W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Input on the agenda

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:43:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0902231220170.6186@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

As per Sam's request:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> It now occurs to me that if you were willing to provide a similar amount 
> of input weekly (say, on Monday) on the items that appear on 
> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda> with a due date within the 
> next 11 days (i.e., covering both the immediate call and the next), that 
> would be most helpful.

This e-mail is a report of the status of issues on the agenda that have 
actions due before 2009-03-06, from the persective of the spec.


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

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

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

   It's not clear to me what needs changing in the spec for these issues. 
   For all three, the spec seems detailed and I am not aware of any 
   actual problems having been raised and not yet addressed.


ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements for 
aria states and properties when used in html

   This is pending on work by the ARIA group.


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

   This is pending on a response from the SVG group. Implementation work 
   has been occurring in browsers, though, and this may become a moot 
   point if those ship.


ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference): Should the HTML WG produce a 
separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what 
are the requirements

   I intend to autogenerate such a document from the spec later this year, 
   though if Mike or someone else is willing to maintain such a document, 
   and if we can ensure that there are no conflicts in some way, that 
   might make that moot, which would save me some time. Unless we have 
   some way to have a high level of reliability, though, I'd be very 
   concerned about having two normative documents. Conflicts between the 
   two would be very bad.


ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch): Assess whether "URLs" section/definition 
conflicts with Web architecture

   This is pending work by DanC to split the controversial part out into 
   an I-D for RFC standards track.


HTH,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 12:44:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC