IRC log of tagmem on 2010-09-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:00:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-tagmem-irc
17:00:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
17:00:28 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
17:00:29 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
17:00:29 [trackbot]
Date: 30 September 2010
17:00:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM already started
17:01:33 [NoahM]
NoahM has joined #tagmem
17:01:57 [Zakim]
+Noah_Mendelsohn
17:02:26 [Zakim]
+Yves
17:02:30 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, Masinter, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves (muted)
17:02:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see NoahM, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, DKA, timbl, ht, trackbot, noah, Yves
17:04:35 [noah]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DKA, Masinter, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves
17:04:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see NoahM, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, DKA, timbl, ht, trackbot, noah, Yves
17:05:10 [Yves]
Scribe: Yves
17:05:30 [Yves]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0067.html
17:05:43 [Yves]
Topic: minute approval
17:06:07 [Yves]
RESOLUTION: minutes of sept 23rd approved
17:06:22 [ht_home]
ht_home has joined #tagmem
17:06:30 [Yves]
next meeting is next week, regrets from Ashok
17:06:46 [Yves]
Topic: logistics for upcoming f2f
17:06:50 [Yves]
no questions
17:06:58 [Yves]
Topic: F2F Visitor Session:
17:07:03 [Yves]
s/n://
17:07:40 [Yves]
noah: went from a bigger workshop-like event to a small list of attendees for one aftrenoon session
17:07:50 [Yves]
s/aftrenoon/afternoon/
17:08:17 [noah]
Need to settle on >which< afternoon.
17:09:45 [noah]
Please scribe Larry's suggestion.
17:10:26 [Yves]
larry: we need to find out "how the TAG can help them" and the Web in general
17:10:39 [Yves]
noah: the TAG as a whole needs to answer that question
17:11:00 [Yves]
it would be ok for other people to say that the best thing in one area would be to do nothing
17:11:18 [masinter]
well, i'm less interested in what the TAG can do to help THEM... more about whether they have some ideas of how the TAG can help the web
17:11:41 [masinter]
i'm not interested in helping THEM, I'm interested in their opinions about how the TAG can help the web
17:12:00 [masinter]
and I don't think it's interesting to hear about negatives -- things we *shouldn't* do
17:12:23 [Yves]
DKA: it's more "what you are working on, and what the TAG can do to help"
17:12:57 [masinter]
well, i'm not interested in helping in general, but specifically how the TAG can help the W3C achieve its mission of "leading the web to its full potential"
17:13:24 [Yves]
Noah: attendees may have a specific background, there is the "what the TAG should do", but also "what the TAG should know"
17:14:12 [ht_really]
ht_really has joined #tagmem
17:14:41 [ht_really]
zakim, code?
17:14:41 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht_really
17:15:52 [Zakim]
+??P12
17:16:07 [Yves]
DKA: I would like to get feedback mostly on Webapps
17:16:13 [masinter]
well, especially to focus the agenda on (a) what the TAG itself can do that would be positive, and (b) why it would actually help?
17:17:04 [masinter]
this is a two-way conversation too
17:18:12 [masinter]
The other thing that I think is important is to improve liaison, e.g., with ECMA and W3C/JavaScript, that would increase priority of talking to Crockford and Eich
17:18:57 [masinter]
Crockford has written/spoken on webarch level stuff, would recommend some of that as background material
17:19:00 [Yves]
noah: wednesday afternoon might be a good time, but we can be flexible
17:20:36 [masinter]
maybe focus on a specific topic, or ask them to give us some written background info?
17:20:52 [Yves]
noah: we need to ensure that the discussion flows, may have dedicated slots or general discussion
17:21:23 [noah]
q?
17:22:27 [Yves]
larry: there are background readings form them that would help focusing the discussion
17:24:47 [noah]
http://security.sys-con.com/node/1544072
17:28:44 [noah]
ACTION-454?
17:28:44 [trackbot]
ACTION-454 -- Daniel Appelquist to take lead in organizing outside contacts for TAG F2F -- due 2010-10-05 -- OPEN
17:28:44 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/454
17:29:24 [Yves]
Topic: TPAC meeting with IETF
17:29:55 [noah]
ACTION-464?
17:29:55 [trackbot]
ACTION-464 -- Yves Lafon to coordinate agenda for TAG/IETF meeting at TPAC -- due 2010-10-23 -- OPEN
17:29:55 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/464
17:30:29 [Yves]
Yves: I will try to get a room for this as well (thursday afternoon)
17:30:50 [Yves]
Topic: IETF Draft on MIME
17:31:22 [noah]
I've read it
17:31:31 [Yves]
I have read it
17:31:35 [DKA]
I have read it but not carefully read it.
17:31:36 [noah]
HT: nope
17:32:07 [ht_really]
Here is the crockford reference: "Fixing HTML", Douglas Crockford, 2007-11-28 http://www.crockford.com/html/
17:33:26 [Yves]
Larry: want to hear high level feedback
17:33:43 [Yves]
noah: it's terrific
17:35:12 [noah]
Um, to be clear, I said: what I take to be the intended scope and goals are "terrific". Larry himself admits it's in rough form, and there are in places some substantive points I'm not completely sold on. I think it's a great start.
17:36:48 [Yves]
larry: I tried to explain why applications went in the 'sniffing' side of handling mime type
17:37:22 [Yves]
Yves: the part about conneg should also say that conneg is very often done on the UA and not on mime types
17:38:25 [Yves]
DKA: it would be good to have specific examples, especially in 3.2. broken things needs to be more precisely identified
17:38:25 [masinter]
Dan, if you could be specific about what things you'd like examples for, that would be great
17:39:30 [Yves]
noah: is the goal "here is how we got to where we are" or "where should go form here"
17:39:54 [noah]
"This document describes some of the ways in which parts of the MIME system, originally designed for electronic mail, have been used in the web, and some of the ways in which those uses have resulted in difficulties. This informational document is intended as background and justification for a companion Best Current Practice which makes some changes to the registry of Internet Media Types and other specifications and practices, in order to facilitate Web app
17:40:44 [noah]
Should be: "This document provides recommendations on (1) changes to registration procedures for MIME types; (2) xxxxx. It also provides a history and explanation of current practice to motivate these suggestions."
17:41:03 [Yves]
larry: we have an issue like "for a specific media type, we have multiple documents defining it", with no version indication. How to make that better, to avoid the chaos it generates and the need of sniffing
17:41:46 [masinter]
my original intent was to make section 6 into a separate document, and leave a "info" document as background
17:42:40 [noah]
q?
17:43:05 [masinter]
where would you put this on the priorities of what TAG should be working on? high, medium, low?
17:43:18 [Yves]
noah: should we keep this open until we get more feedback?
17:44:02 [masinter]
the other thing would be to put this on the IETF/TAG coordination agenda
17:44:28 [Yves]
ht: it seems that we are reaching a critical mass to push this as a finding
17:47:15 [noah]
ACTION-458?
17:47:15 [trackbot]
ACTION-458 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities -- due 2010-09-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:47:15 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/458
17:47:28 [noah]
close ACTION-458
17:47:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-458 Schedule discussion of followup actions for TAG to coordinate with IETF on MIME-type related activities closed
17:49:19 [Yves]
ACTION: Larry to update the mime-draft, due 2010-10-12
17:49:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-472 - Update the mime-draft, due 2010-10-12 [on Larry Masinter - due 2010-10-07].
17:50:37 [Yves]
Topic: distributed extensibility
17:50:46 [Yves]
s/distributed/HTML distributed/
17:50:49 [noah]
Paul Cotton email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0035.html
17:51:25 [noah]
Extensions like SVG:
17:51:25 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/extensionslikesvg
17:51:31 [noah]
Zero-edit proposal:
17:51:31 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-41
17:52:32 [Yves]
noah: extensionslikesvg seems better than not doing anything
17:52:35 [noah]
q?
17:53:02 [masinter]
q+ to review whether this meets the goals of "distributed extensibility"
17:53:15 [Yves]
ht: seems better than doing nothing
17:53:37 [noah]
noah: I think it's better than that. Far from perfect.
17:54:14 [masinter]
the goal should be to allow controlled extensions by multiple vendors in a way that don't step on each other, and to allow interpreters to know that they'v encountered a feature that they don't understand. Not sure this proposal fully meets those goals
17:54:35 [ht_really]
q+ to gibe at one aspect of ext-like-svg
17:54:36 [noah]
noah: ...but likely the sort of useful compromise one tends to get at this point in the process.
17:54:39 [ht_really]
ack masinter
17:54:39 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to review whether this meets the goals of "distributed extensibility"
17:54:56 [noah]
q+ to say unqualified elements isn't all bad
17:55:36 [noah]
I think this proposal does that using default namespaces
17:56:11 [noah]
From the proposal:
17:56:14 [noah]
"This root element should have a default namespace xmlns declaration, giving the namespace for the extension. "
17:56:14 [Yves]
Yves wonder what is the cost of doing an extensionagain
17:56:44 [Yves]
s/extensionagain/extension in term of browser support/
17:56:48 [noah]
"Authors of extensions are strongly advised to communicate with the HTML WG to make sure their spec interacts well with HTML and does not have name clashes with other specs. To help them do this, extension authors are strongly advised to register the name of their root element in a central registry. "
17:57:50 [noah]
q?
17:57:54 [noah]
ack next
17:57:56 [Zakim]
ht_really, you wanted to gibe at one aspect of ext-like-svg
17:57:58 [Yves]
noah: it means that UA won't read the namespace for clash detection, also it is problematic for a private tag to become widely used and part of the std
17:58:53 [noah]
HT: mixed feelings about @extension, but it's got its positive side in signaling ns unaware software
17:58:53 [masinter]
those are also arguments against the 'no change' proposal, in the sense that 'no change' lacks features that are essential for orderly extensibility
17:58:54 [Yves]
ht: browser should know when they don't know something, even if they don't see namespaces declarations, and without looking at a central registry
17:59:13 [ht_really]
A document that uses such extensions is not valid HTML, however it is valid "extended HTML".
18:00:43 [Yves]
you can take well-formed svg, put it in html, it will almost work, you edit it, it becomes not well-formed, but it will still work. it you bring the cvg part out, it will not work, and that is an issue
18:00:51 [noah]
ack next
18:00:52 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say unqualified elements isn't all bad
18:00:56 [ht_really]
s/cvg/svg/
18:00:57 [Yves]
however that might be a goor compromise
18:01:30 [ht_really]
s/goor/necessary/
18:02:14 [ht_really]
q+ to answer Yves
18:02:17 [noah]
ack next
18:02:19 [Zakim]
ht_really, you wanted to answer Yves
18:03:21 [masinter]
a specification shouldn't reify the long-term existance of a single, uniform, combined HTML committee -- it's the W3C as a whole that owns HTML, the HTML working group is just chartered to prepare HTML for now.
18:03:25 [Yves]
ht: positive side is that in the XML serialization of html5, the extension linkage is the same as today (see mathML plugin in firefox), need to check that the elements in the DOM are in the right namespace
18:03:51 [Yves]
noah: the XML case is not the hard one
18:04:44 [noah]
A start tag that has the "extension" attribute set: Insert a foreign element for the token, in the namespace specified by the element's "xmlns" attribute. If the token has its self-closing flag set, pop the current node off the stack of open elements and acknowledge the token's self-closing flag. Otherwise, if the insertion mode is not already "in foreign content", let the secondary insertion mode be the current insertion mode, and then switch the insertion
18:05:33 [Yves]
noah: should we have a TAG opinion or individual ones?
18:05:41 [Yves]
ht: when does the poll end?
18:05:55 [noah]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-41-objection-poll/results
18:06:13 [Yves]
=> oct 7th
18:06:33 [DKA]
Seems like if we have consensus then we should express a view as the TAG.
18:07:00 [Yves]
Yves: we need to get Tim's opinion before saying something as the TAG
18:07:48 [masinter]
the objections to zero-edit would be that it doesn't meet the requirements for distributed extensibility
18:08:02 [NoahM]
I suspect that objection is well known.
18:10:36 [NoahM]
The TAG feels DS is important, we feel that like SVG, while a compromise in some ways, is far superior to zero edit. Like SVG provides a substantial step toward DE, zero edit does not.
18:11:11 [NoahM]
For the record, the above is a trial balloon, not considered TAG opinion.
18:11:56 [Yves]
ht: the TAG can't answer this poll, you need to be member of the group
18:11:59 [NoahM]
We observe that there is a poll, and we thought you might be interested in our input: The TAG feels DS is important, we feel that like SVG, while a compromise in some ways, is far superior to zero edit. Like SVG provides a substantial step toward DE, zero edit does not.
18:13:48 [masinter]
the decision criteria are: how strong are the objections
18:14:35 [NoahM]
. ACTION: Noah to draft possible TAG response on HTML extensibility
18:14:50 [masinter]
+1
18:14:54 [NoahM]
ACTION: Noah to draft possible TAG response on HTML extensibility
18:14:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-473 - Draft possible TAG response on HTML extensibility [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2010-10-07].
18:15:01 [DKA]
+1
18:15:25 [masinter]
suggest making sure that your proposed response is in terms of what would constitute a "strong objection" to zero-edit
18:15:33 [NoahM]
ACTION-427?
18:15:33 [trackbot]
ACTION-427 -- John Kemp to read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date -- due 2010-11-01 -- OPEN
18:15:33 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/427
18:15:45 [NoahM]
close ACTION-427
18:15:45 [trackbot]
ACTION-427 Read 4 distributed extensibility proposals and summarize them w.r.t. proposals TAG has discussed to date closed
18:16:01 [NoahM]
close ACTION-471
18:16:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-471 Schedule discussion of "Like SVG" Dist Extensibility Proposal for HTML5 closed
18:16:33 [Yves]
Topic: Privacy Workshop
18:16:41 [NoahM]
ACTION-460?
18:16:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-460 -- Daniel Appelquist to coordinate with IAB regarding next steps on privacy policy -- due 2010-09-14 -- OPEN
18:16:41 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/460
18:16:51 [NoahM]
ACTION-470?
18:16:51 [trackbot]
ACTION-470 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop -- due 2010-09-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:16:51 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/470
18:18:02 [Zakim]
-ht_really
18:18:50 [NoahM]
ACTION-470?
18:18:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-470 -- Noah Mendelsohn to ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop -- due 2010-09-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:18:50 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/470
18:19:21 [NoahM]
Sent note: http://www.w3.org/mid/4CA2538E.9050506%2540arcanedomain.com
18:19:32 [NoahM]
close ACTION-470
18:19:32 [trackbot]
ACTION-470 Ask Thomas about TAG involvement in privacy workshop closed
18:19:51 [Yves]
Topic: generic fragment processing
18:19:57 [NoahM]
ACTION-466?
18:19:58 [trackbot]
ACTION-466 -- Larry Masinter to ask Norm, Roy and Martin for concrete use cases where generic processing of fragment ids is important -- due 2010-09-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:19:58 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/466
18:20:24 [Yves]
Larry sent a note requesting feedback, no answer received
18:20:33 [NoahM]
Larry's note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0044.html
18:21:31 [masinter]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0037.html was also email from Jonathan
18:22:07 [Yves]
noah: we got strong feedback from Roy, Norm and Martin after our initial proposal in June, asked for feedback and use cases, but didn't receive anything yet
18:22:41 [Yves]
larry: it is reasonable to give them more time.
18:23:06 [NoahM]
I'm not trying to rush them, just suggesting we let them know that we're sort of holding discussion until they respond.
18:23:27 [Yves]
action-360?
18:23:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-360 -- John Kemp to clean up TAG ftf minutes 8 Dec -- due 2009-12-17 -- CLOSED
18:23:27 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/360
18:24:15 [Yves]
(action 466 edited using the Web interface)
18:24:29 [Yves]
Topic: overdue actions
18:24:42 [NoahM]
ACTION-390?
18:24:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-390 -- Daniel Appelquist to review ISSUE-58 and suggest next steps -- due 2010-05-25 -- OPEN
18:24:42 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/390
18:25:16 [NoahM]
Topic: pending review actions
18:25:20 [NoahM]
ACTION-302?
18:25:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-302 -- Noah Mendelsohn to raise (as individual issue) question of 3 words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5 -- due 2010-09-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:25:20 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/302
18:26:27 [Yves]
proposal to close this action
18:27:03 [Yves]
larry: does it fit in the 'mime and the web' ? like what does a mime type needs to define
18:27:34 [Yves]
noah: it is much closer to the distributed extensibility likesvg's "comform to extended HTML"
18:27:41 [masinter]
the question is: what are the requirements for MIME type definitions? What does it mean for text/html to mean "X plus any applicable extensions" ?
18:28:20 [NoahM]
close ACTION-302
18:28:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-302 Raise (as individual issue) question of 3 words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5 closed
18:28:38 [Yves]
larry: interested in discussing this
18:28:50 [NoahM]
I don't think LM said that.
18:29:02 [NoahM]
He raised the question of whether HTML is different.
18:29:17 [NoahM]
NM: This is about specific wording in the spec. In fact, two specific words "applicable specification"
18:30:29 [masinter]
i think it's nonsnese
18:30:35 [masinter]
yes
18:30:43 [masinter]
undefined what "applicable" is
18:31:12 [masinter]
I think the TAG action is to be explicit about what the requirements are
18:32:54 [NoahM]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Sep/0029.html
18:33:14 [NoahM]
"I had also in my original request [4] indicated that it would be
18:33:14 [NoahM]
desirable to clarify the applicability of the term "conforming document" in
18:33:14 [NoahM]
cases where "applicable specifications" had been used to augment or change
18:33:14 [NoahM]
the base HTML5 specification. I believe that is ultimately a very
18:33:14 [NoahM]
important and deep concern that remains unaddressed. Given the current
18:33:15 [NoahM]
ambiguity, someone could write a specification that very radically changes
18:33:16 [NoahM]
the HTML5 base, perhaps even maliciously, and claim "oh, mine is an
18:33:19 [NoahM]
'applicable specification', so what you get when you write to my new spec
18:33:21 [NoahM]
is a 'conforming HTML5 document'". Wouldn't it be better to require that
18:33:22 [NoahM]
such documents be referred to as "conforming to HTML5 as modified by
18:33:24 [NoahM]
my-malicious-spec-X" (or in the more likely example more likely "conforming
18:33:27 [NoahM]
to HTML5 as modified by
18:33:29 [NoahM]
my-nonmalicious-spec-that-makes-significant-and-perhaps-otherwise-incompatible-changes"?
18:33:31 [NoahM]
"
18:34:37 [Yves]
ADJOURNED
18:34:38 [Zakim]
-Masinter
18:34:40 [Zakim]
-DKA
18:34:44 [Zakim]
-Noah_Mendelsohn
18:34:45 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:34:46 [Zakim]
Attendees were DKA, Masinter, Noah_Mendelsohn, Yves, ht_really
19:58:26 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:28:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem