W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Minutes from Dec 6, 2012 telcon

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:22:33 -0800
Message-ID: <50C75DC9.2020103@oracle.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Are available at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes
and as text below.
Henry, thanks for checking them in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

    This is version has not been approved as a true record of the
    TAG's meeting and there is some risk that individual TAG
    members have been misquoted. This transcript should typically
    not be quoted, except as necessary to arrange for correction
    and approval.

                                TAG-Weekly

06 Dec 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-tagmem-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Eliot_Graff, Ashok_Malhotra, Norman_Walsh, Jeni_Tenison,
           Larry_Masinter, Peter_Linss, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves_Lafon

    Regrets
           Henry_Thompson, Tim_Berners-Lee

    Chair
           Noah_Mendelsohn

    Scribe
           Ashok_Malhotra

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Admin
          2. [6]ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML
             Unification
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <masinter>  Welcome, Eliot

    <Eliot>  Thanks!

    <scribe>  scribenick: Ashok_Malhotra

Admin

    Peter_Linss can scribe next week

    <Noah>  Minutes from last week (29 November):
    [8]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes

    RESOLUTION: Minutes from 29-November approved

    Noah: TAG Candidates are available -- 9 for 4 seats
    ... Per agreement from the candidates, election position
    statements are now public. The expectation is that discussion
    will be held on the www-tag mailing list.

    <masinter>  I think it's great to have people think the TAG is
    important enough to talk about who should be on it

    <Noah>  ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food [recorded
    in [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action01]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-770 - Reserve January TAG space/food
    [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-12-13].

    Noah: Next f2f Jan 14-16 at Cambridge, MA

    <Noah>  ACTION-769?

    <trackbot>  ACTION-769 -- Noah Mendelsohn to informally inform
    Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical
    matters for his consideration -- due 2012-12-06 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769

    <masinter>  We should reconsider our process.

    <Noah>  close ACTION-769

    <trackbot>  ACTION-769 Informally inform Jeff that we did not at
    this time identify urgent technical matters for his
    consideration closed

    <masinter>  Closing the action is fine

ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML Unification

    Noah: We had a meeting on 24 March, 2010 where Sam Ruby joined
    us. You can read the details. Pointer from agenda.

    <JeniT>
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#i
    tem05

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#item05

    Noah: There is now a draft ...

    <Eliot>
    [12]http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-
    authoring-guide.html

      [12] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html

    <Norm>  [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/

      [13] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/

    <Noah>  Title: Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents

    Noah: Henri Sivonen has requested we rescind our request to
    publish in TR space and publish the spec as a note
    ... People assumed the status was to publish as a Rec. Henri
    requests we rescind that.
    ... HTML WG wants us to create guidance in 2 weeks
    ... Let's limit discussion today to whether we we should stick
    with our decision to publish as a REC

    <Zakim>  masinter, you wanted to remind point raised last week
    about the broader issue
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03

    Noah: Let's work through Henri's arguments

    Larry: In the narrow space ... we made a request which has no
    formal standing.

    <Zakim>  Norm, you wanted to ask for clarification about the
    ambiguity in the way the question has been framed

    Noah: This may be chance to restate or modify it's advice

    Norm: Does TAG want to publish as REC or not?

    Larry: Our request did not ask the document to be published as
    a REC

    <masinter>  I'm not interested in making a different request, at
    this point

    <Noah>
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.ht
    ml

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.html

    Noah: HT's mail ask that it be published as a REC

    <masinter>  It's the wrong time in the process

    <Noah>  First email from Henry:
    [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.ht
    ml

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.html

    Larry: They do not need our advice on the narrow question of
    what to do with this doc. They need advice on the braoder
    issues of what should or should not be a REC

    Noah: We have opportunity to clarify our request.

    Jeni: We should say we support it being on REC track

    <masinter>  I'm convinced

    Peter: If it is on REC track what would be CR exit criteria?

    <masinter>  I don't want to deep end on the process

    <Noah>  Henry: "As such it makes sense, on the usual

    <Noah>  grounds of avoiding duplication of effort and promoting

    <Noah>  interoperability with respect to a requirement on W3C
    technology, that

    <Noah>  the W3C issue a Recommendation addressing that
    requirement."

    <Noah>  "Note that for _definitional_

    <Noah>  specifications such as this one progressing to REC does
    _not_ require

    <Noah>  implementation, since it is only referring
    specifications/documents

    <Noah>  which may include implementable conformance requirements
    involving

    <Noah>  the definition(s) provided."

    <masinter>  I disagree with HT that implementations aren't
    needed

    Ashok: That's the real question

    <Zakim>  masinter, you wanted to disagree that polyglot can't be
    implemented or tested

    Peter: We need to consider what CR criteria are. There could be
    a test suite of documents that parse both as XML and HTML
    ... documents produce same DOM on various parsers

    <masinter>  It's part of the value of moving something to REC
    that you have demonstrated implementability and
    interoperability

    <Noah>  LM: I think exit criteria and tests for these
    definitional documents are both possible and useful. Part of
    what makes RECs valuable.

    Jeni: Is Polyglot a definitional specification?

    Eliot: Yes, it is a definitional specification

    <Zakim>  Noah, you wanted to say TAG doesn't need to get into
    exit criteria

    Larry: It is more than a definitional spec ... it says if you
    follow the spec you get some benefits.

    <Noah>  JT: I agree.

    Jeni: It also defines the impact

    Noah: Promises a certain kind of compatibility

    <JeniT>  it doesn't just define terminology, is my point

    Noah: We do not have to dive too deep into what the exit
    criteria could be
    ... The benefits are not in question, we made a request, we did
    not say REC or NOTE.

    Yves: Henry's request seems a bit stronger

    Noah: They would welcome guidance ... perhaps a NOTE is fine
    ... REC is desirable ... or it's up to you

    Norm: I interpret Henri's note as saying don't publish anything
    at all

    <Norm>
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.ht
    ml

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.html

    <Noah>
    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/000
    6.html

      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0006.html

    <Noah>  Since the document should only document conclusions
    drawn from normative statements made elsewhere, the Polyglot
    document itself should not be normative, because there's a risk
    of erroneous conclusions getting held up.

    <masinter>  Are we talking about Henri's request to the TAG or
    the formal objection in HTML-WG?

    Noah: His technical argument is that polyglot does not matter
    ... folks can front-end with a HTML parser

    Larry: TAG should focus on the broader issues

    Noah: We have 2 week window to provide guidance
    ... we can say we want to keep our original request as stated

    Larry: I am ok ... we may have more to say later

    <Zakim>  masinter, you wanted to argue about TAG scope

    <Noah>  AM: What would be the real practical differences?

    <masinter>  It's harder for other standards organizations to
    normatively reference a non-REC.

    <Noah>  NM: I>think<  there's less explicit/implied commitment
    to maintain it?

    <Noah>  YL: You can make make change requests on Notes.

    <Noah>  NM: Yes, but don't you have more responsibilities to fix
    Notes.

    Noah: With a REC we have to fix bugs

    <Noah>  YL: Not necessarily.

    <Noah>  YL: I think you're right that we>ought<  to do something
    with a REC.

    <masinter>  The scope of responsibility is W3C, not the "working
    group", working groups can't make long-term commitments, but
    the consortium can.

    <Noah>  YL: The main question is do we>Recommend<  using
    Polyglot and/or having multiple recs?

    <Zakim>  masinter, you wanted to point out the relationship of
    W3C recommendations in the world of standards

    <Noah>  RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.

    Larry: RECs have normative implications

    <Noah>  LM: RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a
    note.

    Noah: I have a strong preference to be REC because I want this
    document to be citable ... e.g. someone may decide that legal
    insurance documents must be polyglot and a REC makes that
    easier to say

    <masinter>  I hate to say this (since I've argued against
    Findings vs. Recs from the TAG), but i'm wondering if this
    stuff about Rec vs. Note might qualify for a 'finding'

    <Noah>  . PROPOSAL: The TAG has considered rescinding our
    request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
    decided not to do so. We note that TR space is consistent with
    publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
    interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
    be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
    original request.

    <masinter>  very close

    <masinter>  "several" =>  "most" ?

    Yves: Add why having a REC would be useful

    <Noah>  The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a
    Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to
    rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with
    publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
    interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
    be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
    original request. We are also aware

    <Noah>  that, if published, polyglot would still be just one way
    of achieving HTML/XML interoperation.

    Noah: If it is short we could do a resolution. If it is longer
    we should have someone draft email text

    <masinter>  Cut the last sentence?

    <Noah>  . PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding
    our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
    decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
    consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note
    will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members
    actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes
    beyond the earlier request.

    <masinter>  I liked the previous wording better, except for the
    last sentence

    Jeni: We should follow up with a rationale

    Noah: Resolution is for us ... only folks who read our minutes
    will see it. So we need a email message.

    <masinter>  Would like to ask Eliot what he thinks would be
    helpful

    <masinter>  does the TAG want to do a REC on "Normative" ?

    <masinter>  ... since it isn't defined in the process

    Noah: I think we should draft the email
    ... Norm, are you ok with this?

    Norm: Yes

    <masinter>  Ask Eliot to reference Task Force report

    <masinter>  I propose your first resolution, sans last sentence

    <Noah>  . PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding
    our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
    decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
    consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note
    will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members
    actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes
    beyond the earlier request.

    <JeniT>  . PROPOSED RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding
    our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
    decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
    consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it
    may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that
    it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not
    required by our original request.

    Noah: Anyone opposed

    <Noah>  RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding our request
    for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not
    to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent
    with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
    interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
    be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
    original request.

    <Noah>  Agreed without dissent.

    <masinter>  I didn't want to promise an email until we talk
    about the 'bigger issue'

    <Noah>  RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our
    request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
    decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
    consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it
    may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that
    it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not
    required by our original request.

    RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a
    Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to
    rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with
    publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
    interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
    be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
    original request.

    <Noah>  AM: One thought... in Henri's request to us, he quoted
    the XML/HTML task force report saying polyglot not very useful.

    Noah: Makes sense to me ... can we add to the email wording

    Norm: We should argue its general utility rather than say it
    solves the structured content on the web problem.

    <JeniT>  +1 to Norm

    <Noah>  +2 to Norm

    <Noah>  NW: The TAG should cite specifically the uses advocated
    by Sam Ruby, Henry Thompson, etc.

    <Noah>  LM: Does report say that?

    <Noah>  NW: It was beyond our scope.

    <masinter>  Could we suggest to the polyglot editor to reference
    the task force report?

    Norm: No, the report answered the question it was asked which
    was "does it solve the structured content on the web" problem
    ... This is my personal position.

    <masinter>  email vs. finding vs. rec track document?

    <JeniT>  Masinter, maybe we start with email see how big it gets

    <masinter>  Jeni, should we try to address the microdata as REC
    issue too?

    <Noah>  ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to
    rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action02]

    <trackbot>  Created ACTION-771 - Draft e-mail responding to
    request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [on Jeni
    Tennison - due 2012-12-13].

    Larry: Should the scope of email be broader to cover other
    "what constitutes a REC" issues?
    ... Wikipedia entry on "normative" is enlightening
    ... it can be something you cite or it may be something you
    must use for some situation

    Noah: I like what you said but let's start with the narrow case
    of the Polyglot document
    ... Larry, do you think we should do the general case first
    ... Any other thoughts?
    ... Jeni. could have something for us to consider next week?

    Jeni: Yes

    <Noah>  I'm a little curious where the AB/TAG line is in this.
    It's somewhat process, somewhat technical I think.

    <JeniT>
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.ht
    ml

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.html

    Larry: We may want to get more clarification on the dual use of
    "normative" ... how interesting something has to be before W3C
    considers it as a REC
    ... The W3C process does not define normative ... not clear
    about scope ... we may need to do some process work
    ... The AB is mainly concerned with operational issue like
    finance ... not so interested in process

    <Noah>   From TAG charter "The TAG's scope is limited to
    technical issues about Web architecture. The TAG should not
    consider administrative, process, or organizational policy
    issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C
    Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team."

    Discussion about "process"

    Larry: This is about the meaning of "normative".

    Noah: We can draft note to AB about our concerns.

    Larry: If we had a QA group they could take it on.

    Noah: Who owns the process document?

    Yves: The AB and the team. Ian Jacobs was the last editor of
    the process document

    Noah: Where is "normative" defined?

    <Noah>  FWIW, the word normative does not appear in the process
    document, except to discuss its own normative references.

    Jeni: There is no recommendation as to whether something should
    be a REC or a NOTE

    <Noah>   From the process document: "A correction becomes
    normative -- of equal status as the text in the published
    Recommendation -- through one of the processes described
    below."

    Noah: Process document has some discussion of "normative"

    Larry: Let's start with the email ... then we can expand to a
    document if it feels right.

    <Noah>  A quick search suggests that the process document
    defines what it is for a correction to be normative, but not
    for the base spec to be normative. That seems consistent with
    the view that normative is a characteristic of a reference
    between one document and another.

    Larry: We could discuss these in the context of the Microdata
    spec ... I will send out a note.
    ... I think this is worthy of a REC

    Noah: Please suggest email wording and I will put it on the
    agenda

    Larry: Let's wait till we get the email wording from Jeni

    <Eliot>  Thanks for inviting me. As to whether Polyglot should
    be a REC, I believe doing do will benefit those who implement
    the spec.

    <Noah>  ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to
    rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food [recorded
    in [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action01]

    [End of minutes]




-- 
All the best, Ashok
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 16:23:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 December 2012 16:23:09 GMT