See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 April 2010
<scribe> scribe: johnk
<scribe> scribe: John Kemp
<scribe> ScribeNick: johnk
NM: one additional agenda request
... add an item for ACTION-389
... 3 sets of minutes to approve
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask to add resource/representation (ACTION-389) to the agenda
<noah> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/04/15-agenda
NM: March 4th - minutes APPROVED
... Resolve to approve minutes of 24th-26th March
RESOLVED
NM: April 1st minutes - propose to approve
... RESOLVED
NM: propose to cancel the call two weeks out due to WWW conference
RESOLVED conference of 29th April is cancelled
APPROVED
<DanC> (for completeness, ftf minutes http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html Date: 2010/04/05 21:03:43 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/25-minutes.html Date: 2010/04/14 02:29:46 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/26-minutes.html Date: 2010/03/31 15:45:27 )
NM: f2f arrangements underway
... email sent by DKA regarding hotels
... autumn f2f planning - preferences are requested for location
TVR: No objection to hosting
ACTION-407?
<trackbot> ACTION-407 -- Henry S. Thompson to propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does -- due 2010-04-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/407
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html
HT: there was a lot of agreement at our F2F, and I sent an email making a proposal
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/mid/f5bochmffrb.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk
(see above)
<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html
<noah> Discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html
HT: It differs from previous text in 3 ways
... I added a short para to the introduction, referring to the previous RFC
... and notes that this specification updates RFC2854
... have adopted Tim's wording as it seemed closest to consensus
... added the 'licenses' language
<DanC> (I wonder whether introducing "the HTML family" is the shortest path to the target. I don't mind it much, but I wonder what others in the HTML WG think)
<jar> Larry objected to "licenses"
HT: replaced the published specification paragraph from the original with new text
JAR: representing Larry's view that a MIME type doesn't license anything
TVR: I am happy with this text
<noah> Larry's concern was expressed here: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/04/01-minutes.html#item02
JAR: I spent some time to think of alternative text, but couldn't find anything better
NM: I understand the concern, but am happy with the text
DC: Larry wanted to take up the bigger issue
<DanC> .. and we have
NM: I am not hearing anyone objecting to this text
... I propose that this text (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html) should be sent to the HTML WG on behalf of the TAG
HT: In response to the relevant HTML bug, referenced in the email
<DanC> noah's msg http://www.w3.org/mid/OFEFE75A7B.92080902-ON852576FA.0060BD12-852576FA.0060DC6B@lotus.com
<DanC> cites http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4 and http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/172
NM: how should this relate to HTML issue-4, issue-84 and action-172?
<DanC> the relevant issue seems http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53 mediatypereg Need to update media type registrations
<noah> . RESOLUTION: the TAG will propose to the HTML WG the revisions suggested in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/04/01-minutes.html#item02 as a resolution to your ISSUE-53 (note that we, perhaps mistakenly, had previously suggested this would relate to HTML ISSUE 4)
<noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will propose to the HTML WG the revisions suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html is a resolution to your ISSUE-53 (note that we, perhaps mistakenly, had previously suggested this would relate to HTML ISSUE 4)
<DanC> close enough. +1
<noah> RESOLUTION: the TAG will propose to the HTML WG the revisions suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html as a resolution to your ISSUE-53 (note that we, perhaps mistakenly, had previously suggested this would relate to HTML ISSUE 4)
NM: any objections?
HT: will take the action
<DanC> (close 407 now)
<DanC> (oh well)
<DanC> (ah. do this under 407. even better.)
<DanC> action-407 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-407 Propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does due date now next week
ACTION-407 ht to propose related text from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html to HTML WG
ACTION-389?
<trackbot> ACTION-389 -- Dan Connolly to take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and turn it into a change proposal -- due 2010-04-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/389
<DanC> I mostly accepted editor's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0367.html
DC: made a proposal, and editor responded with counter-proposal
NM: do they use the term resource to mean "your choice of the two" (ie. resource, and representation)
DC: yes
NM: should we ask for the text to indicate that the term is used to refer to either of those two concepts
TBL: closing this up and getting something said is important
<DanC> [[
<DanC> > > Where that specification speaks of a URI that identifies a resource whose state is communicated via a typed byte sequence called a representation, we simply say that a URL identifies a resource, which is a typed byte sequence; the indirection is not mentioned in this specification.
<DanC> ]]
DC: I suggested the above originally
... He's already committed the change as documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0367.html
NM: propose to close ACTION-389
<DanC> close action-389
<trackbot> ACTION-389 Take Dan's proposal on resource/representation and turn it into a change proposal closed
ACTION-357?
<trackbot> ACTION-357 -- Henry S. Thompson to elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation -- due 2010-03-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/357
HT: action may have been overtaken by work in the WG, and I haven't yet followed-up
<DanC> ACTION-357 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-357 Elaborate the DPD proposal to address comments from #xmlnames and tag f2f discussion of 2009-12-10, particularly wrt integration with XML specs and wrt motivation due date now next week
ACTION-405?
<trackbot> ACTION-405 -- Dan Connolly to ask the HTML WG to do produce a WG Note that satisfied the document the TAG resolved it wants (sort about polyglot documents) -- due 2010-03-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/405
DC: claim victory
close ACTION-405
<trackbot> ACTION-405 Ask the HTML WG to do produce a WG Note that satisfied the document the TAG resolved it wants (sort about polyglot documents) closed
ACTION-406?
<trackbot> ACTION-406 -- Noah Mendelsohn to get the TAG to evaluate the decentralized proposals in the HTML WG -- due 2010-04-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/406
<DanC> they're listed under 41 in http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
NM: now 5 change proposals suggested
DC: any of them close to yours HT?
<ht> I just got cut off
<ht> I see that that proposal references mine, but cannot confirm whether it builds on it in any significant way
<DanC> which one? title?
<ht> Proposal X, I think
<ht> Yes
<ht> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/fixedprefixlikexml
<ht> I have to leave early today, conflict, sorry
NM: Don't see some of the original proposals we inspected (the Microsoft one, Liam's) in that list
<ht> ACTION-407: ht to propose related text from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Apr/0027.html to HTML WG
<trackbot> ACTION-407 Propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does notes added
<ht> trackbot, close ACTION 407
<trackbot> Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, close ACTION 407'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
<ht> trackbot, close ACTION-407
<trackbot> ACTION-407 Propose an update to DanC's prose from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0878.html to explicitly reference or encorporate the HTML history, similarly to the way 2854 does closed
NM: I would hope we would look at these proposals - do they build on the previous work or not?
<DanC> under 41 http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
<DanC> ^ where the 5 proposals are listed
DC: didn't see anything that said "use XML namespaces as much as you can"
... if there was an alternate syntax to XMLNS, that might make sense...
JK: what is the rationale that would counter Hixie's "null" change proposal?
NM: rationale well-known in the community - I presented some of these at TPAC
TBL: could we take some real-world examples and start from there?
<DanC> (FBML is written up in http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/08/02/HTML5-and-Distributed-Extensibility )
<timbl> The examples -
<timbl> 1) FBML - cut out an example, this is a specific website
<timbl> 2) MathML - this is a community.
<timbl> 3) A vendor -- MSword? WebOS?
DC: Palm WebOS?
<timbl> 4) A set of vendors making a new market - XForms?
<DanC> Palm webOS approach to HTML extensibility: x-mojo-* http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/02/palm_webos_approach_to_html_ex.html
<timbl> x-majo-*
<timbl> x-mojo-* ?
<timbl> X_DASH CONSIDERED HARMFUL
<DanC> yes, tim, that was mnot's reply: http://www.mnot.net/blog/2009/02/18/x-
<timbl> Stop it with the X- Already! ++
so basically, one part of the rationale is to prevent overlap in extensions between the browser vendors and those who process HTML but are not UAs
from Sam Ruby's blog: "FBML isn’t intended to be directly processed by browsers, but that shouldn’t preclude it from being processed by other HTML5 tools, everything from sanitizers to conformance checkers to pretty printers, to search engines."
TVR: we are spinning our wheels
... XMLNS is ugly, and we could potentially fix it
... don't feel comfortable designing an ad-hoc solution though
NM: designing something ourselves would be a serious effort
TVR: XMLNS is designed, these proposals are better than current proposal
... I wonder what impact we can have on this solution?
NM: what would you like the TAG to do?
TVR: Fix XML Namespaces
... if you have palatable NSs in XHTML, then XHTML and HTML can eventually converge
NM: would you expect XML processors to change?
TVR: don't know
NM: would you take an action to organize this work TVR?
TBL: if you try and change XML, you'll have problems because of the deployed infrastructure
TVR: backward compatibility is important
... believe that we should pursue at least one of the proposals already on the table
<scribe> ACTION: JohnK to read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JohnK
<scribe> ACTION: john to read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-427 - Read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date [on John Kemp - due 2010-04-22].
<DanC> (I think http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/html:xmlns is the best of those on the table. if we need to pick one urgently by way of saying "something is better than nothing", that one.)
<DanC> ACTION: Raman to sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-428 - Sketch a plan to contact stakeholders regarding distributed extensibility [on T.V. Raman - due 2010-04-22].
ACTION-427 due: may 1st
ACTION-427: due may 1st
<trackbot> ACTION-427 Read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date notes added
NM: sent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/0064.html
<noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/0064.html
NM: we have an opportunity here to seriously move on this work
... prior to next face to face
<DanC> ACTION-416 due +3weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-416 Work on diagrams in "From Server-side to client-side" section of webapps material due date now +3weeks
AM: work into the existing template structure?
TVR: start with separate files and then integrate
NM: see the advantages of both, and suggest we don't worry about it too much now
<DanC> (very unusual? well, maybe... but (a) less and less so, and (b) unusual cases make interesting study)
JAR: I love accumulating use-cases
... can assemble later
<DanC> yes, raman, very interesting study of the BBC iPlayer thingy
<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/att-0072/bbc-iplayer-and-web-arch.html
<DanC> aka http://xml-applications.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-web-applications-web-architecture.html
<noah> Advertised in email at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/0072.html
<DanC> (bonus points for archiving a copy in www-tag, raman)
NM: I feel this piece says "this stuff happens" but I'd like to say more
... we could say, "here's good practice"
... an alternative is to say "let's explain some of the tradeoffs between how this is done and other ways it could be done"
AM: would you have written the application differently?
TVR: I don't understand all of their design constraints so can't really say
<noah> BTW, we aren't going to get to the review, but there are >30 overdue actions in tracker. Yes, we can arbitrarily bump the dates, but I'd much prefer you all fix them to have realistic dates.
<noah> >30 overdue is bad.
<noah> 2 mins to go
TVR: some of the design constraints regarding how they release the content may have affected their solution
... they mint very simple, clean identifiers
<noah> 1 min to go
TVR: where it gets ugly, is when you load the content into the borwser and that's where the complexity comes in
... just knowing the MIME type doesn't help you
NM: we'll have a call next week
... please clean up your action items!
<noah> We are adjourned.
ADJOURN
<timbl> Ramin, do you have an example URI you could drop into IRC plaease?
<noah> Tim, I >think< there are some in his blog entry, linked above
<scribe> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/04/15-agenda.html
<noah> I need to drop -- ttyl
<DanC> ACTION-406: see ACTION-427 for follow-up
<trackbot> ACTION-406 Get the TAG to evaluate the decentralized proposals in the HTML WG notes added
<DanC> close ACTION-406
<trackbot> ACTION-406 Get the TAG to evaluate the decentralized proposals in the HTML WG closed
<DanC> close ACTION-419
<trackbot> ACTION-419 Edit minutes for ftf day 3 (Friday 26 March) closed
<DanC> .
<DanC> .
<DanC> .
<DanC> this should be closed, no?
<DanC> ACTION-399?
<trackbot> ACTION-399 -- John Kemp to prepare F2F discussion of sniffing, being sure to check status of other pertinent actions -- due 2010-03-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/399
<DanC> johnk, I'm reviewing records of our sniffing discussion (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/25-minutes.html#item03 ) in hopes that some of the actions tracker thinks are open are really closed
<DanC> e.g.
<DanC> action-399?
<trackbot> ACTION-399 -- John Kemp to prepare F2F discussion of sniffing, being sure to check status of other pertinent actions -- due 2010-03-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/399