minutes from the February 11 HCG call, including XBL discussion

These are the minutes from the February 11 HCG call, when we discussed XBL (see item 2). 


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

                               - DRAFT -

              Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference
                              11 Feb 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2011JanMar/0034.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/11-hcg-irc


          +1.443.837.aaaa, Debbie_Dahl, Steven, ChrisL, Leigh_Klotz,
          Kurt, janina, Doug_Schepers, Shepazu, Bert

          Daniel_Glazman, PLH, Cameron_McCormack, Erik_Dahlstr´┐Żm,
          Art_Barstow, Charles_McCathieNevile, Frederick_Hirsch,




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Charter
         2. [6]xbl
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 11 February 2011

   <scribe> scribe: janina

   <ChrisL> action-54?

   <trackbot> ACTION-54 -- Michael Cooper to install an HTML4+ARIA DTD
   -- due 2010-12-31 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [8]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/track/actions/54

      [8] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/track/actions/54

   <ChrisL> move to PF tracker

   <ChrisL> close action-54

   <trackbot> ACTION-54 Install an HTML4+ARIA DTD closed

   We have one action on We'll move it to PF


   <ChrisL> [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/HCG/charter.html

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/HCG/charter.html

   Chris: Charter is basically a copy of the last one.
   ... Some groups have changed--some dropped, some added
   ... Minutes to be public

   Steven: Might be good to discuss in the Charter how we deal with
   public vs private

   <ChrisL> (discussion on private vs public for WAI PF)

   Chris: Can PF reconsider?

   Janina: Yes, at the least we need to follow up on our commitment to
   publically and regularly indicate our activities

   Steven: RDFA?

   Chris: Agreeable to joining, are rechartering
   ... MMI? What was the rationale for private?

   Debby: Probably because that was standard at the time we were
   ... Have not yet considered going public. We can discuss.

   Chris: Voice Browser not here, so we can't ask at the moment

   <ChrisL> Chris: in the last year or two, not seen anything
   Member-confidential from MMI in terms of coordination discussions

   Chris: So, this is a draft for us to review. Not yet sent to the AC

   Debby: Reminded of Web on TV IG --- Will it become a WG? Should they
   join HCG?

   Chris: Believe we've added groups in the past without rechartering
   ... Which takes us to the HCG web page--it's out of date

   <Steven> +1 to wiki

   Chris: Suggest taking us to a Wiki

   <ChrisL> [10]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/

     [10] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/

   <ChrisL> Last modified: $Date: 2011/02/11 16:18:15 $ by $Author:
   swick $

   Doug: Sounds like Wiki would give us better coordination opportunity

   Chris: We currently do most of what used to be on our web page in
   our email agendas

   <scribe> ACTION: Chris to ask for a Wiki for HCG [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-64 - Ask for a Wiki for HCG [on Chris
   Lilley - due 2011-02-18].

   Doug: You can actually create your own--no need to ask.

   <ChrisL> add web events

   Doug: Seeing groups here that haven't existed for some time, we've
   moved them to Web Apps or Web Events
   ... WAF and WebAPI come out ...

   <ChrisL> ok

   Doug: WebCGM?

   Chris: Unsure

   <ChrisL> end april 2011

   Chris: End of April this year--think they won't recharter
   ... There's Web Notifications coming; Audio probably next month;

   Steven: Adding HCG to their charter does involve a bit of work

   Chris: Yes, someone needs to be willing to show up

   Doug: Yes, if we're doing better at tracking over time, it will be
   more valuable to people to keep updating their activities


   <ChrisL> [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/XBL

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/XBL

   Chris: There've been 5 different xbl's
   ... Unclear which Xforms is implementing

   Steven: Since none is standard, don't believe they've committed to
   any particular one
   ... Since Xforms already uses Xpath, there's preference for Xpath

   Chris: Yes, this issue was behind failure of SXbl

   Kurt: Think issue is with Ian Hixon wanting to do a WebBL -- some
   ... So there's the question of supporting needs on the X side as
   ... There's an implementation in Google groups, but not a Google
   ... There are certainly benefits to having; but without namespaces
   it's a problem on the X side

   Chris: Wondering about the value of synchronizing between html and

   Kurt: It's one question I've been wondering about
   ... Just don't want to see xbl abandoned just because one group
   wants WebBl

   Chris: Vaguely recalling some features being needed, yet were
   dropped ...
   ... There seem to be two different sets of use cases, with a gap

   Leigh: We've had this discussion ...

   <klotz> Using XBL Components:


     [13] http://wiki.orbeon.com/forms/doc/developer-guide/xbl-components

   <klotz> Writing XBL Components:


     [14] http://wiki.orbeon.com/forms/doc/developer-guide/xbl-components-guide

   Leigh: There's a 2X2 matrix to explore
   ... Author vs writing components
   ... Authors may be able to deal with two languages, users will be
   more confused

   <shepazu> [15]http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases

     [15] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases

   Leigh: Mozilla used Xbl as part of the implementation of itself
   ... ex: has enough info to popup a date picker and using xbl to
   control display
   ... Browsers going for desktop apps will be very interested in WebBL
   ... Xforms use will need to decide how they will author those
   ... All happening in one place, or another
   ... Will be multiple layers here
   ... This is why synchronizing Xbl and WebBL will be helpful
   ... Main concern is removing namespaces--makes things difficult
   ... Want to emphasize that browsers are not the only users of xml

   <shepazu> Model-based UI: [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/mbui.pdf

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/mbui.pdf

   <Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to mention the technical reason to use
   CSS Selectors

   Doug: There are performance reasons for selectors -- just wanted to
   note that
   ... Maybe just because they've been optimized
   ... Suggest Leigh get involved in Web Apps, because that's were the
   issue can be engaged, not that W3C tells the wg how to proceed

   Leigh: Primary issue from the list has been the sense that there's
   been not enough cooperation, some bad behavior among members
   ... I understand html not wanting namespaces, but the users of the
   spec are a wider group than just html and browsers
   ... Wants management to make sure group not targeted at only one
   industry segment
   ... We need to be able to discuss uses other than browser

   Doug: You can contact me or Steven; We're contacts for Web Apps
   ... Wondering if we have the right people here to coordinate

   Leigh: I was invited to present the use cases

   Chris: Others were invited;

   <ChrisL> I had expected Art to be here today. he had asked for the
   agenda item

   Doug: We can certainly make specifications that can meet broader
   issues. We needn't be limited to one spec

   Kurt: We have requirements where we're not reliant on any particular
   browser, or any browser; need a toolkit
   ... Xslt is another issue,
   ... I'm wondering whether we gain anything by trying to put it all
   into one spec
   ... The technical requirements we have are really what's behind our
   political frustrations

   Doug: Model UI; Shadow DOM; these are additional concepts worth
   exploring here
   ... Server side implementation provides more resources for mobile
   ... We shouldn't conflate the models, there are many use cases
   around server vs client

   Kurt: Toolsets depend on Xforms environement implemented; Not like
   the browser where everything is contained there
   ... There's also a discrepency in the maturity of each

   Chris: So, we don't want to drop this but we're at the end of our
   time; What about next steps
   ... Two specs? Optional parts for one spec? What are the options?

   Doug: ----lays out a model-----

   Steven: It's an example; My question is whithere?

   Doug: Web Apps, HTML avoid optional features

   <Steven> Where does it say that optional features are not in the IP

   <Steven> That's new to me

   <Steven> I know several specs with optional features

   Leigh: But why a separate spec that differs in many details?

   <ChrisL> steven, yup that is correct, W3C Patent policy does not
   cover optional features

   Doug: Suggesting extensions on the core spec

   Leigh: That will require a spirit of cooperation
   ... Concerned that core by one group and extensions by another is
   still a problem without team oversight

   Kurt: Maybe that we need a superset spec that subsumes WebBL

   Steven: Can we try for another meeting when Art can attend?

   Chris: Would that be valuable?

   Steven: Hoping to get to a solution on this

   Doug: I'm proposing two different specs

   Leigh: Would want a better definition of the proposal

   <ChrisL> although w3c tends not to like delta specifications

   <ddahl> what if we ask people to send specific proposals to the list
   and we discuss them next time?

   Leigh: So, is it WebBL as the core and a second as extension?:

   <ddahl> or at least next time that Art can be here

   Chris: When can we schedule a next call on this?
   ... OK, we'll coordinate that.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Chris to ask for a Wiki for HCG [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 13:47:08 UTC