13:05:04 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 13:05:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/25-tagmem-irc 13:08:25 noahm has joined #tagmem 13:11:11 scribenick: Ashok 13:11:15 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 13:11:24 Zakim, agenda? 13:11:24 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda: 13:11:25 3. Naming Schemes [from DanC_lap] 13:11:27 6. TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings) [from DanC_lap] 13:11:29 2. HTML [from DanC_lap] 13:11:29 4. Javascript Security [from DanC_lap] 13:11:30 5. TPAC distributed extensibility [from DanC_lap] 13:11:32 7. writing session [from DanC_lap] 13:11:34 8. TAG priorities [from DanC_lap] 13:11:35 9. HTML, URIs, Error handling [from DanC_lap] 13:11:36 10. WebSockets [from johnk via DanC_lap] 13:11:37 11. URL terminology [from jar via DanC_lap] 13:11:42 Noah: reviews the agenda 13:11:54 Zakim, close item 3 13:11:54 agendum 3, Naming Schemes, closed 13:11:55 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 13:11:56 6. TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings) [from DanC_lap] 13:12:16 johnk has joined #tagmem 13:12:34 Noah: I would like to spend majority of our time on HTML 13:12:58 ... skip TAG Priorities 13:13:12 Zakim, close item 10 13:13:12 agendum 10, WebSockets, closed 13:13:13 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 13:13:14 6. TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings) [from DanC_lap] 13:13:45 Noah: Let's do admin right after lunch 13:14:27 Jar: Let's ask people what they are gonna do 13:14:38 Noah: Let's use Action Item list 13:15:23 Topic: HTML Issues 13:15:29 Zakim, take up item 2 13:15:29 agendum 2. "HTML" taken up [from DanC_lap] 13:16:50 Noah: What shd be next topic for discussion 13:17:14 Larry: I thought were close to consensus on sniffing 13:17:25 Noah: Let's do it on a telcon 13:17:43 Larry: I think we could come up with a position on it. 13:18:06 HT: I have action to propose pushback or accept status quo 13:18:25 Noah: Who wants to discuss sniffing now? 13:19:11 action-309? 13:19:11 ACTION-309 -- Henry S. Thompson to s. to bring back proposed TAG pushback on sniffing and HTTP bis draft http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/export/663/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html, or his recommendation that we leave it alone -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN 13:19:11 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/309 13:19:37 HT: My inclination is to ask them for a health warning 13:19:53 Larry: I would like to discuss for 10 mts 13:20:21 Poll 3 to 1 ... not now 13:20:42 Noah: What next item to discuss 13:20:52 DC: Data facilities 13:22:03 HT: I would like to report what I found out wrt item 13 13:22:35 HT to give 3 minite report on item 13 13:22:52 HT: I took the binary attribute case 13:23:10 Tim: Boolean 13:23:42 HT: I explored that whereever there was an error there shd be error recovery case 13:24:05 .... I sent mail and was told "No, what you say goes in the doc" 13:24:22 dom 13:24:24 s/doc/DOM/ 13:24:47 (ht, did you say "it's all in public-html"? I don't see it in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/thread.html ) 13:24:51 HT: Reason is -- this is an extensibility point 13:25:14 (false advertising. this is discussion. not clarification) 13:25:29 Larry: Is input disabled or is it not? 13:25:48 ah... found it: Where is processing of binary attributes covered? Henry S. Thompson (Wednesday, 23 September) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2009Sep/0064.html 13:25:48 HT: It IS disabled 13:26:09 HR: Binary atts are true if present false if not present 13:26:43 Larry: So, disabled = false results in TRUE 13:27:30 Topic: HTML Data Facilities 13:28:19 Tim: 2 overlapping concerns --- how shd data be handled in HTML, --- overlap with extensibility of TAGs 13:28:47 ... it's impt to put RDF into HTML 13:29:36 Tim: RDFa spec tells you how to do thatr 13:29:46 s/thatr/that/ 13:30:32 ... Hixie said removing namespaces was a goal and it's hard to use RDFa without namespaces 13:31:19 Noah: Shall we separate extensibility concerns 13:32:02 Tim: I'm happy to discuss microdata and Hixie's special data format 13:32:30 'rdfh' ... I'd like to hear more about this 13:34:42 Tim writes in board --- RDF in HTML,, RDFa, , microformata, Data-Attributes, ---- no NS in HTML, Extension Tags 13:35:14 Tim: These are various positions people have taken 13:35:31 q? 13:35:48 We are using the queue 13:35:52 I think 13:35:57 jar: Has anyone articulated that you can you RDFa in HTML w/o namespaces 13:36:07 DC: There is a proposal 13:36:25 s/RDFa in/RDF in/ 13:36:27 s/RDFa/RDF/ 13:37:16 the answer was: Yes, data- does RDF in HTML, but only a (albeit useful) subset. 13:37:38 q? 13:37:52 Tim: Some say don't bother with namespaces others say give me the namespaces tool 13:38:01 TBL: the blobs are positions; the x's are issues. 13:38:25 Larry: HTML5 now has a data format based on no known experience 13:38:52 q+ to note that I believe "no namespace prefix mapping" is more accurate than "no namespace" 13:39:00 DC: No deployment of the data stuff 13:39:15 ht has joined #tagmem 13:39:25 blobs = RDF in HTML, RDFa, Need NS in HTML, microformats, data-*, No NS in HTML, Extending Tags 13:39:49 jar: You could extract triples from data-attributes 13:39:49 q+ to ask about 13:39:58 DC: That code has been written 13:40:42 Discussion about whether data- or item-property 13:41:33 Noah opens HTML spec 13:41:54 timbl has joined #tagmem 13:42:12 DC: 5.2 Microdata 13:42:17 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#encoding-microdata 5.2 Encoding microdata 13:43:06 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#custom-data-attribute 3.2.3.8 Embedding custom non-visible data 13:43:07 DC: Custom data attributes: 3.2.3.8 13:44:36 Noah: What is difference between data- and the item stuff 13:45:04 .... if you do data- you get a Javastring object with that name 13:45:23 s/Javastring/Javascript/ 13:45:49 DC: What's motivation 13:46:33 Noah: Extends that data space for Javascript programmers 13:47:04 HT: It's a way of extending attribute space 13:47:11 q? 13:47:33 q+ jar to suggest ccrel as a use case? 13:48:00 HT: The para after the note is the justification 13:48:19 Noah: How id different from item- 13:48:33 ... is there a glimmer of a comment here? 13:49:55 JK: There may be another position --- no NS mapping rather than no NS 13:50:57 Noah: There is third position ... just use short names and handle with collisions 13:51:13 s/with// 13:51:48 Tim: The item- maps to a URI 13:52:35 JK: Section 5.1.3 in WHATWG spec 13:53:48 .... says "As URLs" 13:54:00 Larry: This section is non-normative 13:54:54 Tim: This is a competing proposal to RDFa 13:55:59 ... subject is where it is attched to 13:56:13 Looking a frag in 5.1.2 13:56:58 Tim: Itemprop can be URI or reverse DNS thingie 13:57:36 Noah: Both data- and item overlap with RDFa 13:57:52 .... could extract RDFa from this 13:58:00 jar: That is not a usecase 13:58:02 q? 13:58:08 ack johnk 13:58:08 johnk, you wanted to note that I believe "no namespace prefix mapping" is more accurate than "no namespace" 13:58:49 Discussion on whether RDFa can be represented in this form 13:58:58 q+ to say, I claimed this stuff was related to GRDDL more than RDFa 13:59:40 Tim: Go to 5.1.4 and look at example 14:01:03 .... 2 properties of Hedral 14:01:41 JK: Section 5.2.3 14:02:00 .... Associating names with Items 14:03:38 HT: In 5.1.1 near the end --- properties don't have to be given as descendents of the element with item attribute 14:04:32 ... They can be associated with a specific item using the itemfor attribute which takes the ID of the element with the item attribute 14:05:27 DC: There is a wellknown pattern for licenses for images. Is that expressible in this syntax. 14:05:41 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/microdata.html#overview 14:07:44 HT: Properties that also have values that are URLs. This is achieved by using the a element and the href attribute, .... 14:08:23 Tim: 5.5.2 RDF ... 14:08:29 Looks to me that
will do it 14:09:15 q+ 14:09:35 Tim: We could make a comment about the process 14:09:43 q- jar 14:09:52 ac2 ht 14:09:55 ack ht 14:09:55 ht, you wanted to ask about 14:10:56 HT: Minor aspect of script which says the script item is used to introduce scriot of data ... type of data is type of script 14:11:04 ack next 14:11:05 noahm, you wanted to say, I claimed this stuff was related to GRDDL more than RDFa and to 14:11:08 .... does not say what you can do with the data 14:11:10 q? 14:11:12 s/scriot of/script or/ 14:11:22 s/type of script/given by type attr of script/ 14:12:43 ben a: " it makes things much more roundabout to write since itemprop applies to both (either?) @href and the element content" 14:14:16 HT: The item I put in IRC log will do what jar asks 14:15:02 HT: I left out the ID and the iterm4 14:15:55 s/iterm4/item4/ 14:16:01 ...
14:16:14 Tim: Critiques the algorithm 14:16:37 more recent draft uses 'foritem' for 'subject' 14:17:32 Tim: There is incredible tension between communities expressed on the board 14:17:48 ... TAG could perform useful function. 14:18:00 s/foritem/itemfor/ 14:18:17 ... if it is functionally equivalent to RDFa or not 14:18:44 s/if // 14:19:00 ht, we could try out the example you made... 14:19:01 [10:17] DanC_lap: http://philip.html5.org/demos/microdata/demo.html ? 14:19:01 [10:18] Also http://james.html5.org/microdata/ 14:19:19 Larry: I'm concerned about us not driving to statements 14:19:28 [10:17] DanC_lap: http://philip.html5.org/demos/microdata/demo.html ? 14:19:28 [10:18] Also http://james.html5.org/microdata/ 14:19:28 .... I have a process suggestion 14:19:44 .... create statement and choose between them 14:19:58 DC: That may be helpful 14:20:45 Larry: 10 minutes to solicit things we may say 14:21:26 JAR: One thing we might say is: "HTML has to adopt namespaces and RDFa" (not sure I believe that, but it's one thing we might want to say) 14:22:10 or reject 14:22:24 LMM: I see no justification for reverse DNS labels where URIs are allowed 14:22:27 tbl 2nds 14:22:53 Larry: No justification for introducing breverse DNS-based namespace mechanisms are adequate 14:22:53 s/are allowed/would solve the problem/ 14:22:55 s/are allowed/are adequate/ 14:23:28 (jar was confused by 'reverse DNS' - I think what's meant is "reversed domain names" and is not related to reverse DNS lookup) 14:23:38 Tim: RDFa and item- are almost identical functionality 14:24:39 ... so they crete fragmentation which is always damaging 14:24:46 q+ to say we might say that RDFa should have no special status just because it's a REC, since W3C allowed it to go thru CR without coordination with HTML 5 14:25:06 q+ noah 14:25:33 Notes: http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol3-Quin01.html on "automatic XML namespaces" 14:25:44 HT: Introducing a new unimplemented and untried design where there is a implemented tried design is not helpful 14:26:05 ack DanC 14:26:05 DanC_lap, you wanted to say we might say that RDFa should have no special status just because it's a REC, since W3C allowed it to go thru CR without coordination with HTML 5 14:26:33 is there a requirements statement for item, itemprop etc? is rdf capture a requirement? where articulated? 14:26:58 Noah: The item- is simpler syntactically ... I'm half-convinced about this 14:27:16 ... and http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200907/msg00157.html "pragmatic XML namespaces" 14:28:08 q? 14:28:10 ack noah 14:28:15 ... not enough justification for duplication 14:28:26 (re "would anybody use microdata?" there's a relevant thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/thread.html#msg732 ) 14:28:43 Tim: RDFa is REALLY simple 14:29:13 .... first notation for mapping RDF to XML was really complicated 14:29:17 "How to make namespaces in XML easier": http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1151612438 14:29:35 I heard Tim say the opposite; I heard him say RDF as a model is inherently very simple, but RDFa (and also RDFXML) is suprisingly complicated 14:29:59 ... there is a lot of parser state to be acrried along 14:30:19 q+ to say that complexity for the parser is often anti-correlated with complexity for the author 14:30:49 s/RDFa is simple/RDF is simple/ 14:30:52 s/RDFa is REALLY/RDF is REALLY/ 14:31:39 q+ danc2 to ask who are the daily minutes-editors 14:32:05 For those curious about my "Tim said the opposite" comment, our scribes used log edits to fix what Tim said. I do not believe said the opposite of the fixed comment. 14:32:14 ... aka /opposite/d 14:33:13 BREAK till 10:50 14:35:31 I said that RDF/XML was surprisingly complicated, people saying that that came from its attempt to look like "colloquial XML"; that we had a fwe other attempts at syntaxes, including N3, and the in *ML again we had RDFa, maybe the fourth, which to me was surprisingly complicated, involving a surprsing amount of state to be held by the parser duriung its recusive descent, and now we have RDFb (lets call it) whcih attempts the same thing,m and again is surprsingly 14:35:31 complicated when you look at eth alogorithm. Is there a fundamental difficulty to this challenge? 14:57:49 s/alogorithm/algorithm/ 14:59:36 JK: I pasted a link about distributed extensibility above 15:00:03 masinter has joined #tagmem 15:00:22 Chair notes that we are filling some time talking about proposals that are floating around for namespace-based extensibility until Tim gets back. 15:00:27 ... there are other prosals: Liam Quin and Tim Bray's delta on Micah Dubinko's proposal 15:00:36 s/prosals/proposals/ 15:00:57 http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol3-Quin01.html 15:00:57 JK: First proposal is Balisage proposal from Liam Quin 15:02:16 references include pointer to http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1151612438 15:02:16 HT: This says we are going to associate NSs with some elements. Does away with prefixes 15:02:34 DC: There is some outboard doc that gives the mapping 15:02:52 HT: Processors will bake in a version of the doc they support 15:03:40 Noah: Some will be baked in others is a outboard doc 15:04:20 DC: Does this work like static scoping? 15:04:54 ... if elements indicate namespaces then it's like static scoping 15:05:23 xml-dev collated proposal http://www.dpawson.co.uk/namespaces/index.html 15:06:05 JK: This where the thread that Micah started ended up ... this has notion of reverse domain syntax 15:06:31 ... Micah's email 15:06:32 http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200907/msg00157.html 15:07:18 HT: This is too disruptive so it's non-starter 15:09:55 Noah: Do we continue on Data Facilities? or move to other topics? 15:10:09 Zakim, remind us in 10 minutes to move on 15:10:09 ok, DanC_lap 15:10:17 Zakim, remind us in 15 minutes to move on 15:10:17 ok, DanC_lap 15:10:36 ack me 15:10:36 DanC_lap, you wanted to say that complexity for the parser is often anti-correlated with complexity for the author 15:10:42 q? 15:10:46 ack danc2 15:10:46 danc2, you wanted to ask who are the daily minutes-editors 15:11:15 DC: There are 2 kinds of complexity: for authors and for parser writers 15:11:29 q+ 15:11:59 Tim: If its hard to write the parser it's hard for authors 15:12:07 In about 7 minutes, which will be ~ halfway through, I will stop discussion to see if we are closing in on next steps. 15:12:13 q+ to talk about complexity for tools for generating, ability to mash-up, ability to copy-paste 15:12:19 danc: Syntactic sugar and defaults make authoring easier but parsing harder 15:12:31 Discussion abt syntactic sugar 15:13:06 q+ danc3 to note complexity discussion currently 15:13:11 Tim: 2 pieces --- triples and triple state 15:14:14 TBL: both [sorts of complexity] make learning the language harder 15:14:17 q? 15:14:25 q? 15:14:58 and also that 'data' and 'metadata' are really the same 15:15:26 DC: Do users grok or not .... people pick up RDFa and use it. People dont use microdata 15:15:38 and also that i think the charter of the group and the right answer is that neither RDFa nor data should be part of HTML spec and are out of scope for group's charter, group was charatered to produce extensibility 15:16:07 Larry: HTML WG was not chartered to do any of this work .... this ought to be out of scope 15:16:34 q+ to ask Larry if he thinks that's true with XHTML changes 15:16:41 ... area should be able to evelove independently from the HTML language 15:16:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ 15:17:11 ... HTML is not usually written by humans it is generated from database tools 15:17:38 ... complicated tool chains 15:18:13 ... one of the proplems with NSs in that NS-based markup does not cut and paste well 15:18:16 q? 15:18:19 q+ to note sympathy with the "add an extensibility mechanism, not RDFa nor microdata directly" position; GRDDL was based on the head/@profile extensibility mechanism. @profile is not in the current HTML 5 draft, though the issue is open. Not many users of GRDDL are showing up to argue for it, though... 15:18:22 ack masinter 15:18:22 masinter, you wanted to talk about complexity for tools for generating, ability to mash-up, ability to copy-paste 15:18:24 without moving to dom 15:18:26 ack danc3 15:18:26 danc3, you wanted to note complexity discussion currently 15:18:30 q? 15:19:01 q+ to say that to have a de-prefixed from for cut and paste woul dbe reasonable.. this works with attributavalues abut not alas with element names. You can for attributes replace the qname with hte full URI In some of these specs. 15:19:19 DC: There are various threads abt complexity of HTML5. Opportunity to get involved in current discussion 15:19:20 ack next 15:19:21 johnk, you wanted to ask Larry if he thinks that's true with XHTML changes 15:20:04 q+ to try and focus discussion 15:20:08 Complexity of HTML5 (was Re: The Complexity Argument) Maciej Stachowiak (Sunday, 20 September) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0814.html 15:20:10 DanC_lap, you asked to be reminded at this time to move on 15:20:18 JK: Asks abt charter? Shd it still be true given that XHTML is winding down. 15:20:36 ... there are specific needs to do the extensibility 15:20:55 ack next 15:20:56 DanC_lap, you wanted to note sympathy with the "add an extensibility mechanism, not RDFa nor microdata directly" position; GRDDL was based on the head/@profile extensibility 15:21:01 ... mechanism. @profile is not in the current HTML 5 draft, though the issue is open. Not many users of GRDDL are showing up to argue for it, though... 15:21:25 Larry: W3C shd charter a group on Metadate .... how to add Metadata to HTML 15:22:08 DC: Talks abt GRDDL as an example 15:22:20 Tim: Are people using GRDDL? 15:22:47 DC: notes that GRDDL extensibility is achieved by use of the HTML profile attribute 15:23:13 JAR: There is tools that parse RDF/XML and produces triples 15:23:28 s/is/are/ 15:24:06 DC: Community not supporive of my suggestions on extensibility 15:24:28 s/tools/(this is irrelevant) XSLT/ 15:25:10 q? 15:25:18 DanC_lap, you asked to be reminded at this time to move on 15:25:23 Tim: Talk abt problem with cut/paste of NS-based markup 15:25:27 ack timbl 15:25:27 timbl, you wanted to say that to have a de-prefixed from for cut and paste woul dbe reasonable.. this works with attributavalues abut not alas with element names. You can for 15:25:31 ... attributes replace the qname with hte full URI In some of these specs. 15:26:11 Tim: Are there oher reasons why people do not like Namespaces 15:26:49 Noah: We need an Action 15:26:54 More generally, to get more arcs in a motivation graph to elabrate what is on the whiteboard. 15:27:28 timbl, another rationale behind the the "no uri prefix" position is: what happens when you mutate the DOM? 15:27:44 Larry: The HTML WG has pointed out a flaw in XML and we shd puch back on XML's syntax on Namespaces 15:27:49 q+ to talk about exploring namespaces 15:28:16 ... TAG could encourage re-examination of Namespaces 15:28:18 ack next 15:28:19 noahm, you wanted to try and focus discussion and to talk about exploring namespaces 15:28:37 q+ to ask LM to expand on "HTML requirements" for XML namespace design 15:28:54 Noah: Some sympathy but efforts like that may fail 15:29:20 ... suggests some TAG action 15:29:59 Noah: Should TAG analyze the situation? 15:30:48 q? 15:30:52 Larry: The TAG could endorse ongoing work outside and encourage a W3C activity to look into revising Namespaces 15:31:06 q+ 15:31:41 HT: What is the flaw in XML which HTML has called attention to? 15:31:56 DanClap, re "no uri prefix" a reasonable position is that the prefix is just a shorthand, and the DOM is the data model, so the DOM should have the full URI. (Like the RDF model does). It is then a serialization option as o whether you se a prefix shorthand. 15:33:05 Noah: Problems with Namespaces ... cut and paste problems, typing stuff with namespaces turns out to be harder than typing stuff without 15:33:08 q? 15:33:11 ack ht 15:33:11 ht, you wanted to ask LM to expand on "HTML requirements" for XML namespace design 15:34:14 DC: DOM modifications 15:35:01 JK: Sympathetic to Larry's proposal but we need to do our homework. We shd spaek to people at Ballisage. 15:35:38 s/Ballisage/Balisage/ 15:36:00 Noah: Tries to clarify proposals 15:36:33 HT: We misunderstood Larry use of the word "endorse". 15:36:57 Noah: We need to do homework first 15:37:35 Tim: Reminded of Cambridge Communique time 15:38:25 Noah: Need specific actions 15:39:13 htt has joined #tagmem 15:39:53 Larry: We could ask XML Core to do some homework 15:40:15 HT: This would require a charter change 15:40:55 Noah: Worries about skill set. Needs knowledge of use of Namesapces in different contexts 15:42:05 HT: Flaws in XML are not addressed by any of these proposals 15:42:09 HT: there are two proposals - i) propose changes to XML Core ii) bring together HTML and XML folks to make a namespace proposal acceptable to both 15:42:47 HT: Requirements did not have anything to do with HTML 15:43:26 s/there are two proposals/I heard two proposals/ 15:44:31 Larry: HTML WG found that current XML infoset is too difficult for them. 15:44:45 s/infoset/infoset serialization/ 15:45:34 ... we shd examine what infoset would meet their needs and also allow distributed extensibility 15:45:35 q+ to narro wthe scope to attributes 15:45:52 there is precedent for W3C working on alternative serializations of XML 15:47:04 q? 15:47:04 q? 15:47:11 ack next 15:47:12 ack johnk 15:47:18 Larry: This is not a short-term comment to HTML WG. There is some long-term work that W3C shd take up to prevent communities from forking off 15:47:33 this isn't the 'solution', but I am very concerned about W3C endorsing two separate forks of HTML on the one hand and XML on the other, and that perhaps this is 'research', but that the TAG should lead effort toward convergence 15:48:28 i don't want the default answer to be "oh well, i guess they're different, let's just leave them going off in different directions" 15:48:37 Tim: XML Model, HTML model and RDF model is a triangle. Trying to harmonize may be a mistake. Shd be arms-lenghth relationaship 15:49:25 Tim: Narrow the scope to attribute names 15:49:52 No! 15:50:06 Narrow the scope to attribute values, not attribute or element names 15:50:11 Noah: Please type possible actions into IRC log 15:50:46 I am suggesting that I talk to those who went to Balisage, and ask what was discussed regarding the namespace-focused work there, and report back to TAG 15:50:52 In other words like µdata and RDFa, use the *ML DOM as it is and putthings in the attribute values. 15:51:13 maybe invite advocates of a few of the positions tbl put on the board (see "blobs" above) to a TAG meeting to discuss them. 15:51:14 +1 to jihnk 15:51:21 +! to JohnK anyway 15:51:26 i suggest johnk also float the idea of further work specifically on this, and that we ask also HT to explore the questions with XMLCore 15:52:21 i suggest the tag also put out a position that we would like to see work in this area 15:53:18 Larry offers to take action to draft message that the TAG will endorse 15:54:35 q+ 15:55:19 possibility of coming up with a new serialization of infoset, which would be acceptable to HTML community, please explore 15:55:30 HT: Larry phrased a new serialzation of the Infoset . I can ask XMLCore. Asking them to chamge XML would be much more contentious 15:56:15 "please ask the XMLCore group what in this area they would be willing to do, and what prerequisites they would have" 15:57:06 i propose Henry do what I just typed 15:57:23 s/have/have for doing it/ 15:57:46 Noah: Will you take an action to come back to TAG with a proposal for whether and how TAG shd interact with XML Core re. Infoset serialization 15:58:01 s/this area/the area of meeting HTML's requirements/ 15:59:47 s/meeting/discovering and meeting/ 15:59:47 HT: I don't know what HTML's requirements are 16:00:16 Tim: Too vague .... 16:00:33 HT: I will think about that 16:01:52 ACTION John to talk to Balisage participants about XML namespace work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and summarize 16:01:52 Created ACTION-313 - Talk to Balisage participants about XML namespace work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and summarize [on John Kemp - due 2009-10-02]. 16:02:53 DC: Anyone volunteers to get the concerned players together? 16:03:27 JK: I can ask the Balisage players 16:04:05 DC: That's not who I meant 16:04:29 HT: No, the players for the consitituencies on the board 16:05:20 Suggestions: invite Ben Adida, Manu 16:06:02 Larry: Possibility of meeting at TPAC? 16:06:45 BREAK for LUNCH 16:06:58 Reconvene at 1:15 PM 16:31:44 timbl has joined #tagmem 16:32:20 timbl has joined #tagmem 17:18:52 timbl has joined #tagmem 17:21:44 scribe: jar 17:22:53 dan does wed cleanup 17:23:04 ht does thu cleanup 17:23:18 jar does fri minutes cleanup 17:23:46 noah will collate / link all minutes 17:24:02 Reconvening. 17:24:33 TV, dial in to discuss next meeting, please? 17:24:36 Raman? 17:24:40 T.V.? 17:24:52 DanC_lap has joined #tagmem 17:25:06 People in the room wave to Raman. 17:25:07 Zakim, agenda? 17:25:07 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 17:25:08 6. TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings) [from DanC_lap] 17:25:10 2. HTML [from DanC_lap] 17:25:10 4. Javascript Security [from DanC_lap] 17:25:11 5. TPAC distributed extensibility [from DanC_lap] 17:25:12 7. writing session [from DanC_lap] 17:25:14 8. TAG priorities [from DanC_lap] 17:25:15 9. HTML, URIs, Error handling [from DanC_lap] 17:25:16 11. URL terminology [from jar via DanC_lap] 17:25:23 Zakim, next item 17:25:23 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC_lap 17:25:30 noah: admin review. note, membership is turning over a bit 17:25:46 ht: All please think about who should stand for membership 17:25:52 queue= 17:25:55 Zakim, next item 17:25:55 agendum 6. "TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings)" taken up [from DanC_lap] 17:27:00 noah: Future meetings: TPAC and Dec 8-10 17:27:18 Dec 8-10 will be at MIT again 17:28:53 (anybody want to offer, here in IRC, to host a meeting? at least tentatively?) 17:29:43 After that: An idea: co-locate TAG and IETF, Anaheim, March ? 17:30:38 AC meeting is at MIT Mar 21-23 17:33:12 Mar 21-23 is Sun-Tue. LM proposes TAG just before that 17:33:32 ... more discussion of meeting planning ... 17:38:39 amy has joined #tagmem 17:39:01 Noah: MIT Mar 17-19 ? 17:39:13 ashok: too early to tell 17:39:29 (no one is saying they can't make that) 17:40:05 Passed - subject to possible future modification - but for now let's plan on MIT Mar 17-19 17:40:29 RESOLVED: TAG F2F, MIT, Mar 17-19 17:41:20 action on noah Check with Amy on room availability and suggest to Ian that he mention this meeting in TAG election call for nominations 17:41:20 Sorry, couldn't find user - on 17:41:47 ACTION noah Check with Amy on room availability and suggest to Ian that he mention this meeting in TAG election call for nominations 17:41:48 Created ACTION-314 - Check with Amy on room availability and suggest to Ian that he mention this meeting in TAG election call for nominations [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-10-02]. 17:41:48 Who will be @ TPAC 17:42:25 Henry, Dan, Ashok, Larry 17:42:31 Regrets: John and Jonathan 17:42:40 and Tim 17:43:06 noahm: We will meet Mon am, Fri am; available to meet with other WGs at other times 17:43:45 noah: We used to have TAG progress reports, that stopped at some point, any interest now? (probably not) 17:44:06 noah: Any WGs we want to reach out to? 17:44:26 noah: The meeting at plenary in France was really good 17:45:00 ACTION DanC to follow up on best plan for HTML / TPAC 17:45:00 Created ACTION-315 - Follow up on best plan for HTML / TPAC [on Dan Connolly - due 2009-10-02]. 17:45:21 i confirm I've reserved space for 17 March in G449 (Kiva); 18 March in room 346 (Kiva and Star were not available) and on 19 March in G449 (Kiva) 17:45:31 Amy ++ 17:45:36 DanC: Re ECMA, Sam suggested Friday, but there was a conflict 17:45:58 noah: Meet separately with ECMA folks? 17:47:32 jar has left #tagmem 17:47:43 jar has joined #tagmem 17:47:49 jar has left #tagmem 17:48:06 jar has joined #tagmem 17:48:08 hello 17:48:50 amy has joined #tagmem 17:50:02 lm: primary discussion around ecma is around process, as much around technical work. we can make ourselves available of course 17:50:27 DanC_ has joined #tagmem 17:50:41 amy has left #tagmem 17:50:44 action-310 17:50:45 action-310? 17:50:45 ACTION-310 -- Noah Mendelsohn to check with Sam Ruby on ECMA/W3C activities at TPAC -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN 17:50:45 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/310 17:51:34 zakim, agenda? 17:51:34 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 17:51:35 6. TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings) [from DanC_lap] 17:51:38 4. Javascript Security [from DanC_lap] 17:51:39 5. TPAC distributed extensibility [from DanC_lap] 17:51:41 7. writing session [from DanC_lap] 17:51:42 8. TAG priorities [from DanC_lap] 17:51:43 9. HTML, URIs, Error handling [from DanC_lap] 17:51:44 11. URL terminology [from jar via DanC_lap] 17:52:18 Zakim, close item 6 17:52:18 agendum 6, TAG admin (TPAC logistics, future meetings), closed 17:52:19 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:52:21 4. Javascript Security [from DanC_lap] 17:53:07 Zakim, take up item 8 17:53:07 agendum 8. "TAG priorities" taken up [from DanC_lap] 17:54:17 sort actions by owner 17:54:18 action-116? 17:54:18 ACTION-116 -- Tim Berners-Lee to align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. -- due 2009-08-01 -- OPEN 17:54:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/116 17:55:05 action-116 due 1 Dec 17:55:05 ACTION-116 Align the tabulator internal vocabulary with the vocabulary in the rules http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules, getting changes to either as needed. due date now 1 Dec 17:55:06 Timbl: It's good to be reminded of it 17:55:38 close action-24 17:55:38 ACTION-24 clarify http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri , perhaps by using N3 closed 17:56:05 timbl: (refers to new IRI spec drafts) 17:56:08 action-24: withdrawn in Cambridge. TBL suggests LMM consider stuff in this area 17:56:08 ACTION-24 clarify http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri , perhaps by using N3 notes added 17:56:16 Ashok has joined #tagmem 17:56:23 lm: The new drafts should not influence whatever action is implied by this action item 17:57:08 timbl: Would like to drop it. 17:57:42 close action-24 17:57:42 ACTION-24 clarify http://www.w3.org/2003/04/iri , perhaps by using N3 closed 17:58:20 Dan's actions: 17:58:41 ACTION-307? 17:58:41 ACTION-307 -- Dan Connolly to raise issue of work items moving between W3C working groups and also with IETF -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN 17:58:41 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/307 17:59:08 lm: This is a process issue, I don't think it's finished 17:59:28 lm: Hypertext coordination group might take this on? 17:59:49 danc: If I don't get this done today I don't want to carry it 18:00:08 action-299? 18:00:08 ACTION-299 -- Dan Connolly to notify the TAG when the HTML WG gets closer to closing issue-4 html-versioning -- due 2009-09-10 -- OPEN 18:00:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/299 18:00:23 action-299 due 15 Oct 18:00:23 ACTION-299 Notify the TAG when the HTML WG gets closer to closing issue-4 html-versioning due date now 15 Oct 18:01:08 action-295 18:01:16 action-295 due is 1 week 18:01:16 ACTION-295 Monitor geolocation response to IETF GEOPRIV comments on last call and report to the TAG due date now is 1 week 18:01:25 danc: Discussion is out of order 18:02:36 ... of the actions that is 18:03:27 danc: (Generally, not action) HTML validation software dev work that I might do 18:04:06 (danc was addressing JAR's request to hear from everyone re tag work they planned for this fall) 18:04:26 action-308? 18:04:27 ACTION-308 -- John Kemp to propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing, due 2009-10-20 -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN 18:04:27 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/308 18:04:55 action-308 due 20 october 18:04:55 ACTION-308 Propose updates to Authoritative Metadata and Self-Describing Web to acknowledge the reality of sniffing, due 2009-10-20 due date now 20 october 18:05:09 lm: i don't like this action. you should refuse to do it 18:05:26 danc: Out of order 18:05:33 action-313? 18:05:33 ACTION-313 -- John Kemp to talk to Balisage participants about XML namespace work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and summarize -- due 2009-10-02 -- OPEN 18:05:33 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/313 18:05:40 action-313 due 20 october 18:05:40 ACTION-313 Talk to Balisage participants about XML namespace work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and summarize due date now 20 october 18:05:43 action-313 due 20 Oct 18:05:43 ACTION-313 Talk to Balisage participants about XML namespace work, discuss TAG interest in this area, and summarize due date now 20 Oct 18:05:54 action-281? 18:05:54 ACTION-281 -- Ashok Malhotra to keep an eye on progress of link header draft, report to TAG, warn us of problems (ISSUE-62) -- due 2009-10-30 -- OPEN 18:05:54 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/281 18:06:02 ashok: ongoing 18:06:24 action-304? 18:06:24 ACTION-304 -- Larry Masinter to draft summary of the larger issue -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN 18:06:24 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/304 18:07:01 noah: This is worth pursuing; need to look at minutes to see what it's about 18:07:39 johnk: This was about the references in the HTML spec. HT had one action, LM suggested there was a larger issue around references 18:08:46 action-304 due in one week 18:08:46 ACTION-304 Draft summary of the larger issue due date now in one week 18:09:00 johnk: What the web platform looks like. 18:09:20 lm: I remember - I was going to add it to the versioning document 18:09:49 action-304? 18:09:49 ACTION-304 -- Larry Masinter to larger around Web Platform Definition regarding references in HTML 5 document -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN 18:09:49 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/304 18:09:49 regarding the definition of the 'web platform' with regard to specs defined in the HTML5 document 18:10:28 action-action-306? 18:10:33 action-306? 18:10:33 ACTION-306 -- Larry Masinter to work with JK and AM to update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN 18:10:33 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306 18:10:44 the general idea is that the web platform consists of a set of interfaces, HTML, DOM, URI, RDF, images, etc., and that an overall spec defining the platform should then make reference to versionless versions of specs and alternatives 18:10:52 close action-306 18:10:53 ACTION-306 Work with JK and AM to update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings closed 18:11:08 reopen action-306 18:11:08 ACTION-306 Work with JK and AM to update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings re-opened 18:11:26 ashok: Let's meet at the end of next month 18:11:33 action-306: this is a follow-on action 18:11:33 ACTION-306 Work with JK and AM to update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings notes added 18:11:38 action-306? 18:11:38 noah: Please annotate the action in tracker? 18:11:38 ACTION-306 -- Larry Masinter to work with JK and AM to update Web APplication architecture outline based on discussions at TAG meetings -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN 18:11:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/306 18:12:06 action-311? 18:12:06 ACTION-311 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of a persistent domain name policy promotion -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN 18:12:06 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/311 18:12:59 ht: This was to follow up on Tim's plea to do something about persistence of w3.org or persistent domains generally 18:13:10 [well that's not exactly what henry said.] 18:13:48 action-311: tbl notes http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PersistentDomains 18:13:49 ACTION-311 Schedule discussion of a persistent domain name policy promotion notes added 18:14:01 action-285 due in 2 weeks 18:14:01 ACTION-285 Make sure TPAC logistics are straight due date now in 2 weeks 18:14:15 action-285? 18:14:15 ACTION-285 -- Noah Mendelsohn to make sure TPAC logistics are straight -- due 2009-09-25 -- OPEN 18:14:15 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/285 18:14:20 action-292? 18:14:20 ACTION-292 -- Noah Mendelsohn to alert group to review HTML Authoring Drafts [trivial] [self-assigned] -- due 2009-10-13 -- OPEN 18:14:20 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/292 18:15:15 noah will schedule discussion on this 18:15:18 action-284? 18:15:18 ACTION-284 -- Jonathan Rees to flesh out the Web Application ( http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html ) outline with as many sentences as he can -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN 18:15:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/284 18:15:35 ACTION-292: LMM notes Mike Smith's HTML spec is relevant 18:15:35 ACTION-292 Alert group to review HTML Authoring Drafts [trivial] [self-assigned] notes added 18:15:42 close action-284 18:15:42 ACTION-284 Flesh out the Web Application ( http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html ) outline with as many sentences as he can closed 18:17:10 awwsw is talking about tag dec f2f as a 'delivery date' 18:17:42 action-312 due 1 december 18:17:42 ACTION-312 Find a path thru the specs that I think contradicts Dan's reading of webarch due date now 1 december 18:17:57 action-312 due in one week 18:17:57 ACTION-312 Find a path thru the specs that I think contradicts Dan's reading of webarch due date now in one week 18:18:16 action-201 due on 1 december 18:18:16 ACTION-201 Report on status of AWWSW discussions due date now on 1 december 18:18:49 action-278 due 15 october 18:18:49 ACTION-278 Draft changes to 2.7 of Metadata in URIs to cover the "Google Calendar" case due date now 15 october 18:19:22 action-282: jar says this is his project for the fall 18:19:22 ACTION-282 Draft a finding on metadata architecture. notes added 18:19:57 action-33 due 15 october 18:19:57 ACTION-33 revise naming challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion due date now 15 october 18:20:47 (larry, is there a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg?) 18:21:14 action-232 due in 4 days 18:21:14 ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now in 4 days 18:21:25 (DanC, my proposed revision hasn't been incorporated yet) 18:21:47 (tx) 18:22:02 action-232 due on 29 september 18:22:02 ACTION-232 Follow-up to Hausenblas once there's a draft of HTTPbis which has advice on conneg due date now on 29 september 18:22:38 danc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0792.html 18:22:54 action-163 due 31 october 18:22:54 ACTION-163 Coordinate with Ted to build a sample catalog due date now 31 october 18:25:17 discussion of action-295 18:31:25 DanC_ has joined #tagmem 18:32:12 noah: Back to the spreadsheet 18:32:28 HTMLIssues.xls 18:32:43 [need a hyperlink to that] 18:33:02 topic: HTML issue: mime-type 18:33:08 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 18:33:29 lm: RFC2854 is current definition of text/html. written by lm and danc 18:33:42 timbl has joined #tagmem 18:33:49 Wonder if we should clarify that topic is "text/html" mime type 18:34:14 ... history ... mime types are allocated by IETF. Registration at top level requires IETF consensus 18:34:40 ... you designate a change controller. for text/html, it's W3C 18:34:55 ... I assume that means rec, not a WG last call 18:35:05 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt The 'text/html' Media Type 18:35:31 ... The proposal in HTML5 is to replace registration with something *not* including any history [background] 18:36:05 ... anything you 'should' need to know is contained in the reg, anything else is a bug 18:36:27 noah: What is typical? 18:36:31 danc: There be dragons 18:36:55 lm: It's typical to include history, making updates less of an issue 18:37:31 ... One reason given is to revoke the permission to serve XML-expressed HTML as text/html 18:37:47 noah: Breaks our agendas and minutes? 18:38:03 danc: Probably not, since they match the syntax and semantics of HTML5 18:38:34 timbl: The notion that there is an XML language that is an HTML language is important as a matter of principle 18:39:01 ... and that you can serve it as text/html 18:39:28 noah: The new spec correctly interprets [XHTML] content 18:39:35 lm: (no...) 18:39:54 q+ the purpose of a mime type is to tell the receiver what the sender intended when the sender sent the message with the mime type label 18:40:02 q+ to say the purpose of a mime type is to tell the receiver what the sender intended when the sender sent the message with the mime type label 18:40:14 noah: You shouldn't take stuff that's widely deployed and break it 18:40:23 danc: Depends on what you consider 'widely deployed' 18:40:50 lm: Purpose of mime type is give an out of band description of what the sender intended 18:41:10 ... It's not normative, it indicates intent 18:42:01 noah: Self-describing web has a story about answering the question "did so and so serve a document x that can be interpreted according to such and such interpretation rules" (jar's paraphrase) 18:42:41 lm: E.g. the profile attribute of head isn't in html5. 18:42:57 Receiver has no clue what the sender might have meant by a profile attribute. 18:43:23 If the mime type registration doesn't give history, receiver doesn't have a chance. 18:43:38 danc: There is some former-features explanation 18:44:10 timbl: Safest thing to do might be to make a historical RFC... 18:44:37 (someone:) how would that help follow your nose? 18:45:41 ht: At the moment we have hearsay, can we have some references? Nothing in the July draft that looks like a mime type registration... up to date reference? 18:46:34 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#iana-considerations 18:46:46 12.1 text/html 18:48:28 What's the issue number for discussion of this? 18:48:32 [scribe notes that this is not a dated file. may change] 18:49:48 raman has left #tagmem 18:49:51 timbl: Bold and emphasized text - that must be a funny story 18:50:57 ht: You're now no longer allowed to serve some xml with this label. The question is whether reinterpreting as html changes the document in any visible way 18:51:04 there were 5 different specifications and languages and mulitiple implementations that the previous RFC made reference to... these languages were more or less coherent and correlated. Writing the history of each element piece by piece is not the same 18:51:26 danc: table with tr right underneath it - tbody gets implicitly added by html at parse time - so different dom 18:52:04 (hmm... looking for a historical explanation of head/@profile, I don't see that, but I see "must not be used by authors" with what to do instead; it says "unnecessary; omit it altogether, and register the names.") 18:52:23 lm: there used to be many html versions... the fact that someone might meant one of those is lost when you chop it up feature by feature. you lose the sense that someone was using a particular dialect (language version). 18:52:46 lm: The intent is to outlaw declarations that a document is HTML 4 (etc) 18:53:35 lm: Rewriting history is absurd. That's what I think the TAG response should be 18:54:05 ht: Is there any precedent for this? Has something like this happened before? 18:56:37 ACTION Henry S. to draft for tag@w3.org proposed TAG feedback on the text/html media type registration in the 25 September draft of HTML5 18:56:38 Created ACTION-316 - S. to draft for tag@w3.org proposed TAG feedback on the text/html media type registration in the 25 September draft of HTML5 [on Henry S. Thompson - due 2009-10-02]. 19:01:55 DanC_ has joined #tagmem 19:02:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1184.html 19:03:09 ... The main thing that needs updating is the removal of the permission for sending syntactic profiles of XML as text/html. In addition, the encoding considerations, fragment identifier definition, and the text about recognising HTML documents are somewhat out of date and can be significantly improved by referencing HTML5 now. RFC2854 is quite vague in a number of areas, also, which can be cleaned up with an update. 19:07:57 Thomas Roessler is joining us. 19:08:04 The chair thanks Thomas Roessler for joining us on short notice. 19:08:26 item: Geopriv 19:09:14 lm: I'm interested in current status. I met with Eve in Stockhom, area directors, what is the IETF and Cisco and CDT response? 19:09:34 tr: I'm not the team contact, this info may be outdated... 19:09:54 ... Comment was sent by IETF chair 19:10:07 ... "We are working on the comments, something will be given" 19:10:16 ... AFAIK they just haven't answered yet 19:10:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Aug/0016.html "We're working on drafting formal responses to the Last Call comments we 19:10:43 have received. 19:10:43 Unfortunately due to vacations this has been taking a bit longer than we 19:10:43 had expected, but we will have them ready soon." 19:30:18 DanC: I agree with this: Most well-intentioned sites, 19:30:18 and _all_ evil sites (the ones where privacy leakage is an issue in the 19:30:18 first place) would just ignore the user's requests 19:30:53 (and evil sites can just put their own code in there to ensure that the user's information _is_ leaked) 19:31:55 DanC_ has joined #tagmem 19:42:42 suggestion: we've looked at the technical issues and a little bit of the policy issues, and come to the conclusion that there are several coherent designs and none of them critically in conflict with web architecture. Maybe let's action somebody to take the remaining liaison/process issues to the IETF/W3C liaison forum or something. 19:45:48 (re orthogonality... the device API WG seems likely to persue that approach) 19:47:53 such as http://www.w3.org/2009/policy-ws/cfp.html ? 19:51:06 http://www.w3.org/2008/security-ws/report#PolicyDescription 19:56:21 rrsagent, make logs public 20:06:10 Adjourned until next time. 20:10:07 zakim, who is here? 20:10:07 apparently TAG_f2f()9:00AM has ended, jar 20:10:08 On IRC I see jar, masinter, noahm, RRSAgent, Zakim, DanC, trackbot, noah 20:24:47 rrsagent, pointer? 20:24:48 See http://www.w3.org/2009/09/25-tagmem-irc#T20-24-47 20:28:47 noahm has joined #tagmem 20:37:51 jar has joined #tagmem 22:13:46 timbl has joined #tagmem