- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:35:45 +0900
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Members of the HTML Working Group participated in a teleconference
on November 13. The minutes are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-html-wg-minutes.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Present
MikeSmith, DanC, Josh, Cynthia, MurrayMaloney,
AdrianBatemen
Regrets
ChrisWilson, LauraCarlson, Julian
Chair
MikeSmith
Scribe
Joshue
Contents
* Topics
1. Markup Language Spec
2. AOB
3. Next meeting
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Markup Language Spec
MikeS: I posted a draft of the spec that I have been working on. It
would be helpful as a starting point.
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
<pimpbot> Title: HTML: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)
MikeS: I realize very few have looked at it. Has anyone initial
comments?
... Gives outline of abstract
... The doc defines authors, producers and consumers differently.
... Gives further details. No normative criteria, web browsers are
not defined in terms of how they parse HTML, Is not intended to be
an authoring guide.
... HTML Syntax is described. Various Mime Types are discussed. Its
the same prose as defined in the current draft, pretty much.
Optional BOM are mentioned etc.
... DOC Type, character encoding etc are defined. The remaining part
of spec is a list of HTML elements and their content models,
attributes and values etc.
<takkaria> I had a brief look, looked reasonable, but I would be
worried people take it for normative
MikeS: In addition there is a section on common content models,
phrase and prose content matches block and inline content. Then
definitions of sets of common attributes. Similar to HTML 4 draft
and other markup specs.
... Last part deals with ARIA markup, attribute sets, enumerated
values for ARIA attributes. Semantics undefined as they are in the
ARIA spec. Then exhaustive list of name character references.
MM: Test kit being build.
MikeS: Not a schema?
MM: Its a grammar to build a parser.
MikeS: Interesting
MM: I will ask him to join WG.
MS: Will you have more info next week?
MM: Yes
Adrian: Do you have a view as to how having this doc changes what
the HTML 5 spec is/does?
MS: Right now as far as content models and syntax description. This
matches what is in the HTML 5 draft. We want to keep things that
way. We need to decide that the current part of semantics, content
models etc should be kept there. We need to keep them in sync. As
different docs have diff editors there may not always be agreement.
... We want this to be normative. If we were to go forward with a
separate normative markup-language spec, there can only be one spec
so it would necessarily need to supersede anything else.
Adrian: This looks like a good start. In terms of a descriptive doc
that talks about the language and not its use. However, how
practical is this? How much of the text has been taken from the HTML
5 draft?
MS: This spec should not have a lot of non-normative content.
... It should not describe rendering behaviors normatively, or have
too much description of rendering behavior etc. many say the current
draft conflates authoring and rendering domains. These are separate
so there is confusion. I like to have the markup spec not do this
anymore. Separate some of the under the hood stuff from the user
manual aspect. Want to see the spec defined as an abstract language
without processing assumptions.
Adrian: That is a good goal.
<DanC> (trying to construct a proof in my head that the language
defined in Mike's draft is smaller than the language in Hixie's
draft; hmm... don't think there is one... I think it's not actually
a theorem. I think there are counter-examples)
Joshue thinks this may make it easier to understand for all
concerned.
DanC: Its not smaller than the language Hixie defines as conformant.
DanC: In that docs conforming to his spec is conforming to yours.
MS: It is.
DanC: I don't think so.
<DanC> (other way around)
MS: You are right.
<DanC> DanC: e.g. documents that misuse headings, cite, etc. are
prohibited by the HTML 5 spec
MS: Discusses schemas, parsing of schemas, attribute model and
pattern definitions. RelaxNG etc.
... Programmatic extracts/additions of certain content via
Schematron. Josh unable to parse some statements.
Cynthia: I am curious why this is done that way?
<DanC> (I think having feedback between validation tools and the
spec is good... though this is something of an extreme approach)
MS: It is circular. Not ideal. Changes to the spec will go other
way, or not be one way from validator to the spec. If changes are
made the assertions that validator.nu are making will have to be
changed to match the spec. At his point they are one way.
Cynthia: It is reasonable to do this in order to get the spec out.
MS: Its about having a formal description of the language.
Formalisms are currently prose descriptions in order to not lock
people who write a conformance checker. High level language used in
order to design a tool around it loosely.
<DanC> (publishing the schema as a note is an interesting idea.)
MS: Hixie feels there should not a normative schema for the
language. Other builders have a disincentive to build anything. All
of these normative schemas for the language seemed to stop others
from developing their own. We want to avoid this, having only one
tool.
Cynthia: Yes, some need this behind a firewall.
MS: This can be done and works well.
Cynthia: We don’t want to give advantage to one set of schemas.
MM: When developing a formalism for HTML, we can build a grammar,
define constraints etc. It depends on what you are trying to do.
... Grammar needs to be correct. Stuff taken from different
namespaces can be dealt with. Others have more rigorous purposes,
may not be public facing. The grammar needs to be examined to be a
more liberal version that conformance checkers want to use, then
good stuff.
MS: Existing validators, and HTML 4. XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (DTD based
validation tools)
MM: When you produce a DTD, the doc that accompanies it is produced
alongside it. There are better formalisms to do this etc
MS: I understand. Validator.nu is doing a lot more that just
conformance checking.
MM: You claim that it does that is false.
<takkaria> you have to be very very careful that people don't start
trying to consume HTML via a grammar rather than an implementation
of the parsing algorithm
MS: I concede that, however when a decent schema is available,
validation against a schema etc there are more sophisticated tools.
But the problem is that many see that passing the validator is
perceived as meaning their content is fit for purpose. Schema
checking alone does not always mean your doc can be processed the
way you want it to be.
MM: Again this is false.
MS: I hear what you are saying. Other comments?
Cynthia: This is a good idea. It will be helpful.
MS: I think to have the Authoring guide as a way to make it clear to
help them have their docs work on the web. It also needs to cover
the DOM interface for scripting purposes. Real world use cases etc.
This will keep the spec minimal. remove informative stuff into the
authoring guide etc
MM: Then call it something else.
MS: No
Cynthia: It could have subtitle?
MS: We have talked to developers and they want this.
+q
MM: How about a browsers guide, developers guide etc?
MS: We need a normative guide for browsers..
MM: You can't have that.
... I am not understanding this.
DanC: You said this was a spec for how UAs behave.
MM: Strong objection
-q
<MikeSmith> Joshue: some document that is specifically for authors,
that cuts out a lot of the under-the-hood stuff is in principle a
good idea
MM: I am going to make this an issue.
<DanC> issue-61?
<trackbot> ISSUE-61 -- Conformance depends on author's intent --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/61
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/61
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-61 - HTML Issue Tracking Tracker (at
www.w3.org)
<DanC> maybe that's not so close to what Murray wanted on the issues
list after all
<DanC> action-77?
<trackbot> ACTION-77 -- Michael(tm) Smith to lead HTML WG to
response to TAG discussion and report back to TAG -- due 2008-10-30
-- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/77
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/77
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-77 - HTML Issue Tracking Tracker (at
www.w3.org)
MS: I did want to talk to the TAG list about this. Let them know we
have followed up on the discussion. I have an item to do this. This
should take place on the public HTML list.
MM: I don't follow
MS: The action item is complete.
<DanC> ISSUE-59?
<trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate
document that is a normative language reference and if so what are
the requirements -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Issue Tracking Tracker (at
www.w3.org)
<DanC> (maybe that's closer)
MS: Lets take the rest of the discussion to public HTML.
AOB
@headers?
<pimpbot> Joshue: Huh?
<DanC> (just briefly, who has the ball on headers?)
<DanC> (the actions listed in
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/20 seem stale. )
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/20
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-20 - HTML Issue Tracking Tracker (at
www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> Joshue: we are talking with PF about @headers and
discussing how to move this along a little farther
<DanC> (hmm... so it sounds like anybody/somebody/nobody has the
ball.)
<MikeSmith> ACTION: Joshue to prepare status report on @headers
discussion by next week [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Prepare status report on @headers
discussion by next week [on Joshue O Connor - due 2008-11-20].
waves bye
Next meeting
<MikeSmith> we will have the telcon at the regular time next week,
probably with ChrisWilson chairing
<MikeSmith> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Joshue to prepare status report on @headers discussion
by next week [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 18:36:23 UTC