- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:03:31 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: public-tag-announce@w3.org
By reference, in hypertext:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-minutes.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/06-minutes.html
By value, for tracker, archive search, etc.
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
TAG meeting during Santa Clara TPAC, part 1 (Monday AM)
02 Nov 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/11/02-agenda.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Noah_Mendelsohn_(NM), TV_Raman_(TVR), Henry_Thompson_(HT),
Larry_Masinter_(LMM), Ashok_Malhotra_(AM), Dan_Connolly_(DC),
TimBL
Regrets
John_Kemp, Jonathan_Rees
Chair
Noah Mendelsohn
Scribe
Larry Masinter, DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene, review records and agenda
2. [6]privacy policy (Device APIs)
3. [7]coordination with Webapps on CORS: preparation
4. [8]coordination with Webapps on CORS: joint session
5. [9]Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: text/html
6. [10]Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: data
7. [11]Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: authoring
spec
8. [12]Disucssion with HTML WG chairs
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene, review records and agenda
<ht> scribe: Larry Masinter
<ht> scribenick: masinter
nm: invited HTML-WG chairs at 3:30
TVR: at-risk for Fri
... regrets 12th Nov
nm: the rest of TAG who haven't should review status of open issues
that they are shepherd for by 10th Nov, please.
... future F2F meetings review (see agenda)
... TAG call for nominations posted
RESOLUTION: minutes from 23-25 Sep F2F approved
... minutes of october 8 approved
... minutes of October 22 approved
see agenda for references to minutes
privacy policy (Device APIs)
action-318?
<trackbot> ACTION-318 -- Noah Mendelsohn to send note to Device APIs
and Policy (DAP) Working Group on behalf of the TAG -- due
2009-10-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/318
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/318
action-321?
<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Noah Mendelsohn to bug Larry about his
input to ACTION-318 -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321
action-321 was reassigned to lmm
<DanC> action-321?
<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Larry Masinter to lightly edit TAG input to
DAP WG per 8 Oct and tell Noah -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321
<DanC> (lmm, actions/321 has a link to the note to edit in the
comments)
coordination with Webapps on CORS: preparation
Art Barstow invited TAG to come down to talk to WebApps, discussing
whether we want to have that meeting
<jar> blast. wish I could
<DanC> [17]CORS: email from Henry Thompson re "CORS still not
getting to closure"
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0316.html
<DanC> HT relayed the TAG's request for an issue; the chair,
Barstow, forwarded it to the group; the folks with concern about
confused deputy don't seem to be stepping forward to say "yes, we
want an issue"
ht: My email asked them to open an issue. But my reading of the
thread that followed didn't pile in and say 'yes'
<jar> Mark M is away from email for a couple of weeks
<jar> I don't know about Tyler, and I haven't weighed in because I
don't know what to add (and I'm not on the WG)
<jar> MM said on the list that he'd be gone and that he looks
forward to a discussion when he returns
<noahm> LM: There's the technical issue, but also process issue as
to whether WebApps is the right place to settle this security
design.
<noahm> LM: Also, Thomas Roessler is organizing a lunch on Thursday
to discuss web security
<jar> the last message on the thread basically said unguessable
tokens was best practice, and should be used in *addition* to cors.
I contemplated a response saying why do you need Origin: if you're
using unguessable tokens, but haven't figured out how to say this in
a constructive way
<jar> it's hard to participate given limited time
<masinter_> [18]Poll: Security get-together at TPAC
[18] http://doodle.com/ev7m8nvww3dw42k6
Thursday lunch meeting on web security
coordination with Webapps on CORS: joint session
<DanC> [19]CORS item in Web Applications Working Group 2 Nov minutes
[19] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item03
<DanC> [20]WebApps WG 'confused deputy problem' issue
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/108
Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: text/html
<DanC> scribe: DanC
on text/html... and "XHTML" served as...
TBL: proposed requirement: XHTML served as text/html should work
DanC: that's not feasible
TBL: I'm doing it; it works
NM: clarify, please?. "Works" means is interpreted as it would be as
application/xhtml+xml?
DanC: you're not doing it in the general case; you stated the
requirement in the general case
HT: what doesn't work?
DanC: <blockquote />
HT: There's a well-documented set of constraints
NM: So, Dan, when you say it's infeasible, you're saying "browsers
already interpret text/html in a way that conflicts with being
compatible with application/xhtml+xml"
DC: Yes, see example of <BLOCKQUOTE /> above
LMM: I come back to the point that IETF requires that old content
not be invalidated by new specs. [roughly]
... currently, the spec goes against that.
<masinter> One possible requirement for re-registering a media type
is that a new update should not make previously valid content
invalid.
<masinter> Previously valid content included XHTML to be served as
text/html, as well as consistent versions.
<noahm> FWIW, I would like to converge ASAP on: "Here's what the TAG
wants to achieve on this during our Thurs. discussion:
TBL: that's not the HTML WG change policy; their change policy for
changes is "we'll consider the costs/impact", not 100% backward
compat
LMM: but you can't redefine the media type
DC: I think the WG has accepted that. Old stuff that broke that is
now viewed as bugs.
LMM: they've accepted it to some degree, but it doesn't give a
coherent view of HTML 2, for example. [something like that]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to visit "well-documented set of
constraints" and to speak to the new/old invalid
DC: Henry, you said there is a well doc'd set of constraints. There
isn't, but that would be a good goal.
HT: What's in the spec isn't good enough.
DC: Not cited by HTML 5, disputed.
HT: Works for me.
DC: Me too.
HT: Is it in the current media type registration?
... there's the architectural/versioning aspect of this that LMM is
speaking to...
<masinter> "The text/html media type is now defined by W3C
Recommendations;
<masinter> the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition,
[XHTML1]
<masinter> defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible
with HTML
<masinter> 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html."
<masinter> [21]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt
[21] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt
NM: Do we know what to ask for?
DC: Maybe, recruit a writer to write up ...????
HT: what I want is: in the case where the content starts with an XML
declaration, parse it with an XML parser
(poll for support around that)
(discussion of label conforming ....)
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to ask for something else
[missed exchange]
LMM: I don't think conformance requirements stated in terms of how
it's processed is [good]
NM: I meant it as a shorthand
LMM: the "appendix C" was an intersection... until XHTML is
well-deployed
... the question is whether anything in HTML5 [breaks] this
TBL: I don't want a "switch"...
... I want people to be able to incrementally tidy things up
<masinter> in HTML4 there was a set of documents in the intersection
of HTML4 and XHTML such that documents in the intersection could be
interpreted EITHER as XML *OR* as HTML, and that it wouldn't matter
how it was processed.
<masinter> We are asking for HTML5 to retain that there is a useful
subset in the intersection of HTML5 and XHTML
<ht> The above URI [22]http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml is Hixie's
old, but somewhat updated, argument against _serving_ XHTML as
text/html
[22] http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
<ht> I think it's actually mostly irrelevant as an argument against
'sniffing' and then _parsing_ some text/html as XHTML
<DanC_> [23]let authors choose text/html or application/xhtml+xml
(detailed review of section 1. Introduction)
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1188.html
<DanC_> ^^ that comment is still pending:
(discussion of W3C web site that have .htaccess depending on browser
sniffing to serve the same documents in appendix C subset as
text/html or application/xhtml+xml)
<noahm> Am I confused, I thought that question was whether it is
legal to send <p>XXX</p> as text/html (I.e. because it happens to be
well formed XML)
[scribing lightly until we get closer to a conclusion...]
<noahm> Why can't this be text html? <p>xxxx</p><video>...</video>
<noahm> <p>xxxx</p><video>...</video>
<noahm> <p>xxxx<video>...</video>
<noahm> <html><body> <p>xxxx<video>...</video></body></html>
propose we endorse
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1188.htm
l
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1188.html
([25]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure.html#conformance-re
quirements )
[25] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements
<ht>
[26]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conformance-r
equirements
[26] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conformance-requirements
"XML documents that use elements or attributes from the HTML
namespace and that are served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be
sent using an XML MIME type such as application/xml or
application/xhtml+xml and must not be served as text/html.
[RFC3023]"
<noahm> Doesn't that rule out <p>XXXXX</p> as text/html
yes
PROPSED: take out ^^^
RESOLUTION: to request that "XML documents that use elements or
attributes from the HTML namespace and that are served over the wire
(e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME type such as
application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be served as
text/html. [RFC3023]" be removed
LMM: there's also the overall compatibility stuff...
... but perhaps we can follow that up in a different vendue
Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: data
TBL: PROPOSED: that the microdata [data?] section be removed
HT: I gather the microdata stuff is specified separately, while it's
still in the spec
<masinter> there is something else we might also want to say about
text/html, even if we aren't ready to say
TBL: PROPOSED: that the microdata section be moved to a separate
spec
... PROPOSED2: that the data-* section be moved to a separate spec
LMM: no... they should be removed, not just moved; they're out of
scope of the WG
... the proponents are free to propose it, and to ask that the WG
charter be extended...
TVR: given that the WHATWG has declared last call and that they've
published an aggregate spec, it seems likely that if they remove it
from the W3C spec, they'd keep it in the WHATWG spec
TBL: yes, that won't surprise me...
LMM: vendors often implement and specify non-standard stuff
... a rats-nest of overly interdependent stuff stifles innovation
NM: I wonder which version of the spec would get pointed to from the
media type registration
<masinter> The requirement for the charter of HTML WG is that it
should have extensibility mechanisms that would allow it
<ht> [27]the separate Microdata draft (it's 3 months old)
[27] http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/microdata.html
<ht> Not clear what status it has -- it's _not_ at WhatWG. . .
timbl: we should not be distracted by what WhatWG may or may not do
<ht> [28]HTML WG Microdata/RDFa issue
[28] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
yes, we just took a position on issue 76 (microdata)
RESOLUTION: to request that the microdata section be removed from
the HTML 5 spec
RESOLUTION: to request that the data-* section be removed from the
HTML 5 spec
<ht> [29]bug 7542 "Remove Section 5. Microdata"
[29] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7542
Discussion topics with HTML WG on Thursday: authoring spec
NM: about the idea of an "authoring spec" for HTML 5...
... we talked about that in Maneliue [sp?]
... IH said he could produce that as a view of the text he wrote
... I had some misgivings that this would work, but he has since
done it...
... I tried to grab it and read it on the plane but found that I
only got the TOC document
author view of HTML 5 spec - static copy (2nd try) Dan Connolly
(Wednesday, 26 August)
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1296.htm
l
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1296.html
scribe: I'm interested to take a closer look in the next couple
days... can anybody tell me how the WG treats it?
DanC: I did some scripting with it a while back...
... what I like most about it is that it clarifies discussion with
the editor; you can ask "is this about browsers or about documents"
and see the outcome clearly in the spec
LMM: I don't think many of the API invariants are document
[clearly?] [?]
TVR: I don't find this "view of the big spec" approach appealling.
It doesn't tell producers the minimum they need to do to conform [?]
NM: LMM, there is a lot about DOM APIs in the authoring version of
the spec
<noahm> [31]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/spec.html
[31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/spec.html
LMM: I spent a lot of energy on one example: downloading images,
width and "available" and "not available"
<timbl> TVR: The original spec was said to be necessarily
non-machine readable, and this new auhtoring spec is said to be a
CSS-filtere version of the original, and theefore a spec which is
also not machine-readable, and therefore -- as I beleive a language
should be specs in a machne-readble way -- not a suitable spec. (?)
<ht> Where did that link _come_ from??????
TVR: so how is this image width analysis relevant to the authoring
spec?
LMM: it's specified as a normative algorithm. what it tells authors
is that if width is available, height is available. [er... I thought
he was going to point out a problem but I didn't hear him give one;
did he get cut off?]
... my point, and it applies to other API specs as well, is that the
HTML 5 spec doesn't give a reasonable [... SCRIBE BRAIN EXPLODING]
NM: my point is that this "view of the main spec" won't produce
something good for authors
HT: whether a spec should be for implementors or end-users is a very
interesting question with lots of history in W3C, but it's
editorial, and not architectural
LMM: a language spec serves not only authors and browser
implementors but lots of other sorts of agents that consume/produce
HTML.
<ht> Lachlan Hunt's "A Web Developer’s Guide to HTML 5" has
sometimes been referred to as an authoring guide:
[32]http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/
[32] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/
<ht> THis is the WG's issue on this topic:
[33]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
[33] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
<ht> Here's Mike Smith's document:
[34]http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/
[34] http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/
<ht> Here's an interesting survey of the authoring spec. space:
[35]http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/09/normativity
.
.
[35] http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/09/normativity
Disucssion with HTML WG chairs
+PaulC
+SamR
[discussion of logistics for Thu... 1pm start time suggested.]
NM: tell us about last call... where are you?
SR: we're trying to get issues raised ASAP, rather than having the
community treat last call as a time to start raising issues
PC: we're setting up a last call process
NM: we just noted/discussed the bug/tracker-issue escalation stuff
PC: we've been testing the last call process in the WG
... the accessibility issues look like a long pole get over
SR: e.g. there's an accessibility issue where a _proposal_ is due 17
Dec
... we're setting expectation that lacking a propsal, we'll time-out
issues
NM: are these internal issues? do you check with issue raisers?
SR: it's such an open WG, but yes, in some sense they're all
internal so far
... [..missed some...] "canvas isn't accessible" is both hard and
[wrong?].
HT: can you clarify... are issues closed simply for lack of a
proposal?
PC: we close _without prejudice_, so they can be re-opened at a
later stage if required, and we explicitly call for consensus
[discussion of polyglot documents...]
[discussion of text/html media type registration... whether it
should go in the html 5 spec or not... to what extent the html 5
spec re-writes history]
(ht which is that issue again?)
<ht> [36]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
[36] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
[missed some...]
PC: advocates of microdata/RDFa haven't said they think they should
be developed independently of the HTML WG.
HT: it's people outside the WG that express this opinion
LMM: yes, the W3C membership explicitly considers these modularity
issues, as they relate to which experts/engineers to send to which
groups
SR: hmm... not sure I'd heard concerns around data-* before
PC: right; don't expect the WG to be familiar with that.
TBL: data-* competes with URI-based designs such as RDFa
SR: odd... data-* is local to a page... i.e. to be consumed by js on
the page, not by crawlers
TBL: but once there's lots of useful data-* data somewhere, crawlers
will want to crawl
SR: hmm... yes, I can see the inevitability of that. hmm.
[... discussion of various lists of things in various stages of
discussion]
NM: we didn't get to distributed extensibility this AM
SR: there are 2 things: (1) do we want people to be able to make up
their own elements? (2) XML namespaces as is. Don't lead with (1) if
your requirement is actually (2)
NM projects quote from HTML 5 spec on
#other-applicable-specification
[discussion of the CSS moz- technique in comparison to URI-based
techniques]
<ht> yes
[discussion of DOMs with namespaces that can only be created from
scripts, not from markup]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.135
([38]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/11/17 15:52:18 $
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
TAG meeting during Santa Clara TPAC, part 2 (Friday AM)
06 Nov 2009
Attendees
Present
Noah_Mendelsohn_(NM), Henry_Thompson_(HT),
Larry_Masinter_(LMM), Ashok_Malhotra_(AM), Dan_Connolly_(DC),
Tim_Berners-Lee_(TBL)
Regrets
John_Kemp, Jonathan_Rees, TV_Raman
Chair
Noah
Scribe
timbl
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]Security BOF out-brief
2. [4]HTML joint session debrief
3. [5]Decentralized extensibility debate review
4. [6]EXI WG requests review of a content coding
5. [7]Dec f2f planning
6. [8]URI Packaging
7. [9]IRI BOF Report
8. [10]Default XML Processing Model - 10 min heads-up [Henry]
9. [11]TAG telecons, Noah's conflict
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<DanC> Date: 6 Nov 2009
Security BOF out-brief
<scribe> scribenick: timbl
<DanC> [13]http://esw.w3.org/topic/TPAC_Security_BOF
[13] http://esw.w3.org/topic/TPAC_Security_BOF
[Instituting more of a policy of protocol review of W3C activities.
]
Noah: How is W3C organized to deal with security?
DanC: T&S domain tends to specialize in security. There was a Web
Security Context (WSC) working group which did the browser chrome
thing. There is no generic horizontal security activity [like acc'y
or I18n].
Noah: So the TAG is the only general group looking
cross-wg..frightening
LM: Security is not a a specialty of the TAG. The IETF has a
Security directorate, and every document has a threat analysis and
mitigation review.
DanC: a new mailing list and/or wiki maybe coming out of the lunch
security BOF.
LMM: Some people thought the overhead of IG would be too big. But f
there were such a group, then there would be many people from member
companies who would participate. I suggest we the TAG endorse this.
<masinter> ... and encourage W3C staff to pursue this because the
TAG isn't prepared to do the security architectural work that needs
to be done.
<DanC> +0 on endorse...; it sounds well and good, but ...
Ashok: Security on the web, or device security too?
LMM: Wherever W3C does work.
<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to noodle on security entry in Web apps
"Table of Contents"
Noah: Two things one of which is yes i think it would be good for us
to agree that we should help people [lost]
... we could find a tag member who could spend some time thinking
about this. I hear l Larry say security is important, and we should
say security is something that w3c should do better, but he didn't
say that the tag should offer, yes if you want is to we will tell
you what you think of your security issue.
<DanC> action-306?
<trackbot> ACTION-306 -- Larry Masinter to work with JK and AM to
update Web Application architecture outline based on discussions at
TAG meetings -- due 2009-10-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306
DanC: CORS and Origin Header .. seem close to security
Larry: Suggest we ask Thomas to report
ACTION DanC as Thomas for a report form the security BOF
<trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - As Thomas for a report form the
security BOF [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to invite Thomas to report on actions from TPAC
security BOF
<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Invite Thomas to report on actions
from TPAC security BOF [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].
<ht> From Mike Smith, authored (?) by Anne van K., minutes from the
security BOF: [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-security-minutes.html
[15] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-security-minutes.html
Noah: In December I want to crank up our focus on Metadata.
Ashok: We are stalled .. how should we move this forward. Thinking
about device APIs ...
Noah: Broader than that .. a full road map of web applications,
including security.
[discussion of pressure of work and scheduling]
Noah: We meet on December 1. Let us review it before, November 19?
<DanC> action-306 due 1 Dec
<trackbot> ACTION-306 Work with JK and AM to update Web Application
architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings due date
now 1 Dec
Larry and Ashok will meet Nov 17 18 and the TAG will get it on 1st
and discuss it on the face-face on the 6th
HTML joint session debrief
HT: As there was agreement about the substantive point, we didn't
need maybe to spend 45 minutes discussing the polyglot issue, but in
fact I think it was useful.
Noah: We went though the agenda we brought with us and got though
most of it.
HT: I found it interesting that many influential member of the HTML5
WG seem to have very little awareness of the document and content
management industry, which has largely switched to end-to-end XML
over the last few years.
Timbl: Some people in the HTML group committed to do their best to
expand the polyglot overlap to be as big as possible. I applauded
that move, as the polyglot language is really valuable. Noted that
Kai/Deutche Telecom pointed out that his whole site was polyglot.
<masinter> Polyglot documents are *not* defined in the document, and
so the commitment to make sure they are allowed in the document is
insufficient.
<DanC> it was news to me that Karl had written something about
"versatile" documents (aka polyglot documents)
Timbl: It was pointed out that there was a large XML-using community
who have web pages and want them to be XML.
<DanC> [16]whatwg notes on polyglot docs
[16] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML
<timbl_> That's it
<DanC> note also "First Polyglot Validator Check Deployed"
[17]http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/09/08/First-Polyglot-Validator
-Check-Deployed
[17] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/09/08/First-Polyglot-Validator-Check-Deployed
<masinter> The text/html MIME type should reference the description
of polyglot documents which is currently not in the text/html MIME
type registration
HT: I noted in corridor discussion that if you are using digital
signature with your XML documents, converting them to HTML syntax
for transmission is not an option.
DanC: I think the community has evolved its understanding of what is
acceptable.
<DanC> DanC: two things: (a) whether formerly valid stuff is now
invalid and (b) whether history is preserved; I think (a) is
acceptable and hixie claimed history section of HTML 5 subsumes the
history in the RFC. so if they don't change anything, I'm satisfied.
Larry: The place where the the IANA considerations for MIME type
registration, section 31.1 ..
[discussion of section 13.1]
Larry: This doesn't say that the previous document types under
earlier versions of HTML are allowed too.
... RFC2854, under 'published specifications' it explained it.
Noah: In practice the goal of the spec is to include the older
languages
Larry: I don't believe that the HTML5 document does currently
clearly define a language which includes all others
DanC: Specifically, an example if that the @profile attribute has
been removed, when it was in HTML4.
<ht> Combining "This document is the relevant specification.
Labeling a resource with the text/html type asserts that the
resource is an HTML document using the HTML syntax." with "XML
documents that use elements or attributes from the HTML namespace
and that are served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using
an XML MIME type such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml
and must not be served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a
satisfactory state. If the
HT: This [above] is what Hixie promised to change, until it is
changed we can't evaluate the result.
<scribe> ACTION: HT to Assign himself an action to track the text
"""urce with the text/html type asserts that the resource is an HTML
document using the HTML syntax." with "XML documents that use
elements or attributes from the HTML namespace and that are served
over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME type
such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be
served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a satisfactory state.
If the"""
<trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - Assign himself an action to track
the text """urce with the text/html type asserts that the resource
is an HTML document using the HTML syntax." with "XML documents that
use elements or attributes from the HTML namespace and that are
served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME
type such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not
be served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a satisfactory
state.
<DanC> (Henry, I'm not sure there's a bug on the media type stuff;
the/a bug Sam opened right away was w.r.t. web addresses)
<ht> I found it, its
[18]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8154
[18] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8154
<ht> ACTION Henry S to track HTML WG progress on their bug 8154 on
polyglot documents, due 2009-12-05
<trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - S to track HTML WG progress on their
bug 8154 on polyglot documents, due 2009-12-05 [on Henry S. Thompson
- due 2009-11-13].
LMM: I think the microdata stuff should be not only factored out but
removed as out of HTML WG charter scope; to pursue it involves a
charter change or a new WG
TimBL: Lets as a the TAG file a bug in real time now requesting the
removal of the the Microdata section, and remove it (with no
normative reference).
Because ... [collecting rationale in IRC...]
<noahm> Modularity is beneficial in this case. There are alternative
technologies such as RDFa, and separating specs for metadata is a
good thing.
<DanC> RDFa is in considerable and increasing deployment (before
saying it's a REC)
- The modularity of the document is damaged. The issue of putting
data into HTML5 documents is sufficiently separate functionality
that it would be better to have a separate document which people
interested in data can review without having to read the rest of the
space.
<masinter> Metadata architecture is complex; real world widely
deployed metadata management systems have found that distributed
extensibility is even more important for metadata than for markup,
since each organization and community has different desires for
metainformation even if they share common understanding of the data.
<noahm> the modularity of both the design and the documentation of
it is damaged
- The microformat bits in fact overlap with, and would need review
by , dramatically separate communities such as calendaring
(iCalendar etc), contact (vCard etc).
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to consider endorsement of
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0773.htm
l
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0773.html
<masinter> The embedding of this specification within HTML5 hinders
the involvement to the web content management community.
[20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
[20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
[discussion of fine tuning of the bug]
RESOLUTION: To endorse
[21]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76 and file a bug for
removal of the Microdata section form HTML4.
[21] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
<ht> The HTML Bugzilla bug for "remove microdata" filed by the TAG
is [22]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
[22] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
Decentralized extensibility debate review
HT: This felt awkward to me from the podium
... But I hear it seemed to go well.
... I have a better sense of where people who oppose NSs think the
costs are.
... That is, the cost of the tuple representation of names at the
API level; and also the syntactic overhead of managing them, and
vulnerability from lexical scoping when you are cutting and pasting.
<DanC> (re tuples as names, the XML community is hoisted by its own
petard in that case; if they'd just combined them into one URI, this
wouldn't be a problem.)
HT: The other issue, with a different character, raised by Larry,
was about where you buy into the "decentralized" part at all. There
was actually much less of the Henri's "We have done all the
extensibility we need" position.
... Going forward, we have a much better sense of how to frame
arguments.
Larry: Either the costs reduced or the benefits outweigh them.
TimBL: Meanwhile these "Unobtrusive Namespace proposals"
<masinter>
[23]http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200909/msg00068.html
[23] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200909/msg00068.html
DanC: That doesn't do anything for me
HT: MY reading is that:
... there are two classes of proposal:
<DanC> (Liams's proposal with outboard namespace declarations
doesn't meet the
[24]http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Ambiguity requirement,
aka lexical scoping)
[24] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Ambiguity
HT: 1) Liam's for example is to make it easier to change the default
ns withing certain scopes. There is an out-of-band description of
how to do this, but in well known situation they can be hard-coded,
like HTML.
... 2) Or there is an appeal to out-of-band information, which is
used to set up non-default prefixes, like SVG: "Media type derived
namespace declarations".
TimBL: These all follow from the media type.
HT: ... I prefer (2)
<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to talk about Liam's proposal
<DanC> (perhaps I read a version of Liam's proposal that's so old
that it doesn't bear on this discussion; pointer to modern version,
please?)
Noah: What I like about Liam's is that it gives you NS and also
allows you to evolve a tag from an experimental namespace into a new
version of a well-known namespace.
... (BTW Liam had sent his idea to the Hypertext Coordination group,
which had not been an effective place, but now it is sent t the HTML
WG)
<ht>
[25]http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol
3-Quin01.html
[25] http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol3-Quin01.html
HT: Option 2 has never been really written down.
... That ^^ was a version of Liam's proposal.
DanC: The current HTML5 spec is an example of one of these.
Larry: Henry, Could you submit a bug to the HTML WG that you would
like this?
HT: First I need to read Tony Ross's proposal. (linked from the
agenda or from noah's talk which is)
<DanC> further discussion showed that Dan had a different "these" in
mind and the HTML 5 spec isn't an instance.
<ht> ACTION Henry to review Microsoft's namespaces in HTML 5
proposal
<trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Review Microsoft's namespaces in
HTML 5 proposal [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-11-13].
EXI WG requests review of a content coding
DC: Tim, do you believe their use cases cover any of the interesting
cases?
Tim: yes, e.g., they demonstrated on a very large SVG file;
demonstration was that it loads 200 times faster
Noah: We we not sure of the original speed analysis of these but I
don't think we have any issues now
[agreed generally, so we move on]
Noah: We asked them to register a content-encoding value and they
have, so we should thank them.
HT: We were worried that, because the encoding actually is lossy in
that that the double quotes on attributes become single quotes, it
wouldn't be accepted by the IESG, but it was.
<noahm> Proposal: the TAG thanks the EXI working group for
registering the exi content-coding. Your registration completely
resolves the concern we expressed in Mandelieu
PROPOSED: We thank the EXI WG for registering the content encoding
and encourage them in their endeavors.
<noahm> Either is fine with me.
<DanC> "exi" is registered; I don't know whether it's case sensitive
<noahm> I note that this >is< what we encouraged them to do.
TimBL: Oh dear, another nail in the coffin of the plot to use double
quotes for all attribute values except single quotes when it is a
qname ;-)
<DanC> (if the rationale is "this is what we asked them to do" then
I need a pointer)
RESOLUTION: We thank the EXI WG for registering the content encoding
and encourage them in their endeavors.
<DanC> for reference, exi registration request
[26]http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2008-October/00210
3.html
[26] http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2008-October/002103.html
ACTION Noah convey to the EXIWG the resolution "We thank the EXI WG
for registering the content encoding and encourage them in their
endeavors.".
<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Convey to the EXIWG the resolution
"We thank the EXI WG for registering the content encoding and
encourage them in their endeavors.". [on Noah Mendelsohn - due
2009-11-13].
Dec f2f planning
NM: seems we should do webapps architecture at our Dec f2f meeting
<DanC> (TOC, for ref
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921 )
[27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921
NM: Raman will not be there at the Dec f2f meeting
<masinter> scribenick: masinter
<noahm> Ashok will help Raman frame the F2F agenda and preparation
on Web Application Architecture
[postscript: see ACTION-306 and ACTION-337]
<noahm> Ashok will frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata
access
[postscript: see ACTION-336]
<noahm> :Larry will frame the F2F agenda and preparation on metadata
formats/representations
[postscript: see ACTION-337]
<DanC> action-321?
<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Larry Masinter to lightly edit TAG input to
DAP WG per 8 Oct and tell Noah -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/321
<DanC> action-321 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-321 lightly edit TAG input to DAP WG per 8 Oct and
tell Noah due date now next week
<noahm> ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F of Henry's work on referencing
changing specs
<trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Schedule F2F of Henry's work on
referencing changing specs [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-11-13].
<noahm> Dan volunteers best effort to do early versions of the
agenda for F2F.
<noahm> Noah thanks him >profusely<
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
Noah etc.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Prepare Dec f2f agenda in
collaboration with Noah etc. [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-11-13].
Noah: Unfortunately, we didn't get to on stage called for
nominations to the W3C TAG.
URI Packaging
<DanC> scribenick: DanC
LM: I reviewed widget:
... reported to webapps widget subgroup...
... reviewed it from the p.o.v. of an author of IETF guidelines on
making new URIs
... i.e. not exactly a TAG review or Adobe review
... I'm surprised that the WG considered it done
... e.g. several things "out of scope" but URI registration
guidelines requires that things be well-defined; "out of scope"
isn't well-defined
LMM's review
LMM's review:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0010.html
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0010.html
[[ AWWW Suggestion: add guideline: "Make New URI Schemes Reusable If
You Can't Reuse URI schemes".
]
]
LMM: perhaps thismessage: could have been extended, rather than
making a new URI scheme.
... it's from MIME multipart
... for references between MIME parts
<timbl> ... The thismessage: URI scheme is a neat URI scheme which
does actually work and i widely deployed
[30]http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2557.txt <-
[31]http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
[30] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2557.txt
[31] http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
<timbl> ... You can make relative URIs but they don't resolve to
anything except relative the message.
<timbl> ... If you have message within message then you flatten it.
TBL: yes, that AWWW suggestion appeals to me.
<timbl> LMM: I suggest in my review adding to AWWW the advice "i you
can't reuse another r scheme, and then if you can, make you new
scheme re-=usable".
HT: thinking about the impact on implementers...
<timbl> Tim: The document should have real-life examples.
HT: old implementations of the extended scheme won't necessarily be
updated
<timbl> Noah: We would normally start with a finding for this sort
of thing.
<scribe> scribe: timbl
LMM: The draft charter for IRI is to update the guidelines for new
URI schemes.
... I withdraw the suggestion.
<noahm> q
IRI BOF Report
LMM: ... I met with the I18n group on Tuesday, and had dinner last
night with 14 people discussing IRIs, in the unicode consortium,
Lisa Dusseault (sp?) , Mike Smith
... Mike was to represent the HTML5 contingent in this.
<DanC> (note to self... brief MikeSmith on HTML 5 URI design
details... maybe I'll action myself... noah, do you mind?)
<masinter>
[32]http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/DraftIriCharter
[32] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/DraftIriCharter
LMM: It looks very positive for agreement hat there should be a WG
in the IETF wit aggressive time schedule,
... with that [linked] as draft charter.
DanC: Any chair candidates?
LMM: Maybe
<masinter> volunteers to help with chairing, managing the issue
list, shepherding the various working groups involved
LMM: I count 9 committees who are interested in what IRIs are. They
are listed at the end of the charter.
... I added ICANN.
... This is the one committee to rule them all and in the darkness
bind them.
<masinter> [33]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07
[33] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07
LMM: Right now, what web browsers will accept in a href="here"
cannot be put in other service which take URIs. There is a specified
mapping in the document which was posted, in a new versions of the
IRI-bis document, which ... [lost]
... This IRI-bis document defines in section 7 a processing model to
handle otherwise invalid IRIS which will make an IRI out of any
string.
... In the definitions, in section 1.3,
... It defines LEIRI and Web-ADDRESS as strings which might
otherwise survive such processing.
... : ... section 7.2 ...
... One needs to find a better name/abbreviation for these ..
HT: This works for me
LMM: This is my cut at the knot.
<DanC> (the word "survive" isn't in the document... ah...
"acceptable input to the processing rules in Section 7.2.")
<DanC> ACTION-298?
<trackbot> ACTION-298 -- Larry Masinter to notify the TAG of the
next IRI draft -- due 2009-09-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/298
[34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/298
TimBL: Can you remove the // while you are at it? ;-)
<DanC> close action-298
<trackbot> ACTION-298 Notify the TAG of the next IRI draft closed
<ht> Here's the HTML WG Issue for web addresses:
[35]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207
[35] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207
<DanC> (our iriEverywhere issue is now open with no actions, which
bothers the pedant in me, but I can't think of... ah... NM is
pursuing it.)
<DanC> close item 7
HT:
<DanC> close item 10
Default XML Processing Model - 10 min heads-up [Henry]
HT: At the Director's insistence, when the XML proc model was
chartered, it was chartered to do two things, what ht group wanted
to do, which was a new scripting language, and what the Director
[and DanC] wanted as well which was to define the default processing
model of an XML document.
... HT: I decided eventually there was very little one could say
about the default processing mdoel... and Norm Walsh and I wrote it
on he back of a napkin yesterday.
<masinter> danc, iriEverywhere -- suggest we ask W3C I18N to produce
Rec which points people at IRI and updates
[36]http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/ and LEIRI etc.
[36] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/
HT: This is space whcih ther spcs can be iused to explain what the
input to t epropcess is. It does Xinclde,. It says you must process
the external subset. It saif you muse updat ethabse URI of
documents, and annotae al; XML ID elements with ID specs. So there
is just one consequent of any incoming XML document.
... That is consequent as a n infoset.
TimBL What about decryption?
<ht> [37]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
[37] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/defproc.html
<DanC> issue-34?
<trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- XML Transformation and composability (e.g.,
XSLT,XInclude, Encryption) -- OPEN
<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34
[38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34
<DanC> action-239?
<trackbot> ACTION-239 -- Henry S. Thompson to alert chair when
updates to description of xmlFunctions-34 are ready for review (or
if none made) -- due 2009-12-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/239
[39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/239
HT: This resolves a 10 -year old ambiguity that there is not one
defined infoset associated with any doument.
... YOu don't ahev to use it.
TimBL: Then how doe sthe receiver know whether to?
<DanC> DanC: "default" is a misnomer, then
<DanC> HT: I can see that.
LMM: Chris LIlley reminds me that there was going to na an update
teo the application/xml and so the default processing model could be
mentioned here.
Noah: What about the Follow Your Nose question? How to get to teh
set of specs from the document you receive? This dooesn't seem to
solve that problem.
<Zakim> noahm, you wanted to say this goes half way
LMM: You could urge a spec writer to define the rpocessingmodel from
the MIME spec.
Noah: This best practice for xml applications ike purcase orders
they do this.
<DanC> (the best way to say that this isn't _the_ only one is to
document 2. I think the "what you see is what you get" processing
model should get at least equal, if not preferred, footing. i.e. no
external anything)
TAG telecons, Noah's conflict
Noah: We wil lhave teleconferences in the 12 and 19th. Regrets from
Noah for the
12th
ADJOURNED
<DanC> taking a look at
[40]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda ... organizing
actions by issue/product...
[40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/agenda
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to invite Thomas to report on actions from TPAC
security BOF
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to prepare Dec f2f agenda in collaboration with
Noah etc.
[NEW] ACTION: HT to Assign himself an action to track the text
"""urce with the text/html type asserts that the resource is an HTML
document using the HTML syntax." with "XML documents that use
elements or attributes from the HTML namespace and that are served
over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent using an XML MIME type
such as application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and must not be
served as text/html. [RFC3023]" we don't have a satisfactory state.
If the"""
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to schedule F2F of Henry's work on referencing
changing specs
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.135
([42]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/11/17 16:48:05 $
[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 17:03:38 UTC