W3C

- DRAFT -

Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference
11 Mar 2011

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Steven, +1.443.837.aaaa, Debbie_Dahl, +39.524.9.aabb, ChrisL, Bert, Art_Barstow, Kurt_Cagle, janina, Plh, darobin
Regrets
Chair
ChrisL
Scribe
ddahl

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 11 March 2011

<ChrisL> Art, are you calling in?

<ChrisL> volunteer for minutes, please?

<ChrisL> todays call will have public minutes

<scribe> scribe: ddahl

XBL

<ArtB> AB: as I mentioned on the HCG list, earlier this week I started a thread about moving XBL forward <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0874.html>

<ArtB> AB: in that e-mail I asked 4 questions, some of them intentionally provocative:

<ArtB> [[

<ArtB> * What is the latest implementation status of the XBL2 CR [XBL2-CR] and Hixie's September 2010 version [XBL-ED] (previously referred to as "XBL2-cutdown")?

<ArtB> * Which members of WebApps want to continue with the XML-based version of XBL2 as codified in the XBL2 CR? If you are in this group, what firm commitments can you make to push the spec along the REC track? Would you object to the Forms WG taking over this spec?

<ArtB> * Which members of WebApps want to continue with the non-XML version as Hixie created last September? If you are in this group, what firm commitments can you make to push this version along the REC track (especially implementation)?

<ArtB> * Should the WG pursue Dimitri Glazkov's Component Model proposal [Component]? If yes, who is willing to commit to work on that spec?

<ArtB> ]]

<ArtB> I would summarize the responses as follows, noting there have only been a few days to comment:

<ArtB> * XBL2-CR - Olli Petty (Mozilla) said he wants XBL2 work to continue (Mozilla previously announced they had done some XBL2 implementation work) and he objects to it moving to the Forms WG. Anne van Kesteren (Opera) expressed some concerns about XBL2's complexity. Tab Atkins (Google; Chrome/WebKit) said XBL2 is "flawed" and he objects to continuing work on it. Ian Hickson (Google; Editor of XBL2) said he has no objections to someone continuing XBL2 and he expects XB

art: Ian Hickson expects XBL to end up in HTML
... no one was interested in the cutdown model, there was interest in continuing the component model, Dmitri volunteered to edit the spec

<ArtB> AB: that's a quick summary and before I turn over the mic, I would like to note that a whole lot has changed in the Web industry and W3C since work on XBL2 was started over five years ago. As such, I think it makes sense for WebApps to start work on the CM approach. However, I also think we need to be sensitive to the past investments in XBL2, especially since it has already been published as a CR.

kurt: a couple of questions. the Forms WG has been looking at implications of XBL for XForms. With the XBL2 approach, what impact would that have on XForms?
... we were looking at impact of namespaces

steven: XBL2 has namespaces

art: there's no interest in pursuing the editor's draft of XBL2 from last September
... within WebApps

steven: XForms is interested in an XBL2 solution

art: wants to separate XBL2 from cutdown

steven: cutdown from September doesn't cut it for us

chris: to clarify, there are two implementations that use XBL "of some sort"?

steven: not sure of details. Albion (??) says that they use the parts that are of interest to them. CSS isn't that useful. They do some juggling between XPath and CSS.
... the other implementation tries to use the Mozilla implementation when it can

chris: it probably means that there's not enough implementation to get XBL out of CR

art: there's not a test suite. if we were to prioritize the 20 or so specs that we're working on, in my opinion, XBL2 would be a low priority. there hasn't been that much discussion
... there are some people very interested in the component model.

steven: how did this happen? you've inherited this spec, but there's no enthusiam. what's the history?

art: the Web Applications Format WG, chartered in 2006, was working on it. The CR was published at the beginning of 2007, e.g. work on HTML5 and WebAPI. People have diverted their efforts to other specs.
... 2007 assumptions don't hold water anymore.

kurt: is component model independent of XBL?
... Forms WG wants a consistent language for component-level scripting

art: the discussion is still pretty high level, at the use case level.

<ArtB> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases

art: is that work within scope of the charter that we have now? There are a lot of TBD's about W3C would move forward.

chris: existing XBL2 is completely stalled

philippe: not clear that there's enough interest, just 1-2 people, for Rec-track work?

art: is XBL of enough interest to the Forms community to move it forward

steven: there is interest, it's possible, the problem is CSS Selectors. we could discuss it. the problem is manpower more than anything.

kurt: I would be interested in working on this

art: that's good to know, the real question is whether there's commitment, not just interest.

philippe: move XBL to Forms?

chris: will it move forward?

steven: Forms would cut it down to what's used in XForms and they say there are implementations

philippe: that sounds like a good solution, take the spec, rename it and push forward with the features you need

art: would wait to have discussion in WebApps until Forms makes a commitment to moving it forward in Forms

steven: I think there's a good chance of this. we have some form of implementations, so it shouldn't be too much work

philippe: we should rename the specification

chris: there have already been too many names

art: only Mozilla objects to it moving
... they didn't say why

philippe: if we rename it and cut it down, it might be ok

chris: sounds like a plan, subject to Forms WG agreeing to do that

philippe: for Component Model in WebApps, if Dimitri wants to work on it
... they can do that

last calls

<plh> plh: for the component model, it will take more than two individuals to support the work in order to change the charter

chris: compositing spec LC should be published next week
... also note that this call will be an hour earlier for people in Europe next time

does anyone know how to add the attendees after the call is over?

<ChrisL> rrsagent should pick up the attendees line that zakim spat out, if you regen the minutes

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/03/11 15:43:45 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/callwill/call will/
Found Scribe: ddahl
Inferring ScribeNick: ddahl
Default Present: Steven, +1.443.837.aaaa, Debbie_Dahl, +39.524.9.aabb, ChrisL, Bert, Art_Barstow, Kurt_Cagle, janina, Plh, darobin
Present: Steven +1.443.837.aaaa Debbie_Dahl +39.524.9.aabb ChrisL Bert Art_Barstow Kurt_Cagle janina Plh darobin
Found Date: 11 Mar 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/03/11-hcg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]