W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2007

TAG Minutes for 6 Sep 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:11:55 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2zlzzk0z8.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes

W3C[1]

                                   - DRAFT -

                          Technical Architecture Group
                                   6 Sep 2007

   Agenda[2]

   See also: IRC log[3]

Attendees

   Present
           Norm, Stuart, Raman, Dan, TimBL, Henry, Noah

   Regrets
           Rhys

   Chair
           Stuart

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Approve minutes of 30 August 2007
         2. Agenda review
         3. Next telcon, 13 Sep 2007
         4. September F2F Preparation
         5. namespaceDocument-8
     * Summary of Action Items

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Approve minutes of 30 August 2007

   -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/30-minutes

   RESOLUTION: Approved as a true record.

   <DanC> +1 meet 13 Sep

  Agenda review

   Accepted as posted.

  Next telcon, 13 Sep 2007

   Proposed scribe: Dan

   Norm gives regrets.

  September F2F Preparation

   Stuart reminds the TAG to send their MAC addresses to the local organizers

   Stuart points to fuller agenda.

   -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/17-agenda

   DanC: It looks like we're favoring redirection and semantic web more than
   versioning and tag soup. But that's probably ok.

   Stuart requests agenda proposals by email

   Noah: Chances that I have a new draft on self describing web are dropping
   fast.
   ... I think I have a clear sense of what people would like it to be,
   assuming we decide to do anything, but it's going to take more effort.
   ... I would suggest that we leave self-describing web off the agenda for
   the f2f.

   <DanC> (move "The Self-Describing Web" from recommended reading to "maybe
   weds")

   Noah: Do we know what the real focus of the f2f is going to be?

   Stuart: Redirections certainly.
   ... Some topics around TagSoupIntegration too

   <timbl_> Location:
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-08-31/HttpRange-14[6]

   <timbl_> Line Number 15, Column 18: <day>&doc.day;</day>

   Stuart: And an attempt to look to be doing some work in semantic web and
   WebArch/Web 2.0.

   <timbl_> ... from
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-08-31/HttpRange-14[7]

   Stuart: Fragment ID stuff of recent discussion seems relevant.

   Noah: Semantic web?

   Stuart: We've grouped that with ... scribe missed ...

   Noah: This plays into the self-describing web too.
   ... Microformats to URIs to self describing...

   <DanC> (well, yes... lots of this comes down to principle #1: use URIs.
   But that principle has to be taken down to more detailed issues in order
   to impact developers, in my experience)

   DanC: Question for technical discussion: do we want a new MIME type (for
   (X)HTML)?
   ... I'd like new authors to learn to put slashes in their BR tags and such

   Raman: By induction, I don't think we do. You can say
   application/xhtml+xml is slowly succeeding or it will never succeed. If
   you think it'll never succeed, you'll get beaten up for trying again. If
   you think it'll eventually succeed, you'll get beaten up by the other
   group.
   ... Adding a new MIME type won't fix anything.

   DanC: I wonder if conneg is really worthwhile, globally. (Of Henry's
   conneg story earlier, about shipping application/xhtml+xml to everyone
   except IE)
   ... Why is text/html bad

   Henry: Because the specs say don't do it.

   DanC: But we can fix those specs.

   Raman: Right, we can.
   ... Can we fix the specs so that XHTML 1.0 can ride over text/html.

   <Stuart> Take a look at the warning that the validator generates at:
   http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Ftag%2Ftag-weekly[8]

   Raman: If Google gets application/xhtml+xml, we aren't sure how to serve
   it. We don't want an IE download box.

   DanC: Meanwhile, MS has this very strong position about versioning that
   says however IE6 treates web content, that's how IE7, IE8, etc., will
   treat it the same way.
   ... So a new MIME type will give them an opportunity to do the right
   thing.

   <timbl_> ; xml=1.0

   <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to suggest the w3.org could ship a lot and see
   whetehr anyone hurts; b ht, where did you find it in the sepc not to stdn
   tex/html?

   Some arguement about why IE behaves the way it does, missed by scribe.

   TimBL: I notice that Henry/Dan didn't seem to agree on whether the specs
   do or don't say you can't ship xhtml under text/html. It would be nice to
   track that down.
   ... We can change specs, but we can the W3C can also lead by example. We
   could change large chunks of it so that they are XHTML and are shipped as
   XHTML.

   DanC: We already do that, but one of the events coming is an attempt to
   make the home page more mobile-happy and the mobile web guidelines say you
   should use the new MIME type.

   s/shipped as XHTML/shipped as text/html/

   Henry: The validator also gives a warning.

   TimBL: *That* we can definitely fix.

   <DanC> (we're discussing an action about the validator, after all)

   TimBL: The thing that's hard to change is IE.

   <Stuart> from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/:[9]

   <Stuart> 5.1. Internet Media Type

   <Stuart> XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix
   C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media
   Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML
   browsers. Those documents, and any other document conforming to this
   specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type
   "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. For further information
   on using media types with XHTML, see the informative note

   Raman: What I've seen is that serving cleanly done XHTML content as
   text/html never does any harm.
   ... Maybe it does bizarre harm somewhere, maybe if you take some HTML page
   where you've used some browser specific DOM hackery in your script.
   ... If you take such a page, bring it into emacs, and balance your tags
   and then present it as XHTML 1.0, you'll be surprised.

   <DanC> (some tricky bits: implicit tbody, <div />, etc.)

   <ht> TimBL -- here's the place where W3C REC tells you to use
   application/xml+xhtml for XHTML:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#media[10]

   Raman: That's because your script relied on some bizarre browser fixup
   that's different from what you will achieve by hand.
   ... That's not an artifact of versioning or anything. It's a case of
   debugging your app in one environment and then deploying it in another.
   YMMV.

   Noah: Part of the follow your nose store on XML stuff takes you through
   RFC 3023. If you see something with +xml, you can still treat it as XML.
   So there's a chance that something you would other have served as
   text/html runs into that file and you lose that.

   <DanC> (the GRDDL story for text/html is not potential; it's actual, with
   running code and published test cases)

   Noah: Whether there are any tools that rely on that is an open question.

   Raman: Since none of the other things have happened, probably not.

   Noah: You could put it in an XML database.

   Raman: Yes, but you'll be surprised.
   ... Putting angle-bracket soup into an atom container just results in
   binary blobs in your database.

   Norm tried to prevent that escaped markup crud in Atom and lost

   Noah: That's what you're getting today.

   Raman: What I'm saying is that the status quo will still arise if you
   invent a new MIME type.
   ... The only MIME type that's relevant on the web is text/html.
   ... The content that turns up *as* text/html *has to be cleaned up*
   ... We'll continue to create tag soup in text/thml and we have to fix that
   inorder to do anything useful downstream.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to elaborate on that pointer

   Henry: Coming back to TimBL; someone who was not aware of the controversy
   would certainly be confused about how to serve their XHTML.
   ... The most commonly quoted locus is what I put into IRC above.
   ... That text says that you can serve it as text/html if you follow the
   compatibility guidelines.
   ... It doesn't say, but most folks assume, that this means they should use
   for application/xhtml.

   Some arguments about whether or not XSLT's output method has a bearing

   Stuart: There are a bunch of action items in this section.

   Scribe realizes he's not sure when we moved off of f2f prep.

   <ht> s/for application.xhtml/application/xhtml+xml when the XHMTL does
   _not_ follow the compativility guidelines/

   DanC: Dave's message is fine but you can't tell if the HTML WG agrees with
   it or not because it doesn't ask for any concrete changes.

   Noah: DanC, do you think that there's something more effective that we
   could do?

   DanC: Yes. It helps if you give real serious evidence that you read the
   spec.
   ... Dave's message doesn't do that.

   Noah: Fair enough, but you haven't said what you think we could do
   specifically that would help.

   DanC: What I'm saying is, whether we do the larger thing or not, it
   doesn't hurt to do the smaller thing.

   Stuart: Is there anyone amongst the TAG that has or intends to read the
   HTML 5 spec.

   Raman: I have read it.

   Noah/Henry say they've read parts of it.

   DanC: I want ACTION 7 continued. There's been a fairly good thread on the
   www-tag list.
   ... called XML Namespaces and extensibility or something.

   <DanC> (crap; database failure at
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/7[11] )

   TimBL: What's the next step? Maybe a table of things that people do wrong
   and what the validator should say about them.

   DanC: Right. The "we" in this case is you, me, and Olivier. But it looks
   like the thread is live again.

   <DanC> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>

   <DanC> To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>

   <DanC> Cc: www-tag@w3.org

   <DanC> Subject: Re: XML, namespaces, extensibility and validation

   <DanC> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:15:56 +1000 (Tue, 20:15 CDT)

   DanC: There's some good stuff in that thread, but some of it's more than
   three months ago.
   ... I'd like to do something about this in the coming week. Wonders if
   TimBL is already booked.
   ... in prep for the 13 Sep TAG meeting.

   TimBL: I have to give regrets for 13 Sep.

   Some additional discussion of scheduling administrivia

   DanC: Ok, maybe we'll have something for the 13th but the odds are low.

   Stuart: Moving on to other actions. Action 19 is done.

   Raman: Somewhere we should add in the MIME Type somewhere in that
   document, but I'm not sure how.
   ... If you know how, please do!

   Stuart: Action-42 we've just spoken about. Resolved.
   ... We plan to go ahead, but we haven't done sufficient reading of the
   HTML 5 spec yet.

   Dave: We don't want to go to far in the way of technical review because
   it's not our job.
   ... It's still not on the list of things the WG is going to talk about.
   What we're saying is, we'd really like you to make sure you talk about
   this, without too much regard to the technical solutions.

   <scribe> ACTION: David to post his message to the HTML WG list [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action02[12]]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-44 - Post his message to the HTML WG list [on
   David Orchard - due 2007-09-13].

   Henry: I gave a talk at Extreme. It got a lot of interest at the
   conference, but Extreme is so far from the heartland of the HTML WG that
   that's not meaningful.

   <ht>
   http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme/proceedings/html/2007/Thompson01/EML2007Thompson01.html[13]

   DanC: How about a short presentation at Southampton?

   Henry: Sure.

   <DanC> (yeah... tech plenary is another possibility)

   Raman: Another venue for that could be at the plenary if there's an
   HTML/XHTML session.

  namespaceDocument-8

   Stuart: I'm not clear on the status of the actions.

   DanC: I don't want to stop talking about this altogether because of bug
   #1974

   Henry: I drafted something a year ago. The Schema WG has been trying to
   get a document to Last Call for 18 months.
   ... Approving my draft may now get on the Schema WG's agenda.

   DanC: The bug is "make a namespace document".

   Henry: No, the bug is #int doesn't resolve.

   <ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int[14]

   DanC: The 2001 XML Schema namespace includes the term "int". If you take
   that full URI and do the webarch thing, you lose.
   ... What should they put there? If the TAG doesn't care, I guess we can
   drop it. But lots of folks are going to copy them, so I think we should
   make sure it's "right".
   ... It should be both machine and human readable.
   ... Norm took an action to review the RDDL design and see what's actually
   deployed.

   Norm: It's generally valuable if retrieving a resource returns a human
   readable document. Sometimes, particularly it seems in the case of XML
   namespace documents, there's also value if there is a machine readable
   representation available. RDDL offers a way forward at least for those
   cases where you can accept a level of indirection to get to the machine
   readable representations. But the RDDL 1.0 format wasn't seen as perfect,
   so some effort was invested in produci

   ng a slightly nicer format. That effort took so long that RDDL 1.0 became
   widely deployed. A fallback position was to invoke GRDDL and say that
   there was a common model behind both formats. As long as the model was
   simple enough, we figured that'd be good enough. Then some folks objected
   the way in which the nature and purpose URIs were drafted and to their
   domain and/or range. I made a few attempts to address those concerns, but
   largely failed to do so. I don't s

   ee a way forward.

   <timbl_> 1+ to propose asking DanC to (a) write some RDF which would be
   useful and (b) fidn a way to use GRDDL to put that in the document and so
   we can look at the result.

   DanC: I think I made some progress, but test cases would help.

   <DanC> (a few at oasis and a few at microsoft would be helpful)

   Henry: Yes, but they didn't use enough of the RDDL vocabulary to make a
   useful test case.

   Stuart: It'd be nice to find tangible output from your earlier action.

   <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to propose asking DanC to (a) write some RDF
   which would be useful and (b) fidn a way to use GRDDL to put that in the
   document and so we can look at the

   TimBL: With respect to #int, would a way forward be to ask DanC to write
   some RDF that would be appropriate and use GRDDL and make that RDF come
   out when you go to that page.

   <DanC> [[

   <DanC> fn:base-uri rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty.

   <DanC> ]]

   <DanC> -- me, 21 Aug to www-tag

   <timbl_> Where do I find bug #1964?

   <timbl_> Not in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open[15]

   Norm: I think the base-uri example comes from the XPath 2.0 Query
   Functions and Operators document.

   <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23[16]

   <DanC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1974[17]

   <DanC> [[

   <DanC> Produced new version of
   http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/12/XMLSchema.html[18]

   <DanC> for editors' consideration.

   <DanC> ]]

   <DanC> yup, http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/12/XMLSchema.html#int[19] is
   hypertext-happy

   <DanC> (I recommend RDF, RDF Schema, and OWL)

   <scribe> ACTION: ht to add GRDDL to that document so that RDF can be
   retreived. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action04[20]]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-45 - Add GRDDL to that document so that RDF
   can be retreived. [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2007-09-13].

   Stuart: I don't think there'll be consensus to abandon namespaceDocument-8

   <DanC> xsd:int rdf:type rdfs:DataType . # I'm pretty sure;

   <ht> OK, I can do that much

   <DanC> yes, rdfs:Datatype , documented in
   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype[21] full uri:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Datatype[22]

   <timbl_> Two methods: one is to have XHTML document with GRDDL f th rDF;
   the other to have a RDF with some XSLT for the RDF.

   Stuart: Part of the motivation for scheduling it today was to see if it
   was valuable to schedule it for the f2f.
   ... It seems like it would be.

   DanC: I start to turn colors at specific examples of RDDL nature and RDDL
   purpose.

   TimBL: I'm suggesting we just skip that bit and say that you just make the
   actual data you care about available.

   <DanC> HT's draft uses this markup: <div class="resource"><rddl:resource
   xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference[23]"

   TimBL: We right the actual OWL shemas for the datatypes we care about.

   DanC: But Henry does have some RDDL properties that he claims to know
   about.

   Henry: Yes, there was a genuine problem here that everytime Tim, Dan, and
   Norm have brianstormed on the whiteboard, Norm has been unable to take
   away anything he could write up.

   DanC: Let's work with Henry for a moment. Henry, what MIME type for your
   namespace document?

   Henry: I would expect application/xhtml+xml to most browsers and text/html
   to IE.

   DanC: And in the text/html version, will you be able to get the data out?

   Henry: No. How would I?

   DanC: Will I see the characters "rddl:resource" in the text/html?

   Henry: Yes.
   ... I only serve one representation.

   <DanC> text/html <!DOCTYPE html>

   DanC: Another answer is to just use text/html and stick a doctype at the
   top to get into standards mode.

   Henry: But I care about the actual <!DOCTYPE

   <DanC> NO WE HAVE NOT

   Dave: The TAG has gone on record saying that RDDL documents are a good
   thing.
   ... Ok, maybe we haven't said it formally.
   ... But there's been a certain intimation about approving it
   ... I think if we want to move away from RDDL, we need a strong case for
   doing so.

   <ht> The relevant section of WebArch mentions RDDL favourably:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#namespace-document[24]

   <DanC> nope. I don't accept any obligation to argue against RDDL. Until
   we're done, we're not done. I'm OK to review Henry's draft namespace
   document that uses RDDL in detail, but if the details don't work out, they
   don't work out.

   Dave: I find it passing strange that RDDL works pretty well in practice,
   and the problem Norm has had is the mapping to RDF. So maybe the solution
   is to not use RDDL but to use RDF? That seems the wrong way around.

   <Noah> It's also a bit disturbing that we're having such trouble
   connection the RDDL-> GRDDL -> RDF dots should anyone want to do that with
   existing RDDL. Even if it doesn't emerge as our first choice, it seems
   troubling that it's so hard to get straight.

   Scribe struggles to keep up

   Noah: Do some of these problems have to do with the legacy URIs that RDDL
   use?

   <DanC> it's not troubling to me that we can't get it straight; we spend
   95% of our time remembering what we forgot since last time. :-/

   Norm: yes.

   Noah: So we could throw all the old URIs out and start over.

   <Noah> To be clear, I wanted to understand where the architetural barriers
   were coming from, and I think the answer is: from particular legacy RDDL
   nature or purpose URIs. I was NOT necessarily claiming that users would be
   happy if we threw them all out in the interest of architectural purity: on
   that latter point, I'd need to do some more thinking.

   Henry: The sticking point was for many of the original role/arcroles

   DanC: I think I've made suggestions for the ones I care about and I don't
   care about the others. Just chuck them.

   Noah summarises his point entered above.

   Stuart: There are a couple of other things on this agenda. I'll schedule
   time for this at the f2f.

   <Noah> Right. What I just said on the phone was: I don't think the problem
   seems to be with RDDL as architected; I don't think the problem is the
   inability to invent a suitable OWL ontology; I think the problem is that
   some of the particular nature/purpose URI's already deployed are
   problematic, becuase they do not directly identify the nature or purpose,
   but rather some namespace (for example) used in documents of the nature.

   <Noah> So, as we look for solutions, it's interesting to know that that's
   where the problem is.

   <dorchard> +1 to Noah's point.

   <dorchard> I find it interesting

   Stuart: I'd like to stop there
   ... I'd like to skip items 6 and 7.

   <dorchard> that speaks to a thesis that maybe RDDL is still good to use

   Stuart: What about the plenary

   Dave: It looks like distributed extensibility is on the short list for the
   plenary

   <DanC> oh crud... I did a bunch of prep for item 6 XMLVersioning-41
   (ISSUE-41); will DaveO and Henry be here in a week to talk about it?

   <timbl_> And I wanted to say that we cou;d evne speaialcase existing URIs
   used with RDDL as ahcak, but require that people use sometjinhg
   consistemnt in the future.

   Dave: Maybe we could get some TAG members and some folks with other
   opinions up on the stage to make it lively.
   ... I need to draft the proposal and I'll be working on that.

   Stuart: There's also a question of scheduling the f2f for work and
   recreation.

   <DanC> meeting is scheduled to end 15:00 on Wed

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: David to post his message to the HTML WG list [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action02[25]]
   [NEW] ACTION: ht to add GRDDL to that document so that RDF can be
   retreived. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action04[26]]
    
   [End of minutes]

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/06-tagmem-irc
   [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-08-31/HttpRange-14
   [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-08-31/HttpRange-14
   [8] http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Ftag%2Ftag-weekly
   [9] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/:
   [10] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#media
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/7
   [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action02
   [13] http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme/proceedings/html/2007/Thompson01/EML2007Thompson01.html
   [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int
   [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/open
   [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/23
   [17] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1974
   [18] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/12/XMLSchema.html
   [19] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/12/XMLSchema.html#int
   [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action04
   [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype
   [22] http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Datatype
   [23] http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference
   [24] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#namespace-document
   [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action02
   [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/06-minutes#action04
   [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[27] version 1.128 (CVS
    log[28])
    $Date: 2007/09/06 18:55:56 $

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 20:12:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC