00:24:27 Zakim has left #tagmem 02:24:03 timbl has joined #tagmem 03:40:50 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 03:41:03 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 03:41:37 Norm has joined #tagmem 14:05:11 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 14:05:11 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/07-tagmem-irc 14:05:30 Zakim has joined #tagmem 14:05:38 zakim, this is TAG 14:05:38 Stuart, I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG". 14:05:54 zakim, this will be TAG 14:05:54 ok, Stuart; I see TAG_f2f()9:00AM scheduled to start 5 minutes ago 14:06:43 Noah has joined #tagmem 14:08:05 Rhys has joined #tagmem 14:13:08 Vincent has joined #tagmem 14:13:17 ht_mit has joined #tagmem 14:13:31 Meeting: TAG f2f 14:13:37 Chair: Stuart Williams 14:13:45 Scribe: Henry S. Thompson 14:13:52 ScribeNick: ht_mit 14:14:04 Date: 2007-03-07 14:15:07 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/06-agenda 14:15:46 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 14:15:47 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0012.html 14:15:51 Topic: NamespaceDocument-8 14:16:32 NW: We've gone around on this several times, decided we would benefit by resetting and considering requirements from the ground up 14:16:47 Raman has joined #tagmem 14:16:50 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0012.html namespaceDocument-8 background NDW 5 Mar 14:17:01 ... NS documents are sometimes used by agents (people and mechanical) 14:17:11 ... Competing demands on what should be there 14:17:27 ... No single thing (XML Schema, RDF, ...) will satisfy everything 14:17:57 ... When we first looked at this, we thought maybe a single XML format (e.g. RDDL1) would do the job 14:18:10 ... But the world has moved on, and maybe we don't need to do anything 14:18:21 Tutti: We should try to do something 14:18:32 NM: But maybe we'll decide we can't 14:19:32 NW: Two options at least: Do some form of RDDL 2 (a single XML vocabulary) designed for the purpose; pursue the route set out in the original finding (focus on an RDF design) 14:20:53 TBL: Let's standardise on three things: For the self-desc. web, Semantic Web wants RDF-XML, OFWeb wants XML or DTD or Schema.... 14:21:25 q? 14:21:42 ... If you stop putting schema doc as the NS doc't, you raise the bar for applications to have to understand more than you would otherwise 14:21:44 q+ to ask why you don't want to find GRDDL 14:22:29 TBL: Imagine web-based python -- would we want to say they all have to have XML parser 14:22:49 q+ 14:22:54 ack dan 14:22:55 DanC_lap, you wanted to note that the XML Schema practitioners have chosen to raise the bar above "just put a schema there" 14:23:04 DC: XML Schema have already raised the bar -- they already use RDDL , the cost is paid already 14:23:19 q+ to ask Tim about GRDDL 14:23:21 TBL: Opposite for SemWeb 14:23:30 ack noak 14:23:32 ack noa 14:23:32 Noah, you wanted to ask why you don't want to find GRDDL 14:24:05 NM: Fundamental question is that if I have in my hand an NS URI, will I always want _one_ thing from it, or different things in different situations 14:24:34 ... Yes, maybe content negotiation would help 14:24:51 ... So, e.g., sometimes a schema and sometimes the GRDDL-produced RDF 14:25:15 timbl has joined #tagmem 14:25:19 q+ 14:25:23 ... The value of the purpose/nature stuff allowed additional functionality -- how important is it to suppport that? 14:25:36 q+ to mention multiple schemas 14:25:42 q+ to observe that the XQuery terms like fn:doc are handy in the Semantic Web world too, and to ask if what's there, an HTML document, is good enough for the semantic web? And to note that the semweb pratcitioners aren't happy with "just stick RDF there" either, since they value human readability of HTML too 14:26:13 ... There's also the performance issues 14:26:13 q+ ted to point out that you should defnitely long-term cache namespace docuemnts 14:26:35 ... Must not be a requirement that every time you do a validation you must do a GET 14:27:09 ack Rhys 14:28:22 RL: Conneg got mentioned, if we thought of the different metadata as all being representations of the same resource 14:28:49 q+ to mutter about suspension of disbelief on NS and NSDocument being different resources 14:29:19 NM, HT: Seems stretching to say that wrt e.g. a spec., a schema and some GRDDL 14:29:32 TBL: It's a violation of the architecture 14:29:37 q? 14:29:48 DC: Works for GRDDL itself (RDF and HTML) 14:30:01 ack Norm 14:30:01 Norm, you wanted to ask Tim about GRDDL 14:30:09 TBL: It _can_ be OK, but it is likely to not be always 14:30:53 NW: Consider the DocBook NS -- when we get to the NS document, we're going to find stylesheets for using it, DTD, RelaxNG schema, User guide 14:31:27 ... RDDL is sort of working for much of that, and with GRDDL coming, the SemWeb software should be able to win too 14:32:01 Hmm. Norm says some ISPs don't support mod_negotiation. Interesting. I wonder whether we should juice up the Generic Resources finding to say: those who administer servers likely to be used to host generic resources SHOULD support conneg, perhaps with a Norm/Nadia story telling how Norm couldn't use conneg because his ISP wouldn't let him. 14:32:09 q? 14:32:16 TBL: So GRDDL would extract from the DocBook NS doc't a bunch of triples telling me where to find what 14:32:44 ... But I don't expect to ever point a SemWeb tool at the DocBook NS 14:34:03 NW: Consider the VCard namespace -- I expect in due course there will be lots of stuff there, including RDF, tutorials and HTML description 14:34:27 TBL: That's fine with conneg 14:34:52 HST: I don't agree --- this is like DocBook, not GRDDL -- lots of different kinds of resource, conneg not appropriate 14:35:27 q? 14:35:27 TBL: The tabulator will find NS documents, would have to indirect via GRDDL -- I don't want to have to do that 14:35:50 NW: For some namespaces that's OK 14:36:05 DC: This is an argument for doing nothing 14:36:05 ack ht 14:36:05 ht_mit, you wanted to mention multiple schemas 14:36:14 q+ to say no don't do nothing 14:38:03 q+ to ask about implications of Henry's proposal with respect to the nature of namespace resources. 14:39:44 q- ted 14:41:16 HST: I think the current XML Schema situaiton is a good model -- if an NS owner has only one thing to say, or a few things which fit with conneg, no need for indirection, just put it/them in place 14:42:00 ... but if need to do more than that can handle, TAG provides a story via an RDF vocab. and so on (per the draft) 14:42:04 ack danc 14:42:04 DanC_lap, you wanted to observe that the XQuery terms like fn:doc are handy in the Semantic Web world too, and to ask if what's there, an HTML document, is good enough for the 14:42:04 q- timbl 14:42:07 ... semantic web? And to note that the semweb pratcitioners aren't happy with "just stick RDF there" either, since they value human readability of HTML too 14:42:10 q+ 14:42:24 DC: That works for me, indirection is a necessary evil 14:43:13 DC: Consider XQuery F&O -- they designed it for their needs, but with my SemWeb hat on I get lots of value out of their URIs 14:44:23 ... currently there's an HTML doc't at that NS, NW will turn that into (G)RDDL -- how will I get what I want, which is label, description, domain and range for each ID in that namespace 14:44:35 ... How will I do that? 14:46:44 NW: Not clear that the current story can do this 14:46:57 HST: What we can do is for {NS} 14:47:01 . http://www.w3.org/2006/xpath-functions# 14:47:03 xxx 14:47:38 HST: What we can do is for {NS}#foo, use (G)RDDL to say -- look at {metaforNS}#foo for RDF 14:47:59 fn:abs rdfs:range somethign:numeric; rdfs:label "abs"; rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty. 14:48:10 DC: Look at the XPath f&o NS Doc't [URI above] 14:48:33 ... The HTML tells me what I want, but I want it RDF 14:48:53 NM, TBL: [rathole wrt I18N] 14:49:30 TBL: The label is different from the URI 14:50:51 [rathole continues] 14:51:33 q? 14:51:52 NM: I remain unconvinced why anyone would want to spell 'sum' any way other than 'sum' -- it's like programming language 14:52:25 ack Stuart 14:52:25 Stuart, you wanted to mutter about suspension of disbelief on NS and NSDocument being different resources 14:52:28 NW: I could give you what you want 14:52:38 DC, NW: via conneg? yes, via conneg. 14:53:08 SW: I think we're talking about NS and NS doc't as if they were the same thing 14:53:15 ... but they're not 14:55:02 DC: So they haven't given you any way to distinguish namespaces and namespace documents 14:55:29 q+ to ask about httpRange-14 14:55:58 SW: I can suspend disbelief about this, but I'm surprised TBL is 14:56:08 TBL: We get one level of indirection for free 14:56:27 .-1d 14:57:00 NW: I think [the DocBook NS URI] identifies (the concept of) DocBook 14:57:02 q? 14:57:10 HST: That will upset NM 14:57:13 s/We get one level of indirection for free/A document whih desribes by indirection describes 14:57:16 ack Noah 14:57:16 Noah, you wanted to ask about implications of Henry's proposal with respect to the nature of namespace resources. 14:58:20 NM: It's a bad idea in general to assume that NS names identify languages as well as namespaces 14:58:42 ... An NS owner _may_ say that, but don't build software that _assumes_ that _all_ NSes are like that 14:59:18 ... because, among other things, languages and NSes are not one-to-one 15:00:26 q- 15:00:43 ack timbl 15:00:48 NM: HST made a proposal 15 minutes -- use conneg for a broad range of things 15:01:25 HST: [interrupts] that's not what I proposed, rather, use conneg iff all the things you have to offer are reprs of the same thing 15:01:30 NM: Fine. 15:02:34 TBL: This all just convinces me that we need to get on to the Arch of the SemWeb, because the answer to this topic comes at least in part directly from there 15:03:06 q? 15:03:07 ... So, as per SW Best Practices, put RDF at NS URIs 15:03:17 ... for SW purposes 15:03:26 ... and for non-SW purposes, do something else 15:03:41 NW: So what do I do for DocBook? 15:04:11 q+ to say we need to think about Norm's case, where the same URI is used for the namespace and the language. 15:04:16 TBL: Well, I don't use e.g. XML Schemas, so I'm not sure what they want 15:04:40 NW: So, we decided that for the sake of interop 15:04:48 TBL: Interop with whom? 15:04:58 NW: Across the board 15:05:13 ... Are you happy with what HST said 15:05:59 ... And in particular, using conneg between an HTML doc't and RDF? 15:06:03 TBL: Yes 15:06:52 TBL: What you couldn't do is conneg between an XML Schema and RDF. 15:07:34 s/RDF/an RDF ontology 15:08:12 s/XML Schema and RDF/XML Schema and RDF ontology/ 15:08:40 NM: If you have an OWL ontology, it's not describing a schema, for sure 15:09:04 ... Consider DocBook -- we retrieve XML, we use GRDDL, we get triples 15:09:26 q? 15:09:55 ... Could you ever want a schema for the docbook language and RDF assertions about those GRDDL-generated triples 15:10:34 NM: GRDDL is a bridgepoint 15:10:39 HST: The _only_ bridgepoint 15:10:56 TBL: There's another one -- quoted XML in the midst of RDF 15:11:26 NM: So GRDDL allows us to get triples from a purchase order 15:12:36 TAG_f2f()9:00AM has now started 15:12:43 +DOrchard 15:13:05 HST: [confusion] 15:13:16 +[MIT] 15:13:19 dorchard has joined #tagmem 15:13:20 TBL: You can get GRDDL from the schema, for instance 15:13:43 NM: So, from a purchase order in XML, I can find the GRDDL and apply it, to get triples I can use 15:14:02 ... I also have a schema, which describes the syntax of the language 15:14:07 q? 15:14:24 DanC_lap has changed the topic to: TAG meeting in Cambridge, MA. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/03/06-agenda topic: nsDocument-8 15:14:32 ... So shouldn't I be able to get the ontology for the language from somewhere nearby the schema? 15:14:41 q+ 15:15:00 q+ to talk about complexities of meaning of purchase order 15:15:20 TBL: Maybe you could, but my assumption is that the RDF you get from GRDDLing the po will draw on many ontologies, e.g. amount of money, lat/long, etc. 15:15:44 q- noah 15:16:27 NM: So my story about languages is exactly the same, that languages may be made of multiple namespaces 15:16:39 q? 15:16:43 ack ht_mit 15:16:43 ht_mit, you wanted to ask about httpRange-14 15:17:36 (pun: namespace document vs namespace) 15:17:54 scribenick: noah 15:18:05 HT: What is the nature of the resource identified by a namespace URI? 15:18:15 HT: If it's not an information resource, you should not return it with a 200. 15:18:24 q+ to sy it is an information resource 15:18:31 DC: Dicussing this in the abstract is challenging. 15:18:45 HT: Let's pick the XML Schema namespace URI 15:19:22 HT: At the moment, if you retrieve from that you get a 200, you will (soon) get a document with anchors for every name in the schema namespace. 15:19:47 HT: It's what we might call English metadata, I.e. summaries or pointers to what the Schema rec says about them. 15:19:58 HT: It isn't the namespace, clearly. 15:20:11 HT: I am assuming that documents are not information resources. 15:20:20 q+ 15:20:21 DC: That's inconsistent with what we're saying. 15:20:44 s/we're saying/data you're presenting/ 15:20:47 scribenick: ht_mit 15:21:00 q+ to say I think I would prefer to say namespaces are information resources, probably a set of names 15:21:07 q- ht 15:21:09 s/that documents/that the things identified by NS URIs/ 15:21:24 q- ht 15:21:39 TBL: Using your email address to identify you doesn't mean we think you're an email address 15:21:50 ack timbl 15:21:50 timbl, you wanted to sy it is an information resource and to 15:21:59 ... I like the pun, because I like getting 200s, because I want information 15:22:38 ... there's this additional convention/engineering approach, involving # 15:23:07 ... So wrt the XML Schema case, I'd say the URI identifies a document 15:23:10 q? 15:23:16 DC: But it's a namespace URI 15:23:46 TBL: It's called a namespace name 15:24:20 HST: It says in the XML Schema spec. "The namespace URI for the XML Schema namespace is 'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'" 15:25:08 TBL: We use the word 'namespace' to refer to either the set of terms defined in the namespace, or in RDF to refer to a set of URIs which share the namespace URI 15:25:18 q? 15:25:29 ack dor 15:25:29 dorchard, you wanted to talk about complexities of meaning of purchase order 15:25:40 ... but the concept of the set doesn't come up in the architecture, so the fact that we don't treat the namespace URI as identifying that set isn't a problem 15:25:57 s/TBL: It's called a namespace name/TBL: It's called a namespace URI 15:26:05 s/TBL: It's called a namespace name/TBL: It's called a namespace URI/g 15:26:08 :) 15:26:29 DO: In dealing with purchase orders in the real world, getting the schema isn't hard, but isn't interesting either 15:26:51 ... the hard part is getting at the meaning and significance of the terms in the po 15:27:03 ... there's also all the contractual implications 15:27:28 q? 15:27:28 ... So I think going from schemas to the semantics of POs is too simplistic 15:27:29 ("namespace URI" is one standard term; "namespace name" is another. cf http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816/ . "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" is a namespace name. Tim stipulated that it's a namespace URI; that's pretty darn close. I can buy the punning story he told, but we should also stipulate that it's a very liberal reading of the namespace rec ) 15:27:53 ack noah 15:27:53 Noah, you wanted to say I think I would prefer to say namespaces are information resources, probably a set of names 15:28:21 NM: I think there's semweb info at both levels 15:29:23 ... If we get some GRDDL-derived triples from a PO document, which simply says locally what the PO says, whereas the complex stuff about the _implications_ of that is global and, indeed, much more complex 15:29:43 ... But both are useful, and the first can be associated iwth the schema 15:30:16 NM: TBL, it feels wrong for me to say the NS URI identifies a document 15:30:42 ... I think we _can_ say that the Namespace _is_ an information resource, and it's a set of names 15:30:46 q+ 15:31:17 ... because we say an info resource is something which can be faithfully represented in a document 15:31:41 q+ 15:31:41 ... So returning 200 plus a document is OK, because you can faithfully represent that set in a document 15:32:25 NM, do not cnfuse information about a set with the set. Info about the set is an IR, the set isn't IMHO 15:32:29 ... So as long as a document is a representation of the set, it can participate in conneg wrt the NS URI 15:32:37 ... I think that's simple and robusgt 15:32:45 ack Norm 15:32:54 NW: Back to the finding 15:33:56 ... We were close to agreement on "sometimes conneg will do, sometimes you need indirection" and "if you need indirection, here's how" 15:34:10 -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndw/322383764/ 15:34:12 TBL: I want to exempt the RDF Ontologies 15:34:31 HST: You don't need to, it's covered by the first clause -- if you have only one thing to say, just say it 15:34:55 That is, only one representation is trivially using conneg 15:35:05 NW: Consensus? 15:35:18 Rhys has joined #tagmem 15:35:29 NM: Reserve my position wrt the final bit, i.e. our approach to providing the indirection 15:36:14 NW: So, I think I understand what the reason my proposal on the indirection failed last time -- there was an asymmetry between [x] and [y] 15:37:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0012.html 15:37:29 NW: [summarises the above email] 15:37:50 DC: You asked for RDDL docs from the community, did you get any? 15:37:53 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0009.html 15:38:13 q? 15:38:50 q+ to remind that the concern I had with the design in Dec was that having natures being namespace documents = category error 15:42:03 HST, DC: [try to work through what a vNext schema processor would do] 15:42:18 NW: I'll try to come up with a specific example over the break 15:44:51 david we are back again at the top of the hour. 16:01:35 -> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wspel/2.0/process/abstract 16:01:41 -> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/abstract 16:11:10 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 16:15:38 DC, NW: [working on whiteboard wrt the RDDL for bpel, and for RDDL itself] 16:15:48 The example discussed in the break was RDDL for RDDL 16:15:50 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/att-0009/summary-detail.html 16:16:06 DanC suggested that that could be mapped to the RDF: 16:16:26 DC: Norm found fifteen RDDL docs in the wild, and summarised their usage of RDDL (see above email) 16:17:02 -> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/abstract 16:17:05 ... Looked at the BPEL NS document 16:18:59 ... in particular, rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation" href="....xsd" 16:20:05 ... I'd want this RDF: rddl:schema-validation <...xsd> [in N3] 16:20:15 ________________ 16:20:16 rddl:shemaValidation . 16:20:16 docRootEleName ( "http://www....." "XMLSchema"). # A pair, the XML element name 16:20:16 rddl:shemaValidation . 16:20:16 docRootEleName ( "http://www.....rng..." "grammar"). # A pair 16:20:17 pup:normativeRefernce 16:20:19 _______________ 16:21:00 ... for all the above, assume rddl: bound to http://www.rddl.org/purposes# 16:21:55 DC: @prefix rddl: 16:22:11 s/pup:/rddl:/g 16:22:20 ( "http://www.....rng..." "grammar") is N3 shorthand for [rdf:first "http://www.....rng..."; rdf:rest [ rdf:first "grammar"; rdf:rest rdf:nil ]]. 16:24:43 NW: What about adding a .rnc reference, i.e. a relaxng compact syntax document 16:25:12 NM: Broken, in part because not participating in the self-describing web (no media type) 16:25:26 NW: Stipulate we have a media type 16:27:06 DC: <.....bpel...rnc> httpr2:content-type "text/rnc" 16:27:36 SW: Couldn't we use Schema Component Designator instead of docRootEltName ? 16:28:21 The media type for compact syntax is application/relax-ng-compact-syntax 16:28:37 NM: SCDs is all about the bit after the '#', but have not yet any story about the bit before that 16:29:10 TBL: [starts down the LHS of SCDs rat-hole, pulls back] 16:29:55 NW: I have enough information to attempt the next step, i.e. to try converting my current draft to the examples on the whiteboard 16:30:15 SW: Any other agreements? 16:30:58 DC: docRootEltName is a matter of fact, but normative-reference is a matter of opinion 16:31:07 ... I prefer the matters of fact 16:33:42 NM, HST, others: [back to the SCDs LHS rathole] 16:35:31 HST: The outstanding question here is what the best predicate for identifying things as W3C XML Schemas -- docRootEltName doesn't seem great 16:35:54 NM: And won't work if the xs:schema element isn't the root of a document. . . 16:36:04 The back and forth between me and Dan suggests to me that what we need to solve the Schema Component Designator problem is in fact something very similar to namespace description documents, but these would instead be "language" description documents, that would bring together the declarations for a root element, along with the constraints that allow you to designate which documents are in your language. I believe that, when schema is used, that language desc 16:36:06 are resolved. 16:37:10 Topic: tagsoup 16:37:24 SW: TVR and DC are on point 16:37:56 DC: TBL has just published something relevant, at xyzzy 16:38:00 http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision 16:41:06 ... W3C just announced the new HTML/XHTML working groups 16:44:33 The above URI is TBL's background about this 16:45:18 This is linked from http://www.w3.org/html/ 16:45:37 Typo: The architectural directions which the community is moving along now the result of much input 16:45:50 I think that should be "are the result of" 16:46:02 Typo: "will hve" 16:46:10 Spelling of "have" 16:46:25 Typo: relatity -> reality 16:47:26 are not made which would not preclude an XML serialization --> are not made which would preclude an XML serialization 16:49:03 typo no space between 'only' and 'a tag-soup ...' in paragraph 2 of numbered section 3 in 'XML-based Architecture and tag soup' 16:49:49 I didn't have Chris's OK 16:49:51 typo: words is now may have gotten transposed. 16:49:51 q+ to ask why anyone would ever serialise to the _non_-XML syntax. . . 16:49:58 reality is spelt relatity 16:50:28 Possible typo: "This ensures that decisions are not made which would not preclude an XML serialization. " 16:50:38 I suspect the second "not" in the above is a mistake. 16:50:43 q- 16:54:16 -> http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/ 16:54:48 also, http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTMLAsSheAreSpoke has a survey of tagsoup, beatiful soup, ... 16:54:50 suggest: "Experience with technologies like Dave Raggett's HTML Tidy and and John Callow's work on TagSoup shows that ..." 16:55:02 s/Callow/Cowan/ 16:55:11 copy-edit suggestion: the rest of that sentence may want breaking up 16:55:51 typo: chartering of these groups,and (missing space after comma) 16:56:17 DC: This document sets out three options, similar to ones TV set out in a recent telcon: 16:56:40 ... 1, Require XML 16:57:34 s/Require XML/Require XML at XHTML 1/ 16:57:47 ... 2, Require XML, at XHTML 2 16:57:58 ...3, Gentle transition 16:58:08 s/Gentle/Incremental/ 16:58:34 q? 16:59:29 DC: The WGs have been set up on the assumption that Incrementation transition is the way to go 17:00:07 NM: Where does this doc't fit in 17:00:18 TV: As input on tagSoupIntegration-54 17:00:53 DC: What Incremental Transition means to me is to look at cases until a pattern emerges 17:00:55 q+ to talk about errors and validators 17:01:15 TV: In discussion to date, we have brainstormed a lot of use cases 17:01:30 q? 17:01:34 ... I think the TAG can help by writing things down in one place, which hasn't been done 17:02:07 ... for instance Ian Hickson's email on the problems with XHTML 17:03:21 ... We should look in particular for the tension points 17:03:39 ... for example the extensibility issue which is raised at the end of the 'vision' document 17:04:10 ... I'm prepared to put my own opinions to one side and collect issues 17:04:24 TBL: Support that idea 17:04:50 ... The TAG should take apart the idea of 'Incremental Transition' and look carefully at it 17:05:33 ... What it means is instead of saying "messy browser reality" vs "pure XHTML2 coolness" -- you must choose 17:06:12 ... We look at the differences which are actually out there between tagsoup and well-formed XHTML 17:06:35 ... and for each of them, we'll try to motivate change by analyzing how the deviations harm the community 17:07:02 q? 17:07:20 ... W3C has commited to trying to produce a validator -- the TAG can help spec. the behaviour of that validator 17:07:22 q- 17:07:28 ack timbl 17:07:51 TV: [scribe missed] 17:07:56 q? 17:08:10 TV: we know that if you're writing HTML, you can leave off end tags 17:08:21 ... and browsers know how to cope 17:08:35 q? 17:08:46 We should for each of the changes motivate them appropriately and with due priority. 17:09:12 (some people think quoting html inside RSS is a feature. I have a hard time appreciating that position.) 17:09:20 ... but if someone does this in the content of RSS and Atom, the well is poisoned, that is, to protect XML well-formedness the XML has to be quoted 17:09:24 q? 17:09:31 ack danc 17:09:31 DanC_lap, you wanted to ask whether we actual have a useful connection to the RDDL community 17:09:43 ack ht_mit 17:09:43 ht_mit, you wanted to ask why anyone would ever serialise to the _non_-XML syntax. . . 17:14:03 HST: Does this mean W3C will standardise two different ways of serializing a DOM 17:14:38 DC: No, perhaps two syntaxes would have been a better phrase 17:15:47 q? 17:15:48 TBL: People have asked if we're heading towards XML2 17:16:20 ... that's one possible interpretation of the analysis of the motivation for the differences 17:16:56 TV: We've got a range of phenomena -- close tags, quotes, etc. 17:17:26 q? 17:17:29 ... We have to distinguish which of these are really dangerous and which are not so bad 17:18:02 NM: What about new software -- what advise are we giving 17:18:11 s/advise/advice/ 17:18:20 q+ to propose view source cleanup 17:18:36 ... or new versions of old software 17:19:56 :) 17:20:01 NM: I'm not sure about the idea of defending the idea of e.g. leaving out quotes in new software just to save a few bytes 17:20:20 ... That's the wrong place to look for efficiency 17:22:00 TV: The point is that given that it works == the browsers shows the right thing, it makes _sense_ for Google and Yahoo! to exploit the shortcuts 17:23:14 q+ to contrast the google homepage, where device-specific renditions are cost-effective, vs the state of kansas tax web sites, where it's probably not 17:23:16 ... When Google ships to mobile, we ship very carefully valid HTML 17:23:20 ack timbl 17:23:20 timbl_, you wanted to propose view source cleanup 17:24:12 TBL: Move that the TAG recommend that browsers should change to Save As and View Source by default to do cleanup first 17:24:24 TV seconded 17:24:58 TV: How much cleaned up? 17:25:05