W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > November 2018

RE: Recap of face to face meeting

From: Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan) <peter.rushforth@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:53:58 +0000
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "'public-sdwig@w3.org'" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
CC: "Jeremy Tandy (jeremy.tandy@gmail.com)" <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, "Francois Daoust (fd@w3.org)" <fd@w3.org>
Message-ID: <47c9a31b0a0d437fa7bcd27079faad32@PEVDACDEXC004.birch.int.bell.ca>
Hi Linda and SDWIG,

Thanks for this recap.

Regarding the outcomes of TPAC for Maps for HTML/MapML (https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/meetings/f2f-3-recap.md ):

> Assuming that APIs and javascript are harder than HTML

While this may be true, the real value of HTML is that it is the core of Web standards, and HTML is where everybody, and every Web application, starts.  As a result of this, what is included in HTML is not only reliable, both for users and crawlers, but is meaningful / semantic.

> Browser vendors indicated that they prefer not to add more things

In fairness, only one browser vendor attended our meeting.  But yes that browser's reps did say they prefer not to add more things, perhaps implying that Web standards are finished?  On the other hand, maps are already part of HTML, and have been for > 20 years, and what we're talking about is not adding more things, more of a renovation of sorts.  I believe Michael Gordon mentioned that progressive enhancement was something desirable for Web applications.  I would draw the group's attention to a post I wrote about progressive enhancement of Web maps: http://maps4html.github.io/Web-Map-Custom-Element/blog/progressive-web-maps.html

> there already are enough primitives to build what we need

That's not true yet, I believe, and even if it was, it's not a good reason to prevent standardization of widely-held semantics. This was demonstrated most recently with the standardization of the <picture> element, which allows HTML authors to identify alternate images that are device appropriate.  It was implemented in JavaScript, as a "polyfill", but was subsequently implemented by browsers natively, because obviously, serving appropriate images to phones and tablets is a compelling use case for images.  Web maps are a similarly compelling use case, especially for the mobile Web; yes they can be achieved in JavaScript, but *should* they be left to each Web site to reinvent?

> domain specific languages such as existing ones for math, music, chemistry, etc. can be implemented in browsers using Web Components.

Quite true, and I'm not sure it was clear to everyone at the meeting but our Community Group has produced a set of Web Components that implement MapML to a useful degree.  These can be installed locally if you have bower installed, by the command "bower install web-map".  Also you can use them here: http://geogratis.gc.ca/mapml/en/

> (Web Components) allow the preservation of semantics and no need to wait for browsers to integrate support

Web Components are still JavaScript applications at heart, with Web site-specific semantics, although I believe they are a useful way of expressing how something *should* be standardized, although they still have uneven support themselves across browsers.  In fact the TAG produced some guidance on this topic, which I believe the web-map suite of custom elements is following (haven't done a complete analysis of that yet): https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/webcomponents-design-guidelines/

> The best way forward seems not to try to get native browsers to support MapML, but to look at web components instead.

What might be interesting is if the web-map suite of components became part of AMP.

We won't stop trying to get browser vendors on board, because what we're trying to achieve is an improved global standard for maps which enables further progressive enhancement. Based on some sideline conversations at TPAC I still have hope that the door is not closed, and that Web standards aren't finished improving.  To achieve improved standardized Web maps, we believe that the web-map suite of components can be evolved to provide a still-clearer path towards that goal.

Cheers,
Peter


Peter Rushforth

Technology Advisor
Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation
Natural Resources Canada / Government of Canada
peter.rushforth@canada.ca<mailto:peter.rushforth@canada.ca> / Tel: 613-759-7915

Conseiller technique
Centre canadien de cartographie et d'observation de la Terre
Ressources naturelles Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
peter.rushforth@canada.ca<mailto:peter.rushforth@canada.ca> / TÚl: 613-759-7915



Thanks,
Peter


Peter Rushforth

Technology Advisor
Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation
Natural Resources Canada / Government of Canada
peter.rushforth@canada.ca<mailto:peter.rushforth@canada.ca> / Tel: 613-759-7915

Conseiller technique
Centre canadien de cartographie et d'observation de la Terre
Ressources naturelles Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
peter.rushforth@canada.ca<mailto:peter.rushforth@canada.ca> / TÚl: 613-759-7915

From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Sent: November 13, 2018 8:29 AM
To: 'public-sdwig@w3.org' <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Cc: Jeremy Tandy (jeremy.tandy@gmail.com) <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Francois Daoust (fd@w3.org) <fd@w3.org>
Subject: Recap of face to face meeting

Hi all,

I wrote a summary of our face to face meeting. It can be found here: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/meetings/f2f-3-recap.md

I will send this to the OGC as well. Since we are not meeting at the next OGC meeting (which takes place next month in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA), and neither Jeremy nor myself will be there to brief the OGC about our ongoing work, this can serve as a report to the OGC community.

Linda
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2018 14:54:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:52 UTC