17:54:45 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 17:54:45 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-tagmem-irc 17:54:52 Zakim has joined #tagmem 17:55:01 zakim, this will be tag 17:55:01 ok, plinss; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 17:57:23 Norm has joined #tagmem 17:58:06 Eliot has joined #tagmem 17:59:36 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:59:56 +[Microsoft] 18:00:10 JeniT has joined #tagmem 18:00:15 -[Microsoft] 18:00:16 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 18:00:16 Attendees were [Microsoft] 18:00:32 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 18:00:39 +Masinter 18:00:42 +plinss 18:00:52 Noah has joined #tagmem 18:01:16 +[Microsoft] 18:01:19 Zakim, Microsoft is Eliot 18:01:19 +Eliot; got it 18:01:40 +[IPcaller] 18:01:45 Ashok_Malhotra has joined #tagmem 18:01:52 +[IPcaller] 18:01:58 zakim, ipcaller is me 18:01:58 +Noah; got it 18:02:31 +Ashok_Malhotra 18:03:20 zakim, passcode? 18:03:20 the conference code is 0824 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Norm 18:03:36 +Mary_Holstege 18:03:42 zakim, Mary_Holstege is me 18:03:42 +Norm; got it 18:03:56 zakim, who's here? 18:03:56 On the phone I see Masinter, plinss, Eliot, JeniT, Noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm 18:03:58 On IRC I see Ashok_Malhotra, Noah, JeniT, Eliot, Norm, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, timbl_, timbl, ht, trackbot, plinss, Yves 18:04:35 +1 welcome 18:04:41 Thanks! 18:04:57 scribenick: Ashok_Malhotra 18:05:10 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-agenda 18:05:15 chair: Noah_Mendelsohn 18:05:33 regrets: Henry_Thompson, Tim_Berners-Lee 18:05:53 meeting: TAG-Weekly 18:06:25 Topic: Admin 18:06:37 Peter_linsss can scribe next week 18:06:42 Minutes from last week (29 November): http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes 18:06:50 i wonder if the topic could be broader than rescending our request 18:06:55 +Yves 18:07:16 RESOLVED: Minutes from 29-November approved 18:07:43 Noah: TAG Candidates are available -- 9 for 4 seats 18:08:22 Noah: Per agreement from the candidates, election position statements are now public. The expectation is that discussion will be held on the www-tag mailing list. 18:08:29 I think it's great to have people think the TAG is important enough to talk about who should be on it 18:08:48 ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food 18:08:48 Created ACTION-770 - Reserve January TAG space/food [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-12-13]. 18:08:54 Noah: Next f2f Jan 14-16 at Cambridge, MA 18:09:09 ACTION-769? 18:09:09 ACTION-769 -- Noah Mendelsohn to informally inform Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical matters for his consideration -- due 2012-12-06 -- OPEN 18:09:09 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769 18:09:26 we should reconsider our process 18:09:30 close ACTION-769 18:09:30 ACTION-769 Informally inform Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical matters for his consideration closed 18:09:34 closing the action is fine 18:10:01 Topic: ISSUE-67 (HTML-XML-Divergence-67): HTML / XML Unification 18:10:53 Noah: We had mtg on 24 March 2010 Sam Ruby joined us. You can read details. Pointer from agenda. 18:11:24 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#item05 18:12:02 Noah: There is now a draft ... 18:12:19 http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html 18:12:19 http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/ 18:12:22 q+ to remind point raised last week about the broader issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03 18:13:02 Title: Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents 18:14:14 Noah: Henri Sivonen has requested we rescind our request to publish in TR space and publish the spec as a note 18:15:08 Noah: People assumed the status was to publish as a Rec. Henri requests we rescind that. 18:15:25 Noah: HTML WG wants us to create guidance in 2 weeks 18:16:17 ... let's limit discussion today to whether we we should stick with our decision to publish as a REC 18:16:21 ack mext 18:16:24 ack next 18:16:25 masinter, you wanted to remind point raised last week about the broader issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03 18:16:35 q+ to ask for clarification about the ambiguity in the way the question has been framed 18:16:39 ... let's work through Henri's arguments 18:17:43 Larry: In the narrow space ... we made a request which has no formal standing 18:18:16 ack next 18:18:18 Norm, you wanted to ask for clarification about the ambiguity in the way the question has been framed 18:18:25 Noah: This may be chance to restate or modify it's advice 18:18:27 q? 18:18:50 Norm: Does TAG want to publsh as REC or not? 18:19:04 s/publsh/publish/ 18:19:05 ack next 18:19:56 Larry: Our request did not ask the document to be published as a REC 18:20:02 i'm not interested in making a different request, at this point 18:20:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.html 18:20:23 Noah: HT's mail ask that it be published as a REC 18:20:24 it's the wrong time in the process 18:21:00 First email from Henry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.html 18:22:15 Larry: They do not need our advice on the narrow question of what to do with this doc. They need advice on the braoder issues of what should or should not be a REC 18:22:31 Noah: We have opportunity to clarify our REC 18:22:55 Jeni: We should say we support it being on REC track 18:23:21 i'm convinced 18:23:57 Peter: If it is on REC track what would be CR exit criteria 18:23:57 don't want to deep end on the process 18:24:00 Henry: "As such it makes sense, on the usual 18:24:00 grounds of avoiding duplication of effort and promoting 18:24:00 interoperability with respect to a requirement on W3C technology, that 18:24:00 the W3C issue a Recommendation addressing that requirement." 18:24:17 q+ 18:24:22 "Note that for _definitional_ 18:24:22 specifications such as this one progressing to REC does _not_ require 18:24:22 implementation, since it is only referring specifications/documents 18:24:22 which may include implementable conformance requirements involving 18:24:23 the definition(s) provided." 18:24:35 I disagree with HT that implementations aren't needed 18:24:53 Ashok: That's the real question 18:24:56 q+ to disagree that polyglot can't be implemented or tested 18:25:00 q+ to ask Eliot if he agrees that polyglot is a definition specification 18:25:11 q? 18:25:26 ack next 18:26:40 Peter: There could be a test suite of documents that parse both as XML and HTML 18:26:40 Peter: possible tests are documents that parse as both HTML and XML 18:27:11 ... we need to consider what CR criteria are 18:27:19 q+ to say TAG doesn't need to get into exit criteria 18:27:31 ack next 18:27:33 masinter, you wanted to disagree that polyglot can't be implemented or tested 18:27:33 ... documents produce same DOM on various parsers 18:29:11 it's part of the value of moving something to Rec that you have demonstrated implementation and interoeprability 18:29:21 LM: I think exit criteria and tests for these definitional documents are both possible and useful. Part of what makes RECs valuable. 18:29:23 ack next 18:29:24 JeniT, you wanted to ask Eliot if he agrees that polyglot is a definition specification 18:30:11 Jeni: Is Polyglot a definitional specification? 18:30:36 Eloit: Yes, it is a definitional specification 18:30:48 s/Eloit/Eliot/ 18:31:09 ack next 18:31:10 Noah, you wanted to say TAG doesn't need to get into exit criteria 18:31:22 Larry: It is more than a definitional spec ... it says if you follw the spec you get some benefits 18:31:29 LM: It's not just definitional. It promises benefits. 18:31:31 JT: I agree. 18:31:50 Jeni: It also defines the impact 18:32:08 Noah: Promises a certain kind of comparibility 18:32:12 -Norm 18:32:25 it doesn't just define terminology, is my point 18:32:34 s/comparibility/compatibility/ 18:33:07 Norm has joined #tagmem 18:33:07 Noah: We do not have to dive too deep into what the exit criteria could be 18:33:16 +Norm 18:33:59 Noah: The benefits are not in question, we make a request, we did not say REC or NOTE 18:34:17 Yves: Henri's request is a bit stronger 18:34:25 s/is/seems/ 18:35:34 Noah: They would welcome guidance ... perhaps a NOTE is fine ... REC is desirable ... or it's up to you 18:35:35 q+ to argue about TAG scope 18:36:20 Norm: I interpret Henri's note as saying don't publish anything at all 18:36:21 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.html 18:36:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0006.html 18:36:52 Since the document should only document conclusions drawn from normative 18:36:52 statements made elsewhere, the Polyglot document itself should not be 18:36:52 normative, because there's a risk of erroneous conclusions getting held up 18:37:52 are we talking about Henri's request to the TAG or the formal objection in HTML-WG? 18:37:56 q? 18:38:21 Noah: His technical argument is that polyglot does not matter ... folks can front-end with a HTML pardser 18:38:34 s/pardser/parser/ 18:38:49 Larry: TAG should focus on the broader issues 18:38:58 q+ 18:39:24 Noah: We have 2 week window to provide guidance 18:40:02 ... we can say to want to keep our original request as stated 18:40:32 ack next 18:40:32 Larry: I am ok ... we may have more to say later 18:40:33 masinter, you wanted to argue about TAG scope 18:40:35 ack next 18:40:59 AM: What would be the real practical differences? 18:41:19 it's harder for other standards organizations to normatively reference a non-Rec 18:41:24 NM: I >think< there's less explicit/implied commitment to maintain it? 18:41:46 q+ to point out the relationship of W3C recommendations in the world of standards 18:41:55 YL: You can make make change requests on Notes. 18:42:09 NM: Yes, but don't you have more responsibilities to fix Notes. 18:42:11 Noah: With a REC we have to fix bugs 18:42:13 YL: Not necessarily. 18:42:29 YL: I think you're right that we >ought< to do something with a Rec. 18:42:54 the scope of responsibility is W3C, not the "working group", working groups can't make long-term commitments, but the consortium can. There is too much emphasis 18:42:55 YL: The main question is do we >Recommend< using Polyglot and/or having multiple recs? 18:43:05 q? 18:43:12 q? 18:43:13 ack 18:43:15 ack next 18:43:17 masinter, you wanted to point out the relationship of W3C recommendations in the world of standards 18:43:39 RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note. 18:43:45 RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note. 18:43:50 Larry: REC have normative implications 18:43:56 LM: RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note. 18:44:08 q+ 18:44:27 ack next 18:45:26 Noah: I have a strong preference to be REC because I want this document to be citable ... 18:46:09 e.g. someone may decide that legal documents must be polyglot and a REC makes that easier to say 18:47:48 I hate to say this (since I've argued against Findings vs. Recs from the TAG), but i'm wondering if this stuff about Rec vs. Note might qualify for a 'finding' 18:47:52 s/legal/legal insurance/ 18:48:32 . PROPOSAL: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to do so. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. 18:49:14 very close 18:49:23 "several" => "most" ? 18:49:49 zakim, who's here? 18:49:49 On the phone I see Masinter, plinss, Eliot, JeniT, Noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Yves, Norm 18:49:52 On IRC I see Norm, Ashok_Malhotra, Noah, JeniT, Eliot, Zakim, RRSAgent, masinter, ht, trackbot, plinss, Yves 18:49:54 Yves: Add why having a REC would be useful 18:49:58 The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. We are also aware 18:49:58 that, if published, polyglot would still be just one way of achieving HTML/XML interoperation. 18:51:11 Noah: If it is short we could do a resolution. If it is longer we should have someone wants to draft email text 18:51:24 s/wants to/ 18:51:28 cut the last sentence? 18:52:21 . PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes beyond the earlier request. 18:52:49 i liked the previous wording better, except for the last sentence 18:53:55 Jeni: We should follow up with a rationale 18:54:22 Noah: Resolution is for us ... only folks who read our minutes will see it. 18:54:28 would like to ask Eliot what he thinks would be helpful 18:54:32 ... so we need a email message 18:55:49 does the TAG want to do a REC on "Normative" ? 18:55:58 q? 18:56:02 since it isn't defined in the process 18:56:04 Noah: I think we should draft the email 18:56:42 Noah: Norm, are you ok with this? 18:56:47 Norm: Yes 18:56:57 ask Eliot to reference Task Force report 18:57:16 I propose your first resolution, sans last sentence 18:57:27 . PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. A note will be drafted explaining the reasons some TAG members actually prefer recommendation, but acknowledging this goes beyond the earlier request. 18:57:56 . PROPOSED RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. 18:58:48 Noah: Anyone opposed 18:58:50 RESOLUTION The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. 18:58:56 Agreed without dissent. 18:59:03 I didn't want to promise an email until we talk about the 'bigger issue' 18:59:04 RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. 18:59:16 RESOLUTION: The TAG has considered rescinding our request for a Polyglot specification in TR space. We have decided not to rescind our request. We note that TR space is consistent with publication of either a Rec or a note. Also, it may be of interest that several TAG members feel strongly that it should be a REC, but we acknowledge that this was not required by our original request. 18:59:40 q+ 19:00:24 AM: One thought... in Henri's request to us, he quoted the XML/HTML task force report saying polyglot not very useful. 19:00:35 q+ 19:00:40 ack nex 19:00:44 ack next 19:01:06 Noah: Makes sense to me ... can we add to the email wording 19:01:21 +1 to Norm 19:01:29 +2 to Norm 19:01:51 'Norm: We should argue its general utility rather than it solves some great problem 19:02:19 s/some great/structured content on the web/ 19:02:23 NW: The TAG should cite specifically the uses advocated by Sam Ruby, Henry Thompson, etc. 19:02:36 LM: Does report say that? 19:02:41 NW: Was beyond our scope. 19:02:51 could we suggest to the polyglot editor reference the task force report? 19:03:28 Norm: No, the report answered the qustion it was asked which was "does it solve the structured content on the web" problem 19:03:36 email vs. finding vs. rec track document? 19:04:01 Norm: This is my personal position 19:04:03 masinter, maybe we start with email see how big it gets 19:04:11 -Norm 19:04:43 Jeni, should we try to address the microdata as rec issue too? 19:05:11 ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? 19:05:11 Created ACTION-771 - Draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-12-13]. 19:05:34 Larry: Should scope of email be broader to cover other what constitutes a REC issues? 19:06:07 Larry: Wikipedia entry is enlightening 19:06:46 ... it can be something you cite or it may be something you must use for some situation 19:07:38 Noah: I like what you said but let's start with the narrow case of the Polyglot document 19:08:32 Noah: Larry do you think we should do the general case first 19:08:42 Noah: Any other thoughts? 19:09:07 Noah: Could have something for us to consider next week? 19:09:13 Jeni: Yes 19:10:05 I'm a little curious where the AB/TAG line is in this. It's somewhat process, somewhat technical I think. 19:10:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.html 19:10:23 Larry: We may want to get more clarification on the dual use of "normative" ... how interesting something has to be before W3C considers it as a REC 19:11:30 Larry: The W3C process does not define normative ... not clear about scope ... we may need to do some process work 19:12:15 Larry: The AB is mainly concerned with operational issue like finance ... not so interested in process 19:12:29 From TAG charter "The TAG's scope is limited to technical issues about Web architecture. The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team." 19:13:17 Discussion about "process" 19:13:33 Larry: This is about the maning of "normative". 19:13:56 Noah: We can draft note to AB about our concerns 19:14:17 Larry: If we had a QA group they could take it on 19:14:45 Noah: Who owns process document? 19:15:10 Yves: The AB and team. Ian Jacobs was the last editor or process document 19:15:39 Noah: Where is "normative" defined? 19:16:12 FWIW, the word normative does not appear in the process document, except to discuss its own normative references. 19:16:23 Jeni: There is no recommendation as to whether something should be a REC or A NOTE 19:16:30 s/A/a/ 19:17:11 From the process document: "A correction becomes normative -- of equal status as the text in the published Recommendation -- through one of the processes described below." 19:17:28 Noah: Process document has some discussion of "normative" 19:18:17 Larry: Let's start with the email ... then we can expand to a document 19:18:27 ... if it feels right 19:18:46 A quick search suggests that the process document defines what it is for a correction to be normative, but not for the base spec to be normative. That seems consistent with the view that normative is a characteristic of a reference between one document and another. 19:19:08 Larry: We could discuss these in the context of the Microdata spec ... I will send out a note 19:19:35 Larry: I think this is worthy of a REC 19:19:53 Noah: Please write email and I will put on the agenda 19:20:15 Larry: Let's wait till we get the email wording from Jeni 19:23:17 -JeniT 19:23:20 -Masinter 19:23:21 Thanks for inviting me. As to whether Polyglot should be a rec, I believe doing do will benefit those who implement the spec. 19:23:22 -Yves 19:23:22 -plinss 19:23:23 ADJOURNED 19:23:28 -Eliot 19:23:33 -Noah 19:24:32 rrsagent, make logs public 19:24:45 rrsagent, pointer? 19:24:45 See http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-tagmem-irc#T19-24-45 19:29:43 -Ashok_Malhotra 19:29:44 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended 19:29:44 Attendees were Masinter, plinss, Eliot, JeniT, Noah, Ashok_Malhotra, Norm, Yves 19:42:27 Norm has joined #tagmem 19:54:55 Norm has joined #tagmem 20:27:40 timbl has joined #tagmem 20:27:53 timbl_ has joined #tagmem 20:58:25 masinter has joined #tagmem 21:02:30 Eliot has joined #tagmem 21:28:18 Zakim has left #tagmem 21:42:16 Norm has joined #tagmem 22:02:06 Eliot has joined #tagmem 22:09:13 darobin has joined #tagmem 22:24:20 JeniT has joined #tagmem 23:50:30 masinter has joined #tagmem