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

Agenda for TAG F2F Meeting 23-25th September 2008

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>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C81B6C345ABC@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:06 GMT