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

DRAFT Minutes from TAG Telcon 29th May 2008

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:41:54 +0000
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C82CB86C0B@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Draft minutes from our telcon of 29th May 2008 are available at:

        http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/29-minutes

and as plain text below.

Regards

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

===============================================================================

                               - DRAFT -

                                  TAG

29 May 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/29-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
   Regrets
   Chair
          Stuart Williams

   Scribe
          Ashok Malhotra

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]News/New Items
         3. [7]UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50)
         4. [8]passwordsinTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52)
         5. [9]tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)
         6. [10]HTML5 Request for TAG Review
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________



   <Stuart> scribe: Ashok Malhotra

   <Stuart> scribenick: Ashok

Convene

   Stuart: still missing minutes from 5/19

   HT: I'll do them Tuesday

   SW: Comments on the agenda?

   HT: I have to leave in 45 mts. Can we move up tagSoup?

   RESOLUTION: Minutes from 5/15 approved

   <DanC> looks ok to me
   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-trackin
   g/2007Dec/0002.html

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2007Dec/0002.html

   <ht> Note that the raw minutes for 19 May are online as
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/19-tagmem-irc.{txt,html,rdf}

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/19-tagmem-irc.

   Next mtg June 4

   Regrets DaveO, Ashok

   <DanC> Regrets 5 June from me

   Regrets from Tim the following week

News/New Items

   SW: New items?
   ... I posted some personal comments on CURIE last calls

UrnsAndRegistries-50 (ISSUE-50)

   <jar>
   [14]http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2008/05/28/xri_solves_what_rea
   l_problems

     [14] http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2008/05/28/xri_solves_what_real_problems

   DO: I posted a link to my blog where I pointed out that XRI do not
   discuss what problem they solve

   <timbl> ... what the OpenID process is

   DO: HT we were working on a joint document ...

   HT: I will not be able to get to it before tomorrow's vote

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask if anyone knows

   DO: Please send to me ... I'll try and finish and publish

   SW: Are you clear abt attributions on the combined document?

   DO: I will publish over my name

passwordsinTheClear-52 (ISSUE-52)

   <DanC> action-150?

   <trackbot-ng> ACTION-150 -- David Orchard to finish refs etc on
   passwords in the clear finding -- due 2008-05-27 -- OPEN

   <trackbot-ng> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/150

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/150

   DO: I have the ball but no progress

   <DanC> ... seems pretty clear about who has the ball

   <DanC> ... though an updated due date might help

tagSoupIntegration-54 (ISSUE-54)

   SW: Tim you had an action to write somethjing

   TimBL: I got through a third ... not sure when I can get to it ...
   perhaps next week

   Can't see it happening before June 6

   <DanC> action-145?

   <trackbot-ng> ACTION-145 -- Tim Berners-Lee to add public prose
   around his slides at the AC meeting to make the case for
   extensiblity and flexible XML, due 29 May -- due 2008-06-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot-ng> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/145

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/145

   SW: Due date COB Friday June 6
   ... HT where are we ?

   HT: One new fact -- the DOM you get when you call setAtt on a XML
   doc .... is different from the DOM you get when you read the doc in

   <Norm> O! For the love of! We're going to be constrained by the
   broken DOM APIs?

   <DanC> yes, norm, just like all the web developers out there. Why
   wouldn't we be?

   If you delete an att and then set it you get a DOM node with
   different properties

   <Norm> Sigh. Right. Nevermind. I'm a little frustrated today, I
   guess.

   HT: This is not surprising ... DOM is very underspecified

   Aaron L is now opposed

   We have not heard from Microsoft

   Don't know abt Apple and Opera

   Noah: We did hear from Chris Wilson

   <Stuart>
   [17]http://www.w3.org/mid/E35CF0CC5D011D49943F61E242AF48AD0876B83ABC
   @NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com

     [17] http://www.w3.org/mid/E35CF0CC5D011D49943F61E242AF48AD0876B83ABC@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com

   <DanC> ah... from Chris W.
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0117.html

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0117.html

   HT: I'm feeling pretty ground down ... no one said "isn't this worth
   working on"
   ... This is a judgement call .. I have failed to persuade the
   implementers

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask where Henry actually stands as a
   result of all this email discussion

   Noah: We shd be careful what we say in wrapping this up

   Finding a way that is sensitive and thoughtful will pay dividends

   TimBL: It will be aria- for everything?
   ... Can we say to ARIA go ahead we have had enough discussion

   HT: They cannot add to HTML spec as they don't own it

   <DanC> (W3C has chartered several specs that tell you what HTML is.
   They conflict. Whee!)

   Noah: They also say they will use aria: in XML

   <Stuart> I think this one is relevant:
   [19]http://www.w3.org/mid/E3DDF3D6-EFD7-4017-A00E-0FD343A14B70@IEEE.
   org

     [19] http://www.w3.org/mid/E3DDF3D6-EFD7-4017-A00E-0FD343A14B70@IEEE.org

   HT: They are backing off from: aria- in HTML and and aria: in XML?

   SW: ARIA is asking whether TAG will obstruct progress ... we shd say
   we are not planning on obstructing progress of ARIA

   TimBL: Saying what HT just said

   <noah> > I am therefore (re-)proposing that the attributes be
   defined in a

   <noah> > single form, with a set of local name that all begin with

   <noah> > "aria-" (in an attempt to avoid clashes with other
   attributes whose

   <noah> > canonical namespace is the empty string) and with the empty
   string

   <noah> > as their namespace identifier, in order to work the same in
   both

   <noah> > HTML and XML languages without requiring anyone to remember
   any

   <noah> > special magic tricks for CSS, DOM scripting, or anything
   else.

   HT: I'm hearing aria- everywhere

   <noah> The middle ground that seems sort of maybe ok is aria- in
   HTML, and perhaps silent on XML and other non-HTML languages.
   Suggesting aria- in XML seems more troubling to me.

   DO: I cannot even stomach even abstaining on something that makes -
   the namespace separator

   <timbl> and versioning

   SW: Q: Is there anyone who cannot live with aria- in HTML as
   proposed by ARIA WG ?

   DO: That is an unreasonable question .. that not what ARIA propose
   ... I cannot live with something that proposes - in both HTML and
   XML
   ... I could live with - for HTML and : for XML

   TimBL: Need to have same thing in HTML and XML -- DOM is the same

   <ht> I think we have to acknowledge that HTML and XHTML will travel
   together, and only the _other_ XML languages are in play

   <jar> (following consequences of what Tim's saying) maybe in XHTML
   you would have a choice between aria: and aria- ? the first if you
   import the aria namespace, the latter if you import the aria
   namespace?

   <Norm> It seems to me that you'd want aria- to work on <svg:circle
   too, so the inherited namespace proposal doens't seem to help.

   SW: We need a concrete proposal

   TimBL: Dave can we agree to let them to add attributes like 'rel'
   was added

   DO: Why have aria-, why not just pick names that don't clash?

   TimBL: We reserve judgement on what happens in future abt HTML
   versioning and modularity.

   DO: How many things are there in ARIA?

   TimBL: Abt 30

   DO: Change names for those whose names clash and use barenames

   <jar> I like the approach of doing without the aria- prefix (that DO
   articulated)

   DanC: They say we have looked at it and it's coherent but not worth
   it -- ARIA has recognition -- extra characters do not cost much

   <jar> blah.

   DO: Norm, what do you think?

   Norm: I'm conflicted whether to object and be overruled or go along
   with a flawed proposal

   <DanC> (re-reading, yes,
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html is
   still my position; I'm not sure it makes sense as a
   position/question for the group)

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html

   Norm: There may be a small chance we can get them to do something
   reasonable

   <jar> How about, rather than object or accept, just publish a
   neutral note that says what we think without claiming to have
   authority?

   <timbl> Proposal1: The TAG suggests that the WAI-PF go ahead and add
   attributes into the HTML5 spec, using "aria-" as a prefix with
   liaison with the HTMLWG. That this in no way endorses the use of the
   same attributes with other specs, nor is this taken as being a
   solution for HTML versioning and modularization which still is an
   important ongoing issues.

   Norm: I want to try and maintain what credibility we can

   SW: It is hard to get them to change once things are deployed

   <DanC> Proposal1 works for me

   <DanC> ... though the WAI PF's current work isn't scoped to HTML,
   AFAIK

   Noah: I don't object as far as it goes
   ... Distributed extesibility remains a goal ....
   ... Does not mention XML

   <noah> How ahout: Distributed extensibility remains an important
   goal for languages used on the Web, and for XML languages in
   particular. The TAG hopes to work with the community to strike the
   right balance between achieving that for languages other than ARIA
   and meeting the practical needs of the HTMl community.

   <Norm> The TAG accepts that the most pragmatic short-term approach
   for WAI-PF is to go ahead and add attributes into the HTML5 spec,
   using names that begin "aria-" in liaison with the HTMLWG. This in
   no way endorses the use of the same attributes with other specs, or
   any XML specs, nor is this taken as being a solution for HTML
   versioning and modularization which still is an important ongoing
   issue. Distributed extensibility remains an important goal for
   languages used on the Web, and for XML languages in particular. The
   TAG hopes to work with the community to strike the right balance
   between achieving that, and meeting the practical needs of the HTMl
   community.

   <DanC> as I explained in
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html ,
   ARIA too a decentralized approach, and after a period of
   experimentation, took up the cost of a *centralized* approach.

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html

   TimBl: add "HTML versioning, HTML modularization and HTML to XML
   conversions are outstanding"

   <Norm> The TAG accepts that the most pragmatic short-term approach
   for WAI-PF is to go ahead and add attributes into the HTML5 spec,
   using names that begin "aria-" in liaison with the HTMLWG. This in
   no way endorses the use of the same attributes with other specs, or
   any XML specs, nor is this taken as being a solution for HTML
   versioning, HTML modularization, or HTML to XML conversions which
   are still open. Distributed extensibility remains an important goal
   for languag

   <Norm> es used on the Web, and for XML languages in particular. The
   TAG hopes to work with the community to strike the right balance
   between achieving that, and meeting the practical needs of the HTMl
   community.

   DanC: Henry wanted to look at it ... are you going to decide w/o
   him?

   SW: I suggest we create a TAG position subject to approval by HT and
   Raman

   Noah: Let's decide and ask HT and Raman to object in a day or two if
   they have a concern

   SW: Is there anyone on call who cannot live with the above
   resolution?

   No one replies

   Anyone want to abstain?

   No one replies

   RESOLUTION: to adopt the above position (from Norm) subject to
   confirmation from Henry and Raman

   SW: I shall mail HT and Raman on the tag list.

   <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to check with Henry and Raman as whether
   they agree with the position [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/29-minutes#action01]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-160 - Check with Henry and Raman as
   whether they agree with the position [on Stuart Williams - due
   2008-06-05].

   SW: How do we communicate our position?

   Noah: I think we should send mail, say, by Monday

   SW: I will do that

HTML5 Request for TAG Review

   <DanC>
   [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0087.html

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0087.html

   There is a list of questions

   DanC: I've looked at the list ... it's a mix of HTML. editorial and
   architectural principles

   SW: Asks about using the remaining 15 minutes

   Decision not to discus versioning finding today

   <Zakim> Norm, you wanted to make a meta comment about the list

   Norm: The mixture of questions is an indication that the spec is
   poorly modularized

   TimBL: Let's make those editorial requests

   <Norm> I'm not sure I'd have characterized that as an editorial
   request; I'll have to consider my phrasing

   <DanC> modularizing the spec is editorial work; it's not a request
   to change the design/language, just to change the explanation of it

   Everything is in the Accept Set

   TimBL: These are the tags ... everything else is ignored

   Fuzzy boundary between errors and what is ignored

   Noah: Using the word 'error' on something that is in the language
   bothers me

   <DanC> I suppose this bullet is relevant to defined/accept sets: "*
   The distinction between Ua requirements and authoring requirements"

   Noah: This impacts the versioning finding ... we shd look at it

   SW: Do we need to respond or ask for clarification ....

   DaveO: We shd pick a few impt questions

   DanC: I wanted TAG to take up content type and sniffing

   SW: Continue on this ... please take a look at it and think abt it.
   ... Discusses meeting during TPAC
   ... Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to check with Henry and Raman as whether they
   agree with the position [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/29-minutes#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.128
    ([26]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/06/02 09:36:30 $

     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 09:44:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:57 GMT