested in
... and we should have a
discussion about this in a F2F
noah: we sometimes get requests that we have to respond to more quickly
Yehuda: we should respond to those, but a F2F discussion would be useful
<noah> ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F discussion of polyglot, the TAG's request to HTML WG on polygot, and HTML/XML Unification - Due 2013-03-01 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/01/24-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-782 - schedule F2F discussion of polyglot, the TAG's request to HTML WG on polygot, and HTML/XML Unification [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2013-03-01].
noah: please could existing TAG
members go through your actions and either close them or send me
email about what you want to do with them
... if there are other things
that you want to discuss next week, please email them to me
<slightlyoff> I won't be able to attend next week's call (on vacation). Regrets.
<JT:> I will scribe next week