W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Minutes for 2007-08-30 HTMLWG phone conference

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:00:40 +0900
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070903070036.GE6674@mikesmith>
http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-minutes.html

Agenda

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1128.html

Present
      DanC, Chaals, ChrisW, MikeSmith, Sam Ruby, Gregory Rosmaita,
      Maciej Stachowiak (IRC only)

Regrets

Chair
      Chris Wilson

Scribe
      chaals

Contents

* Topics
   1. Convene, review agenda, actions
   2. issue tracking
   3. Design Principles
   4. degrade gracefully.
   5. Support existing content

* Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Convene, review agenda, actions

   CW reviews agenda...

   ACTION: ChrisW discuss XHTML name coordination with XHTML 2 WG in
   the Hypertext CG [CONTINUES] [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

   CW: CG meets tomorrow; I saw recent mail from Dean [?] that looks
   like most of what I'll take there.

   ACTION: DanC to discuss survey with Chris W and issue it, based on
   the most mature/agreed ones [DONE] [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

   ACTION: DanC to reserve a bridge for this alternating schedule
   [DONE] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

   <oedipus> done:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0789.htm
   l

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0789.html

   ACTION: Gregory to contact T.V. Raman about the Forms Task force
   [DONE] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

   ACTION: DanC to set up an announcement mailing list, noodling with
   chaals [DONE] [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

   ACTION: MikeSmith to write up a summary of changes for last [period
   of time], description of where changes go [CONTINUES] [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

issue tracking

   <Chris> survey results -
   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results

      http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results

   DanC: not sure the wiki issues list nor the list I'm maintaining is
   keeping up with demand... thinking about Sam's suggestion for a
   secretary

   MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest we use an actual online
   bug-tracking system (e.g. bugzilla)

   <Chris> is a bugtracker a good way to track issues?

   <rubys> +1 on triage team concept

   <DanC> (note that a bugzilla instance was set up ; it didn't get
   much traction. see
   http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTrackerRequirements for
   details.)

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

   ChrisW: I don't mind using a bug system, though a triage team is
   important in any case and a list of one-line descriptions of bugs is
   important.

   MikeSmith: we don't have to make it completely open for anybody to
   be able to raise a new issue in the tracker; a group of designated
   WG members could be given perms to raise new issues

   chaals, you wanted to suggest trackbot cause it fits nicely with W3C
   tools and is simple and to

   <DanC> (the TAG is starting to use trackbot/tracker; I don't love
   it, but Dom is handling RFEs at a satisfying rate.)

   MikeSmith: using trackbot might be good ... definitely good dogfood
   case

   <DanC> (for reference: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/ )

      http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/

   <Chris> who should be the triage team?

   Chaals volunteers

   ACTION: ChrisW to start setting up a team to triage issues [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc

Design Principles

   <mjs_> DanC: I am here but not on the phone but if you have
   questions I can answer here

   <Chris> Ah, the stealth meeting multi-task. I salute you.

   <Chris> survey results:
   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results

      http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results

   Chris: let's go through looking at what the disagreements are

degrade gracefully.

   Chris: Laura said "use the term 'user agent'" not browser.
   ... I think we can accept that.

   <Chris> Feedback 1: Laura Carlson, "don't use browser, use user
   agent". I think we can accept that.

   CMN: can accept that - let's move on

   Chris: Changing canvas example to a generic new element - think we
   should use something imaginary that will not be in the spec.

   <Chris> Feedback 2: Laura Carlson, "change <canvas> to
   <newelement>". I'm inclined to do this.

   <oedipus> +1 to generic "newelement"

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We do not change 'browser' to user agent
   everywhere, the text is OK

   Chris: Not sure it is a good idea that sites should require a
   specific user agent

   CMN: Should be clear that you need some kind of fallback content
   that does the same job, not just says "you need a particular user
   agent"

   Chris: Can you degrade gracefully enough that something will work on
   an older user agent?

   CMN: These are principles, and the principle is pretty
   straightforward - it should work

   Chris: for some reasonable value of "work"

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We change 'canvas' to 'newelement

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We overrule Scott Turner and accept the basic
   principle

   Mike: The main problem we are trying to solve is interoperability of
   browsers. Other user agents are important so we should leave in at
   least the mention of the word browsers.

   Mike: We should not be mandating to the editor that they don't say
   "browser" anywhere, although "user agent" should be mentioned too.

   <Chris> Richard Ishida had comments on the list:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0958.htm
   l

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0958.html

   <oedipus> deserves an explicit mention -- blockquote deprecated for
   presentational purpose in HTML 4.01 to little effect

   Richard Ishida suggests that the principle should be "degrade
   gracefully where possible - i.e. don't be beholden to every browser
   ever shipped"

   Chris: Think that the fact this is a principle not a law covers
   this. Deprecating support is IMHO a bad idea, but deprecating
   practices is a good idea.
   ... I think the degrade gracefully section already says that
   effectively

   <Chris> Design principles:
   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/html-design-principles
   /Overview.html?rev=HEAD

      http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/html-design-principles/Overview.html?rev=HEAD

   CMN: Think that Richard's comment is covered by the text. "Should
   work reasonably well" is sufficiently flexible (and can be
   understood by the man on the Clapham Omnibus)

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We think the principle meets Richard's request
   as written

   <Chris> back to "supports existing content"...

Support existing content

   <Chris> Laura Carlson: stipulate that current web sites shouldn't
   stop work in HTML5 UAs.

   <Chris> *is not convinced this is necessarily possible.

   Chris: First part - current sites shouldn't stop working. If you
   make it stronger than it is, we have a problem with things built for
   IE 6 and whether that has to work for HTML 5. The question is how
   strongly you take this principle - existing content already does
   browesr switching. if you make this too strong, then you create
   problems. IE has to have an HTML 5 mode and we hope not to kee doing
   that in the future, but current behaviour for old browsers is kind
   of goofy. I think this is already covered in the text. inclined not
   to do anything with the first part of the feedback.

   CMN: Yeah, I am happy with the current wording in that respect

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We do not strengthen the statement about sites
   working in HTML 5

   Chris: agree that we should strike "We need to judge whether the
   value of the change is worth the cost."

   CMN: Agree too. I wil come back to the "support existing content" in
   the context of accessibility. Accessbility is generally implemented
   much slower, so content that serves accessibility should be
   supported more strongly ...

   <oedipus> +1 to chaals' observation

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Strike the sentence "We need to judge whether
   the value of the change is worth the cost."

   RATIONALE: It's a truism.

   Laura: "Cross-browser content on the public Web should be given the
   most weight." should be changed to "Valid markup should be given the
   most weight, but legacy invalid markup shouldn't stop working."

   <Chris> anyone else have thoughts about the valid markup comment
   from Laura?

   Chris: I think valid markup should be given the most weight, but
   saying that legacy invalid markup shouldn't stop working takes a lot
   of the value out of that statement.

   <mjs> I disagree that valid markup should be given more weight

   <oedipus> should support valid markup that can validate against a
   DTD

   <Chris> I think there's some value in encouraging well-written
   markup - e.g. wellformed - but I don't want to focus on ivory tower
   HTML4.01.

   <oedipus> yes, mikeSmith - conformant is the word

   CMN: I think it should be "well-written markup" that gets weight - a
   vague term meaning validity, working on lots of browsers, working on
   mobile, supporting accessibility, are the things that should have
   weight

   <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we should give weight to
   valid markup, and probably not use "valid" at all (use "conformant"
   instead) for this case anyway

   <Chris> mjs, what does "cross-browser" capture for you that "valid
   markup" doesn't?

   <mjs> valid/conforming markup is a minority of web content and
   non-representative of the general web

   <MikeSmith> even the term "well formed" is not appropriate here

   <mjs> cross-browser means it works in multiple browsers today

   <Chris> that's true. Would you give weight to overlapping <b> and
   <i> tags?

   <mjs> in other words, content that only works in a single version of
   a single browser might be given less weight

   CMN: [how many is multiple...? mjs, more browers is better as a rule
   for giving weight?]

   <mjs> overlapping <b> and <i> should continue to be supported in a
   reasonably compatible way, yes, and I think the spec does that

   Mike: Wellformed etc are relevant to XML, but not really HTML.
   Sticking to "conformant" makes more sense, but I agree with Maciej
   that it is not necessary to change this.

   <Chris> I think "cross-browser" actually doesn't capture the
   majority of web content or is representative of the general web.

   Chris: "works in IE6" probably would, though I'm not suggesting that
   as a replacement.

   CMN:I think that accessibility is a reason to support markup that
   doesn't break in most browsers, even if it isn't strongly supported
   across browsers. which is sort of related to the "don't reinvent the
   wheel principle". Maybe that is strong enough to carry the point, if
   mentioned in the universal access principle

   Chris: Maybe the right focus is to say "real-world, existing content
   on the current web should be given the most weight."

   Chris: Validity is perhaps not the best target given today's web.
   "cross browser as representative of the real world web"

   <mjs> chaals, obviously some of this is too fuzzy to quantify, but I
   think both the amount of content and how many browsers it works in
   is relevant

   <oedipus> what about: "Browsers should retain residual markup
   designed for a specific purpose, such as accessibility or
   internationalization. Simply because new technologies and superior
   mechanisms have been identified, not all of them have been
   implemented. Moreover, disabled users are more likely to be users of
   "legacy technology" because it is the only technology that interacts
   correctly with third-party assistive technologies"

   <mjs> chaals, also popularity of specific sites

   <chaals> [mjs: amount and number of browsers makes sense to me.
   popularity of specific sites is mor difficult to measure... There
   are some hideously popular Indian sites with appalling markup...]

   <mjs> Chris: if you factor in both quantity and popularity of
   content, I think "cross-browser" is a fairly good standard

   Chris: Okay. I think we want wording, then, that captures
   "real-world, existing content on the web" and "cross-browser"
   standard.

   <mjs> Chris, the basic idea is if there is some Firefox-only
   intranet site, we don't necessarily want to cater to every detail it
   depends on

   <mjs> Chris, in part because we have no way to be aware of all such
   sites or know anything about what they depend on

   Chris: I get that. But what about IE behavior on the public web,
   that a lot of public web content relies on.

   CMN: So I am happy with "cross-browser real world content" given
   this is just a principle, and will make further suggestions in
   relation to other principles.

   <mjs> If there is a large number of reasonably popular sites that
   depend critically on some IE-only feature, and currently fail in all
   other browsers, we should cater to that

   Chris: I'd like to capture cross-browser (I do value that), and
   "real-world" as separate principles.

   <oedipus> i don't understand what "cross-browser real world content"
   means

   Chris: sorry, not principles - inputs to this principle.

   <mjs> I agree

   <chaals> [mjs not necessarily, since there is a lot of very popular
   korean content that depends on ActiveX and won't get supported
   whatever we say...]

   Chris: "Real-world content, particularly that supported across
   browsers, should be given the most weight."?

   <MikeSmith> ["sites that are known to work reliably across
   browsers"]

   CMN: I Like Mike's wording

   Chris: Mike - that captures x-browser, but not real-world. They're
   not necessarily the same set.

   <oedipus> GJR: + and with third party assistive technologies or APIs

   <mjs> chaals: support for ActiveX is out of scope for HTML I think

   <MikeSmith> real-world = production sites that are not manufactured
   for testing but are intended to provide real information or real
   services to users

   <oedipus> my plus was to mikesmith's "sites that are known to work
   reliably across browsers"

   <mjs> Chris, I will take a shot at rephrasing it to indicate that
   multiple factors are relevant

   CMN: When you have the two factors together, they are more important
   than they would be individually

   <mjs> chaals, defining a cross-browser ActiveX ABI might aid
   interoperability but I don't think it is a task for this WG

   <mjs> I would question whether there is a lot of popular content
   that only works when you have ActiveX, because we don't get a whole
   lot of bugs where that turns out to be the case but that seems like
   a side issue

   Chris: OK. I suggested thinking of marquee as an example rather than
   activex.

   <chaals> Propose: MJS come up with wording that clarifies the
   importance of cross browser, real world, working with accessibiltiy
   technologies, and the combination of these

   <mjs> Safari supports marquee and I think Mozilla might as well

   <oedipus> as long as there is user control to stop scrolling, and a
   means to obtain the contents of the stream, then , yeah, put in
   marquee

   Chris: Mozilla didn't the last I checked. (Note that I use that as
   an example because I HATE that #$%*ing tag. :))

   <billmason> The current FF 2.0 does support marquee.

   Chris doesn't understand Karl's feedback

   <chaals> Chris: You can't parse and not make something functional in
   HTML 5 ...

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: MJS come up with wording that clarifies the
   importance of cross browser, real world, works with accessibility
   technology, and the combination of these

   ACTION: Chris follow up with Karl about his comment on "support
   existing content" [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

      http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-html-wg-minutes.html#action01

   Nik Thierry doesn't care about supporting old content.

   Chris: Think this is a minority opinion

   Philip Taylor thinks valid cross browser content should be given
   most weight, invalid content ignored.

   <oedipus> nice sentiment, but would put most conent behind a
   firewall

   CMN: I would like to support that, but given the web today I think
   it is unrealistic

   Chris: There is invalid and invalid...I'd like for my legacy in
   20-30 years to NOT be overlapping <b> and <i> tags... but the
   pragmatist in me doesn't know how to avoid that.

   Chris: thing one and thing two?

   <mjs_> Chris, I'm hoping HTML5 will make conformance checking a more
   appealing and therefore hopefully more widespread practice (by
   removing bogus reasons that content might fail checking and enabling
   it to find new kinds of problems like table integrity failures)

   Chris: It would be nice to have two manuals for HTML 5. One for
   browser implementors to read, and one for everyone writing content
   to read. (Not really, but something to discourage poor practices
   that must still be supported)

   CMN: That is the principle behind deprecating things in HTML 4, and
   there is such a concept in the draft already. maybe we can ask mjs
   to capture that more clearly?

   Chris: Maciej, do you think HTML5 will discourage poor practices
   (even though they're still supported, as they must)?

   <oedipus> worried about splintering of HTML5 along
   implementer/author lines

   <mjs> chaals, one thing I'd like to do is add an introduction to the
   design principles is to make clear the distinction between the
   conforming language and the supported language

   Chris: Don't worry, oedipus, I don't really mean it.

   <mjs> chaals, because some of the principles apply only to one or
   the other, and it's kind of confusing as is

   Chris: mjs, I like that idea.

   <chaals> mjs, me too :)

   Chris: I think it might need to extend to this principle, or be
   mentioned in it. (That "support" does not necessarily mean
   "condone".)

   <mjs> Chris, I think if we can make conformance checking have a
   great benefit/cost ratio, and market it effectively as a good and
   beneficial practice, we might be able to reduce the incidence of
   poor authoring practices

   CMN: maybe this is actually a principle in its own right: Authors
   shuld use good markup, but it is helpful to tell browsers how to
   support existing stuff even if it is bad.

   <oedipus> it's unavoidable

   <mjs> right now a lot of people violate HTML4 conformance in some
   trivial way because they think they have to, and then they just give
   up and throw out the baby with the bathwater

   Chris: agreed. Not sure I see the way clear to that as well as you
   do right now, but I agree.

   <oedipus> poor authoring

   <oedipus> need as strong AU compliance as UA compliance!!!

   <mjs> I agree it is unavoidable; I think we should both encourage
   more good authoring, and make sure we deal with not-as-great
   authoring as well as we can

   Chris: exactly. Capture that. :)

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We ask MJS to bring out more strongly in the
   draft that we need to encourage good authoring, and explain how to
   deal with not-so-good authoring... :)

   Crhis: OK, that's all the time we have for today, folks. Dan will
   chair next week's telecon.

   <oedipus> so the next telecon picks up on "Do Not Reinvent the
   Wheel" or reviews this telecon's proposed resolutions and completed
   action items?

   Chris: picks up DNRtW. review of this telecon is in email.

Summary of Action Items

     * [NEW] ACTION: ChrisW to start setting up a team to triage issues
       recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     * [NEW] ACTION: Chris follow up with Karl about his comment on
       "support existing content" [recorded in
       http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
     * [PENDING] ACTION: ChrisW discuss XHTML name coordination with
       XHTML 2 WG in the Hypertext CG [recorded in
       http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     * [PENDING] ACTION: MikeSmith to write up a summary of changes for
       last [period of time], description of where changes go [recorded
       in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     * [DONE] ACTION: DanC to discuss survey with Chris W and issue it,
       based on the most mature/agreed ones [recorded in
       http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     * [DONE] ACTION: DanC to reserve a bridge for this alternating
       schedule [recorded in
       http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     * [DONE] ACTION: DanC to set up an announcement mailing list,
       noodling with chaals [recorded in
       http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     * [DONE] ACTION: Gregory to contact T.V. Raman about the Forms
       Task force [recorded in
       http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc]
     _________________________________________________________

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
http://sideshowbarker.net/

Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 07:01:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC