W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2007

TAG weekly minutes 5 Feb 2007 for review (tagSoupIntegration-54)

From: Williams, Stuart \(HP Labs, Bristol\) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:29:55 -0000
Message-ID: <C4B3FB61F7970A4391A5C10BAA1C3F0D68567D@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>


Hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/02/05-tagmem-minutes

plain text...

                       TAG Weekly Teleconference

5 Feb 2007

Attendees

   Present
          Raman, Stuart, Norm, noah, Rhys, Vincent, DaveO, DanC, TimBL,
          Henry

   Regrets

   Chair
          Stuart

   Scribe
          DaveO

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Adminsitrivia
         2. [4]Transition
         3. [5]passwords in the clear
         4. [6]tagsoupintegration [09:23]
         5. [7]elaborated infoset [10:21]
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Adminsitrivia

   approved minutes of last week [09:08]

   <DanC> RESOLVED: to approve
   [9]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-tagmem-minutes.html as a true record

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-tagmem-minutes.html

   RESOLUTION: approved minutes of Jan 30 approved

   dan: openID and SAML are interesting topics for future agenda
   [09:09]

   noah: paper submitted and accepted for enterprise of web services
   workshop [09:10]
   ... invited to present so I'll prep slides

   stuart: regrets for Feb 12th [09:11]

   next week scribe: Noah

Transition

   stuart: transition of TAG, things to think about [09:13]

   vincent: working on some of my open action items [09:14]

   <noah> +1 to what Dan said. [09:15]

   dan: if stuart has any questions, I suggest bringing them up.
   ... but I'm against going through the whole list

   <noah> I might be a bit more willing to have group skim, but would
   be opposed to detailed review of all issues as a use of our shared
   group time.

   Norm: namespace-8, let's finish

   stuart: versioning

   dan: keep versioning high priority [09:18]

   <DanC> (I took an action re urns and registries too; apologies, no
   progress)

   dave: also URNsRegistries [09:19]

   raman: how long is transition period?

   stuart: while we have them around, we keep flogging them. [09:20]

passwords in the clear

   <DanC> (mez's text
   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jan/att-0038/pas
   swordsInTheClear-52Mez.htm ) [09:21]

     [10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jan/att-0038/passwordsIn
TheClear-52Mez.htm

   <timbl> .me notes today was booked out for me many weeks ago.

   noah: if this is going to go on for a long time, give somebody else
   some ownership

tagsoupintegration [09:23]

   timbl: validation seen as a repository of truth [09:30]
   ... w3c has controlled specs via validation
   ... validator needs to be revisited
   ... validation could be what w3c, or even TAG, of what is acceptable
   or recommended [09:31]

   <DanC> (I agree the validator is a big part of the story; I'm coming
   up with more and more justification for budgeting validator work
   against the TAG... yeah... what tim's saying.hmm.)

   timbl: do you say "no quotes, die, reload", vs advisory [09:32]

   stuart: what does TAG vs WG do? [09:33]

   timbl: two philosophies: 1) stick things in a some stuff may become
   stds; 2) stick with using namespaces
   ... how to cleanly develop these things, probs in either case

   <noah> I think CDF adds an extensibility story to XHTML, no?

   <raman> interesting ... the only thing the tagsoup and xhtml folks
   would agree on is probably "we dont need RDF:-)" [09:34]

   <DanC> maybe, noah, but if they [CDF] have, I haven't seen it.

   timbl: TAG crosses many different groups, how do you take all these
   things and evolve them.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to think out loud about encouraging
   validator dev

   dan: validator is close to TAG's work. [09:35]
   ... don't want html and css validators, want just a validator.
   ... shorten feedback loop between authors and validator developers
   [09:36]
   ... unicorn project..

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about role of WG

   dan: maybe we just need some detailed time on this..

   noah: help them to fish rather than do the fishing.
   ... TAG should set forth principles, ie self-description
   ... TAG should help w3c get WG's going. [09:39]

   <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to point out that I don't see how the
   validator helps by itself. I need to be able to read something that
   tells me the right answers,

   norm: answers need to be written down.

   raman: tag shouldn't maintain validator
   ... today people point their browser at something and see if it
   works [09:40]

   <noah> I think rather than getting credibility by having a fraction
   of users go to our validators, it's far more effective to get the
   sort of credibility that will cause the browser vendors to implement
   the "right" answers.

   raman: biggest success would be to have browser do validation.

   <noah> That means the answers we advocate have to be practical.

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say that the browser could fix it in
   View Source

   timbl: actually, I think that people when they do the, they also do
   view source
   ... whenever you do a save as or view source, it offers the cleaned
   up version

   <noah> Suggest one would need to separate: view source from "view
   corrected source". I think there are a bunch of drawbacks to making
   it hard to see the "real" source when that's what you want.

   <noah> Tim's answer of highlighting diffs is fine, as long as you
   can reconstruct the original too. [09:43]

   <noah> I do view source :-)

   timbl: imagine if you did view source and it colour coded. whenever
   you copied the source, you'll get the cleaned up

   raman: people don't do view source anymore because it's too
   complicated

   timbl: my son does it, and I think a lot of people still do this

   <noah> My son too.

   <Vincent> my sons too

   timbl: and if it's generated, then it's even less excusable that it
   doesn't validate

   dan: stick cases such as the forms and table nesting "documented
   hack" in the test suite

   raman: people do open table, insert data, close table [09:45]

   <Stuart> ack vincent [09:46]

   timbl: how about forms have id tags, and always refer to forms via
   ids rather than the tags

   vincent: many pages "near" him are out of his control and not valid.
   ... many of the content management tools, like blogs and wikis, etc.
   produce just garbage [09:47]

   <Norm> If only we had either a carrot or a stick...

   raman: chicken and egg
   ... some times content produces for old bugs and not necessary but
   sometimes the browser won't fix it. [09:48]

   <Stuart> ack dave [09:49]

   <DanC> DO: I hear TV pointing out problems with lots of suggestions,
   and wonder if TV has any suggestions going forward. [09:51]

   raman: you run into the browser issue right away, then you run into
   legacy issue. [09:52]

   <Stuart> ack DanC [09:53]

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to observe that TV clearly has more details
   swapped in than I do, and to ask if he has suggestions, and to
   re-raise the "free to a good home" possibility

   dave: was hoping to hear ideas for what we could do..

   danc: thinks he hears TV say I don't hear the answer, but TAG should
   do more work. [09:54]

   raman: architecturally the TAG needs to answer the question: should
   tagsoupintegration exist on the web, and then how does it coexist
   with structured markup.

   <DanC> do, raman is re-iterating 3 options from HT's summary
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0062.html
   [09:55]

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0062.html

   raman: henry said it well, tagsoup exists and come up with strategy
   for migrating toward structured markup 2) structured good; 3)
   tagsoup /structured co-exists
   ... lean towards co-existence and a strategy for moving towards
   structured [09:56]

   timbl: there have been many extremes, step function for moving
   ... meet halfway on each one.
   ... for example people that want to omit quotes, and that's in xml.
   [09:58]
   ... we're looking at each thing separately, and looking at the
   benefits of moving in the direction we want
   ... question of which battles. eg, namespaces and microformats.
   [09:59]

   <noah> I have mixed feelings about calling a a format in which
   attributes need not be quoted "XML", because the major selling point
   of the "XML Brand" is that the expectations for interop with
   deployed parsers are very high. Don't want to break that. I do think
   having a sort of "nearly XML" with known, stable transform to and
   from is a fine idea. I just don't want to quite brand it as XML.

   timbl: namespaces very important

   imbl: microformats can't cope with scale of evolution that we should
   have [10:00]

   <noah> +1 The importance of namespaces for supporting
   self-description and as a basis for distributed innovation is the
   sort of principle the TAG itself should be driving.

   timbl: the battle for namespaces is different level than quoted
   attributes

   <DanC> TV: yes, (1) consistent tree, and (2) namespaces are my main
   things. quotes are in the noise. [10:01]

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say success is bringing the browsers
   along

   raman: problem is coupling these things, can't do namespaces unless
   you do xml and you can't do xml unless you have attributes

   noah: there was a tone to the discussion that "oh yeah there's the
   browsers"
   ... I think it should be the other way around [10:02]
   ... success is fostering discussion that happens in the browsers

   enefits

   noah: path forward has to include browsers [10:03]

   <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to ask if we really believe that fixing
   quotes on attributes would really help

   norm: every time this issue comes up, quotes on attributes
   ... I wonder that this level of syntactic fixup is really a big part
   of this issue. [10:04]
   ... we could write 10,15 rules on this [10:05]

   <DanC> (TV has given examples of how it's deeper than that, indeed.)

   <raman> Agree with Norm that fixing quotes on attrs is in the noise;
   I blieve myself and timbl were saying the same

   <noah> If Norm is right that the problems are really deeper browser
   dependencies, then I wonder how much mileage we get out of Tim's
   proposal for a self-correcting View Source? Seems like that would
   deal with the minor issues more successfully than the deep ones.
   [10:06]

   <noah> I could be wrong about that.

   <DanC> (the 10 or 15 rules evidently cost 1747 lines of python. 1/2
   ;-)

   ht: I don't think that the xml syntax issues aren't the big deal.
   ... I think it's more the unclosed tags, if anything

   <noah> I suspect there's also a perceived convenience/DWIM issues.
   Not sure how big a deal that is.

   ht: in the examples that hixsie gave, what happens when you pollute
   your xml with bad html and plug that into good xhtml
   ... spent some time on formal languages in that area.
   ... there is some work out there, but there was nothing that covered
   all the cases we came up with

   <DanC> ([12]http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/ )

     [12] http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/

   ht: john cowan's approach was the last thing standing that might get
   to some consensus [10:08]
   ... if you cannot live with "here is a large collection of
   semi-formal english", then i want to go back and look at john's
   tagsoup

   raman: at least it's in a ruleset for program use [10:09]

   <DanC> (I started looking at cowan's tables in discussion with
   #whatwg folks, but only scratched the surface. I should update
   [13]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTMLAsSheAreSpoke )

     [13] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTMLAsSheAreSpoke

   raman: raggett's tidy used to have c code, which got migrated to
   java

   danc: talk to the folks who worked on Access [10:10]
   ... maybe at f2f

   noah: politics to who we invite.. [10:11]

   (some discussion about individuals) [10:12]

   stuart: any comm team in japan? [10:15]

   <noah> Maybe the right thing would be for someone (Rhys) to approach
   Tommy (name?) informally and ask what would be the most effective
   way to pursue such contacts.

   <noah> I would welcome some more formal contact with HTML 5. Not all
   of us take the trouble to participate directly with WHAT WG, etc.

   <Rhys> The person from Access is Tommy Kamada who is Access CTO and
   their AC Rep [10:18]

   <noah> I think it's appropriate to make the liaison with HTML 5
   community at least more semi-formal, perhaps formal.

   stuart: we should have some metings with the various groups.
   ... and how about the chartering process? [10:19]

   ht: question is really, what is the architectural space the 1,2,*
   WGs are working in, and how can help [10:20]

   <noah> I think the TAG can help in commenting on the W3C WG
   structure insofar as our technical insight contributes to an artful
   decision as to whether this work seems to admit working in separate
   groups or one, for example.

   <ht> HST gives apologies for next week (sorry if that tips the
   balance)

elaborated infoset [10:21]

   ht: I suggest adjourning this item for 2 weeks, as timbl sent
   regrets [10:22]

   meeting adjourned

   <noah>
   [14]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [10:26]

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([16]CVS log)
    $Date: 2007/02/09 16:23:34 $

     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 16:30:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:44 GMT