W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 25 Jan 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:14:38 -0500
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2ipxd3qq9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes

[1]W3C

                                   - DRAFT -

                              HTML/XML Task Force

Meeting 5, 25 Jan 2011

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
           Noah, Henri, Anne, Norm, Yves, MChampion, TimBL, John

   Regrets

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting 1 Feb 2011
         4. [8]Review wiki use cases
         5. [9]Any other business?

     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Accept this agenda?

   [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-agenda

   Accepted.

  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/18-minutes

   Accepted.

  Next meeting 1 Feb 2011

   None heard.

  Review wiki use cases

   -> [13]http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Cases

   Norm: First use cases is 01: [14]http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_01

   Henri summarizes the use case.

   Norm: Does anyone think that Henri has failed to capture the use case or
   overlooked a solution that was discussed?

   John: I think he underrates polyglot markup; it's true that polyglot
   markup doesn't let you handle arbitrary HTML, but it does let you handle
   non-arbitrary HTML.

   Norm: Second use case is 02: [15]http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_02

   MChampion summarizes the use case.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask suggest a clarification

   Noah: When I read the wiki, my first reaction was "do you mean someone has
   content that they probably thought of as XHTML and they want to consume
   that or do you mean something like a purchase order".

   Mike: I think it was probably the PO

   <hsivonen> the wiki page says "non-XHTML"

   Noah: Right. I think that was the case and the page could be clarified.
   ... Sophisticated users may have some idea that handing arbitrary XML to
   HTML5 will produce something that might be useful.

   Mike: I think the vast majority of users don't have a clear sense of
   what's in HTML

   Noah: All I was suggesting that clarifying the page would be better.

   Mike: Right. I can do that. I thought it was about arbitrary stuff with
   angle brackets. Either they don't know or don't care about the tag set.

   Mike; What were you thinking of Norm?

   Norm: I was thinking of DocBook or Chemical Markup Language or a Purchase
   Order. Nothing vaguely like XHTML.

   <scribe> ACTION: Mike to update the wiki to clarify that point. [recorded
   in [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action01]

   <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to ask if Henri's solution to 01 is possibly
   applicable here

   Norm: I wondered if Henri's solution to use case 01 would be applicable.
   If you had an XML parser that produced an event stream that could be read
   by an HTML tool and produced (let's say no namespaces) elements named LINK
   with content etc. Would that just work?

   John: I think that sounds like use case 05

   Norm: Is closing link elements and such only a parse time thing?

   Henri: It's only parse time, but it depends on the interface to the tool.
   ... If the tool you have has a text or byte-oriented interface so that you
   have to give it a text/html document, then you can't do it.
   ... The internals of an HTML5 tool would be like the internals of an XML
   tool. In the browser for example, the DOM is namespace-aware.
   ... If you define the toolchain as stuff that happens after parsing and
   you can give a DOM to it, then there's no problem
   ... But I disagree with the wiki page where it says there's no parsing
   problem. It's not just about namespaces, there's also the void elements
   and other elements that have specific processing associated with them. And
   the empty element syntax in XML. There's much more to the parsing
   algorithm than you might expect.
   ... If the use case is something like offline rendering, and you define
   the conversion broadly enough, then it might work, but if you want to some
   trivial serialization of the XML and then parse that, then there's more
   problems than what the wiki page says.

   Mike: What edit would you suggest?
   ... Or do you think the use case is pointless?

   Henri: I'd go for the lower expectations solution unless you're willing to
   make very broad conversions.

   John: Are there HTML tools outside the browser that don't deal in HTML
   syntax?

   Henri: The validator.nu validator is I guess an HTML5 tool, but it's also
   an XHTML5 tool.

   John: We know some things do both.

   Henri: So far, I don't think there are any HTML tools only that are only
   HTML5 aware and not XHTML aware.

   John: And I expect they'd all deal in syntax. Like an HTML editor that
   reads syntax and writes syntax.
   ... What does it mean to have a tool that deals in a DOM?

   Henri: I think Saxon is one such example.

   Anne: There are HTML editors that take a DOM as well, like BlueGriffon (I
   think)

   <hsivonen> (BlueGriffon operates on a DOM, but I don't know if you can
   give it one except by letting it parse HTML or XML)

   Norm: Next use case is 03: [17]http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_03

   Noah checks in his text and the TF reads for five minutes.

   Henri: When it says that the HTML might be generated by a tool over which
   the user has no control, in that case, you might also apply an HTML parser
   to turn that content into XHTML and then you're back to the first bullet
   point.

   Noah: I think I agree, under solutions there's a third one: take the HTML,
   parse it, reserialize as XHTML, and the process that.

   Henri: At the point where you're generating the larger XML file, you can
   serialize to XHTML.

   Noah: I understand; I'll have to think about how to split that across the
   problem statement and a solution.

   Noah describes how he might edit the page to general agreement.

   Norm: Anyone think the problem is mistated or that solutions we discussed
   were overlooked.

   Anne: This looks complete to me.
   ... I'm not sure this is a problem that needs any more solution than we
   already have.

   Norm: Any further discussion?

   None heard.

   Norm: The next use case is 04: [18]http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_04

   John summarizes

   John: Kurt put a bunch of stuff in the discussion section that I haven't
   looked at yet.

   <noah> I would find it helpful to have this wiki page using the separate
   problem-statement/solution-statement style that the other pages use.

   Norm: Thank you. As Noah suggests, would you be willing to rework the page
   to have problem statement/solution as the other pages do?

   John: I'll try; it's a busy week for me.

   Norm: Does anyone think this fails to capture the problem or the solutions
   that were discussed?

   Noah: I'm having trouble grokking it in this form, but I'll work through
   it.

   Henri: I think that what John wrote captures the discussion pretty well;
   what Kurt added goes into new areas that weren't discussed very much.

   Norm: John, when you look at Kurt's discussion, will you please let us
   know if find anything that's genuinely new?

   John: Yes.

   Noah: I was hoping for that level of exposition on the original page.

   <hsivonen> Norm, you are aware of srcdoc, right?

   <Norm> hsivonen, yes and I *hate* it with a firey passion.

   <hsivonen> (My time is up. Gotta go. Regrets.)

   <anne> bye hsivonen

   Some discussion of the nature of markup. Structured attributes, order,
   anonymity, etc.

   Norm: Next is 05: [19]http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_05

   Anne summarizes.

   John; I believe it's true however that concatenation doesn't work with
   100% reliability for HTML either.

   Anne: True, it's 95% or so.

   John: So you end up with something that's more complex than XML
   conceptually becuase you have all of XML plus all the recovery strategy.

   Anne: That makes the parser simpler...

   John: I didn't say the parser, I mean it makes the language more
   complicated.

   Noah: Getting into XML5 under string concatenation seems a bit backwards.
   ... I think the use case is that you think you have WF XML, you want to
   have WF XML, but sometimes you blow it. You want to serve XML5 because you
   want error handling if you get it wrong. XML without draconian error
   handling.
   ... For me, that's the use case for XML5. Let's gently move the world
   towards better markup.

   <anne> ("better" imo)

   Noah: Half the time when you make a mistake, it's a mistake you want to
   fix.

   <anne> I am not sure where this is going? Is Noah volunteering for writing
   up another use case?

   Norm: I think that's a little different than 05, Noah, would you be
   willing to write that up as an 07 use case?

   Noah: Yes, of course. I don't think the overlap is a problem.

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to write up the use case for XML+error recover as
   Use Case 07. [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action02]

   John: Having spent the last week writing a MicroXML parser, I had to work
   a lot harder than if I was going to be draconian. I had to always be in a
   recoverable place.

   Anne: I did it too and I didn't think it was that hard. It's actually
   simpler because XML has a lot of places where you have to check the
   character ranges and with recover you don't have to do that.

   John: I was talking about much more complex recoveries; for example, when
   you get a not well formed comment, what do you do?

   Some discussion about how hard the recovery problem is.

   Norm: Ok, next week we'll look at 06 and 07 and any others that have
   changed significantly. Then I think we need to consider next steps. Are
   there any?

  Any other business?

   None heard.

   Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Mike to update the wiki to clarify that point. [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to write up the use case for XML+error recover as Use
   Case 07. [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action02]

   [End of minutes]

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([24]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2011/01/25 16:13:49 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-minutes#ActionSummary
  11. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/25-agenda
  12. http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/18-minutes
  13. http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Cases
  14. http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_01
  15. http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_02
  16. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action01
  17. http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_03
  18. http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_04
  19. http://esw.w3.org/HTML_XML_Use_Case_05
  20. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action02
  21. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action01
  22. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-html-xml-minutes.html#action02
  23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:15:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:15:18 GMT