See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/18-agenda
Accepted.
-> http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/2011/01/11-minutes
Accepted.
Noah is at risk for 25 Jan.
Norm: The only new use case I saw in the last week was XForms, which seemed controversial.
MikeK: I think there needs to be a story as there are a community of people that want to use it with HTML
MikeC: Is it a separate use case because there are mixed names, or is it just another XML vocabulary?
MikeK: It's a use case in the sense that doing it mixes HTML and XML. It has particular problems, which is why we consider more than one.
Henri: I have a bit of a problem
with calling using XForms a use case; as opposed to creating an
interface to allow users to submit values to a server.
... I think XForms presupposes a solution to the problem. It's
a use case in terms of vocabulary mixing.
... But I refer back to my email; there was a task for
explicitly for XForms+HTML and it petered out. I think that's
evidence that there isn't as much interest here as it might
seem. They've missed their opportunity to have it
discussed.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to answer Norm on is it a use case (after Henri)
Noah: I guess my feeling is a bit
in the middle. With respect, I think Henri goes a little
further than I would with taking this off the table. I think
the TF was about putting XForms in HTML.
... Here, were talking about the broader issue of low hanging
fruit or high benefit to cost ratio wrt lining up HTML and
XML.
... The use case might be interactive form input. That's like
saying to someone who asks for a C language interface, "you
don't want a C language interface..."
... Just saying XForms is listing a technology. I think we
could say that one or more communities have vocabularies that
be mixed.
... I also think it's in the nature of what we're doing that we
want to describe general facilities. They might not be fully
justified by any particular use case.
... Some of the email suggested an ambiguity in defining the
use case; I think we should resolve that.
... Some folks refer to XForms as an XML island; others seem to
be thinking of HTML in an XForms kind of template.
John: What's a use case and
what's a solution depends on the level we take. In one sense
HTML isn't a use case, it's a particular solution to the
problem of dispaying information on the web.
... At our level, I think it's ok to describe technologies as a
use case. We want to consider the question of how I can use
technology X.
... At some level, the question is how do we keep the machines
turning and ourselves employed.
<Zakim> darobin, you wanted to it's not about XForms, it's about the integration problems that XForms might demonstrate
Robin: I don't much care about
XForms as a solution is a use case or not. The part that's
interesting here is, if there are specific problems that XForms
has integrating into HTML. Those are problems that might
surface elsewhere.
... I'd like to look at the problems that come up, even if
XForms as a solution aren't within our remit.
Anne: The problem is that not
everyone accepts that XForms is a technology that we need.
Therefore looking at the underlying use case might be
better.
... In some sense we started the WHATWG because we didn't like
XForms.
John: But some people do.
Henri: I think Robin has a point.
XForms demonstrates a different kind of integration. MathML and
SVG are pretty much self contained islands. There are certain
well defined exit points.
... XForms intermixes more with its host language. In that
sense it's a different kind of vocabulary. The problem that I
have with running too far in that direction is that if it
happens that the vocabularies that will get integrated are all
like MathML and SVG, then preparing for integrating other types
may be architectural astronautics.
... We might be doing work for a case that we'll never actually
need. It might be that integrating the vocabularies that
intermingle more is in the "you don't need it" department.
Norm: Does anyone have other use cases in mind?
Noah: This could just be me, I'm
having trouble answering that question. We've done a good if
somewhat scattered job of a first pass. But I don't think I
could write down a net of all this discussion.
... Do you have a process in mind, Norm?
Norm: No, not really. I thought we'd get a lot more use cases and I'm not sure what the next steps are for just five cases.
Henri: I'd like to propose some
next steps.
... Writing down the list of use cases we've discussed. I think
there were one or two that were added as we went.
<noah> Exactly, Henri, that's what I was proposing. I think we should not only list the 5, but net out in a sentence or two each where they stand in terms of what we learned from the discussion.
Henri: And then going through
that list and maybe just copying and pasting the replies from
the email and telcons to catalog what solutions have come up so
far.
... Perhaps we can conclude that the solutions are all good
enough. Or perhaps we'll conclude that more work is
necessary.
... Then perhaps we can write this up in a way that will help
an XML person learn what the known HTML solutions are for their
problems.
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to comment on weighting use cass
Noah: I agree pretty much
completely. I suggest we also think about which ones look
really really important. We might decide that a couple are
really important, some are less so. I'm missing that kind of
weighting.
... Either we're going to get really lucky, finding a solution
that's all benefit with very little cost, but much more likely
we're going to look at choices. We're going to look at changes
we can make and be able to say which ones are worth the
trouble.
Henri: There's also the chance that we're so lucky that nothing needs to be changed at all.
Noah: Yes, that might happen to.
<hsivonen> maybe a wiki?
Norm: I wonder if we could break up the work.
MikeC: I agree that it's a good
idea; since I won't be there to defend myself, you can give me
an action item to do something.
... Identify the use cases and divy up the work of going
through the mail and minutes to summarize the state of
it.
... If there's a template for it, that would be great too.
Norm: Do we want to do it on a wiki?
John: What about people on the mailing list?
Anne: They can send mail and we'll copy it over, we don't have to make this too hard.
Norm: Sounds like we're going to use a wiki. Any opposition?
None heard.
Noah: Time frame?
Norm: I think it would be good to have it by next week, but I suppose the world won't end if it isn't.
<hsivonen> I volunteer to take one
<hsivonen> I could take "I have an XML toolchain and I want to consume HTML5 because I'd like to process HTML5 using XML tools."
1. XML toolchain to consume HTML5 -- Henri
2. HTML5 toolchain to consume XML -- MChampion
3. Islands of HTML5 in XML -- Noah
4. Islands of XML in HTML -- John
5. Making XML easier -- Anne
6. XForms - M. Kay
<anne> (My use case was about easy of authoring of XML.)
<anne> ease*
Norm: I'll take the action of getting an appropriate root page on the wiki and sending out instructions
John: I wanted to mention MicroLark. I have a parser and the implementation of the object model pretty well advanced.
<hsivonen> Did Sam have a seventh use case or was it part of the other ones?
John: I'm running through the
test cases, not all of which apply.
... I hope to get something out in about a week.
Henri: Sam sent email about how to generate HTML with legacy tools. So basically, the scenario was that the content generating tools are legacy but you want to generate HTML5 of newer vintage than your tools.
John: You mean HTML tools?
Henri: Yes.
John: How is that relevant?
Henri: Maybe it isn't.
John: Maybe another use case is having XML tools that produce HTML5.
Noah: The text/html serialization?
<hsivonen> for the last point, http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11755 might be of interest
John: At least some of it. As long as XHTML isn't fully accepted, people will want to generate the text form. I think we know the shape of the answer, an HTML5 serializer.
Noah: There may be other ways to skin the cat.
Henri: With respect to XHTML, everything except some edge cases like the form feed character, is possible with XHTML that's possible with the text/html serialization.
Noah: A commitment to such bidirectional support in the future can be listed as a possible solution.
Norm: I'll write that one up.
<hsivonen> The "Sample Apps" section at http://about.validator.nu/htmlparser/ is relevant to what was just discussed.
Norm: And after we have the wiki pages up, the community can tell us about the use cases we've overlooked.
<noah> I think we need to point out that this works for the subset of the language that, e.g. does not depend on prefix bindings from xmlns
<noah> right?
<noah> tnx
Norm confirms he'll get the wiki setup.
Adjourned.