TAG minutes 10 Sep for review (f2f planning, websockets URI scheme, HTML, ...)

Sorry for the delay...


                              TAG Weekly

10 Sep 2009


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0027.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc


          Jonathan_Rees, Ht, Ashok_Malhotra, DanC, noah, johnk

          TimBL, Raman, Larry




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene, take roll, review agenda
         2. [6]IETF/TAG coordination re MIME type sniff
         3. [7]F2F Agenda Planning
         4. [8]Web Sockets URI schemes and protocols
         5. [9]HTML
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

Convene, take roll, review agenda

   RESOLUTION: to approve minutes 3 Sep

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/03-minutes

   NM: 17 Sep telcon is canceled

IETF/TAG coordination re MIME type sniff

   NM: we seem to be set for 10am Thu during the ftf

   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0029.html )

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0029.html

F2F Agenda Planning

   NM: ftf regrets other than Raman?

   JohnK: at risk [which day?]

   NM: agenda sketch:

   <noah> * Discuss HTML 5 working draft, and make plan for providing
   feedback to the working group

   <noah> * Make progress on the Architecture of the Web of

   <noah> * Discuss issues relating to metadata on the Web

   <noah> *

   <noah> * Establish more clearly TAG priorities for coming year

   <DanC_> johnk, which day of the ftf do you have a conflict?

   NM: I think we're making good progress on 1 of our 3 priorities,
   HTML; I'm concerned we didn't do much on web apps nor metadata
   ... does anyone have any input in those areas?

   AM: John and I are working on something around device APIs... I
   expect we'll have something...
   . ACTION JK: prepare draft on device APIs

   <jar> ACTION-284


   <trackbot> ACTION-284 -- Jonathan Rees to flesh out the Web
   Application ([13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)
   outline with as many sentences as he can -- due 2009-08-25 -- OPEN

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)

   <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/284

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/284

   ACTION-284 due 15 Sep

   <trackbot> ACTION-284 Flesh out the Web Application
   ([15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html) outline
   with as many sentences as he can due date now 15 Sep

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)

   <jar> action-282?

   <trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on
   metadata architecture. -- due 2009-08-31 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282

   JAR: I expect to do 284 tue

   close action-282

   <trackbot> ACTION-282 Draft a finding on metadata architecture.

   <ht> action-283?

   <trackbot> ACTION-283 -- Larry Masinter to update document on
   version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion -- due
   2009-08-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to promise a new draft of Naming Schemes

   <scribe> ACTION: John to prepare draft on device APIs [recorded in

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-300 - Prepare draft on device APIs [on
   John Kemp - due 2009-09-17].

   johnk, when did you say you expect to deliver that draft?

   <johnk> DanC, by Thursday next week

   action-300 due 15 Sep

   <trackbot> ACTION-300 Prepare draft on device APIs due date now 15

   <ht> ACTION-33?

   <trackbot> ACTION-33 -- Henry S. Thompson to revise naming
   challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion -- due
   2009-09-18 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33

   NM: on web of applications, while I see some low-level progress, I
   don't think we've made progress on a bigger picture.
   ... note updates to ftf logistics page

   <DanC_> [oops; I haven't managed to link that from the TAG home

Web Sockets URI schemes and protocols

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to comment

   HT: on the question of 'does this proposal merit a new URI scheme?'
   I think it does, since it defines a new protocol.
   ... the 'just use http:' approach doesn't apply.
   ... then w.r.t. Alan R's question, I don't have an informed opinion;
   hard to tell from the spec what it's for, among all the algorithms

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask do we have TAG consensus that new
   protocol ==> new scheme OK?

   NM: it's not so clear to me that if you used the http protocol, the
   right things wouldn't happen...
   ... I think this is in the space of things that motivated Comet...
   simulate asynchrony, bidirectional communication, e.g. chat...
   ... this websockets protocol starts with bytes that look like an
   HTTP request... I think the request looks like an HTTP UPGRADE

   <johnk> yup, HTTP Upgrade header

   NM: how about using http:, and saying that servers should handle not
   only UPGRADE to websockets, but also GET, which would respond with
   some sort of description of the websocket

   JAR: I had trouble finding motivation/context in/around the spec
   too... where do these URIs occur? in <a href="ws:...">?

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask how the URIs can be used

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to question noah's story

   HT: my guess is they're used in xmlhttprequest...

   JK: there's a new websocket api, part of the HTML 5 work

   HT: I searched the HTML 5 draft for "websocket" and got no hit

   JK: I think it was split out

   <johnk> [20]http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

     [20] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

   DanC: NM, if they used http: , how would the client know to do
   websockets protocol?

   NM: well, I assume it's somewhat like you know you're expecting an
   image: from context

   <noah> API spec draft: [21]http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

   <jar> compare with telnet:

   HT: a problem is that webarch has a model of URIs appearing in
   documents... and being used to get other documents with MIME
   types... though that's not the case for all URI schemes

   <noah> I agree jar, telnet is good comparison

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say they need some ID scheme, and we
   usually encourage URIs, no?

   HT: so there's a question of whether these things ever escape from
   APIs into documents

   <johnk> noah: client would know to do websockets through the Upgrade
   header from the server

   NM: yes, telnet: is an interesting point of comparison

   [more discussion... exceed scribe's bandwidth]

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to question noah's story

   NM: Ian Hickson has submitted the ws and wss URI scheme
   registrations to IETF. Documentation of APIs and Protocols is also
   out there in drafts somewhere, but I don't at the moment recall


     [22] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

   <DanC_> I see a "Background" section
   age-4 ... maybe that's got some motivation

     [23] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-40#page-4

   <scribe> ACTION: John to review websocket protocol/api motivation
   and brief TAG at Sep ftf [recorded in

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Review websocket protocol/api
   motivation and brief TAG at Sep ftf [on John Kemp - due 2009-09-17].

   <jar> 1. Is a new protocol needed? 2. Does it need URIs at all? 3.
   Does it need a new URI scheme? ...


   <noah> JK's note on HTML 5 issues:

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0012.html

   <ht> I note that my issues email is not linked from the agenda:

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0015.html

   JK: the HTML 5 intro has a section on relationship to other specs;
   it seems unclear
   ... on distributed extensibility, I saw several related symptoms;
   several of them seem to be HTML WG issues already, e.g. Media-type

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0180.html

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about HTML WG process wrt closing

   HT: I see some issues closed in Aug... not clear what the
   resolutions were, nor whether raiser was satisfied

   DanC: right; the clerical work of copying the issue resolutions into
   more visible places is ongoing; pick one for discussion?


     [28] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/5

   (issue 5 got into the tracker before we really had a clear sense of
   how to use the tracker, I think)

   ISSUE-28 http-mime-override

     [29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/28

   the proposal that carried on issue-28 was

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0703.html

   HT: I don't see a record that the raiser is satisfied

   DanC: WG members silently agree after a week or so

   NM: are raisers notified?

   DanC: yes, the chairs are making an effort

   HST: OK, thanks for clarifying, I understand better now


     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/TagHTMLIssues.html#extensibility

   <noah> 3.2.1 (3.3.1) "Authors must not use elements, attributes, and
   attribute values for purposes other than their appropriate intended
   semantic purpose. Authors must not use elements, attributes, and
   attribute values that are not permitted by this specification or
   other applicable specifications." This is one of the most important
   sentences in the entire specification, but it's somewhat vague. If
   "other applicable specifications" means: any specification that an

   <noah> turned into a hyperlink that sets down unambiguously the
   rules for determining whether another specification is "applicable".

   NM: the bit about "or other applicable specifications" is
   potentially really cool... though it's not terribly clear.
   ... does it mean "specs from the HTML WG"? or "from W3C"? or "from
   WHATWG?" or "Joe in his basement"?
   ... some responses in blogs suggest the most liberal interpretation

   danc: a request for clarification of "applicable" would be
   strengthened by inclusion of an example, such as "is spec X

   <noah> NM: ack noah

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to point to interesting text on

   NM: ok, sounds like yes, the "other applicable specifications" bit
   is something to talk more about, w.r.t. distributed extensibility

   <noah> ACTION: noah to raise (as individual issue) question of 3
   words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5
   recorded in [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-302 - Raise (as individual issue) question
   of 3 words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML
   5 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-09-17].

   JK: next concern of mine is "2. Relationship between the DOM and its
   HTML serializations" ...

   <noah> So, my understanding is: the TAG has expressed a general
   sentiment that extensiblity MAY be something we'll eventually want
   to comment on, but with respect to the question raised by Noah (the
   3 word phrase), he should start with ACTION 302, I.e. to ping the
   HTML WG as an individual

   JK: seems that the DOM is a separate spec; these are too closely
   intertwined in the spec

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to agree with NM, as I understand

   DC: The definition of HTML document is not nearly as clear as I'd
   like to be. Something about tree structure and serialization, and
   difference will be clear when necessary. Roy Fielding says this
   stuff is too implementation-specific. Henri Sivonen responded that
   DOM constructs weren't unduly constraining when he wanted to build a
   non-DOM based validator.

   <noah> DC: As to namespaces in one serialization or another, that
   seems separate

   <noah> DC: Mostly same DOMs serialize both ways.

   <noah> DC: Also, W3C has tried separating DOM from HTML, didn't work

   NM: the interesting thing to me about these layering are in
   document.write() and such that update -- well, you tell me -- is it
   the DOM or the serialization?
   ... the way the spec deals with that sort of thing is very
   fundamentally thru the DOM
   ... I expect if you wanted to focus on the non-scripting case things
   could be simplified considerably
   ... in some cases with scripts, there _is_ no piece of text that
   corresponds to the DOM

   <noah> 3.5.3 (3.8.2): document.write: "If the method was invoked on
   an XML document, throw an INVALID_ACCESS_ERR exception and abort
   these steps."

   NM: another part of this is that document.write() doesn't work in

   DanC: right; that's the design that's deployed

   NM: if I want well-formedness to interface with XML databases but
   serve it as text/html, does that work?

   DanC: yes, with a dozen or so caveats; these are known as "polyglot"

   <DanC_> e.g. <blockquote />

   JK: 3rd, "Lack of RFC2119 normative language"

   <noah> ( Style attribute "Documents that use style
   attributes on any of their elements must still be comprehensible and
   usable if those attributes were removed." That appears to be a
   formal "must", but the criterion is informal and not testable. I
   think this one probably is better as a "should" than a "must".

   DC: HTML WG history is that these are intended as RFC 2119, and it's
   known that some musts depend on author's intent.

   <DanC_> [33]Re: ISSUE-61: conformance-language - suggest closing...
   (Dan's reply to Henri Sivonen)

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1118.html

   <noah> > However, the very concept of semantic markup is useless
   unless markup

   <noah> > is used according to the intended meaning. Therefore, I
   think it is

   <noah> > even interop-sensitive (in the sense that receivers process

   <noah> > messages in ways compatible with sender expectations) that
   authors use

   <noah> > markup according to the specified semantics.

   DC: I sort of made my peace with that.
   ... ...(Dan reads other comments from his email)...

   <jar> This doesn't make sense to me. The html has to be assumed to
   be the only communication between sender and receiver

   <jar> .. the sender can't be held responsible for things it can't

   <johnk> yes, what in in Noah's quote does "comprehensible and
   usable" actually mean to an implementor?

   <jar> Three senses of conformance needs to be kept distinct:
   conforming sender, conforming document, conforming receiver

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: John to prepare draft on device APIs [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: John to review websocket protocol/api motivation and
   brief TAG at Sep ftf [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: noah to raise (as individual issue) question of 3
   words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5
   recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([38]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/09/16 18:13:30 $

     [37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [38] 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 Wednesday, 16 September 2009 18:15:07 UTC