W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > April to June 2008

{minutes} HTML WG issue-tracking telcon 2008-06-05

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:25:54 +0900
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080606072552.GB20928@sideshowbarker>

The HTML Working Group had its weekly issue-tracking telcon on
2008-06-05 for 90 minutes from 16:00Z 17:30Z.

  http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-html-wg-minutes.html

   Present
          Doug_Schepers, Julian_Reschke, Gregory_Rosmaita, MikeSmith,
          Laura_Carlson, AnneVK, Steve_Faulkner, Robert_Burns

   Regrets
          ChrisWilson, DanC

   Chair
          MikeSmith

   Scribe
          MikeSmith

     * Topics
         1. Convene weekly HTML WG issue-tracking conference
         2. Open issues and actions
         3. Action-56
         4. Action-58
         5. Issue-43?
     _________________________________________________________

Convene weekly HTML WG issue-tracking conference

   <smedero> Wow, there are a lot of overdue actions. :-/

   <smedero> most aren't toooo overdue though.

   minutes of previous meeting:
   http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-html-wg-minutes.html

      http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-html-wg-minutes.html

   <oedipus> GJR gives big plus one to mikeTMsmith's bugzilla proposal
   (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0022.ht
   ml)

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0022.html)

   <Julian> minutes look fine.

   <oedipus> HTML5 homepage question: what is source of the blockquote
   at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#issues? there is no "cite"
   attribute, and blockquotes were EXPLICITLY deprecated for
   presentational effect in HTML4 (and that has not changed with HTML5)
   -- if this isn't a direct quote from a referencable document, then
   it shouldn't be in a blockquote, which lends the appearance of it
   being an excerpt from an "official" statement -- if that is the
   case, then the refer

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#issues?

   <scribe> Scribe: MikeSmith

   <scribe> Scribenick: MikeSmith

   recapping last week's call

   we discussed issue-27

   issue-27?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- @rel value ownership, registry consideration
   -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

   also issue-31?

   <Julian> issue-27: haven't heard back from MNot yet.

   issue-31?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Should img without alt ever be conforming --
   OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31

   we also publications

   to summarize publications, I had planned to publish next HTML5 WD
   this week, but will need to move to Monday

   anne says html4-differences is ready to go

   <anne> MS: planning to make multipage the default version

   I will propose to use html5-pubnotes as short name for the pubnotes
   doc, and get to ChrisL tonight for transition approval

Open issues and actions

   <oedipus> FYI: ACTION 54
   (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54) updated to
   reflect current status of action item

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54)

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

   looking at overdue actions

   action-54?

   <trackbot> ACTION-54 -- Gregory Rosmaita to work with SteveF draft
   text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on
   img elements -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54

   <Laura> Steve, Josh, and I have started work on a second draft for
   Action 54.

   <Laura>
   http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeSecondDraft

      http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeSecondDraft

   oedipus: I just updated... Laura is here

   Laura: we have been working on the 2nd draft
   ... waiting for more replies, beginning to incorporate comments me
   have received

   <Laura> We are beginning to incorporate First Draft Comments:

   <Laura>
   http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeDiscussion

      http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeDiscussion

   <Laura> We are still waiting for a reply from PFWG for this action
   item regarding several issues:

   <Laura> http://tinyurl.com/48uyqv

      http://tinyurl.com/48uyqv

   <Laura> http://tinyurl.com/3v68tn

      http://tinyurl.com/3v68tn

   <Laura> One of the biggest changes is that we have removed the
   majority of the usage examples and code samples. Usage examples and
   code samples from the Action 54 first draft are being refined and
   most have now been submitted as Techniques for WCAG 2.0. If they are
   accepted, the action 54 document will link to them there. As Jason
   said in his comment, a format specification is not a tutorial.
   Including detailed guidance in ALT attribute techniques could be
   seen as usurping the role of WCAG 2.0 and its techniques documents.
   PF has also pointed out, “WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility
   guidelines and HTML WG is not”.

   <Laura>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.htm
   l

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html

   <Laura> The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the
   accessibility authority.

   <Laura> Submission for WCAG 2.0. Techniques

   <Laura> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/

      http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/

   <Laura> Action 54 first draft

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 54

   <Laura> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttribute

      http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttribute

   <oedipus> "the majority of the usage examples and code samples.
   Usage examples and code samples from the Action 54 first draft are
   being refined and most have now been submitted as Techniques for
   WCAG 2.0"

   Laura: we removed some use-case code samples (because it's not in
   our realm to decide what is accessible and what's not)

   <oedipus> awaiting review from PF

   Laura: next step we have submitted most of our our usage examples
   and code samples to WAI be considered for Techniques for WCAG 2.0.

   <joshue> good

   oedipus: I'm working on trying to set up a specific HTML5-focused TF
   within the PFWG
   ... and Al has put out feelers to see who from the HTML WG might be
   willing to participate in that
   ... so that we can find a way to move forward and quit talking past
   each other
   ... action-54 will take some more time

   Steve_f: yeah, a couple more weeks

   <joshue> Yes, it will take some more time

   oedipus: I will communicate with Al about it later today and try to
   accelerate the process of getting the review back to you

Action-56

   action-56?

   <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to wilson to follow up with
   Forms WG to make sure they understand this plan of action by
   5/1/2008 -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56

   MikeSmith: oedipus, anne: please give brief status on what the state
   of things are with the Forms TF

   oedipus: the status at last telcon was that the chairs were going to
   talk and change it to a 7-person TF instead of 6-person TF

   <hober> Where would the seventh person come from?

   <oedipus> that is what the chairs were to discuss (chrisW, danC, and
   JohnB)

   shepazu: work on this from the Forms WG side has been going on

   <oedipus>
   http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features

      http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features

   shepazu: if the HTML WG members have not put work into [trying to
   engage with the Forms WG]

   <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/

      http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/

   anne: the HTML WG members have actually put work into it; e.g.,
   Maciej has put forward a proposal

   shepazu: it should just be more bilateral

   <oedipus> GJR notes that Forms WG is working on specifics, HTML WG
   interpreted TF focus as more abstract alignment

   anne: yeah, I agree
   ... we've invested quite a bit of effort and if there's no outcome
   from the TF

   shepazu: the possibility remains that the HTML WG can engage
   directly with Forms WG

   <shepazu> maybe the Forms TF should be dissolved if it's not
   effective, and a new liaison should be attempted

   anne: forms are definitely in our scope

   <shepazu> if a group can't operate within the scope of its charter,
   maybe the charter is wrong :)

   <oedipus> yes, shepazu, yes!!!

   <anne> the charter says "Forms and ..." at the start of some bullet
   point in section 2.1

   <oedipus> it's not anyone's fault, but a misalignment of assumptions

   action-56?

   <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to wilson to follow up with
   Forms WG to make sure they understand this plan of action by
   5/1/2008 -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56

   oedipus: by next telcon I will have posted something for discussion
   in the TF

Action-58

   action-58?

   <trackbot> ACTION-58 -- Anne van Kesteren to update public-html on
   Offline Web Applications extended-abstract, addressing a few bits of
   outstanding feedback -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/58

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/58

   <anne> close ACTION-58

   <trackbot> ACTION-58 Update public-html on Offline Web Applications
   extended-abstract, addressing a few bits of outstanding feedback
   closed

   <anne> ACTION-58 resulted in
   http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/

      http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/

   <anne> style attribute:
   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embe
   dded.html#the-style

      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded.html#the-style

   <oedipus> um, shouldn't we be pointing to the W3C draft?

   <anne> W3C doesn't have multipage yet, doesn't really matter either
   way though, as they're identical

   <oedipus> not precisely - there is a difference in the patent policy
   for one

   <anne> that shouldn't affect review of changes :)

   A change was made to the spec to address the issue, and change was
   to the satisfcation of Daniel Glazman.

   <oedipus> when will W3C have a multi-page view -- it's been
   discussed for months now...

   action-61?

   <trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG responds to
   PF WG on Omitting alt Attribute
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.htm
   l -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/61

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/61

   <smedero> oedipus: it is being worked on - I believe the next WD
   publication will address it

   oedipus: I think this overlaps with 54
   ... Dan has been active in conversations with PF on this

   <oedipus> gjr thinks the "response" alluded to in 61 is ACTION 54

   <smedero> (oedipus: my comments refer to the multipage version of
   the spec....)

   <oedipus> thanks, smedero

   <oedipus> implications of namespacing / aria syntax / embedding in
   HTML5 and the XML serialization of HTML5

   <oedipus> thanks philip

   action-64?

   <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Dan Connolly to update teleconference
   schedule to just one time -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/64

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/64

   <anne> DS: working on getting a document together for SVG in HTML
   integration

   <anne> DS: sorry it's taking so long

   <anne> DS: working on different proposals, no concrete pointers

   Lachy: you around

   ?

   action-34?

   <trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Lachlan Hunt to prepare "Web Developer's
   Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on
   2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2008-06-05 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34

   MikeSmith: I'm wondering if we could get Robert on the telcons

   oedipus: I will contact him and see

Issue-43?

   issue-43?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Enhanced Client-side Image Maps -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/43

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/43

   <robburns> I am here on IRC

   robburns: can you call in?

   <robburns> I'll try (not sure the state of my internet connection
   for voice)

   <Julian> Mike, you seem to drop off...

   <Steve_f> yes

   <Steve_f> any better? no

   <oedipus> Mike's bugzilla proposal:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0022.htm
   l

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0022.html

   <oedipus> micro-issues on bugzilla, meta-issues on tracker?
   definition of meta-issues?

   <Lachy> MikeSmith, yo

   <smedero> oedipus: we aren't in full control of the W3C tracker
   software - the W3C systeam (mostly Dom) manages it and what states
   are in the system.

   <smedero> oedipus: raise was added when several other WGs needed a
   similar state, not just because we asked for it

   <Lachy> MikeSmith, I'm going to be taking a look at the authoring
   guide this weekend

   <oedipus> yes, smedero, but they recently "upgraded" the interface -
   i think the system could add a "proposed" issue state

   <smedero> oedipus: i just want to make the distinction for others
   clear - it is not like a self-hosted instance of bugzilla where we
   just go and configure it to our liking.

   <oedipus> RB: issues compiled from list discussions that had been
   dropped or trailed off; reason put together issues -- not individual
   proposals, but arose form conversation with other WG members but
   ignored by editor

   <oedipus> smedero, ok - systeam is overworked but pretty responsive

   <smedero> oedipus: agree on that. systeam is awesome.

   <oedipus> RB: what is difference btw these issues and the others in
   the issue tracker? why one more important than another?

   <oedipus> MS: not going to discuss on next week's call; will make
   decision about issues remaining open by then

   <robburns> zakim mute robburns

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

   <oedipus> SF: need process guidelines for use of issue tracker --
   what constitutes a raised issue?

   Steve_f: I would like to see some process whereby issues that people
   have raised to have [a clear route] for eventually getting into the
   Tracker

   <oedipus> GJR notes new issues are "Raised" not "Open"

   <smedero> yeah it is confusing... again we didn't have much say in
   the labeling

   <Laura> Perhaps the issue is that the issue tracker lacks known
   policies and procedures?

   <smedero> labels are shared across WG projects

   <oedipus> what is difference between raised and open -- they are
   distinct states, are they not?

   <smedero> yes

   <smedero> sadly RAISED == Bugzilla's OPEN (unverified)

   <smedero> OPEN == VERIFIED, picked up by Editor

   <smedero> I dunno... I asked that once but didn't get much of a
   response.

   <oedipus> good point, philip - guess it's the same impasse that
   leaves us stuck with MoinMoin

   issue-38?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- Syntax of the style attribute -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/38

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/38

   I think that maybe can be closed

   MikeSmith: I will follow up with James about that

   <smedero> I should clarify that OPEN == Picked up by Editor, or WG
   as a whole (in the past that distinction has been left to the
   discretion of the Chairs)

   <oedipus> FIVE MINUTE WARNING

   <oedipus> smedero, so RAISED equals PROPOSED?

   <robburns> oedipus: that sounds like an adequate tier arrangement of
   issues already

   <oedipus> robburns, agreed

   Julian: my impression is that some of them or all of them have been
   discussed on the list, but the editor has so far ignored feedback
   from the HTTPbis WG

   <oedipus> MikeTMSmith, does RAISED equal PROPOSED and OPEN equal
   "taken up by editors and/or chairs"

   issue-33?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- spec requires non-compliant Referer header --
   RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33

   <smedero> I don't have a definitive answer. I think we need some
   clarification on exactly how the Chairs+Editors intended RAISED to
   be used. RAISED was added when the Editors asked for some way to
   discern between things that were in-progress (active working going
   on) vs. those that they haven't reviewed yet.

   <anne> HTML5 only says not to include the Referer header, it doesn't
   affect the syntax of it, fwiw.

   <oedipus> smedero, sounds dangerously close to an "issue" :-)

   <anne> see
   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/stru
   ctured.html#hyperlink0 for more information

      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/structured.html#hyperlink0

   <oedipus> need syntax / semantic decision for chairs to make -- does
   raised equal proposed until opened by an editor or chair

   <oedipus> if RAISED equals PROPOSED then i retract my plus one to
   using bugzilla

   <anne> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1234&to=1235

      http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1234&to=1235

   <anne> change for ping= ^^

   anne: that relates to issue-33

   <smedero> I think we're having trouble separating a bugzilla style
   issue tracker vs. a high-level WG issue tracker that is largely
   there to help the Chairs+Editors+W3 staff facilitate to the WG: for
   instance a tool to help organize the weekly teleconference agenda

   <oedipus> bugzilla useful for micro-issues and micro-discussion

   [meeting adjourned]

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 07:26:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 February 2014 13:57:50 UTC