- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:45:03 +0000
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
The agenda for the forthcoming TAG F2F Meeting, 23-25th September 2008 in Kansas City is available at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/f2fkc-agenda
Regards
Stuart Williams
co-chair W3C TAG
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
================================================================================
TAG face-to-face meeting, 23rd-25th September 2008
[4]Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri.
[4] http://www.kauffman.org/
Meeting at a glance
Tue 23rd Sep Agenda
09:00-10:30 Convene
URNsAndRegistries-50
binaryXML-30
11:00-12:30 HTML and Web: the Big Picture
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-15:00 Modularized HTML5?
15:30-17:00 URI parsing in HTML5
Wed 24th Sep
09:00-10:30 Self Describing Web
11:15-12:30 HTTP and HTML
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-15:00 HTML5 Embedding and Embedability
15:30-17:00 tagSoupIntegration-54: How to move Forward
Thur 25th Sep
09:00-10:30 passwordsInTheClear-52
11:00-12:30 XMLVersioning-41
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-15:00 XMLVersioning-41 (cont)
15:30-16:00 Wrapup/AOB
Logistics
(also separate [23]Logistics page)
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/09/ftfkc.html
2. Preparation
Participants are expected to read materials in the Preparation
sections under each item below in advance of the meeting. Additional
material is expected Friday, 12 Sep regarding passwordsInTheClear-52
and Tue, 16 Sep regarding URNsAndRegistries-50.
TAG members are presumed to be familiar with the [24]TAG Charter.
_________________________________________________________
[24] http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html
3. Agenda
3.1 Convene
* Pre-flight checks!
+ Local logistics.
+ Agenda Review
* Future Meetings
+ Proposed Wed-Fri 10-12 Dec 2008: Cambridge Mass
o Offer still good?
o [25]WBS Poll results
* TAG at TPAC 2008
+ Liason Meetings
o Requests/Invitations from:
# WebApps WG on the topic of URI Schemes for
Widgets (forwarded [26]request and [27]response)
# WAI-PF invitation to observe (forwarded
[28]invitation)
o Requests sent to: (none)
+ AC Meeting Report
+ Plenary Day
_________________________________________________________
[25] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34270/200812-F2FDecision/results
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0073
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0074
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0085
3.2 URNsAndRegistries-50
Our goals for this session are: to review progress and direction of
our work on UrnsAndRegististres-50; to review the progress of the
dialog between the TAG and the OASIS XRI TC.
Preparation
* "[29]Dirk and Nadia design a naming scheme" from Henry
+ Background for reference
o Current draft finding [30]URNs, Namespaces and
Registries
* [31]AbstractIdentifierArchitecture in the OASIS XRI TC Wiki
2008-09-04 01:42:20
* [32]Possible directions for XRI TC (email from Stuart)
_________________________________________________________
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/justSayHTTP
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html
[31] http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/AbstractIdentifierArchitecture
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Sep/0088
3.3 binaryXML-30
Our goals for this session is to checks the status of TAG
interaction with the EXI-WG and our progress in reviewing their
publications.
* Related Action Items:
+ [33]ACTION-93 on Henry S. Thompson: Review EXI WDs since 20
Dec - due 2008-02-25 - open
* 'Recent' FP-WDs
+ First Public Working Draft of the [34]Efficient XML
Interchange Impacts Note, 3 September, 2008
+ First Public Working Draft of the [35]Efficient XML
Interchange Evaluation Note, 28 July 2008
+ EXI Primer , [36]First Public Working Draft, 19 December
2007.
+ EXI Best Practices , [37]First Public Working Draft, 19
December 2007.
_________________________________________________________
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/93
[34] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-impacts
[35] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-exi-evaluation-20080728/
[36] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-primer-20071219
[37] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-best-practices-20071219
3.4 [38]tagSoupIntegration-54 - HTML and The Web
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53
We are planning to spend a total of 1.5 days on this topic, i.e.
half the F2F. The F2F is being organized as 4 90 minute sessions a
day, so I'm assuming we get 6 sessions. I'll assign a core issue
to each of 4 90 minute sessions, leave the first session for a
high-level overview of issues with respect to how design decisions
in HTML affect the rest of the Web stack, and leave the final 90
minute session for defining global action items for the TAG. My
expectation is that each of the topic-focused 90 minute sessions
end with their own action items.
[39]T.V. Raman
[39] mailto:raman@google.com
Note tag-internal discussion of meeting goals [40]Re: updated Agenda
13 Aug and following.
_________________________________________________________
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Aug/0032.html
3.4.1 HTML And Web The Big Picture
When the world-view was
HTML will move to XML
the question of how other Web technologies integrated with HTML was
usually answered by saying
XML will bring it all together.
However, that is no longer the case, there is now little or no hope
of the HTML5 world converging with the XML family of languages.
HTML5 has an XML serialization that is a second-class citizen at
best as far as that community is concerned. In the above I said HTML
and Web technologies - but that is just my perspective. The HTML5
community would define themselves as encompassing all Web
technologies, i.e., if it's not HTML5 and implemented in a browser,
it's not the Web. Personally that is a view that I do not subscribe
to, but it's important for the TAG to have thought about where we
stand globally on this before we get to concrete details, since
one's technical stand on any of the issues that arise is deeply
affected by the above.
If you take the world-view that the Web is more than a Web Browser,
and that Web technology means more than just HTML, then the core
issue that underlies each specific technical issue is the following:
How do you make sure that XML technologies can co-exist on the Web al
ongside HTML without necessarily having HTML's sloppiness leaking int
o all Web languages?
Preparation
* [41]HTML and XML v 1.20 2008/09/07 (tag internal)
_________________________________________________________
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/Talks/0519-htxml-tbl/text
3.4.2 Issue: HTML5 Should Be Modularized?
* Modular specs make for easier review, and make addressing issues
tractable. At present, each issue that is raised loops back to
something else, and worse, the spec is not getting the
architectural review it deserves.
* The spec is being cherry-picked by implementations with everyone
claiming they're implementing it. But they are all implementing
different parts of it.
* Propose a reasonable breakdown based on prior experience.
+ Parsing
+ DOM
+ Serialization (canonical serialization) XML and HTML.
+ Semantics of related groups of elements.
+ Interaction with CSS
+ Interaction with other Web languages -both embedding and
being embeded.
Preparation
* [42]Re: brainstorming: test cases, issues, goals, etc. 14 Mar
2007 23:12:55 +0000 regarding dependencies between parts of the
spec
* [43]Re: Invitation to the TAG to provide feedback on HTML5 21
May 2008 21:17:20 +0000
_________________________________________________________
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0096.html
[43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0087.html
3.4.3 URL Parsing In HTML5
As the underlying authoring language for the Web, HTML by definition
has to be able to utter phrases in all of the Web's basic
technologies, e.g. URLs. Traditionally, building blocks like URLs
have been specified outside of HTML, since they need to be used in
more than just HTML. This has also left the question of error
recovery underspecified. At present, HTML5 is attempting to rectify
such under-specified error recovery by trying to write down all of
the rules for moving from a sequence of bytes to a URL. This
necessarily introduces aspects of the overall HTML5 parsing, and
might over time lead to HTML5 error behavior bleeding into the rest
of the Web that is more than just browsers.
Preparation
* [44]heads-up about "new" URLs section in HTML5 editor's draft
thread 27 to 30 June 2008, ending with [45]endorsement of an
objection
[44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/thread.html#msg348
[45] http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/4868B926.8@Rhul.Ac.Uk;list=public-html
_________________________________________________________
3.4.4 HTTP And HTML
The Web has been built on (HTTP, URL, HTML). HTML5 impinges on many
parts of the HTTP specification and its use. The [46]_ping_
attribute generated much heat and little light before the FF3
launch, and that issue has moved to the back-burner, mostly because
FF3 decided to postpone implementing it. But this is not a resolved
issue, and HTML5 has many places where it impinges on HTTP. This is
of concern wherever those points of intersection are being designed
purely from the perspective of the browser. I believe there should
be more coordination with the work on updating HTTP that is
presently ongoing in the IETF. At present (and this is but a rough
sketch) the browser vendors appear to be doing HTML5, everyone else
is doing HTTP.
[46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0129.html
Another core issue that lies at the intersection of HTTP and HTML is
the issue of:
Content-Type Sniffing
For reference, that's [47]ISSUE-28 http-mime-override in the HTML WG
tracker.
[47] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/28
Preparation
* [48]Re: several messages about content sniffing in HTML 29 Feb
2008
* section [49]2.7 Determining the type of a resource in [50]HTML 5
editor's draft 11 September 2008 (or later)
Note that a [51]17 Aug 2007 message from Hickson notes other
related sections.
_________________________________________________________
[48] http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/4E2E32D6-1AD4-4EEF-9E7E-F043A2868ECB@gbiv.com;list=public-html
[49] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#content-type-sniffing
[50] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/
[51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0678.html
3.4.5 HTML5: Embedding And Embedability
The issue of [52]distributed extensibility and namespaces has been
beaten to death. I don't believe anyone in either camp can really be
made to change their minds at this point with regard to XML
namespaces. The latest proposal from the HTML5 editor to enable
extensibility is to stick whatever globally unique identifier one
wants in the class attribute. This brings us back to something I
observed in 2001
Given CSS and JavaScript, HTML can be reduced to _div_ and _span_.
[52] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41
I later revised this to:
display:inline allows you reduce this to just one element --- _div_
Distributed extensibility ends up reducing to a power-struggle
between browser vendors who want to dictate what the vocabulary of
the Web is - and content creators who do not want to cede this right
entirely to the browser. I believe this power struggle to be the
root cause of all of the tension that can be observed whenever this
issue is brought up.
At this point, I believe we should let the marketplace decide --- it
will anyway, with or without the TAG.
But there is a more fundamental design issue that needs to be
addressed in this context with respect to the top-level co-existence
question we asked in our first session:
Embedding And Embeddability
1. Given an XML-based language e.g., ATOM, how does one embed HTML
content fragments without the HTML5 slopping out into the XML?
At present, the only answer is to make the HTML payload a CData
section, but in that case, you might as well use something
equally opaque like PostScript or PDF.
2. How does one host/embed other languages inside HTML5 e.g.,
MathML, SVG, or other vocabularies?
Preparation
* [53]SVG and MathML in text/html thread 9-16 March 2008
_________________________________________________________
[53] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/thread.html#msg39
3.4.6 tagSoupIntegration-54 How To Move Forward
This session is for the TAG as a whole to decide how and if we want
to move forward with the overall issue of TAG Soup integration.
_________________________________________________________
3.5 Self Describing Web
Our goal for this session is to reach agreement to publish the TAG
Finding titled: [54]The Self-Describing Web. Norm Walsh and Stuart
Williams took an action in Bristol to do reviews, and the results of
those reviews were generally supportive of publication ([55]Norm's
review, [56]Stuart's original review and Stuart's followups
[57]here, [58]here, [59]here, and [60]here).
[54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments
[55] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Aug/0122.html
[56] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0000.html
[57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0000.html
[58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0002.html
[59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0008.html
[60] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0009.html
The principle question that's still known to be a point of debate is
whether the normative specifications do or do not suport the claim
that RDFa embedded in an application/xhtml+xml document retrieved
via HTTP is self-describing, in the sense that the server can be
held responsible for triples inferred from the RDFa. See [61]email
from Noah, as well messages linked from that email, and others in
the same threads.
[61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0013.html
Preparation
* [62]The Self-Describing Web Draft Tag Finding 08 September 2008
([63]cover note)
_________________________________________________________
[62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2008-09-08
[63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0014
3.6 passwordsInTheClear-52 ([64]ISSUE-52)
[64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/52
Our goal for this session is to review the most recent draft of the
related draft finding and the message that we want it to convey.
Preparation
* [65]Passwords in the Clear Draft TAG Finding 12 September 2008
([66]cover note)
_________________________________________________________
[65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20080602
[66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0057
3.7 XMLVersioning-41 ([67]ISSUE-41)
[67] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41
Our goals for this session are: to further expand the body of text
in the Compatibility Strategies draft finding supported by the TAG;
to consider whether the finding needs to include any particular
formalism either by inclusion or by reference.
Preparation
* section [68]5 Forwards Compatible in [69]Extending and
Versioning Languages: Compatibility Strategies Editorial Draft
12 September 2008
* [70]Alternative language versioning formalism 27 May 2008
17:05:10 -0400
_________________________________________________________
[68] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-compatibility-strategies-20080912#forwardsCompatible
[69] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-compatibility-strategies-20080912
[70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0155.html
Stuart Williams for the TAG,
$Revision: 1.7 $ of $Date: 2008/09/17 09:30:46 $
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 09:47:59 UTC