W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > January to March 2009

minutes: HTML Weekly Teleconference 15 Jan 2009

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:52:50 -0600
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Message-Id: <1232128370.18554.1222.camel@pav.lan>

HTML Weekly Teleconference 15 Jan 2009
     1. Convene, take roll, review agenda
     2. W3C publications heartbeat
     3. ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the table-headers
        algorithm in the HTML 5 spec
     4. ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope): Origin header: in scope? required
        for this release?
     5. ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable text
        equivalent is unknown/unavailable?
     6. ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and MathML into
        text/html
     7. ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't generate <!
        DOCTYPE html>

fully text: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-html-wg-minutes.html 

and inline text copy for tracker, mail search engine...



                      HTML Weekly Teleconference

15 Jan 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0001.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-html-wg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Sam, +049251280aaaa, Julian, dsinger, Matt_May, Joshue,
          hsivonen, Mike, DanC, Lachy, ChrisWilson, +1.408.536.aacc,
          +1.519.538.aadd, MurrayM, LarryM, Shepazu, [Microsoft],
          smedero, Mike.a

   Regrets
   Chair
          ChrisWilson

   Scribe
          rubys

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene, take roll, review agenda
         2. [6]W3C publications heartbeat
         3. [7]ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the
            table-headers algorithm in the HTML 5 spec
         4. [8]ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope): Origin header: in scope?
            required for this release?
         5. [9]ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable
            text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?
         6. [10]ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and
            MathML into text/html
         7. [11]ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't
            generate <!DOCTYPE html>
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Convene, take roll, review agenda

   <DanC> (ideally, we would have updated those actions and sent out
   the contents of [13]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda at
   T-24hrs, but hey... we'll get there)

     [13] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

   <trackbot> Date: 15 January 2009

   <pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly -
   HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <pimpbot> Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2008-11-20 from Sam
   Ruby on 2009-01-13 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to
   March 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

   <DanC> and this is sorted:
   [14]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

     [14] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

   <pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly -
   HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

W3C publications heartbeat

   ChrisWilson: let's talk about the heartbeat requirement first
   ... we need to get publication notes detailing changes from the last
   draft
   ... any objections?

   <anne> Is it realistic to get a detailed changelog?

   LarryM: LarryM: do we need a review first?

   <Joshue> I would like to see the poll on @summary go ahead before
   the next iternation of the spec or the draft is published.

   ChirsWilson: no, it this isn't a new document

   <DanC> an update of html4-diff is much appreciated; i think the
   level of detail you typically come up with is fine, anne

   LarryM: if you do an action with no significance, why do the action?

   DanC: there is a lot of new forms material...

   <ChrisWilson> Anne, how detailed are you considering pubnotes to be?
   I wasn't thinking checkin-by-checkin changelog; but the overview,
   e.g. webforms, would be important imo

   <Joshue> I don't like the fact that @summary has been dropped. This
   was a unilateral decision and I think the wider group should
   consulted. Without this process @summary wioll have little to no
   chance of being reinstated.

   LarryM: I don't have any more comments...

   <masinter> yes

   <DanC> Larry, at one point I tried to be sure every section had been
   reviewed by 2+ HTML WG reviewers:
   [15]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SpecReviews

     [15] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SpecReviews

   <ChrisWilson> Josh, is that related to current topic or a new topic?

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML/SpecReviews - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)

   <Joshue> zaki, unmute me

   <Lachy> which attribute is being discussed?

   <hsivonen> Lachy, summary

   Joshue: I think it important to resolve the summary issue before the
   next heartbeat document

   <Lachy> summary was never in the spec

   DanC: I don't believe that summary was dropped since the last draft

   <anne> ChrisWilson, [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changelog

     [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changelog

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 (at www.w3.org)

   <DanC> issue-32?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for
   unsighted navigation? -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

     [17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

   <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <anne> ChrisWilson, that's about as much as I can commit to

   DanC: does issue 32 need to be resolved before the next publication?

   <hsivonen> Joshue, why should issue 32 block the heartbeat when none
   of the other open issues are blocking?

   DanC: I symphatize for the issue, but don't believe that it need to
   be solved before publication

   ChirsW: I would like to move forward towards publishing, Dan, do we
   need a poll?

   <Joshue> Just giving my two cents.

   DanC: no

   ChrisW: I will send a mail out

   <masinter> I would like the opportunity to review the draft in
   detail, and want to make sure that agreeing to publishing the
   working draft doesn't preclude raising issues

   <ChrisWilson> action ChrisWilson send mail to WG saying we will
   issue new WD due tomorrow

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Send mail to WG saying we will issue
   new WD due tomorrow [on Chris Wilson - due 2009-01-22].

   <DanC> issue: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008

   <trackbot> Created ISSUE-65 - HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
   ; please complete additional details at
   [18]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/65/edit .

     [18] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/65/edit

   <anne> masinter, it never does

   <anne> masinter, publishing is just sending out a note for wider
   review

   <masinter> thanks, yes

   ChrisW: publishing the working draft does not preclude raising
   issues
   ... I want to do pending review actions first

   what list are we all looking at?

ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the table-headers algorithm
in the HTML 5 spec

   <ChrisWilson> action-87?

   <trackbot> ACTION-87 -- Michael(tm) Smith to ensure Ian Hickson
   follows up on semantics-tables messages -- due 2008-12-20 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/87

     [19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/87

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-87 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <Joshue> regarding @summary please note the request from the PF to
   keep the attribute
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0213.htm
   l

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0213.html

   <pimpbot> Title: Re: Request for PFWG WAI review of summary for
   tabular data from Al Gilman on 2008-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from
   August 2008) (at lists.w3.org)

   <DanC> so [21]http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H43.html is still
   non-conforming?

     [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H43.html

   scribe is confused, issue-20 has an action which is due 2009-01-30

   <pimpbot> Title: H43: Using id and headers attributes to associate
   data cells with header cells in data tables | Techniques for WCAG
   2.0 (at www.w3.org)

   <gsnedders> DanC: yes

   DanC: would the validator flag the example?

   Hsivonen: no

   DanC: great!

   <DanC> "HTML 5 draft allows @headers on td but not on th."

   <DanC> is th/@headers allowed now?

   Chris: I'll look into this, but I think we can close it

   <anne> DanC, yes

   <DanC> spiffy.

   <anne> DanC, see
   [22]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabu
   lar-data.html#the-th-element

     [22] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular-data.html#the-th-element

   (many): yes

   <pimpbot> Title: 4.9 Tabular data HTML 5 (at www.whatwg.org)

   <masinter> did Matt_May liaison get on agenda?

   ChrisWilson: status of 87 is now closed, I'd like to leave 72 open
   to remind me to review it...

ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope): Origin header: in scope? required for this
release?

   <ChrisWilson> action-89?

   <trackbot> ACTION-89 -- Michael(tm) Smith to make a proposal to the
   WebApps WG that we take this on as a work item there, with Adam
   Barth as the editor -- due 2009-01-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/89

     [23] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/89

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-89 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   MikeSmith: consensus is that this doesn't belong in webapps

   <DanC> it was in the editors' draft as of
   [24]http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2524&to=2525

     [24] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2524&to=2525

   <pimpbot> Title: (X)HTML5 Tracking (at html5.org)

   MikeSmith: we can close 63

   DanC: It was (previously) in the draft

   <masinter> action is to bring proposal to IETF?

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

   MikeSmith: it still is, the plan is to move it out

   <anne> MikeSmith, really, did we discuss that? The Origin header is
   currently defined in a WebApps WG draft, after all...

   DanC: I wouldn't mid a recorded decision that we aren't doing it

   ChrisW: Is there something we need to do?

   DanC: the consensus in the IETF liason call is that this belongs in
   the IETF

   ChrisW: we can close this item

   <masinter> liaison need to track?

   DanC: I'd like a decision!

   ChrisW: I'll do that

   Larry: do we need to track this?

   DanC: I'm content that this is being tracked

   ChrisW: I propose closing the issue and action

   DanC: I think it has had enough attention

   <masinter> closing it sounds good to me

   DanC: Sam?

   Sam: should there be an action to remove it from the spec?

   Doug: would it be prudent to leave it in the spec pending some
   action?

   Larry: I think it would be imprudent to keep it in the spec...

   Doug: I'm fine either way..

   larry: If we are deferring to the IETF, we are saying we aren't
   doing it.

   <DanC> (rubys, we've experimented with hixie carrying tracker
   actions, and the current status is that he doesn't; somebody else
   takes an action to work with hixie...)

   MikeSmith: my action is done

   ChrisW: Is this actually referenced in the HTML spec?

   DanC: it was

   Julian: the spec currently has this text

   <Julian> it's in
   [25]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin

     [25] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)

   ChrisW: We need an action

   Henri: I can take this action

   <trackbot> ACTION-96 -- Henri Sivonen to to ensure editor removes
   Origin header: from spec -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96

     [26] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-96 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <DanC> feel free to give a different ETA, hsivonen

   <DanC> a la: action-96 due 15 Feb 2009

   <anne> I'm not sure I agree this is the right course of action. It
   only affects HTML forms... Didn't we establish this last time this
   was discussed?

   <anne> Also, the WebApps WG are the ones currently defining the
   Origin header...

   <MikeSmith> trackbot, comment action-96 see
   [27]http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081211#l-45 : Hixie:
   "splitting off the protocol part of websocket, the content-sniffing
   section, the uri section, and a brief definition of the Origin
   header, and submitting them as four tentative IDs"

     [27] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081211#l-45

   <trackbot> ACTION-96 to ensure editor removes Origin header: from
   spec notes added

ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is
unknown/unavailable?

   Matt: what's the goal here?

   DanC: I just want the overall plan for having it fixed in general,
   no need to worry about trying to get it fixed by the next draft

   Matt: I can come back next week with status

   <ChrisWilson> whoops, didn't mean to hit enter yet.

   <ChrisWilson> just a sec, Henri

   <ChrisWilson> thx

   Matt: this is a topic I don't expect the HTML spec to solve...

   <Joshue> Just for the record
   [28]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute

     [28] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML/IssueAltAttribute - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)

   <DanC> (taking a peek at
   [29]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute to see how it
   does with NPOV...)

     [29] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML/IssueAltAttribute - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)

   <smedero> This was the last editor's summary on @alt:
   [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0759.htm
   l

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0759.html

   <pimpbot> Title: The alt="" attribute from Ian Hickson on 2008-08-26
   (public-html@w3.org from August 2008) (at lists.w3.org)

   Matt: the current draft doesn't close the door on optional alts, and
   I'm unsure how to proceed from here.

   <DanC> (re HTML/IssueAltAttribute "latest published" is at risk of
   going stale ...)

   hsivonon: what should a piece of software do if a user is
   uncooperative? what are the sequences of bytes that a validator must
   flag as nonforming?

   <Joshue> @Dan, yeah it probably needs updating

   <pimpbot> Joshue: Huh?

   hsivonen: my position is that a data format should allow a signal
   for an authoring tool to indicate that a user did not provide the
   data, and that should be conforming

   <DanC> Josue, so far, I don't see any critical NPOV problems in that
   wiki summary, though; we seem to be getting better at using the wiki

   <DanC> (it would be nifty if the arguments hsivonen and matt are
   talking about were easy to find in that wiki summary)

   <Joshue> Dan, yeah, it is a pretty good overview of these myriad
   issues and related offshoots.

   cynthia: what worked well in the past is the alt attribute is
   required, but an empty string is ok, why does that need to change?

   <dsinger> the discussion was that the empty string then becomes
   ambiguous: it's also used to say that an image is, for example,
   purely decorative

   <dsinger> the UA cannot then tell the difference betwen "alt
   desirable but unavalable" and "alt wasn't needed"

   cynthia: I agree with Matt that descriptions as to what is a valid
   alt tag belongs in WAI...

   <anne> cyns, why? alt="" is not just an accessibility technique

   <anne> cyns, it's important for e.g. text browsers as well

   Doug: Henri? would you agree that if all you are validating is HTML,
   then you shouldn't flag a missing HTML, but a validator that also
   also was aware of WCAG would validate more?

   hsivonen: yes

   <cyns> slight modification of summary of my statement: what is
   *good* or *appropriate* alt in a scenario is not a language issue,
   but an authoring issue. should not be in the language spec.

   hsivonen: it may be a different class of message

   <pimpbot> Title: IRC logs: freenode / #whatwg / 20081211 (at
   krijnhoetmer.nl)

   <anne> cyns, the language should tell authors how to write it, no?

   <anne> cyns, the language spec...

   doug: fine, this may be a communication issue; not requiring it in
   the language doesn't mean that it can't be flagged

   hsivonen: right

   <cyns> anne, the language should tell the author what is valid, but
   not necessarily what content is equivalent.

   <takkaria> I'm not sure what quite what use defining a language is
   if you don't define how to use it in certain situations

   matt: DreamWeaver gives you options, but if you don't make a
   decision, no alt tag is generated, and I consider that a "pass"

   <jgraham> FWIW I guess not putting information about alt usage in
   HTML 5 will jsut mean fewer authors are exposed to that information

   matt: not letting you save non-conforming documents is a non-starter
   in the marketplace

   <anne> cyns, why not? the author needs to know how to write the
   language properly

   <masinter> this is a case where defining what the language *means*
   independently of how authors should author and browsers should
   interpret is a good idea

   <anne> cyns, the language specification should tell the author how
   to properly include an image, imo

   <anne> masinter, I don't really see why that matters

   matt: having the validators be the gatekeeper has provided
   significant value in the past

   <masinter> alt="" means something different than 'no alt'.

   <dsinger> the assumption that HTML generation is coincident with a
   person who knows what the non-text content is like, is not tenable

   <masinter> different requirements on interpreters and generators

   <cyns> anne, examples, yes, but not every possible scenario. fine in
   an authoring guide, but it and WCAG should be single-sourced in that
   case

   <anne> masinter, sure, that's all in the specification

   <anne> cyns, but WCAG is for accessibility, doesn't cover e.g.
   search engines or text browsers

   <takkaria> how can you talk about waht a language means
   independently of how people should understand it?

   <DanC> (pointer to relevant part of ATAG docs, anyone?)

   hsivonen: authoring tools should do what DreamWeaver does, and
   believe that that ATAG 2.0 should direct tools to do what DW does

   <dsinger> not all HTML is made by interactive tools...

   <shepazu> so, if the government requires that content for government
   web content follow WCAG guidelines, then there will be market
   pressure for an authoring tool to force/encourage authors to add alt
   text, regardless of whether it is is for HTML or WCAG validity

   <masinter> there are different constraints on the content and on the
   tools for generating content

   hsivonen: we shouldn't make HTML5 require that some streams that can
   be generated using ATAG guides be considered non-conforming

   <masinter> different constraints on visual display browsers and
   screen readers

   <dsinger> I agree with Julian; weare going over old ground that took
   hours on the mailing list

   <Joshue> +1 to Henri, I agree there should not be rubbish values
   inserted into content just to satisfy a validator

   <DanC> (julian, if you can point to a succinct summary, then that
   might save us time, but otherwise, yes, some redundant discussion is
   natural)

   masinter: if you try to do everything in one specification, it will
   be hard to read and contain a lot of information that is irrelevant
   to many classes of users.

   <dsinger> Dan, I fear that no-one is satisfied (not even the editor)

   matt: the WAI coordination group is planning on discussing this.
   ... I can report back next week on this and on summary

   <DanC> dsinger, I don't expect the editor to commit text he's not
   satisfied with... without an explicit note. is there one?

   chris: I'll update the status

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Discuss missing-alt with the WAI CG
   and report back [on Matthew May - due 2009-01-22].

   <Joshue> summary attribute
   [31]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

     [31] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

   <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <masinter> and action 90 and action 92 should both be closed

   <DanC> close action-90

   <trackbot> ACTION-90 Ask Matt May if he can help represent WAI WGs
   in the HTML WG closed

ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and MathML into
text/html

   <ChrisWilson> action-94?

   <trackbot> ACTION-94 -- Doug Schepers to report back on SVG WG's
   integration proposal re: issue-37 -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/94

     [32] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/94

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-94 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   doug: I've moved the action back to next week

ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE
html>

   <ChrisWilson> action-91

   rubys: proposed on the list, awaiting feedback from the editor

   <DanC> well, the "report on feedback " part isn't done

   ChrisW: what's the current status

   rubys: we have a proposed change, and waiting on the editor to make
   the change

   DanC: sam, you've seen all the feedback you think you need to see?

   rubys: yes

   ChrisW: what is limited quirks?

   <DanC> +1 empty string, i.e. <!DOCTYPE html "">

   <Julian> +1 as well

   <anne> ChrisWilson, limited quirks is a new name for "almost
   standards mode" (because it's now part of to be standard)

   <DanC> +0 legacy-compat

   <Lachy> no, it would by <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "">

   <ChrisWilson> thanks Lachy, I was going to say that.

   <Julian> +1 on empty string, +0 on legacy-compat

   <hsivonen> sigh, a moment ago we were so close to declaring
   consensus on "legacy-compat"

   <DanC> sorry, lachy, I'm perhaps going too fast

   <ChrisWilson> Henri, no I don't think we were

   <Lachy> I object to using the empty string version

   <hsivonen> I'm +1 on "legacy-compat" and -1 on ""

   Lachlan: does not support "", prefers xstl-compat or legacy-compat

   <ChrisWilson> takkaria, I disagree

   rubys: I've yet to hear anybody argue against legacy-compat

   <shepazu> how about "processor-compat"?

   <gsnedders> I'm +1 on "legacy-compat" and -1 on "" too

   <masinter> is the objection that the word 'legacy' is pejorative?

   <Lachy> the only problem with legacy-compat is that it's not
   entirely clear that it's meant for compat with legacy generator
   tools, like XSLT, rather than legacy consumers like browsers

   chriswilson: I'm not happy with legacy-compat, it implies that
   something is wrong.

   DanC: "" is better?

   <hsivonen> masinter, the string is pejorative on purpose to make
   people prefer <!DOCTYPE html>

   <Julian> +1 on the reasons ChrisW is giving.

   <anne> ChrisWilson, but something is wrong...

   ChrisW: yes
   ... I don't understand the goal of being perjorative on purpose

   <masinter> if you want to be pejorative, do it on your blog, not in
   the spec

   <masinter> pejorative

   <masinter> byeee

   ChrisW: requests Sam to reply to the previous thread, and keep the
   action open.

   Sam: OK

   ChrisW: I move that we adjourn

   numerous seconds

   meeting adjourned...

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 15 Jan 2009 (at
   www.w3.org)

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.134
    ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/01/16 17:51:14 $

     [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [34] 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 Friday, 16 January 2009 17:53:45 UTC

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