- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:10:33 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Please update the agenda link in the minutes to: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-agenda instead of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly which will no longer be relevant when our next agenda is posted. Thanks, Stuart -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: 20 August 2007 18:55 > To: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: TAG Minutes 20 Aug 2007 > > See http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-minutes > > W3C[1] > > - DRAFT - > > TAG > 20 Aug 2007 > > Agenda[2] > > See also: IRC log[3] > > Attendees > > Present > Norm, Raman, Rhys, Stuart, Henry, Dave, Dan > > Regrets > TimBL, Noah > > Chair > Stuart > > Scribe > Norm > > Contents > > * Topics > 1. Agenda review > 2. Approve minutes of 13 Aug? > 3. Next telcon > 4. Re-scheduling Telcon > 5. TAG Blog > 6. September f2f preparation > 7. Issue XML Versioning 41 > 8. Issue xml11Names-46 > 9. tagSoupIntegration-54 > 10. Fragment identifiers > * Summary of Action Items > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Agenda review > > <ht> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-agenda.html[4] > > Stuart: Some actions will be closed without discussion if > no one asks to > discuss them. > > Dan: I'd like to discuss some of them (scribe missed > exactly which ones) > > Agenda accepted > > Approve minutes of 13 Aug? > > <ht> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html[5] > > Proposed: Accept > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html[6] as a > true record? > > Accepted. > > <DanC> sounds like we're approving the version of > 2007/08/13 18:10:12 > without "DRAFT" at the top > > Next telcon > > Stuart: I propose 10 Sep 2007. > ... 3 Sep is US Labor Day. 27 Aug is UK public holiday. > > Dave gives regrets for 10 Sep > > <Rhys> Rhys does give regrets for 27 August > > Stuart: Raman can you scribe 10 Sep? > > Raman: Yes. > > Accepted, next meeting is 10 Sep 2007. > > Re-scheduling Telcon > > Stuart: I put a wbs form up, several replied. > ... Two slots work: this one and 12-1:30p ET Thursday > > Henry: That slot isn't available for TimBL. > ... I think this slot has significantly impacted our productivity. > ... I'd like to look a little harder. > > Raman: I'm willing to accept an 8:30PT slot, I'll just > have to be a little > late > > Henry: Tim would miss the team lunch, but Amy thought he > would consider > it. > > Norm: What are you proposing? > > Henry: I'm proposing 11:30a-1:00p ET on Tuesdays > > Norm: I'm afraid I have a conflict on Tuesday's now. > > <DanC> ok by me > > Norm: I can see about getting it moved. > > Henry: The only other slot that has any obvious hope is > 1:00-2:30p ET on > Thursdays. > > Stuart: Rhys has a "no" on that slot. > > Rhys: I could be persuaded to live with it. > > Henry: I propose we try for 11:30-1:00 ET on Tuesdays > pending Norm moving > his meeting his meeting and TimBL agreeing. Failing that > we come back to > consider 1:00-2:30 ET on Thursdays. > > Stuart: If we can shift to another day this week, I'd like > to reclaim the > next two weeks. Meeting, on Tuesday next, for example. > > DanC: Call both and then cancel one. > > Stuart: I propose that we next meet on Tuesday, 28 Aug > 2007 at 11:30 ET. > > Stuart: And Thursday, 30 Aug 2007 at 1:00p ET. > ... I'll cancel one or both depending on the survey outcome. > > Accepted. > > TAG Blog > > Stuart: DanC, did you get approval for the URI? > > DanC: I didn't really make any progress on either action. > > Stuart: Any idea when you might make progress? > > DanC: Its straightforward for me to get a response after 27 Aug. > > Stuart: Ok, we'll wait until its straightforward. > > September f2f preparation > > Stuart: I've put up a logistics page > > -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/09/17-logistics > > Stuart: I've put out a call for agenda items, we could > talk about that > now. > > Dave: I'd like to see XML Versioning on the agenda. > > Stuart: You gave regrets. > > Dave: Yes, but I'm willing to call in; so maybe we could > do it late in the > day UK time. > > Stuart: I believe Rhys would like to talk about httpRange-14. > ... Distributed extensibility, microformats, HTML 5 looks like a > possibility > > <Stuart> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Aug/0038[8] > > Stuart: The other thing I think we said was that we'd discuss the > confluence of Web 2.0/Web Architecture, but we don't > really have material > to discuss. > > DanC: We have the thread on fragment identifiers. > > Raman: I'm not going to try to call in, but I don't mind > if you talk about > it in my absence. > > Stuart: I'd like to see some email discussion to help > shape the agenda. > > Some discussion of HTTP Redirection, etc.; Rhys is working > on related > materials. > > DanC: I'll try to prepare for the distributed versioning > discussion. > ... Where's Semantic Web Architecture? > > Norm: Stalled with TimBL and I. Probably not productive > unless Tim and I > can get together and write more words. > > Stuart: Does that look pretty good? Are there other things > people would > like to see? > > DanC: How far are we from our f2f? > > We're three calendar weeks away > > DanC: The agenda should be announced at T-minus two weeks. > > (Per W3C process) > > Dave: So can we talk more about the meeting? > ... I brought up a topic, versioning, and we picked a time > slot, but the > obvious next thing is, what will we do about versioning? > ... Seems to me that we should take another pass at the > documents. That > means reviewers. > > Stuart: I'm on the hook to review the terminology document. > ... Do we have reviewers for any of the other documents. > > Norm: I'll review the XML part again if you point me to > the most recent > version. > > Stuart: So we still need a reviewer for the strategies document. > > Dave: Yes, 2.2.2 is where we kind of finished at the last > f2f. I did a > bunch of work on that, that would be one logical place to > pick up from > again. > > Issue XML Versioning 41 > > <Stuart> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0041[9] > > Stuart: This is on the agenda to discuss Norm's action. > > <dorchard> The latest versions of versioning finding are > listed in the > email at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0004.html[10] > > Norm reviews his action, suggests that Dave plonk it in somewhere. > > Stuart: Is it likely that you can do that before the f2f, Dave? > > Dave: No. > > Norm: Doesn't worry me if we don't add that before September. > > <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note @role module last call > coming, and pick > back up on modularity in CDF, XHTML modularization > > Dave: I plan no changes to the documents between now and the f2f. > > DanC: There's a @role spec coming > > <DanC> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/[11] > > DanC: Why DTDs? > > Raman: What's missing is an XML Schema that conforms to XHTML > modularization. > > Henry: If we think that we should say somthing that would > encourage them > to not use DTDs; my candidate would be to use the > modularization framework > and an XHTML 1.1 XML Schema. > > Some discussion of the status of modularization; > apparently it's back at > WD. > > <DanC> last call > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/[12] > > Stuart: Is this one we should be reviewing? > > DanC: Yes, in particular there's a form of extensibility > that's sort of > decentralized in a way that appeals to me. > ... There are claims that the subsitution group model they > use doesn't > work, but I've never been able to get to the bottom of it. > > Dave: I wrote something on this too, we should really try > to get to the > bottom of it. > > <DanC> XHTML modularization and substitution groups (tag issue > XMLVersioning-41, TagSoupIntegration-54, RDFinXHTML-35)[13] > > <ht> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/[14] > > <scribe> ACTION: ht to review XHTML Modularization > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/)[15] > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02[16]] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-15 - Review XHTML Modularization > > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/)[17] [on > Henry S Thompson - due 2007-08-27]. > > Stuart: DanC, did you want to say more about the role document? > > DanC: Sort of. One of the ways that role winds up on my > plate is due to > accessible web applications. > ... JavaScript is turing complete, so there are > accessibility problems. So > W3C did some work in this area. > ... One outcome is this role attribute with things like > checkbox that help > screen readers do better. > ... It's been proposed that this role module be stuck in > HTML 5. And HTML > 5 has completely sworn off DTDs. > ... If you're not going to do a DTD for it, what are you > going to do? > > Raman: One issue is, does this go in a new attribute? Why > not stick it in > class. > ... The other issue is whether or not it should be > namespaced as it is in > XHTML 1.1. But firefox doesn't care because it's been hardwired. > ... Saying that role has to be in a namespace is bogus. > ... I started some of the role work; it's been carefully > done as a module > so that the WAI folks could decide what the > right-hand-sides should be. > ... They actually created two attributes in two > namespaces, the state > values go in one and the role values go in the other. > ... That's a three line summary of all the HTML 5 mail. > > DanC: One of the design patterns for HTML 5 is "no no no, > not namespaces, > let's figure out what the authors need and give them a list" > > Raman: The problem with role is that it's cross-cutting so > that doesn't > really work. > ... HTML 5 also talks about following existing practice, > so they're trying > to go in two different directions. > > Stuart: We're talking about this under versioning-41. Is > this really > versioning, or is ti an HTML 5 topic? > > DanC: The versioning topic is about substitution groups in > modular design. > > Dave: If substitution groups don't work in 1.0, do they > also not work in > 1.1? > > DanC: XML Schemas is about to go to last call. > > Henry: There is one change in 1.1, allowing multiple > substitution heads. > That's been alleged to be problem. I'll be taking a look. > > Stuart: Do we agree that Norm's action is closed? > > Yes. > > <scribe> ACTION: dorchard to incorporate the NVDL text > into the findings. > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04[18]] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-16 - Incorporate the NVDL > text into the > findings. [on David Orchard - due 2007-08-27]. > > <Stuart> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/[19] > > <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users[20] > > <raman> For the record the collection of properties > refered to as state is > a collection of attributes -- not a single one. > > <DanC> ah, right, raman > > Issue xml11Names-46 > > <Stuart> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0040[21] > > Norm: I completed the action I was given ages ago. > > DanC: I think it needs to be in a test suite somewhere. > > Norm: An XML 1.1 parser should accept the document, an XML > 1.0 one would > fail. > > Henry: There are already tests in the XML test suite for > 1.1 features. > > <DanC> (yup, norm's action is done to my satisfaction) > > <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/[22] > > DanC: We could just turn this whole ball of wax over to the XML CG. > > <DanC> (I'd like ht to take an action) > > Stuart: We'll mark that action as done and leave the issue pending. > > <scribe> ACTION: ht to check that the XML test suite contains an > equivalent test [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05[23]] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-17 - Check that the XML test > suite contains > an equivalent test [on Henry S Thompson - due 2007-08-27]. > > tagSoupIntegration-54 > > Stuart: Any discussion? > > <dorchard> which article? > > DanC: What's novel about Sam's message is that he proposes using > namespaces in content that isn't well-formed XML. > > Raman: I think he's articulated something important: it's > more than the > browser vendors who have a right to decide what goes into > HTML 5. User > communities should be able to add new elements too. > ... The browser vendors are going to document what they > do, but I think it > would be a serious loss to the web if that's all we > expected to happen. > ... I think the important thing is that extensibility is > the purview of > more than the browser vendors. Henry saw something else > when he looked at > it. > > dorchard: If this is something that would help the HTML 5 > WG get closer to > what the TAG thinks is the right way to deal with distributed > extensibility, then we should support it. > > Stuart: Is there a proposal here? > > dorchard: We could ask someone to write up a message of > support that we > could publish as the TAG > > <scribe> ACTION: dorchard to review the article and make a > proposal. > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06[24]] > > Stuart: Any other discussion? > > DanC: The agenda suggests continuing Ramans action without > comment. I'm > content that he finished that action. > > Stuart: I can't point to that document off the top of my > head. It goes > back to our Google meeting. > > <raman> > http://www.w3.org/t2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html[25] > > <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html[26] > > Stuart: OK, with that pointer we'll call the action closed. > > DanC: Are we going to maintain this? > > Raman: If you send that document to the HTML 5 WG mailing > list, I don't > think we'll get anything productive back. > > dorchard: We need to do our job anyway > > Stuart: Do you think it's ready to be sent? > > Raman: Yes, if we agree that those are the things we want > to say. I just > don't think there's value in doing a lot more work in a vacuum. > > Some discussion of what actions we could take > > Raman: What we've prepared is an outline of items we > believe should be > covered > > Stuart: We should formulate our opinion regardless of what > the outcome > might be > > Raman: I think we should flesh this out at the f2f and > then send it. > > <scribe> ACTION: Raman to update the document with the > latest discussion > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07[27]] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-19 - Update the document with > the latest > discussion [on T.V. Raman - due 2007-08-27]. > > <scribe> ACTION: Stuart to discuss with DanC what might be > most useful and > productive wrt providing input to the HTML WG [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08[28]] > > <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-20 - Discuss with DanC what > might be most > useful and productive wrt providing input to the HTML WG [on Stuart > Williams - due 2007-08-27]. > > Henry: We should separate our technical discussions from > strategically how > to communicate this with the WG > > Fragment identifiers > > -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0148 > > Raman: The more general TAG discussion I think is that there's an > asymmetry between URLs on the server and URLs on the client. > ... On the server, everything after the question mark is > sent to the > resource as a bunch of arguments. > ... Similarly, in the URL you have the # which passes > everything after the > hash to the client to handle it. > ... The community knows how HTML browsers use fragment > identifiers; and we > know how RDF does it; but there's very little else been said. > ... The problem with saying "the client" is the question > of which client. > ... At this point, I think there are more details that > need to be written > down if we expect to get interoperability. > > Stuart: One of the things that interested me is that no > where in that > discussion did we talk about the media type. > > Raman: I danced around that carefully. That only really > comes up with > respect to HTML. It came up years ago when I was at Adobe > with respect to > opening up PDF. > ... I don't remember the status of that for the media type > application for > PDF > ... If you write .../?a=1, you'll never expect that to > work if you send it > to a different server. On the other hand, if it's # then > you would expect > different clients to act in the same way. > > <Zakim> ht, you wanted to ask for clarification > > Henry: When you said "which client" you didn't mean that > in any given > interaction there is more than one client, right? > > Raman: Right. Clearly the CNN URL works in a JavaScript > enabled browser, > but not in one that isn't. > ... You could say that text/html includes all of the processing > expectations of JavaScript. That's one reasonable answer. > > Henry: It's certainly the case that there are other media > types that > specify the interpretation of fragment identifiers. > ... They are careful and they get real value out of them. > > Raman: I think Adobe did that, but I don't clearly recall > at this time. > > Henry: It would be perfectly coherent for someone to > define a media type > that said what you do with fragids that begin with slash > is that you issue > an XMLHTTPRequest of the following form... > ... But that's not what either text/html or any of the > other HTML mime > types say. So CNN is flat out in violation of the spec. > ... JavaScript that does that is breaking the rules. > ... I don't think that anyone has to do anything to make > that clear. It's > perfectly clear. Someone has written JavaScript code > that's doing an end > run around the browser. > > Raman: I'm comfortable with that view too, but then you > run into the > counter-argument that "it works dummy". > > Henry: Breaking the rules is bad? I don't want to write a > TAG finding that > says that. > > Raman: It seems to be all about breaking the rules and > making a hack that > works these days and I"m a little worried about that. > ... There are two reasonable positions: the MIME type says > what the answer > is. > ... The other position is that the MIME type is for static > documents and > in this dynamic world, the JavaScript gets to say what the > answer is. > ... We can either say you broke the rules or we can change > the rules. It > actually took me a while to figure how it works. > ... This is a lot like the "CSS sprite" hack. > > Stuart: We're about out of time. I think we'll come back to this. > > Henry: If there's a TAG issue here, it's something about > what proper > script author responsibilities are in the context of the > standards that > they're operating with. > ... It isn't obvious where you would go to find a basis > for saying "gee, > this doesn't constitute good citizenship" > > Stuart: Adjourned. > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: dorchard to incorporate the NVDL text into > the findings. > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04[30]] > [NEW] ACTION: dorchard to review the article and make a proposal. > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06[31]] > [NEW] ACTION: ht to check that the XML test suite contains > an equivalent > test [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05[32]] > [NEW] ACTION: ht to review XHTML Modularization > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/[33]) > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02[34]] > [NEW] ACTION: Raman to update the document with the latest > discussion > [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07[35]] > [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to discuss with DanC what might be > most useful and > productive wrt providing input to the HTML WG [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08[36]] > > [End of minutes] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly > [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-irc > [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/08/20-agenda.html > [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html > [6] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/13-tagmem-minutes.html > [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2007Aug/0038 > [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0041 > [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0004.html > [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/ > [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/ > [13] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/2007 Feb/0000.html > [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/ > [15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/) > [16] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02 > [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/) > [18] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04 > [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/ > [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users > [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0040 > [22] http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/ > [23] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05 > [24] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06 > [25] http://www.w3.org/t2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html > [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/tag-soup-integration.html > [27] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07 > [28] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08 > [30] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action04 > [31] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action06 > [32] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action05 > [33] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/ > [34] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action02 > [35] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action07 > [36] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/20-tagmem-minutes.html#action08 > [37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[37] > version 1.128 (CVS > log[38]) > $Date: 2007/08/20 17:51:19 $ >
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:12:50 UTC