W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

TAG Telcon Minutes for 3rd April 2008

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:01:48 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2k5je3gpv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                        W3C Technical Architecture Group

03 Apr 2008


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Tim, Stuart, Norm, Raman, Ashok, Jonathan, Noah, Dan, Dave





     * Topics
         1. Approve this agenda?
         2. Accept minutes of 27 Mar 2008?
         3. Meeting next week?
         4. Bristol f2f logistics
         5. Issue RDFinXHTML-35
         6. tagSoupIntegration-54
     * Summary of Action Items


  Approve this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-agenda


  Accept minutes of 27 Mar 2008?

   -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes

   Stuart: Raman, you may particularly want to look at the CURIE discussion

   <DanC> by popular demand, I'm stayin on the HTML call for ~15min

   Raman: I looked
   ... I can live with them


   Stuart: the f2f minutes remain open waiting for Dave to complete a fix

  Meeting next week?

   No regrets given; Dave proposed to scribe.

  Bristol f2f logistics

   Stuart: The logistics page is up, it needs work but does have the hotel in
   ... I have a block of rooms reserved at the Rodney for Sun, Mon, Tue.
   89GBP/night, breakfast included
   ... Make sure you call to make your booking so that you get one of the
   rooms in the block
   ... If you extend your stay, you should get the same rate, but check the
   web as well because you might get cheaper rates for less recently
   refurbished rooms.
   ... If you book outside the block, that won't cause any headache for me or

  Issue RDFinXHTML-35

   Stuart: Norm, you took an action.

   Norm: Yes, I did, but then I thought better of it.

   Raman: Is there a coordination effort? Absolutely. But it's not with
   respect to RDFa; RDFa is just in the noise compared to the schism.

   Norm: I took my action to be with respect to RDFa

   Raman: Right. But the larger issue definitely exists.

   TimBL: Are they proposing something that works with GRDDL, or are they
   just adding stuff to (X)HTML.
   ... To get this working, you have to have the readers and the writers
   doing the same thing.
   ... I think you should start asking people to put a profile in the
   ... What they're trying to do is say that all RDF aware XHTML/HTML readers
   should understand these attributes.
   ... But in that context, the reference to GRDDL is just distracting. So
   which part are they supposed to use?
   ... To date, I think this has been a bit muddled, which doesn't work.

   Stuart: Can you formulate that as a question or comment?

   TimBL: I sent it as a personal comment.

   Stuart: I think the deadline has been extended to Friday.

   TimBL: I'd be happy if the TAG would endorse that concern.

   <DanC> "that"=?

   Stuart: I've also heard you mention some concern about DTDs.

   TimBL: I don't think new technologies should be based on DTDs. The
   validators are driven by DTDs, but that's a problem.

   DanC: RDFa uses DTDs to specify the syntax of the language.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to look into the charter for RDFa w.r.t. DTDs

   TimBL: So it's a DTD modularization approach

   <DanC> "The first option is to use XHTML Modularization 1.1 to specify an
   RDF Semantics module that can be combined with existing W3C XHTML 1.1
   modules. " -- http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter[6]

   DanC checks charter: yes.

   TimBL: If you are an RDF-aware HTML parser, then you don't need the DTD,
   you just need to know the spec.
   ... And when it gets to CR, you should know the spec.
   ... For XHTML, you see its MIME type, or you see the XHTML namespace in
   the XML, so you go to the namespace document and you find a pointer to the
   GRDDL and a note about the RDFa spec.

   DanC: That's not the outcome the WG decided on.
   ... They didn't put the GRDDL pointer in the critical path.

   TimBL: Another reasonable way is to just say that you should understand
   the spec. Period.

   <DanC> the RDFa follow-your-nose issue is

   TimBL: I'm prepared to accept that, but I'm not prepared to accept a DTD
   in the critical path.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask whether going to the namespace URI is

   Noah: I think the situation is that HTML has always had open content. It's
   always been OK for me to put extra tags in there. In that respect, RDFa
   was always sort of OK.
   ... On the other hand, as far as I know, if I had that old content, it'd
   point to a DTD that owuldn't help with follow-your-nose.

   (Scribe missed a bit)

   TimBL: No one's talking about using an extension namespace.
   ... We're just adding attributes to the original XHTML namespace.

   Noah: But I thought you said there was a namespace to dereference?

   TimBL: The original XHTML namespace document

   Noah: And the MIME type is what got me there, right?

   TimBL: DTDs have never figured in the follow-your nose story.

   Noah: DTDs tell you about the vocabulary, the media type says roughly,
   read the XML spec.
   ... That's not forbidden is it?

   TimBL: In XML, DTDs aren't required, but I think the consortium should
   move on from DTDs.

   Noah: If I put non-namespaced XML out there with a DTD, I think I can
   undersatnd things from the DTD.

   TimBL: I don't really want to spend any time trying to build
   self-describing web using DTDs.

   Noah: Fair enough.

   Stuart: I'm trying to find out if the TAG has any consensus comments it
   wants to make.
   ... I guess if it is going to have any, we need a draft of comments which
   I have none.

   DanC: I sent a comment that said please change your test suite to reflect
   the SHOULD in your spec.
   ... TimBL, I hear you saying that it should be in the XHTML namespace

   TimBL: yes.

   DanC: You can just do that as webmaster, I think.

   TimBL: Yeah, I need to find out what the GRDDL spec says about how to do

   DanC: There's a redirect in there, but I'm not sure how that works.

   <DanC> ACTION: Tim consult with Dan and Ralph about the gap between the
   XHTML namespace and the GRDDL transformation for RDFa [recorded in

   <DanC> everything timbl has sent to the relevant list:

   <DanC> tim's comment on DTDs is in

   DanC: I can't endorse your first comment under DTDs, because of the
   charter, though I do agree with it.

   <noah> I strongly concur with Tim's 4.3 point. RDFa fundamentally
   contributes to what the meaning of a document >is<; the fact that software
   may wish to extract such triples is secondary.

   DanC: Putting the GRDDL pointer in XHTML is problematic.

   <DanC> ah... good... the GRDDL spec doesn't say *never* look it up: "Some
   namespace documents, such as the XHTML namespace document
   http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml[11] have very many references to them. If
   GRDDL-aware agents were to retrieve these documents every time they
   processed a document referring to them, the origin servers of those
   documents could become overloaded. GRDDL-aware agents therefore should not
   retrieve such documents on every reference and should retain

   <DanC> some cache or local memory of the transformations those documents
   indicate should be applied. To avoid misrepresentation of published
   information, GRDDL-aware agents should ensure that this local memory is up
   to date and should support user options to configure or disable the cache.
   See also section section 3.1. Using a URI to Access a Resource of
   [WEBARCH]." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/[12]

   Some discussion of the tension between self-describing and not beating the
   W3C web server to death extracting DTDs.

   Stuart asks again for clarity on what comment we might like to make to the
   RDFa WG

   Some discussion of whether or not the WG has produced a GRDDL transform
   that implements RDFa

   <DanC> Progress on the RDFa GRDDL transform Fabien Gandon (Friday, 28

   <DanC> "So I guess this version of the GRDDL transform for RDFa is up to
   date with the current tests and specs as far as I know." --

   <DanC> gold star to Fabien

   Stuart: It would take some wordsmithing to change TimBL's message into
   something that would get universal support.
   ... They've extended their comment period for this document through
   ... Ok, at this point, I think the TAG has no comment to make on RDFa, so
   I'm going to move on.
   ... I think we might want to say something about CURIEs in RDFa later.
   ... I find it odd that there's a normative definition of CURIEs in RDFa
   when CURIEs are defined normatively in a separate spec.

   DanC: They wanted to talk about it and we said not this week

   TimBL: Are we doing to invite them in the future?

   Stuart: Yes, that's being negotiated.


   DanC: WRT action-7, Olivier has a neat diagram and TimBLs seen it, and
   we're meeting again next Tuesday.
   ... The diagram is almost public. Good news.

   <DanC> (ah! olivier did indeed make the diagram world-access
   http://www.w3.org/2008/03/validators-chart[15] )

   Stuart: I'll leave that as continuing.
   ... Ok, a bigger issue is ARIA host-language embedding

   <noah> Michael Cooper's summary is excellent, IMO

   Stuart: There's a summary from Michael Cooper from today.

   -> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/aria-implementation

   <DanC> (I cited Cooper's summary in the HTML WG telcon that I was just on)

   Stuart: As a device for motivating discussion, I have two separate
   proposals that I think we could make.

   <Stuart> Proposal #P1:

   <Stuart> The no-namespace ARIA embedding approach is a workable pragmatic
   solution to a problem induced by the lack of support for namespaces in
   HTMLs (v1.0-5.0) and by the mixed, [encrusted,] behaviours of user-agents
   and associated libraries when presented with attribute names and values
   that contain colons. It is regrettable that this situation exists. In the
   short-term the TAG recognise the aria- 'prefixing' approach can and will
   meet the needs for embedding ARIA in a limited number of host languages.
   The TAG believe that the right medium term answer is that a uniform HTML
   behaviour is specified for the handling of attribute names and values that
   contain colons as means to co-exists in an XML namespaced world. In the
   long term the TAG is of the opinion that XML namespaces is the correct
   architectural approach for distributed extensibility of web languages.

   Stuart: Straw poll? +1 for support, -1 for not, +0 to abstain?

   <DanC> +0; i.e. abstain

   <noah> I think this is in the ballpark, but it sort of skirts a key
   question, which is >why< we think it's worth the trouble to push for a
   more generalized solution in the medium term.

   <DanC> (my tiny brain needs to stare at test materials)

   <noah> We may believe that, but we haven't justified it in the above.

   <dorchard> +1 to Noah

   <noah> +0

   <noah> For reason above.

   <Norm> -0.5

   <timbl> +0.5

   Norm: I hate to give the hyphens a toe-hold

   <Stuart> Proposal #P2

   <Stuart> We (the TAG) believe that the only approach consistent with web

   <Stuart> architecture for embedding ARIA in host languages is the
   namespace based

   <Stuart> approach. We will support ARIA in demanding namespace support in

   <Stuart> We will lobby browser/toolkit vendors to fix the namespace and

   <Stuart> colon-name/-colon-value attribute support;... and we will wait

   <Stuart> until Hell freezes over! [was going to say 'quietly' but then
   what really

   <Stuart> would be the point?]

   Raman: I'd like to reiterate what Norm said, the hyphens are a new
   namespace mechanism whether you call it that or not.

   Norm: But I note that the problem is one of credibility. If we say that
   and get ignored...we don't have any.

   <DanC> (Al gilman forwarded test materials by hsivonen
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0069.html[17] )

   Raman: I think the credibility question goes both ways

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say we need to work through the issues in
   Michael Cooper's note

   Noah: I think we've signaled informally before that we believe this is
   where we should go.
   ... Michael Cooper has provided a carefully crafted reply; if we're going
   to go in the direction of P2, we need to carefully consider and respond to
   ... Given a choice, with no further work, I'm closer to P1 than P2.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that I'm more or less at peace with the
   way ARIA is going: they did the URI-based design to the Nth degree; the
   experiment succeeded, and now they're

   <DanC> . http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/51[18]

   DanC: I like the pattern that says you make up a full URI and play in your
   own backyard.
   ... Then when you are sure what you have is globally useful, you
   negotiation in some open process for short strings.

   <DanC> "if it picks up steam, introduce a synonym that is a short string
   thru a fair/open process."

   DanC: I'm not going to complain if the short string has a dash in it.

   Stuart: I think they've tried all the ways around the problem. The
   solution they've got is pragmatic, forced upon them by the state of the
   world, and with some reluctance, I don't think there's a better answer.

   Raman: But now there's an answer to the earlier question. Working groups
   are supposed to get intergrated into HTML by negotiation on an
   element-by-element, attribute-by-attribute basis.
   ... If that's where we are, that's what we should say.

   Stuart: Once you start giving a toe hold, then the floodgates open.

   TimBL: We have to be careful. I think we should explore all of these
   angles. If you've got a good relationship with the HTML WG, then you can
   negotiate it. Maybe that's the cost effective answer.
   ... For other things, that's not going to work.
   ... I'm becoming more sympathetic to the first statement.
   ... But it shouldn't be taken as a precedent.
   ... The idea of using SVG without XML is horrifying.
   ... If I was writing a parser, I'd have a single parser that did error
   correction, displaying error messages, and only doing "view source" on the
   error-corrected tree.
   ... I suggest we tackle it from the ohter side as well.
   ... We (the TAG) should formally say there's a default namespace that
   comes from the MIME-type.

   <DanC> (I'm party to the negotiation around ARIA in HTML 5; records are
   in/near http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/14[19] ; the issue is as
   yet still open; the agreements aren't done.)

   TimBL: You could also add default namespace bindings for other namespaces.

   <DanC> (I just chaired a discussion of it ~45min ago)

   TimBL: It can be automated and it handles the legacy cases too.

   Dave: I quite support what TimBL was saying. I haven't been party to the
   HTML5/ARIA negotiations.
   ... But could we use it as another use case for namesapces in HTML. Right
   now the HTML WG has a document about how to do vector graphics, distinct
   form SVG. I find that disturbing.
   ... Maybe one of the things we could do is say that this is another
   language mixing requirement.
   ... Eventually, that will encourage peopel to believe they they need/want
   namespaces for a general purpose solution.
   ... Right now the debate seems to be mostly around the single instances of
   vector graphics and math.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say I think ARIA makes a poor use case for
   namespaces in HTML; the value of ARIA to the global community is
   sufficiently high that doing the desing,

   DanC: I think ARIA is important enough to the world that it makes sense to
   standardize it globally.
   ... I think something like FaceBookML may be a better test case.

   Raman: If you observe the pattern that we went through for arai-role, and
   you see where SVG and MathML are going. The world where HTML5 is is
   extremely far away from where TimBL would like it to be.
   ... The HTML5 WG has put its foot down and said "no" to namespaces.
   ... Maybe that's the right thing for some cases, but that seems to be the
   *only* extension mechanism available.
   ... Solutions that work there, will be put in other places. The pain for
   doing it for a two attribute language may be small comapred to the

   Raman: But for something larger, it's going to be hard. For example, the
   HTML5 WG is proposing that the MathML folks should need fewer elements.
   ... Saying we have one big, central spec with a single editor may work,
   but I don't think it will.
   ... It's naive for us to say that namespaces and XML will come into HTML
   in the future when the spec is being written to prevent that.

   Stuart: Do you think there's consensus for that position in the HTML5 WG?

   Some discussion of what consensus means in the HTML5 WG.

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to think out loud about taking my position about
   ARIA and applying them to SVG and MathML

   DanC: If you take my position on ARIA and apply it to SVG and MathML, it
   ... it's sort of ok if the ARIA design gets re-done for HTML.
   ... but not for SVG or MathML. I didn't sign up to chair that.

   Raman: The MathML guys are struggling for adoption, so they're pretty
   willing to do what it takes.

   DanC: What I think is sort of positive is that they're telling each other
   their stories.

   Stuart: At some point, we ahve to work out what our group position is wrt

   TimBL: I think we should say two things: something that says "go ahead and
   do this" for ARIA and another document that says doing this for SVG would
   really be a big mistake.

   <DanC> (there's a non-trivial constiuency that believe re-designing SVG is
   cost-effective, meanwhile.)

   TimBL: It would be unbelievably costly to reopen SVG and it's absurdly
   presumptive of the HTML WG to believe that they should be in total control
   of extension.
   ... The consortium has sunk a lot of effort into this modular architecture
   so that the web can grow in a decentralized way.
   ... I'd even be willing to say this forcefully at an AC meeting.

   <raman> quotes around attributes: parse <a href=foo/>foo is a mess

   <Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to ask where the assertion about HTML5 WG
   saying no to namespaces has happened. I think it's still in the air

   TimBL: I'd be prepared to compromise some of the XML rules in favor of
   replacing XML with HTML with no namespaces and a horrible parser.

   Dave: I think it needs to be stated on the record that Raman said that the
   HTML WG has said "no" to namespaces. I don't think that point has been
   decided yet.
   ... I find it ironic though that instead of redesigning SVG and MathML to
   make them fit in HTML, we'd redesign XML!

   <DanC> (again, design cost is not the dominant one; the dominant cost is
   more connected to authoring practices and publishing workflows)

   Dave: That would make all the XML languages be redesigned even though many
   of them will never be embedded in HTML.

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say I think we need to cast the SVG story as
   an example of a general case

   Noah: I wanted to pick up on what TimBL said. Basically, I'm very
   sympathetic to that direction. Take option 1 on ARIA but send a strong
   message on SVG and other, larger languages.
   ... What I'm missing is that SVG is an example of a general case. Here's
   how you draw the line in the future.
   ... We need to find a way to articulate where that line is.

   TimBL: If it's just a bunch of attributes and an element or two, something
   you can get the HTML WG and the TAG to review, I think that would be ok.

   Noah: I'm surprised that remixing wasn't part of that. For example, SVG
   might have uses far away from HTML, so that makes the cost go up.
   ... That would be desirable for ARIA but we're sort of letting that one
   ... It's not just a question of size, it's about the containers that you
   might want to put them in.

   Raman: I don't think its the container. There are two extremes: one is a
   module that is just attributes. XML events, for example. The reason that
   attributes are easy is because they don't contain markup.
   ... At the other extreme, you have a language that's purely elements.
   Today, I might be able to say where in HTML you could graft in those
   ... The real pain point is that the embedding doesn't stop at one level.
   Attribute are constrained by the technologhy.
   ... HTML wants to contain SVG which contains MathML which contains HTML.
   ... The leakiness of this, when you cut and paste, for example, is the

   <Stuart> FWIW: I asked Michael about what ARIA-WG would recommend for
   embedding ARIA in XHTML response at:

   Raman: In Atom, for example, the HTML gets put in as a blob. As long as
   the HTML view of the world is that I will not only error correct but I
   will also consume everything the problem is insurmountable.

   <DanC> (is Atom really losing the XML-wf battle?)

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to suggest that DaveO doesn't understand the
   total cost and impliction s on XML of this path .. it will start with
   ebedding HTML inside his XML PO which will

   TimBL: I support what Raman said. Changing XML would affect your purchase
   orders, but putting HTML in your POs will then force you to change them
   all anyway.

   <DanC> (well, no, I think there's a world of purchase orders and such that
   have no interaction with HTML. It's not considered "on the Web" by many,
   and in fact, its community is pretty disconnected from the HTML+CSS+JS

   TimBL: An HTML parser has to know which elements have to be empty. I think
   if XML isn't fixed and we don't go to a lot of effort to make it and
   namespaces easier to use, you'll wind up with tag soup *everywhere*

   <DanC> (phpht. my phone battery died)

   <noah> I'm very nervous about "fixing" XML, not because there isn't merit
   in principle, but because we've seen that even isolated changes like XML
   1.1 are extremely hard to deploy in practice.

   <noah> The XML community values stability, IMO, almost above all else.

   Dave: I think it's bigger than quoted attribute values, like Norm said.

   <raman> <a href=foo/>foo is a mess here

   Dave: I'm in favor of changes, I just want to know what the scope is.
   ... I think the community is ready, maybe better integration with HTML is
   the killer use case.

   <noah> As Dave is saying, I'm not against changing XML, but iff users will
   see compelling cost benefit. So far, we've shown relatively poor ability
   to make the call of what users will actually deploy wrt/ XML changes.

   Stuart: I wanted to try to place some actions.
   ... Noah, would you be able to do some shaping on the proposal I labeled
   as P1?

   <jar> #P3: ??? Web architecture (which is the TAG's realm) implies
   namespaces. We recognize that they are incompatible with HTML5. Ergo HTML5
   lies outside our charter. Wish them well, ask them to be as namespacey
   (and web-archicture-following) as they can, it's up to them how to do it.

   Stuart: We need to start giving some messages back, and I wonder if you'd
   work on it.
   ... And I'm going to press TimBL to draft the other message.

   Raman: I suggest that if we're telling the ARIA people that what they're
   doing is OK, we just send a one-liner to say that. Then write a longer,
   single document that outlines both positions.

   Noah: I'd be glad to take a little time right after this call to wordsmith
   what Stuart wrote just a little bit. Simply make the point that in this
   particular case, notwithstanding our reservations, we think it's ok.

   Stuart: Ok.
   ... I also wanted to place a second action on TimBL to draft the other

   <scribe> ACTION: Noah to wordsmith Stuart's P1 proposal [recorded in

   Stuart: I don't want us to lose the stronger piece

   <scribe> ACTION: Tim to draft to a stronger piece outlining when the ARIA
   approache would not be practical [recorded in


   <timbl> A piece about the need for HTML modularity

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to wordsmith Stuart's P1 proposal [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Tim consult with Dan and Ralph about the gap between the
   XHTML namespace and the GRDDL transformation for RDFa [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Tim to draft to a stronger piece outlining when the ARIA
   approache would not be practical [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-agenda
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-tagmem-irc
   [6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter
   [7] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/28
   [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes.html#action01
   [9] http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=berners&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=&period_year=&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
   [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0297.html
   [11] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
   [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/
   [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0355.html
   [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0366.html
   [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/validators-chart
   [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0069.html
   [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/51
   [19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/14
   [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0011.html
   [21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes.html#action02
   [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes.html#action03
   [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes.html#action02
   [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes.html#action01
   [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/04/03-minutes.html#action03
   [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[26] version 1.133 (CVS
    $Date: 2008/04/03 18:59:48 $

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 19:02:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:20 UTC