See also: IRC log
<masinter> Welcome, Eliot
<Eliot> Thanks!
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok_Malhotra
Peter_Linss can scribe next week
<Noah> Minutes from last week (29 November): http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 29-November approved
Noah: TAG Candidates are available -- 9 for 4 seats
... 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.
<masinter> I think it's great to have people think the TAG is important enough to talk about who should be on it
<Noah> ACTION: Noah to reserve January TAG space/food [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-770 - Reserve January TAG space/food [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-12-13].
Noah: Next f2f Jan 14-16 at Cambridge, MA
<Noah> ACTION-769?
<trackbot> 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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/769
<masinter> We should reconsider our process.
<Noah> close ACTION-769
<trackbot> ACTION-769 Informally inform Jeff that we did not at this time identify urgent technical matters for his consideration closed
<masinter> Closing the action is fine
Noah: We had a meeting on 24 March, 2010 where Sam Ruby joined us. You can read the details. Pointer from agenda.
<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-tagmem-minutes.html#item05
Noah: There is now a draft ...
<Eliot> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
<Norm> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/
<Noah> Title: Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents
Noah: Henri Sivonen has requested we rescind our request to publish in TR space and publish the spec as a note
... People assumed the status was to publish as a Rec. Henri requests we rescind that.
... HTML WG wants us to create guidance in 2 weeks
... Let's limit discussion today to whether we we should stick with our decision to publish as a REC
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to remind point raised last week about the broader issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/11/29-minutes#item03
Noah: Let's work through Henri's arguments
Larry: In the narrow space ... we made a request which has no formal standing.
<Zakim> Norm, you wanted to ask for clarification about the ambiguity in the way the question has been framed
Noah: This may be chance to restate or modify it's advice
Norm: Does TAG want to publish as REC or not?
Larry: Our request did not ask the document to be published as a REC
<masinter> I'm not interested in making a different request, at this point
<Noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0036.html
Noah: HT's mail ask that it be published as a REC
<masinter> It's the wrong time in the process
<Noah> First email from Henry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0035.html
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
Noah: We have opportunity to clarify our request.
Jeni: We should say we support it being on REC track
<masinter> I'm convinced
Peter: If it is on REC track what would be CR exit criteria?
<masinter> I don't want to deep end on the process
<Noah> Henry: "As such it makes sense, on the usual
<Noah> grounds of avoiding duplication of effort and promoting
<Noah> interoperability with respect to a requirement on W3C technology, that
<Noah> the W3C issue a Recommendation addressing that requirement."
<Noah> "Note that for _definitional_
<Noah> specifications such as this one progressing to REC does _not_ require
<Noah> implementation, since it is only referring specifications/documents
<Noah> which may include implementable conformance requirements involving
<Noah> the definition(s) provided."
<masinter> I disagree with HT that implementations aren't needed
Ashok: That's the real question
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to disagree that polyglot can't be implemented or tested
Peter: We need to consider what CR criteria are. There could be a test suite of documents that parse both as XML and HTML
... documents produce same DOM on various parsers
<masinter> It's part of the value of moving something to REC that you have demonstrated implementability and interoperability
<Noah> LM: I think exit criteria and tests for these definitional documents are both possible and useful. Part of what makes RECs valuable.
Jeni: Is Polyglot a definitional specification?
Eliot: Yes, it is a definitional specification
<Zakim> Noah, you wanted to say TAG doesn't need to get into exit criteria
Larry: It is more than a definitional spec ... it says if you follow the spec you get some benefits.
<Noah> JT: I agree.
Jeni: It also defines the impact
Noah: Promises a certain kind of compatibility
<JeniT> it doesn't just define terminology, is my point
Noah: We do not have to dive too deep into what the exit criteria could be
... The benefits are not in question, we made a request, we did not say REC or NOTE.
Yves: Henry's request seems a bit stronger
Noah: They would welcome guidance ... perhaps a NOTE is fine ... REC is desirable ... or it's up to you
Norm: I interpret Henri's note as saying don't publish anything at all
<Norm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0047.html
<Noah> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0006.html
<Noah> Since the document should only document conclusions drawn from normative statements made elsewhere, the Polyglot document itself should not be normative, because there's a risk of erroneous conclusions getting held up.
<masinter> Are we talking about Henri's request to the TAG or the formal objection in HTML-WG?
Noah: His technical argument is that polyglot does not matter ... folks can front-end with a HTML parser
Larry: TAG should focus on the broader issues
Noah: We have 2 week window to provide guidance
... we can say we want to keep our original request as stated
Larry: I am ok ... we may have more to say later
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to argue about TAG scope
<Noah> AM: What would be the real practical differences?
<masinter> It's harder for other standards organizations to normatively reference a non-REC.
<Noah> NM: I >think< there's less explicit/implied commitment to maintain it?
<Noah> YL: You can make make change requests on Notes.
<Noah> NM: Yes, but don't you have more responsibilities to fix Notes.
Noah: With a REC we have to fix bugs
<Noah> YL: Not necessarily.
<Noah> YL: I think you're right that we >ought< to do something with a REC.
<masinter> The scope of responsibility is W3C, not the "working group", working groups can't make long-term commitments, but the consortium can.
<Noah> YL: The main question is do we >Recommend< using Polyglot and/or having multiple recs?
<Zakim> masinter, you wanted to point out the relationship of W3C recommendations in the world of standards
<Noah> RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.
Larry: RECs have normative implications
<Noah> LM: RECs can be cited normatively. Harder to cite a note.
Noah: I have a strong preference to be REC because I want this document to be citable ... e.g. someone may decide that legal insurance documents must be polyglot and a REC makes that easier to say
<masinter> 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'
<Noah> . 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.
<masinter> very close
<masinter> "several" => "most" ?
Yves: Add why having a REC would be useful
<Noah> 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
<Noah> that, if published, polyglot would still be just one way of achieving HTML/XML interoperation.
Noah: If it is short we could do a resolution. If it is longer we should have someone draft email text
<masinter> Cut the last sentence?
<Noah> . 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.
<masinter> I liked the previous wording better, except for the last sentence
Jeni: We should follow up with a rationale
Noah: Resolution is for us ... only folks who read our minutes will see it. So we need a email message.
<masinter> Would like to ask Eliot what he thinks would be helpful
<masinter> does the TAG want to do a REC on "Normative" ?
<masinter> ... since it isn't defined in the process
Noah: I think we should draft the email
... Norm, are you ok with this?
Norm: Yes
<masinter> Ask Eliot to reference Task Force report
<masinter> I propose your first resolution, sans last sentence
<Noah> . 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.
<JeniT> . 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.
Noah: Anyone opposed
<Noah> 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.
<Noah> Agreed without dissent.
<masinter> I didn't want to promise an email until we talk about the 'bigger issue'
<Noah> 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.
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.
<Noah> AM: One thought... in Henri's request to us, he quoted the XML/HTML task force report saying polyglot not very useful.
Noah: Makes sense to me ... can we add to the email wording
Norm: We should argue its general utility rather than say it solves the structured content on the web problem.
<JeniT> +1 to Norm
<Noah> +2 to Norm
<Noah> NW: The TAG should cite specifically the uses advocated by Sam Ruby, Henry Thompson, etc.
<Noah> LM: Does report say that?
<Noah> NW: It was beyond our scope.
<masinter> Could we suggest to the polyglot editor to reference the task force report?
Norm: No, the report answered the question it was asked which was "does it solve the structured content on the web" problem
... This is my personal position.
<masinter> email vs. finding vs. rec track document?
<JeniT> Masinter, maybe we start with email see how big it gets
<masinter> Jeni, should we try to address the microdata as REC issue too?
<Noah> ACTION: Jeni to draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/12/06-minutes#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-771 - Draft e-mail responding to request to rescind polyglot request to HTML WG? [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-12-13].
Larry: Should the scope of email be broader to cover other "what constitutes a REC" issues?
... Wikipedia entry on "normative" is enlightening
... it can be something you cite or it may be something you must use for some situation
Noah: I like what you said but let's start with the narrow case of the Polyglot document
... Larry, do you think we should do the general case first
... Any other thoughts?
... Jeni. could have something for us to consider next week?
Jeni: Yes
<Noah> I'm a little curious where the AB/TAG line is in this. It's somewhat process, somewhat technical I think.
<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0017.html
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
... The W3C process does not define normative ... not clear about scope ... we may need to do some process work
... The AB is mainly concerned with operational issue like finance ... not so interested in process
<Noah> 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."
Discussion about "process"
Larry: This is about the meaning of "normative".
Noah: We can draft note to AB about our concerns.
Larry: If we had a QA group they could take it on.
Noah: Who owns the process document?
Yves: The AB and the team. Ian Jacobs was the last editor of the process document
Noah: Where is "normative" defined?
<Noah> FWIW, the word normative does not appear in the process document, except to discuss its own normative references.
Jeni: There is no recommendation as to whether something should be a REC or a NOTE
<Noah> 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."
Noah: Process document has some discussion of "normative"
Larry: Let's start with the email ... then we can expand to a document if it feels right.
<Noah> 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.
Larry: We could discuss these in the context of the Microdata spec ... I will send out a note.
... I think this is worthy of a REC
Noah: Please suggest email wording and I will put it on the agenda
Larry: Let's wait till we get the email wording from Jeni
<Eliot> Thanks for inviting me. As to whether Polyglot should be a REC, I believe doing do will benefit those who implement the spec.
<Noah> ADJOURNED