- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:22:33 -0800
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Are available at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes
and as text below.
Henry, thanks for checking them in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
This is version has not been approved as a true record of the
TAG's meeting and there is some risk that individual TAG
members have been misquoted. This transcript should typically
not be quoted, except as necessary to arrange for correction
and approval.
TAG-Weekly
06 Dec 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Eliot_Graff, Ashok_Malhotra, Norman_Walsh, Jeni_Tenison,
Larry_Masinter, Peter_Linss, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves_Lafon
Regrets
Henry_Thompson, Tim_Berners-Lee
Chair
Noah_Mendelsohn
Scribe
Ashok_Malhotra
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML
Unification
* [7]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<masinter> Welcome, Eliot
<Eliot> Thanks!
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok_Malhotra
Admin
Peter_Linss can scribe next week
<Noah> Minutes from last week (29 November):
[8]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes
[8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 29-November approved
Noah: TAG Candidates are available -- 9 for 4 seats
... Per agreement from the candidates, election position
statements are now public. The expectation is that discussion
will be held on the www-tag mailing list.
<masinter> I think it's great to have people think the TAG is
important enough to talk about who should be on it
<Noah> ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food [recorded
in [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-770 - Reserve January TAG space/food
[on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-12-13].
Noah: Next f2f Jan 14-16 at Cambridge, MA
<Noah> ACTION-769?
<trackbot> ACTION-769 -- Noah Mendelsohn to informally inform
Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical
matters for his consideration -- due 2012-12-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769
[10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769
<masinter> We should reconsider our process.
<Noah> close ACTION-769
<trackbot> ACTION-769 Informally inform Jeff that we did not at
this time identify urgent technical matters for his
consideration closed
<masinter> Closing the action is fine
ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML Unification
Noah: We had a meeting on 24 March, 2010 where Sam Ruby joined
us. You can read the details. Pointer from agenda.
<JeniT>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#i
tem05
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#item05
Noah: There is now a draft ...
<Eliot>
[12]http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-
authoring-guide.html
[12] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
<Norm> [13]http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/
[13] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/
<Noah> Title: Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents
Noah: Henri Sivonen has requested we rescind our request to
publish in TR space and publish the spec as a note
... People assumed the status was to publish as a Rec. Henri
requests we rescind that.
... HTML WG wants us to create guidance in 2 weeks
... Let's limit discussion today to whether we we should stick
with our decision to publish as a REC
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to remind point raised last week
about the broader issue
[14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03
Noah: Let's work through Henri's arguments
Larry: In the narrow space ... we made a request which has no
formal standing.
<Zakim> Norm, you wanted to ask for clarification about the
ambiguity in the way the question has been framed
Noah: This may be chance to restate or modify it's advice
Norm: Does TAG want to publish as REC or not?
Larry: Our request did not ask the document to be published as
a REC
<masinter> I'm not interested in making a different request, at
this point
<Noah>
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.ht
ml
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.html
Noah: HT's mail ask that it be published as a REC
<masinter> It's the wrong time in the process
<Noah> First email from Henry:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.ht
ml
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.html
Larry: They do not need our advice on the narrow question of
what to do with this doc. They need advice on the braoder
issues of what should or should not be a REC
Noah: We have opportunity to clarify our request.
Jeni: We should say we support it being on REC track
<masinter> I'm convinced
Peter: If it is on REC track what would be CR exit criteria?
<masinter> I don't want to deep end on the process
<Noah> Henry: "As such it makes sense, on the usual
<Noah> grounds of avoiding duplication of effort and promoting
<Noah> interoperability with respect to a requirement on W3C
technology, that
<Noah> the W3C issue a Recommendation addressing that
requirement."
<Noah> "Note that for _definitional_
<Noah> specifications such as this one progressing to REC does
_not_ require
<Noah> implementation, since it is only referring
specifications/documents
<Noah> which may include implementable conformance requirements
involving
<Noah> the definition(s) provided."
<masinter> I disagree with HT that implementations aren't
needed
Ashok: That's the real question
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to disagree that polyglot can't be
implemented or tested
Peter: We need to consider what CR criteria are. There could be
a test suite of documents that parse both as XML and HTML
... documents produce same DOM on various parsers
<masinter> It's part of the value of moving something to REC
that you have demonstrated implementability and
interoperability
<Noah> LM: I think exit criteria and tests for these
definitional documents are both possible and useful. Part of
what makes RECs valuable.
Jeni: Is Polyglot a definitional specification?
Eliot: Yes, it is a definitional specification
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to say TAG doesn't need to get into
exit criteria
Larry: It is more than a definitional spec ... it says if you
follow the spec you get some benefits.
<Noah> JT: I agree.
Jeni: It also defines the impact
Noah: Promises a certain kind of compatibility
<JeniT> it doesn't just define terminology, is my point
Noah: We do not have to dive too deep into what the exit
criteria could be
... The benefits are not in question, we made a request, we did
not say REC or NOTE.
Yves: Henry's request seems a bit stronger
Noah: They would welcome guidance ... perhaps a NOTE is fine
... REC is desirable ... or it's up to you
Norm: I interpret Henri's note as saying don't publish anything
at all
<Norm>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.ht
ml
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.html
<Noah>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/000
6.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0006.html
<Noah> Since the document should only document conclusions
drawn from normative statements made elsewhere, the Polyglot
document itself should not be normative, because there's a risk
of erroneous conclusions getting held up.
<masinter> Are we talking about Henri's request to the TAG or
the formal objection in HTML-WG?
Noah: His technical argument is that polyglot does not matter
... folks can front-end with a HTML parser
Larry: TAG should focus on the broader issues
Noah: We have 2 week window to provide guidance
... we can say we want to keep our original request as stated
Larry: I am ok ... we may have more to say later
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to argue about TAG scope
<Noah> AM: What would be the real practical differences?
<masinter> It's harder for other standards organizations to
normatively reference a non-REC.
<Noah> NM: I>think< there's less explicit/implied commitment
to maintain it?
<Noah> YL: You can make make change requests on Notes.
<Noah> NM: Yes, but don't you have more responsibilities to fix
Notes.
Noah: With a REC we have to fix bugs
<Noah> YL: Not necessarily.
<Noah> YL: I think you're right that we>ought< to do something
with a REC.
<masinter> The scope of responsibility is W3C, not the "working
group", working groups can't make long-term commitments, but
the consortium can.
<Noah> YL: The main question is do we>Recommend< using
Polyglot and/or having multiple recs?
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to point out the relationship of
W3C recommendations in the world of standards
<Noah> RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.
Larry: RECs have normative implications
<Noah> LM: RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a
note.
Noah: I have a strong preference to be REC because I want this
document to be citable ... e.g. someone may decide that legal
insurance documents must be polyglot and a REC makes that
easier to say
<masinter> I hate to say this (since I've argued against
Findings vs. Recs from the TAG), but i'm wondering if this
stuff about Rec vs. Note might qualify for a 'finding'
<Noah> . PROPOSAL: The TAG has considered rescinding our
request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
decided not to do so. We note that TR space is consistent with
publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
original request.
<masinter> very close
<masinter> "several" => "most" ?
Yves: Add why having a REC would be useful
<Noah> The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a
Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to
rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with
publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
original request. We are also aware
<Noah> that, if published, polyglot would still be just one way
of achieving HTML/XML interoperation.
Noah: If it is short we could do a resolution. If it is longer
we should have someone draft email text
<masinter> Cut the last sentence?
<Noah> . PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding
our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note
will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members
actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes
beyond the earlier request.
<masinter> I liked the previous wording better, except for the
last sentence
Jeni: We should follow up with a rationale
Noah: Resolution is for us ... only folks who read our minutes
will see it. So we need a email message.
<masinter> Would like to ask Eliot what he thinks would be
helpful
<masinter> does the TAG want to do a REC on "Normative" ?
<masinter> ... since it isn't defined in the process
Noah: I think we should draft the email
... Norm, are you ok with this?
Norm: Yes
<masinter> Ask Eliot to reference Task Force report
<masinter> I propose your first resolution, sans last sentence
<Noah> . PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding
our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note
will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members
actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes
beyond the earlier request.
<JeniT> . PROPOSED RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding
our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it
may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that
it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not
required by our original request.
Noah: Anyone opposed
<Noah> RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding our request
for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not
to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent
with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
original request.
<Noah> Agreed without dissent.
<masinter> I didn't want to promise an email until we talk
about the 'bigger issue'
<Noah> RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our
request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have
decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is
consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it
may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that
it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not
required by our original request.
RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a
Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to
rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with
publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of
interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should
be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our
original request.
<Noah> AM: One thought... in Henri's request to us, he quoted
the XML/HTML task force report saying polyglot not very useful.
Noah: Makes sense to me ... can we add to the email wording
Norm: We should argue its general utility rather than say it
solves the structured content on the web problem.
<JeniT> +1 to Norm
<Noah> +2 to Norm
<Noah> NW: The TAG should cite specifically the uses advocated
by Sam Ruby, Henry Thompson, etc.
<Noah> LM: Does report say that?
<Noah> NW: It was beyond our scope.
<masinter> Could we suggest to the polyglot editor to reference
the task force report?
Norm: No, the report answered the question it was asked which
was "does it solve the structured content on the web" problem
... This is my personal position.
<masinter> email vs. finding vs. rec track document?
<JeniT> Masinter, maybe we start with email see how big it gets
<masinter> Jeni, should we try to address the microdata as REC
issue too?
<Noah> ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to
rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-771 - Draft e-mail responding to
request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [on Jeni
Tennison - due 2012-12-13].
Larry: Should the scope of email be broader to cover other
"what constitutes a REC" issues?
... Wikipedia entry on "normative" is enlightening
... it can be something you cite or it may be something you
must use for some situation
Noah: I like what you said but let's start with the narrow case
of the Polyglot document
... Larry, do you think we should do the general case first
... Any other thoughts?
... Jeni. could have something for us to consider next week?
Jeni: Yes
<Noah> I'm a little curious where the AB/TAG line is in this.
It's somewhat process, somewhat technical I think.
<JeniT>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.ht
ml
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.html
Larry: We may want to get more clarification on the dual use of
"normative" ... how interesting something has to be before W3C
considers it as a REC
... The W3C process does not define normative ... not clear
about scope ... we may need to do some process work
... The AB is mainly concerned with operational issue like
finance ... not so interested in process
<Noah> From TAG charter "The TAG's scope is limited to
technical issues about Web architecture. The TAG should not
consider administrative, process, or organizational policy
issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C
Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team."
Discussion about "process"
Larry: This is about the meaning of "normative".
Noah: We can draft note to AB about our concerns.
Larry: If we had a QA group they could take it on.
Noah: Who owns the process document?
Yves: The AB and the team. Ian Jacobs was the last editor of
the process document
Noah: Where is "normative" defined?
<Noah> FWIW, the word normative does not appear in the process
document, except to discuss its own normative references.
Jeni: There is no recommendation as to whether something should
be a REC or a NOTE
<Noah> From the process document: "A correction becomes
normative -- of equal status as the text in the published
Recommendation -- through one of the processes described
below."
Noah: Process document has some discussion of "normative"
Larry: Let's start with the email ... then we can expand to a
document if it feels right.
<Noah> A quick search suggests that the process document
defines what it is for a correction to be normative, but not
for the base spec to be normative. That seems consistent with
the view that normative is a characteristic of a reference
between one document and another.
Larry: We could discuss these in the context of the Microdata
spec ... I will send out a note.
... I think this is worthy of a REC
Noah: Please suggest email wording and I will put it on the
agenda
Larry: Let's wait till we get the email wording from Jeni
<Eliot> Thanks for inviting me. As to whether Polyglot should
be a REC, I believe doing do will benefit those who implement
the spec.
<Noah> ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to
rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food [recorded
in [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action01]
[End of minutes]
--
All the best, Ashok
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 16:23:09 UTC