W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Draft Minutes for 27th March 2008 TAG Telcon available for review

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:05:57 +0000
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611A1DDFDE0@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Draft minutes for the TAG Telcon on 27th March 2008 are available at:

        http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes

A plain text transcript follows.

Regards

Stuart Williams

--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
================================================================================

                               - DRAFT -

                              TAG Weekly

27 Mar 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Stuart_Williams, Tim_Berners-Lee, Ashok_Malhotra,
          Henry_Thompson, Noah_Mendelsohn, Norman_Walsh, Jonathan_Rees,
          Dave_Orchard, T.V._Raman

   Regrets
          Dan_Connolly

   Chair
          Stuart Williams

   Scribe
          Ashok Malhotra

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)
         3. [7]RDFinXHTML-35 (ISSUE-35)
         4. [8]Bristol travel arrangements
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________



   <Stuart> Scribe: Ashok Malhotra

   <Stuart> scribenick: Ashok

Convene

   Noah: AOB item -- could you send travel directions for f2f?

   Stuart: Any objections to approving minutes from last week

   No objections.

   RESOLUTION: Minutes from 20th March 2008 are approved

   Next meeting April 3 -- regrets from HT

   Regrets from Tim and Stuart for 4/24

   Norm will scribe next week

   SW: We now have all the minutes from the f2f

   DO: Problem about minutes being in two places

   SW: I am willing to accept the places where the minutes have landed
   ... Propose we accept minutes subject to Jonathan's changes being
   included

   <Stuart> Jonathan's corrections are at:
   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0139

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0139

   HT: No objection

   RESOLUTION: f2f minutes approved subject to Jonathan's changes being
   incorporated - i.e.
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0139

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0139

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry S, Norm, Dave -- revise minutes from f2f with
   Jonathan's changes [recorded in
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action01]

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-127 - Henry, Norm, Dave -- revise
   minutes from f2f with Jonathan's changes [on Henry S. Thompson - due
   2008-04-03].

abbreviatedURI-56 (ISSUE-56)

   HT: They have been waiting for this

   Draft from HT ... subsequently revised

   <ht> [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0093.html

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0093.html

   Original wording

   <noah> Second para:

   <noah> In this connection we find the prose about CURIEs the current
   RDFA

   <noah> spec. [$1\47] troubling.

   <noah> Is there a typo in that?

   <noah> Should that be >in the current RDFa spec<?

   <ht> yes

   <noah> tnx

   <timbl> " If you really think you must allow for not only the use of
   CURIEs,

   <timbl> but of the union of [-form CURIEs with URIs, in new specs
   etc.,

   <timbl> then you should at least note that this involves a hostage
   to

   <timbl> fortune with respect to future versions of the URI spec,
   which

   <timbl> might conceivably introduce URIs with initial square
   brackets.

   <timbl> "

   Tim: URI's will not start with [ ... no need to say this

   Noah: I agree to removing it

   HT: Happy to remove

   <timbl> "We would _much_ prefer a proposal which made clear that it
   was only

   <timbl> addressing the need for an abbreviated URI format in non-XML

   <timbl> languages, or new XML languages, or new contexts within old
   XML

   <timbl> languages, where _only_ such abbreviated forms are allowed."

   Tim: I'm worried about pushing them down the path of only non-XML or
   new XML languages

   <Norm> Practically, this means *requiring* the square brackets,
   right?

   <timbl> no IRI consensus ... ah

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to query the IRI parallel

   TVR: Agrees

   HT: Then we need to go to IETF and say "revise URI spec"
   ... But I don't want to do it ... URI's are just fine. Case has not
   been made to change the way HTML is written
   ... There is a case for folks who are authoring N3 by hand ...

   <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to observe that CURIEs don't rely on XML
   Namespaces either

   NW: It's a new kind of abbreviation for URIs

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say IRIs and CURIE's are different
   because of prefix bindings

   <ht> HTML _has_ a 'prefix' mechanism, which is the base URI
   mechanism -- works in HTML and XHTML

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to point out there is a serious
   requirement for RDFa .. and this turns out to have implications on
   HTML atributes

   <ht> I look forward to hearing from Timbl what the RDFa requirement
   is

   Tim: The reinvention of namespaces is a separate bug

   <timbl> TimBL: this is one of the many cases in which we have a
   tradeoff between the eventual cleanliness of the system abnd the
   compatibility with history. For the sake of posterity, we should
   have one type of attribute, one routine to parse it which will in
   future accept [Curie] . For history, we will ban the use of these in
   any attributesd defined today. neither situation is ideal.

   HT: The other impt thing you said, people are going to write RDFa in
   the same way as they write N3 now ...

   <timbl> TimBL: if people are going to write RDFa like they write
   RDF/XML or N3 today, then they will use many namespaces (10-20) and
   use each many times, so they ...

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to agree with the way TimBL started

   HT: by hand using URIs from multiple domains which require multiple
   prefixes

   <timbl> really need namespaces, or the document becomes large and
   unreadable.

   TimBl: Not only hand authoring -- also affects readability and
   length of file

   <dorchard> Maybe use EXI would solve the length problem for machines
   :-)

   HT: Remembering when to type [ ] and when not will be a huge pain

   <timbl> Having to remember when you can use [] and when you can't ,
   in other words when a given attribute was historically introduced,
   is a real pain.

   <dorchard> I'm a bit worried about which optimizations this is
   really for.

   <timbl> It is very tempting to design other solutions in this call.

   <timbl> When was the last time that people looked at mount point
   type use of virtual schemes as abbreviations for URIs, in other
   words declare that the prefix and the scheme name are in the same
   space?

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say, this makes me wonder how hard to
   push back

   HT: We agree RDF languages need this ... it shd be allowed to
   proceed

   <timbl> @prefix doi: <[14]http://h.doi.org/lookup/>.

     [14] http://h.doi.org/lookup/%3E.

   Noah: I don't see a way to do this for the scope they are going for
   ... If it was only for XML language I would have some trepidation
   ... N3 is not an XML languages
   ... Can we say "use it only where there is a need ... not a
   universal solution"

   <Stuart> [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

   SW: Can we agree on everything except the 3rd item?

   Tim: Instead of removing, can we point out the problem in both
   directions

   SW: We need some text we can say yea or nay to

   Noah: When you try to generalize it you get into real trouble
   ... If you apply generally you will get more breakage

   <timbl> "One can imagine an alternative proposal which made clear
   that it was only

   <timbl> addressing the need for an abbreviated URI format in non-XML

   <timbl> languages, or new XML languages, or new contexts within old
   XML

   <timbl> languages, where _only_ such abbreviated forms are allowed.
   That

   <timbl> is, a position taken _against_ any

   <timbl> possibility the CURIEs might be used where URIs are called
   for in

   <timbl> XML languages today. It would though have to acknowledge the
   possible negative

   <timbl> consequences of success in going down this path, namely that

   <timbl> ordinary users will not understand that the [-CURIE is not a

   <timbl> universal alternative to URIs, and will start using them in"

   <ht> How about this: "The TAG has not converged in its discussion
   about the pros and cons of the [-CURIE and its proposed use. We will
   working on input for you on that issue -- in the meantime please do
   not assume that silence gives consent with respect to that aspect of
   the draft."

   SW: Raman, could you support the msg except item 3

   <Stuart> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069

   <timbl> How about " acknowledge the possible negative consequences
   of success in going down this path, namely that ordinary users will
   not understand that the [-CURIE is not a universal alternative to
   URIs, and will start using them in existing languages where URIs are
   expected, causing tools to break and users to be frustrated."

   <Norm> Say nothing?

   SW: The question is -- can we agree on the rest of the draft except
   item 3?

   TVR: I wd object to item 1 because it seems to say we have not had a
   conversation with them.

   Discussion

   TVR: I can live with item 1
   ... I can live with item 2
   ... I think item 4 is a good thing to say

   <Norm> I'm sensitive to Raman's comment on point 1, I'd be in favor
   of making it clear that we aren't asking for *our* clarification but
   for clarification *in the spec*.

   HT: I believe the remaining items are editorial. But I will check.

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to propose a replacement for 3 in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html

   <jar> +1 re placeholder for section 3, everything else can be sent

   Tim reads out above

   TVR: I can live with that.

   Raman leaves the call.

   <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to say I think the TAG should make points
   1, 2, and 4

   SW: Any more discussion of Tim's revision?

   <jar> +1 re Tim's version

   SW: Proposes "TAG have reached consensus to adopt HT and JAR's
   original proposal with item 3 changed as per Tim's revision"

   <timbl> Tim's revision -- [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html?

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html?

   <jar> "[-CURIE" -> "safe curie"

   No objection

   <Askok> No abstentions

   RESOLUTION: TAG have reached consensus to adopt HT and JAR's
   original proposal,
   [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069, with item
   3 replaced with as per Tim's revison,
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html, as TAG feedback to the
   XHTML2 WG on [21]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/.

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0069
     [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html
     [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/.

   <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to send final text HTML WG [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action02]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action02

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-128 - Send final text HTML WG [on
   Stuart Williams - due 2008-04-03].

RDFinXHTML-35 (ISSUE-35)

   Norm: I had some high-level questions and I wanted to ask if TAG
   wanted to discuss them

   <timbl> I feel that there should be a policy of trying to guide the
   (x)HTML family of languages so that they can be managed as one in
   the future, with an adapter layter

   Norm: What will the world do if RDfa spec by XHTML2 does not beocome
   part of HTML5

   How do we feel abt redefinition of attributes like rel and rev?

   <timbl> rel= and rev=

   Norm: Attributes declared to accept a URI or CURIE but we have
   discussed this so I'm happy to drop it

   <Stuart> [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0072

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Mar/0072

   SW: Is the comment to make is to ask the 2 HTML WGs to coordinate?
   ... Norm, could you draft a partial comment?

   JAR: I sent my comments out personally ... I have nothing to add

   <Stuart> ACTION: Norman to draft comment for feedback of RDFa review
   [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action03]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action03

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-129 - Draft comment for feedback of
   RDFa review [on Norman Walsh - due 2008-04-03].

   <jar> "virtual URI schemes" !?

   Tim: Shd we reinvestigate the idea that we shd not distinguish
   between prefix's and scheme names?

   TimBL: Move QNames and URIs into same space with one fell swoop
   ... Getting compatibility will take work ... you want it as an
   extension to URI spec ... don't want languages inventing indepently

   SW: Do we have all the comments we want to make on the RDFa call?
   ... We shd review media-type, frag-id interaction wrt HTML and RDFa

   TimBL: Is there an ambiguity there?

   SW: I shd go look at this more closely

   <timbl>
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008M
   ar/0297

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0297

Bristol travel arrangements

   SW: I will put up a logistics page

   Noah: If you could just send mail with hotels

   <timbl> SW: HP labs is on the N edge of Bristol, but you might not
   want to stay there ... downtown Briston is more interesting,
   especially for walks in the evening.

   <timbl> ... We would need a taxi to pick you up in the morning.

   <timbl> 100 miles from LHR

   <timbl> 1.5-2hs drive

   <timbl> Or train to Paddington (15mins every 15ins) then train to
   Bristol.

   <timbl> 140 for a pickup by car

   <timbl> "Rail air link is bus to Reading then mainline to Brisol
   parkwy/Temple Meads"

   <timbl> 1.5 hrs train, every hour

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry S, Norm, Dave -- revise minutes from f2f with
   Jonathan's changes [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Norman to draft comment for feedback of RDFa review
   [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to send final text HTML WG [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action02]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action01
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action03
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes.html#action02

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 12:10:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:55 GMT