Re: Friction and cross pollination

I acknowledge that "it's time to retire the pattern…" is an overstatement,
meant mostly to suggest that the HTML-XML TF declare victory and move some
outstanding questions to Community Groups.

This mini-rant was inspired by discussions in the HTML-XML TF where people
expressed a lot of passion about how a better HTML-XML alignment could
solve *their* use cases, and they're clearly frustrated by the disinterest
on the part of those who have been dealing with XML - HTML co-existence
for 10-15 years and have more or less lost interest in the problem.  I
feel for both sides -- some are seeing a vision that lots of us shared
back in the day and they still want to work to make it real; others
believe that much of the world has moved on and have largely adopted JSON
for data and HTML for text, and don't see the value of pursuing a unification.

For the HTML-XML situation, there are probably profiles, best practices,
APIs, etc. that people could work on together  that could address
some of the use cases, without trying to "fix" XML (which is largely done
and burned into silicon) or add a boat anchor on the evolution of HTML.
That seems more suited to a community-specific approach than a global
architecture approach to me.

I do suspect the same thing applies to the RDFa/Microdata and canvas/SVG/CSS situations, but that's getting into areas I'm not really up to speed on and don't wish to debate with the TAG.  

Thanks,
Michael Champion

On 10/15/11 1:21 PM, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote:

>Without commenting on the merits of either Mike's or Larry's points, it
>may 
>be worth observing that the two most recent and visible "task forces"
>instigate by the TAG are somewhat different in history and organization:
>
>* The HTML/XML task force came into being as essentially an offshoot of
>the 
>TAG. We had been studying the issue, had some (perhaps misplaced)
>optimism 
>that getting the right mix of people together would yield insight not
>only 
>into requirements and use cases (it did), but also into changes to
>specifications that might be suggested as input to the pertinent working
>groups (so far, not much good to report on that part). Anyway, Norm was
>kind enough to volunteer to pull it together, and it is proceeding toward
>finalizing a report.
>
>* With respect to the perceived overlap between RDFa and Microdata, the
>TAG 
>did two things: 1) it opened bugs against the pertinent draft
>specifications and 2) it suggested to the W3C that the W3C might form a
>task force. As I understand it, the W3C has responded by proposing that
>an 
>initial round of analysis be done by a group hosted in the SWIG.
>
>For what it's worth, I would very much like to have the option to
>continue 
>to use at least the first model from time to time. There are many things
>the TAG is called upon to figure out where the elected/appointed
>membership 
>of the TAG doesn't have the needed skills. Being able to call upon those
>who would volunteer their time is very helpful.
>
>As to the second model, in which we suggest to the W3C the formation of a
>task force, I don't see the value of precluding ever doing such a thing,
>though I read Mike as suggesting that we should be careful, perhaps more
>careful, to do so only when we are optimistic that the community is
>really 
>likely to benefit from the results.
>
>That may well be good advice -- I (personally, not as TAG chair) do worry
>that the TAG sometimes proposes these task forces in situations where
>there 
>is a reluctance to hear the community say: "yes, the current situation is
>suboptimal (e.g. two sets of specs in overlapping spaces), but no, it's
>unlikely that much is going to change with or without a task force".
>Even 
>then, doing an analysis can have some value. I'm disappointed that we
>haven't so far found ways to change either HTML or XML to bring them
>closer 
>together, but I think the team led by Norm is producing an analysis that
>is 
>very useful in pointing out what can be done with the specs as they are,
>and also in leaving tracks so that the same questions won't be repeatedly
>explored from scratch.
>
>Noah
>
>On 10/15/2011 4:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> Michael, to respond to your comment about creation of task forces:
>>
>>   First, the TAG can't really force the creation of a task force, it's
>>a suggestion that requires commitment on the part of multiple parties. I
>>see absolutely no reason why the TAG should not encourage them when they
>>seem appropriate. If you're saying "don't create a task force until
>>there are people who volunteer to participate", well, I thought we
>>weren't, and maybe it's just the call for participation has been unclear
>>about the expected outcome.
>>
>> The TAG doesn't have the bandwidth to address all of the architectural
>>issues, and calling for other groups to be formed by the W3C is an
>>appropriate role for the TAG. I reject the notion that "if you want it
>>done you have to do it yourself".
>>
>> The "task forces" we've called for focus on situations where there are
>>multiple specifications which seem incompatible and where even the
>>analysis of workflows going from one to another aren't specified -- that
>>seems like a good fodder for a task force.
>>
>>   What I'd looking for is a clear analysis of what the various use
>>cases might be, of what the compatibility problems are, what workarounds
>>may or may not apply, appropriate future directions.  Even if neither
>>"side" budges a single bit about changing any specification whatsoever,
>>it is still possible to make much better progress on at least
>>understanding what the compatibility problems really are and what
>>difficulties they cause.
>>
>> If along the way, there are some apparent changes to one or the other,
>>or some additional infrastructure or developments that would improve the
>>situation, that's great. But it's not criterial for success.
>>
>> In all of the cases where we have called for "Task forces" that I can
>>think of, it is a situation where multiple groups or a single group are
>>creating overlapping and incompatible specifications, usually where a
>>"new" specification breaks an older one, but in a way where the breakage
>>seems like it could be reduced, minimized, resolved, or that
>>cross-workflows at least need to be analyzed and the difficulties
>>described
>>
>> A specific, dedicated task force of responsible people who are actually
>>interested in making progress -- seems perfectly appropriate. Your
>>counter-proposal -- waiting until there is a ground-swell of interest in
>>getting together -- is really giving up responsibility.  There are
>>always skeptics. What are they skeptical about? That we could even
>>understand the workflows? That we could even document the
>>incompatibilities?
>>
>> Frankly, I don't see too many skeptics, what I see are people who just
>>think the other side is going to wither up and go away, and that the
>>task force gives attention to problems they'd just as soon sweep under
>>the table.
>>
>> I think this goes for XML/XHTML/HTML, microdata/RDFa, and that we might
>>need additional task forces, e.g., to look at canvas/SVG/CSS overlaps
>>and incompatibilities.
>>
>> IMHO
>>
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>>Of Noah Mendelsohn
>> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:31 AM
>> To: www-tag@w3.org
>> Cc: Mike Champion; Norm Walsh
>> Subject: Fwd: Re: Friction and cross pollination
>>
>> Michael Champion posted this to the public-html-xml mailing list, but
>>it includes some suggestions directed to the TAG, so I'm relaying it
>>here.
>>
>> This is part of a larger thread focused mainly on what the draft report
>>from the XML/HTML working group should say. Suggestion:
>>
>> * Discussion of the content of the report should remain on
>>public-html-xml
>>
>> * Discussion of the general issue of having the TAG either create task
>>forces, or suggest that the W3C create them, should be held mainly here
>>on www-tag@w3.org.
>>
>> OK? Thank you.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Friction and cross pollination
>> Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:22:59 +0000
>> Resent-From: public-html-xml@w3.org
>> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:22:27 +0000
>> From: Michael Champion<Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
>> To: Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com>, Henri Sivonen<hsivonen@iki.fi>
>> CC: public-html-xml@w3.org<public-html-xml@w3.org>
>>
>>> All of these paths are work for other groups, new (community) groups,
>>> or even just open source projects.
>>
>> Exactly.  Let's declare victory on this task force report, and suggest
>>that people who have been inspired by the discussions here but couldn't
>>build consensus for their additional ideas take them to Community Groups
>>or some other appropriate venue.
>>
>> Editorializing a bit Š I think it's time to retire the pattern of the
>>TAG causing the creation of Task Forces to dig deep into topics that
>>interest them but they don't have the bandwidth to pursue.  Instead,
>>those people in the TAG or Team or wider community who see an unmet need
>>or envision a better solution should propose a community group, see if
>>there is critical mass to explore the idea, and if the group comes up
>>with a compelling solution THEN propose it to a WG to standardize.  That
>>will reduce the number of as-yet unsolvable problems that get put into
>>TF or WG charters while giving the people with the vision and
>>determination to solve them anyway a place to do so (or not) unimpeded
>>by the skeptics.
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/11 2:03 AM, "Robin Berjon"<robin@berjon.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2011, at 19:01 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com>  wrote:
>>>>> A suggested list of such smaller projects, which may or may not
>>>>> proliferate best in a standards setting, could for instance include:
>>>>
>>>> I'm uncomfortable with naming smaller projects that the TF hasn't
>>>> discussed previously when the Report is almost ready to be published.
>>>
>>> They are really just meant to be suggestions, definitely not
>>>endorsements.
>>>
>>>>>     € Defining an XSLT and XQuery serialisation for polyglot HTML.
>>>>> Usage: make it trivial to produce it with a regular XML tool chain.
>>>>> [ed. I thought that this had been done, but I can't seem to find it
>>>>> anywhere]
>>>>
>>>> I think it makes sense to have a new HTML5-aware HTML output method
>>>> for XSLT, but I think making it polyglot would be an unfortunate
>>>> distraction. You can't serialize the text content of HTML script and
>>>> style element polyglottally in the general case, but it would be
>>>> silly not to support the output of text content of HTML script and
>>>> style elements when the text content can be serialized as either HTML
>>>> or as X(HT)ML.
>>>
>>> Sure, I certainly don't think that it's worth trying too hard. But HTML
>>> output can be improved, and polyglot is likely a good source of
>>> inspiration.
>>>
>>>>>     € Help define an improved, more interoperable, and more usable
>>>>> version of DOM level 3 XPath for use from Javascript inside an HTML
>>>>> document. Usage: a number of queries (e.g. for text nodes, or certain
>>>>> axes) are impossible to achieve with the Selectors API, but using DOM
>>>>> level 3 XPath is unwieldy at best.
>>>>
>>>> How would a new API be more interoperable than the API that multiple
>>>> vendors already support? Also, big rathole warning about XPath
>>>> versions.
>>>
>>> See the discussion on WebApps about how consecutive text nodes are
>>> returned.
>>>
>>>>>     € CSS Fragment IDs based on XPointer as described in
>>>>> http://simonstl.com/articles/cssFragID.html. Usage: links that target
>>>>> fragments more powerfully, in a manner that browsers understand
>>>>> (http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/emphasis-update-and-source/

>>>>> is a good example).
>>>>
>>>> Seems out of scope for this TF.
>>>
>>> [several times]
>>>
>>> All of these ideas are completely out of scope for this TF: we do not
>>> have the remit to produce a Rec-track document anyway. All of these
>>> paths are work for other groups, new (community) groups, or even just
>>> open source projects.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 20:26:05 UTC