W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2010

Telcon minutes: 2010-09-30

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:38:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1010051735020.31910@wnl.j3.bet>
Draft minutes now available at

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/09/30-minutes.html

and below:

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

               Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

30 Sep 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0067.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           DKA, Masinter, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves, ht_really

    Regrets

    Chair
           noah

    Scribe
           Yves

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]minute approval
          2. [6]logistics for upcoming f2f
          3. [7]F2F Visitor Session
          4. [8]TPAC meeting with IETF
          5. [9]IETF Draft on MIME
          6. [10]HTML distributed extensibility
          7. [11]Privacy Workshop
          8. [12]generic fragment processing
          9. [13]overdue actions
         10. [14]pending review actions
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 30 September 2010

    <scribe> Scribe: Yves

minute approval

    RESOLUTION: minutes of sept 23rd approved

    next meeting is next week, regrets from Ashok

logistics for upcoming f2f

    no questions

F2F Visitor Session

    noah: went from a bigger workshop-like event to a small list of
    attendees for one afternoon session

    <noah> Need to settle on >which< afternoon.

    larry: we need to find out if they have some ideas of how the TAG
    can help Web

    noah: the TAG as a whole needs to answer that question

    it would be ok for other people to say that the best thing in one
    area would be to do nothing

    <masinter> i'm not interested in helping THEM, I'm interested in
    their opinions about how the TAG can help the web

    <masinter> and I don't think it's interesting to hear about
    negatives -- things we *shouldn't* do

    DKA: it's more "what you are working on, and what the TAG can do to
    help"

    <masinter> well, i'm not interested in helping in general, but
    specifically how the TAG can help the W3C achieve its mission of
    "leading the web to its full potential"

    Noah: attendees may have a specific background, there is the "what
    the TAG should do", but also "what the TAG should know"

    DKA: I would like to get feedback mostly on Webapps

    <masinter> well, especially to focus the agenda on (a) what the TAG
    itself can do that would be positive, and (b) why it would actually
    help?

    <masinter> this is a two-way conversation too

    <masinter> The other thing that I think is important is to improve
    liaison, e.g., with ECMA and W3C/JavaScript

    <masinter> Crockford has written/spoken on webarch level stuff,
    would recommend some of that as background material

    <noah> [16]http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072

      [16] http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072

    <ht_really> Here is the crockford reference: "Fixing HTML", Douglas
    Crockford, 2007-11-28 [17]http://www.crockford.com/html/

      [17] http://www.crockford.com/html/

    noah: wednesday afternoon might be a good time, but we can be
    flexible

    <masinter> maybe focus on a specific topic, or ask them to give us
    some written background info?

    noah: we need to ensure that the discussion flows, may have
    dedicated slots or general discussion

    larry: there are background readings form them that would help
    focusing the discussion

    <noah> ACTION-454?

    <trackbot> ACTION-454 -- Daniel Appelquist to take lead in
    organizing outside contacts for TAG F2F -- due 2010-10-05 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/454

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/454

TPAC meeting with IETF

    <noah> ACTION-464?

    <trackbot> ACTION-464 -- Yves Lafon to coordinate agenda for
    TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC -- due 2010-10-23 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464

    Yves: I will try to get a room for this as well (thursday afternoon)

IETF Draft on MIME

    <noah> I've read it

    <Yves> I have read it

    <DKA> I have read it but not carefully read it.

    <noah> HT: nope

    Larry: want to hear high level feedback

    noah: it's terrific

    <noah> Um, to be clear, I said: what I take to be the intended scope
    and goals are "terrific". Larry himself admits it's in rough form,
    and there are in places some substantive points I'm not completely
    sold on. I think it's a great start.

    larry: I tried to explain why applications went in the 'sniffing'
    side of handling mime type

    Yves: the part about conneg should also say that conneg is very
    often done on the UA and not on mime types

    DKA: it would be good to have specific examples, especially in 3.2.
    broken things needs to be more precisely identified

    <masinter> Dan, if you could be specific about what things you'd
    like examples for, that would be great

    noah: is the goal "here is how we got to where we are" or "where
    should go form here"

    <noah> "This document describes some of the ways in which parts of
    the MIME system, originally designed for electronic mail, have been
    used in the web, and some of the ways in which those uses have
    resulted in difficulties. This informational document is intended as
    background and justification for a companion Best Current Practice
    which makes some changes to the registry of Internet Media Types and
    other specifications and practices, in order to facilitate Web app

    <noah> Should be: "This document provides recommendations on (1)
    changes to registration procedures for MIME types; (2) xxxxx. It
    also provides a history and explanation of current practice to
    motivate these suggestions."

    larry: we have an issue like "for a specific media type, we have
    multiple documents defining it", with no version indication. How to
    make that better, to avoid the chaos it generates and the need of
    sniffing

    <masinter> my original intent was to make section 6 into a separate
    document, and leave a "info" document as background

    <masinter> where would you put this on the priorities of what TAG
    should be working on? high, medium, low?

    noah: should we keep this open until we get more feedback?

    <masinter> the other thing would be to put this on the IETF/TAG
    coordination agenda

    ht: it seems that we are reaching a critical mass to push this as a
    finding

    <noah> ACTION-458?

    <trackbot> ACTION-458 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of
    followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type
    related activities -- due 2010-09-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458

    <noah> close ACTION-458

    <trackbot> ACTION-458 Schedule discussion of followup actions for
    TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities closed

    <scribe> ACTION: Larry to update the mime-draft, due 2010-10-12
    recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc]

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-472 - Update the mime-draft, due
    2010-10-12 [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-10-07].

HTML distributed extensibility

    <noah> Paul Cotton email:
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0035.html

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0035.html

    <noah> Extensions like SVG:

    <noah>
    [23]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/extensionslikesvg

      [23] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/extensionslikesvg

    <noah> Zero-edit proposal:

    <noah> [24]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-41

      [24] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-41

    noah: extensionslikesvg seems better than not doing anything

    ht: seems better than doing nothing

    <noah> noah: I think it's better than that. Far from perfect.

    <masinter> the goal should be to allow controlled extensions by
    multiple vendors in a way that don't step on each other, and to
    allow interpreters to know that they'v encountered a feature that
    they don't understand. Not sure this proposal fully meets those
    goals

    <noah> noah: ...but likely the sort of useful compromise one tends
    to get at this point in the process.

    <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to review whether this meets the goals
    of "distributed extensibility"

    <noah> I think this proposal does that using default namespaces

    <noah> From the proposal:

    <noah> "This root element should have a default namespace xmlns
    declaration, giving the namespace for the extension. "

    Yves wonder what is the cost of doing an extension in term of
    browser support

    <noah> "Authors of extensions are strongly advised to communicate
    with the HTML WG to make sure their spec interacts well with HTML
    and does not have name clashes with other specs. To help them do
    this, extension authors are strongly advised to register the name of
    their root element in a central registry. "

    <Zakim> ht_really, you wanted to gibe at one aspect of ext-like-svg

    noah: it means that UA won't read the namespace for clash detection,
    also it is problematic for a private tag to become widely used and
    part of the std

    <noah> HT: mixed feelings about @extension, but it's got its
    positive side in signaling ns unaware software

    <masinter> those are also arguments against the 'no change'
    proposal, in the sense that 'no change' lacks features that are
    essential for orderly extensibility

    ht: browser should know when they don't know something, even if they
    don't see namespaces declarations, and without looking at a central
    registry

    <ht_really> A document that uses such extensions is not valid HTML,
    however it is valid "extended HTML".

    you can take well-formed svg, put it in html, it will almost work,
    you edit it, it becomes not well-formed, but it will still work. it
    you bring the svg part out, it will not work, and that is an issue

    <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say unqualified elements isn't all bad

    however that might be a necessary compromise

    <Zakim> ht_really, you wanted to answer Yves

    <masinter> a specification shouldn't reify the long-term existance
    of a single, uniform, combined HTML committee -- it's the W3C as a
    whole that owns HTML, the HTML working group is just chartered to
    prepare HTML for now.

    ht: positive side is that in the XML serialization of html5, the
    extension linkage is the same as today (see mathML plugin in
    firefox), need to check that the elements in the DOM are in the
    right namespace

    noah: the XML case is not the hard one

    <noah> A start tag that has the "extension" attribute set: Insert a
    foreign element for the token, in the namespace specified by the
    element's "xmlns" attribute. If the token has its self-closing flag
    set, pop the current node off the stack of open elements and
    acknowledge the token's self-closing flag. Otherwise, if the
    insertion mode is not already "in foreign content", let the
    secondary insertion mode be the current insertion mode, and then
    switch the insertion

    noah: should we have a TAG opinion or individual ones?

    ht: when does the poll end?

    <noah>
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-41-objection-poll/resu
    lts

      [25] 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-41-objection-poll/results

    => oct 7th

    <DKA> Seems like if we have consensus then we should express a view
    as the TAG.

    Yves: we need to get Tim's opinion before saying something on behalf
    of the TAG

    <masinter> the objections to zero-edit would be that it doesn't meet
    the requirements for distributed extensibility

    <NoahM> I suspect that objection is well known.

    <NoahM> The TAG feels DS is important, we feel that like SVG, while
    a compromise in some ways, is far superior to zero edit. Like SVG
    provides a substantial step toward DE, zero edit does not.

    <NoahM> For the record, the above is a trial balloon, not considered
    TAG opinion.

    ht: the TAG can't answer this poll, you need to be member of the
    group

    <NoahM> We observe that there is a poll, and we thought you might be
    interested in our input: The TAG feels DS is important, we feel that
    like SVG, while a compromise in some ways, is far superior to zero
    edit. Like SVG provides a substantial step toward DE, zero edit does
    not.

    <masinter> the decision criteria are: how strong are the objections

    <NoahM> ACTION: Noah to draft possible TAG response on HTML
    extensibility [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc]

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-473 - Draft possible TAG response on HTML
    extensibility [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-10-07].

    <DKA> +1

    <masinter> suggest making sure that your proposed response is in
    terms of what would constitute a "strong objection" to zero-edit

    <NoahM> ACTION-427?

    <trackbot> ACTION-427 -- John Kemp to read 4 distributed
    extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has
    discussed to date -- due 2010-11-01 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/427

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/427

    <NoahM> close ACTION-427

    <trackbot> ACTION-427 Read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and
    summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date closed

    <NoahM> close ACTION-471

    <trackbot> ACTION-471 Schedule discussion of "Like SVG" Dist
    Extensibility Proposal for HTML5 closed

Privacy Workshop

    <NoahM> ACTION-460?

    <trackbot> ACTION-460 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate with IAB
    regarding next steps on privacy policy -- due 2010-09-14 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/460

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/460

    <NoahM> ACTION-470?

    <trackbot> ACTION-470 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask Thomas about TAG
    involvement in privacy workshop -- due 2010-09-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/470

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/470

    <NoahM> ACTION-470?

    <trackbot> ACTION-470 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask Thomas about TAG
    involvement in privacy workshop -- due 2010-09-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/470

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/470

    <NoahM> Sent note:
    [31]http://www.w3.org/mid/4CA2538E.9050506%2540arcanedomain.com

      [31] http://www.w3.org/mid/4CA2538E.9050506%2540arcanedomain.com

    <NoahM> close ACTION-470

    <trackbot> ACTION-470 Ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy
    workshop closed

generic fragment processing

    <NoahM> ACTION-466?

    <trackbot> ACTION-466 -- Larry Masinter to ask Norm, Roy and Martin
    for concrete use cases where generic processing of fragment ids is
    important -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/466

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/466

    Larry sent a note requesting feedback, no answer received

    <NoahM> Larry's note:
    [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0044.html

      [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0044.html

    <masinter>
    [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0037.html
    was also email from Jonathan

      [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0037.html

    noah: we got strong feedback from Roy, Norm and Martin after our
    initial proposal in June, asked for feedback and use cases, but
    didn't receive anything yet

    larry: it is reasonable to give them more time.

    <NoahM> I'm not trying to rush them, just suggesting we let them
    know that we're sort of holding discussion until they respond.

    action-360?

    <trackbot> ACTION-360 -- John Kemp to clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec
    -- due 2009-12-17 -- CLOSED

    <trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/360

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/360

    (action 466 edited using the Web interface)

overdue actions

    <NoahM> ACTION-390?

    <trackbot> ACTION-390 -- Daniel Appelquist to review ISSUE-58 and
    suggest next steps -- due 2010-05-25 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390

      [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390

pending review actions

    <NoahM> ACTION-302?

    <trackbot> ACTION-302 -- Noah Mendelsohn to raise (as individual
    issue) question of 3 words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1
    (3.3.1) of HTML 5 -- due 2010-09-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/302

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/302

    proposal to close this action

    larry: does it fit in the 'mime and the web' ? like what does a mime
    type needs to define

    noah: it is much closer to the distributed extensibility likesvg's
    "comform to extended HTML"

    <masinter> the question is: what are the requirements for MIME type
    definitions? What does it mean for text/html to mean "X plus any
    applicable extensions" ?

    <NoahM> close ACTION-302

    <trackbot> ACTION-302 Raise (as individual issue) question of 3
    words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5
    closed

    larry: interested in discussing this

    <NoahM> I don't think LM said that.

    <NoahM> He raised the question of whether HTML is different.

    <NoahM> NM: This is about specific wording in the spec. In fact, two
    specific words "applicable specification"

    <masinter> i think it's nonsnese

    <masinter> yes

    <masinter> undefined what "applicable" is

    <masinter> I think the TAG action is to be explicit about what the
    requirements are

    <NoahM>
    [38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Sep
    /0029.html

      [38] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Sep/0029.html

    <NoahM> "I had also in my original request [$1\47] indicated that it
    would be

    <NoahM> desirable to clarify the applicability of the term
    "conforming document" in

    <NoahM> cases where "applicable specifications" had been used to
    augment or change

    <NoahM> the base HTML5 specification. I believe that is ultimately a
    very

    <NoahM> important and deep concern that remains unaddressed. Given
    the current

    <NoahM> ambiguity, someone could write a specification that very
    radically changes

    <NoahM> the HTML5 base, perhaps even maliciously, and claim "oh,
    mine is an

    <NoahM> 'applicable specification', so what you get when you write
    to my new spec

    <NoahM> is a 'conforming HTML5 document'". Wouldn't it be better to
    require that

    <NoahM> such documents be referred to as "conforming to HTML5 as
    modified by

    <NoahM> my-malicious-spec-X" (or in the more likely example more
    likely "conforming

    <NoahM> to HTML5 as modified by

    <NoahM>
    my-nonmalicious-spec-that-makes-significant-and-perhaps-otherwise-in
    compatible-changes"?

    <NoahM> "

    ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Larry to update the mime-draft, due 2010-10-12
    recorded in [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to draft possible TAG response on HTML
    extensibility [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc]

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc
      [40] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([42]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/10/05 21:34:23 $

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




-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 21:38:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:28 GMT