- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:14:55 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Sorry for the delay...
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/10-tagmem-minutes.html
TAG Weekly
10 Sep 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0027.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
Attendees
Present
Jonathan_Rees, Ht, Ashok_Malhotra, DanC, noah, johnk
Regrets
TimBL, Raman, Larry
Chair
noah
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene, take roll, review agenda
2. [6]IETF/TAG coordination re MIME type sniff
3. [7]F2F Agenda Planning
4. [8]Web Sockets URI schemes and protocols
5. [9]HTML
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene, take roll, review agenda
RESOLUTION: to approve minutes 3 Sep
[11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/03-minutes
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/03-minutes
NM: 17 Sep telcon is canceled
IETF/TAG coordination re MIME type sniff
NM: we seem to be set for 10am Thu during the ftf
(postscript:
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0029.html )
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0029.html
F2F Agenda Planning
NM: ftf regrets other than Raman?
JohnK: at risk [which day?]
NM: agenda sketch:
<noah> * Discuss HTML 5 working draft, and make plan for providing
feedback to the working group
<noah> * Make progress on the Architecture of the Web of
Applications
<noah> * Discuss issues relating to metadata on the Web
<noah> *
<noah> * Establish more clearly TAG priorities for coming year
<DanC_> johnk, which day of the ftf do you have a conflict?
NM: I think we're making good progress on 1 of our 3 priorities,
HTML; I'm concerned we didn't do much on web apps nor metadata
... does anyone have any input in those areas?
AM: John and I are working on something around device APIs... I
expect we'll have something...
. ACTION JK: prepare draft on device APIs
<jar> ACTION-284
action-284?
<trackbot> ACTION-284 -- Jonathan Rees to flesh out the Web
Application ([13]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)
outline with as many sentences as he can -- due 2009-08-25 -- OPEN
[13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/284
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/284
ACTION-284 due 15 Sep
<trackbot> ACTION-284 Flesh out the Web Application
([15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html) outline
with as many sentences as he can due date now 15 Sep
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC.html)
<jar> action-282?
<trackbot> ACTION-282 -- Jonathan Rees to draft a finding on
metadata architecture. -- due 2009-08-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
[16] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
JAR: I expect to do 284 tue
close action-282
<trackbot> ACTION-282 Draft a finding on metadata architecture.
closed
<ht> action-283?
<trackbot> ACTION-283 -- Larry Masinter to update document on
version identifiers w.r.t. Cambridge June discussion -- due
2009-08-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/283
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to promise a new draft of Naming Schemes
<scribe> ACTION: John to prepare draft on device APIs [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-300 - Prepare draft on device APIs [on
John Kemp - due 2009-09-17].
johnk, when did you say you expect to deliver that draft?
<johnk> DanC, by Thursday next week
action-300 due 15 Sep
<trackbot> ACTION-300 Prepare draft on device APIs due date now 15
Sep
<ht> ACTION-33?
<trackbot> ACTION-33 -- Henry S. Thompson to revise naming
challenges story in response to Dec 2008 F2F discussion -- due
2009-09-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/33
NM: on web of applications, while I see some low-level progress, I
don't think we've made progress on a bigger picture.
... note updates to ftf logistics page
<DanC_> [oops; I haven't managed to link that from the TAG home
page]
Web Sockets URI schemes and protocols
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to comment
HT: on the question of 'does this proposal merit a new URI scheme?'
I think it does, since it defines a new protocol.
... the 'just use http:' approach doesn't apply.
... then w.r.t. Alan R's question, I don't have an informed opinion;
hard to tell from the spec what it's for, among all the algorithms
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask do we have TAG consensus that new
protocol ==> new scheme OK?
NM: it's not so clear to me that if you used the http protocol, the
right things wouldn't happen...
... I think this is in the space of things that motivated Comet...
simulate asynchrony, bidirectional communication, e.g. chat...
... this websockets protocol starts with bytes that look like an
HTTP request... I think the request looks like an HTTP UPGRADE
request...
<johnk> yup, HTTP Upgrade header
NM: how about using http:, and saying that servers should handle not
only UPGRADE to websockets, but also GET, which would respond with
some sort of description of the websocket
JAR: I had trouble finding motivation/context in/around the spec
too... where do these URIs occur? in <a href="ws:...">?
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to ask how the URIs can be used
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to question noah's story
HT: my guess is they're used in xmlhttprequest...
JK: there's a new websocket api, part of the HTML 5 work
HT: I searched the HTML 5 draft for "websocket" and got no hit
JK: I think it was split out
<johnk> [20]http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
[20] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
DanC: NM, if they used http: , how would the client know to do
websockets protocol?
NM: well, I assume it's somewhat like you know you're expecting an
image: from context
<noah> API spec draft: [21]http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
[21] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
<jar> compare with telnet:
HT: a problem is that webarch has a model of URIs appearing in
documents... and being used to get other documents with MIME
types... though that's not the case for all URI schemes
<noah> I agree jar, telnet is good comparison
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say they need some ID scheme, and we
usually encourage URIs, no?
HT: so there's a question of whether these things ever escape from
APIs into documents
<johnk> noah: client would know to do websockets through the Upgrade
header from the server
NM: yes, telnet: is an interesting point of comparison
[more discussion... exceed scribe's bandwidth]
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to question noah's story
NM: Ian Hickson has submitted the ws and wss URI scheme
registrations to IETF. Documentation of APIs and Protocols is also
out there in drafts somewhere, but I don't at the moment recall
where.
[22]http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
[22] http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
<DanC_> I see a "Background" section
[23]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-40#p
age-4 ... maybe that's got some motivation
[23] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-40#page-4
<scribe> ACTION: John to review websocket protocol/api motivation
and brief TAG at Sep ftf [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Review websocket protocol/api
motivation and brief TAG at Sep ftf [on John Kemp - due 2009-09-17].
<jar> 1. Is a new protocol needed? 2. Does it need URIs at all? 3.
Does it need a new URI scheme? ...
HTML
<noah> JK's note on HTML 5 issues:
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0012.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0012.html
<ht> I note that my issues email is not linked from the agenda:
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0015.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0015.html
JK: the HTML 5 intro has a section on relationship to other specs;
it seems unclear
... on distributed extensibility, I saw several related symptoms;
several of them seem to be HTML WG issues already, e.g. Media-type
registration
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0180.htm
l
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0180.html
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask about HTML WG process wrt closing
issues
HT: I see some issues closed in Aug... not clear what the
resolutions were, nor whether raiser was satisfied
DanC: right; the clerical work of copying the issue resolutions into
more visible places is ongoing; pick one for discussion?
[28]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/5
[28] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/5
(issue 5 got into the tracker before we really had a clear sense of
how to use the tracker, I think)
ISSUE-28 http-mime-override
[29]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/28
[29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/28
the proposal that carried on issue-28 was
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0703.htm
l
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0703.html
HT: I don't see a record that the raiser is satisfied
DanC: WG members silently agree after a week or so
NM: are raisers notified?
DanC: yes, the chairs are making an effort
HST: OK, thanks for clarifying, I understand better now
<noah>
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/TagHTMLIssues.html#extensibil
ity
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/TagHTMLIssues.html#extensibility
<noah> 3.2.1 (3.3.1) "Authors must not use elements, attributes, and
attribute values for purposes other than their appropriate intended
semantic purpose. Authors must not use elements, attributes, and
attribute values that are not permitted by this specification or
other applicable specifications." This is one of the most important
sentences in the entire specification, but it's somewhat vague. If
"other applicable specifications" means: any specification that an
<noah> turned into a hyperlink that sets down unambiguously the
rules for determining whether another specification is "applicable".
NM: the bit about "or other applicable specifications" is
potentially really cool... though it's not terribly clear.
... does it mean "specs from the HTML WG"? or "from W3C"? or "from
WHATWG?" or "Joe in his basement"?
... some responses in blogs suggest the most liberal interpretation
danc: a request for clarification of "applicable" would be
strengthened by inclusion of an example, such as "is spec X
applicable?"
<noah> NM: ack noah
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to point to interesting text on
extensibility
NM: ok, sounds like yes, the "other applicable specifications" bit
is something to talk more about, w.r.t. distributed extensibility
<noah> ACTION: noah to raise (as individual issue) question of 3
words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5
recorded in [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-302 - Raise (as individual issue) question
of 3 words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML
5 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2009-09-17].
JK: next concern of mine is "2. Relationship between the DOM and its
HTML serializations" ...
<noah> So, my understanding is: the TAG has expressed a general
sentiment that extensiblity MAY be something we'll eventually want
to comment on, but with respect to the question raised by Noah (the
3 word phrase), he should start with ACTION 302, I.e. to ping the
HTML WG as an individual
JK: seems that the DOM is a separate spec; these are too closely
intertwined in the spec
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to agree with NM, as I understand
DC: The definition of HTML document is not nearly as clear as I'd
like to be. Something about tree structure and serialization, and
difference will be clear when necessary. Roy Fielding says this
stuff is too implementation-specific. Henri Sivonen responded that
DOM constructs weren't unduly constraining when he wanted to build a
non-DOM based validator.
<noah> DC: As to namespaces in one serialization or another, that
seems separate
<noah> DC: Mostly same DOMs serialize both ways.
<noah> DC: Also, W3C has tried separating DOM from HTML, didn't work
well.
NM: the interesting thing to me about these layering are in
document.write() and such that update -- well, you tell me -- is it
the DOM or the serialization?
... the way the spec deals with that sort of thing is very
fundamentally thru the DOM
... I expect if you wanted to focus on the non-scripting case things
could be simplified considerably
... in some cases with scripts, there _is_ no piece of text that
corresponds to the DOM
<noah> 3.5.3 (3.8.2): document.write: "If the method was invoked on
an XML document, throw an INVALID_ACCESS_ERR exception and abort
these steps."
NM: another part of this is that document.write() doesn't work in
application/xhtml+xml
DanC: right; that's the design that's deployed
NM: if I want well-formedness to interface with XML databases but
serve it as text/html, does that work?
DanC: yes, with a dozen or so caveats; these are known as "polyglot"
documents
<DanC_> e.g. <blockquote />
JK: 3rd, "Lack of RFC2119 normative language"
<noah> 3.2.3.7 (3.3.3.7) Style attribute "Documents that use style
attributes on any of their elements must still be comprehensible and
usable if those attributes were removed." That appears to be a
formal "must", but the criterion is informal and not testable. I
think this one probably is better as a "should" than a "must".
DC: HTML WG history is that these are intended as RFC 2119, and it's
known that some musts depend on author's intent.
<DanC_> [33]Re: ISSUE-61: conformance-language - suggest closing...
(Dan's reply to Henri Sivonen)
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1118.html
<noah> > However, the very concept of semantic markup is useless
unless markup
<noah> > is used according to the intended meaning. Therefore, I
think it is
<noah> > even interop-sensitive (in the sense that receivers process
the
<noah> > messages in ways compatible with sender expectations) that
authors use
<noah> > markup according to the specified semantics.
DC: I sort of made my peace with that.
... ...(Dan reads other comments from his email)...
<jar> This doesn't make sense to me. The html has to be assumed to
be the only communication between sender and receiver
<jar> .. the sender can't be held responsible for things it can't
know
<johnk> yes, what in in Noah's quote does "comprehensible and
usable" actually mean to an implementor?
<jar> Three senses of conformance needs to be kept distinct:
conforming sender, conforming document, conforming receiver
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: John to prepare draft on device APIs [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: John to review websocket protocol/api motivation and
brief TAG at Sep ftf [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: noah to raise (as individual issue) question of 3
words "other applicable specifictions" in 3.2.1 (3.3.1) of HTML 5
recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
[35] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
[36] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-tagmem-irc
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [37]scribe.perl version 1.134
([38]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/09/16 18:13:30 $
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 18:15:07 UTC