W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > October to December 2008

{minutes} HTML WG telcon 2008-11-13 - markup-spec discussion

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:35:45 +0900
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081113183545.GE7341@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:08:39 UTC