- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:46:52 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org, public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html
HTML Weekly Teleconference
09 Jul 2009
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-irc
Attendees
Present
Sam, Matt_May, Masinter, DanC, Murray_Maloney, Julian,
+1.218.340.aabb, Lachy, Stevef, Mike, Cynthia_Shelly,
Shepazu, Laura
Regrets
Joshue
Chair
Sam
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Convene, take roll, review agenda
2. [5]ISSUE-32 (table-summary)
3. [6]ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
4. [7]ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
5. [8]ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope)
6. [9]ISSUE-4 (html-versioning)
7. [10]ISSUE-35 (aria-processing)
8. [11]TPAC 2009 admin
9. [12]URI/URL issue @@
10. [13]Overdue actions
11. [14]ISSUE-7 video-codecs
12. [15]ISSUE-31 (missing-alt)
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<rubys1> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 09 July 2009
<johndrinkwater> I guess I might be ??P5- no mic though..
Convene, take roll, review agenda
ISSUE-32 (table-summary)
<masinter> i suggest calling this a "straw poll" rather than a
"vote"?
LMM: i suggest calling this a "straw poll" rather than a "vote"
DanC: that would make it non-binding
LMM: yes, but it would predict the results of a binding vote pretty
well
<Laura> +Laura
DanC: there's a possibility that a vote will be avoided consensus?
LMM: but a straw poll would help in any case; it eliminates
possibilities that noone supports
<Lachy> I would prefer a straw poll
MM: I have my doubts [about a straw poll]
Laura: we could do a straw poll and then a vote
<masinter> wouldn't need to review "good standing" of wg members who
haven't been active
DanC: I think a straw poll is a good idea
<MikeSmith> action-59 due 2009-07-03
<trackbot> ACTION-59 Track progress on edits related to issue-38
style-attr-syntax in section html5/#style0 due date now 2009-07-03
MM: on research... I'm in contact with Jutta Trev. [sp?] at [u.
toronto?]; perhaps next week I can give more info on usability
studies
<MikeSmith> oops
<MikeSmith> issue-59?
<trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate
document that is a normative language reference and if so what are
the requirements -- OPEN
<trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
[17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
action-109?
<trackbot> ACTION-109 -- Michael(tm) Smith to hand out work to
reviewers of H:TML -- due 2009-06-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/109
[18] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/109
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-109 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> action-109 due 2009-07-23
<trackbot> ACTION-109 hand out work to reviewers of H:TML due date
now 2009-07-23
<masinter> question about whether document compliance ("authoring
requirements") might be better handled here
<MikeSmith> action-110 due 2009-07-23
<trackbot> ACTION-110 Add note to H:TML draft about what's currently
missing and planned to be added due date now 2009-07-23
LMM: there was a bugzilla bug and such about authoring
requirements...
... whether they belong in the same spec with
how-to-build-a-browser...
... so that's something to consider
Mike: not much news on my action; moved them back a couple weeks.
ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
Sam: I suggest that the recent announcement about the XHTML 2 WG
addresses my action
close ACTION-105
<trackbot> ACTION-105 Should arrange a meeting between chairs of
HTML WG and XHTML2 WG to ensure there is a plan for coordination of
vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. closed
<Lachy> yes, close this issue
LMM: there may be some follow-up
<Lachy> XHTML 2.0 will end life as a WG NOTE
MM: does this announcement mean XHTLM 2.0 won't be produced?
Sam: I expect it'll become a Note
Julian: if XHTML 2 is published as a Note, which namespace woudl it
use?
Lachy: It won't matter, as a Note isn't something people are likely
to deploy/implement
MM: I'm a little confused... HTML 5 uses which namespace?
... does W3C have namespace policies?
<Lachy> I suppose someone could take an ACTION to contact the
XHTML-WG and ask that their work be published as a NOTE using the
previously used 2002/02/xhtml2 (I think) namespace from older
working drafts
DanC: yes
MM: is there a missing policy?
DanC: I don't think so; I think what we need re this issue is done;
there were 2 WGs specifying the /1999/xhtml namespace and now
there's one
<masinter> Murray is still concerned about the continuity of the
xhtml namespace
<masinter> I will take an action item in 2 weeks to insure that the
versioning discussion at least touches on this
<masinter> OK?
<scribe> ACTION: Larry insure that the versioning discussion at
least touches on XHTML 2 interactions with the /1999/xhtml namespace
[recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - insure that the versioning
discussion at least touches on XHTML 2 interactions with the
/1999/xhtml namespace [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-07-16].
action-129 due 23 July
<trackbot> ACTION-129 insure that the versioning discussion at least
touches on XHTML 2 interactions with the /1999/xhtml namespace due
date now 23 July
<masinter> i think there needs to be another action to review any
"Note" that comes out about XHTML2 to make sure that it doesn't
contain text redefining 1999/xhtml incompatibily
<Lachy> Murray, XHTML5 retains compatibility with existing XHTML 1.0
namespaced documents.
<masinter> this 'issue' was an administrative one, there's likely a
technical one too
MM: I'm concerned that if HTML 5 use the /1999/xhtml namespace it'll
upset compatibility expectations
Sam: if HTML 5 used a different namespace it would break existing
content on the web
ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope)
<MikeSmith> action-96?
<trackbot> ACTION-96 -- Henri Sivonen to to ensure editor removes
Origin header: from spec -- due 2009-07-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96
[20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-96 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ISSUE-4 (html-versioning)
LMM: the TAG discussed this in a recent ftf... [see www-tag for
minutes]... I expect the document discussed will be revised w.r.t.
that discussion...
... my hope was to relate some well-understood principles to the
doctype/versioning issue... I'm optimistic
ACTION-108 due 23 July
<trackbot> ACTION-108 Report back on the TAG's work on versioning
wrt HTML due date now 23 July
ISSUE-35 (aria-processing)
Cynthia: we put out a WD 8 Jun
... things are on track...
... I have a TF participant from Opera; still hoping for
particpation from Apple
acton-114 due 1 Aug
Cynthia: the draft is "aria implementation guide"
<masinter> (re versioning, TAG discussed it at its F2F meeting,
[21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda.html, based on
document
[22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-html/versioning-html-2
0090611.html ). Minutes forthcoming, but update to document based on
discussion should be out in 2 weeks
[21] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-html/versioning-html-20090611.html
<pimpbot> Title: About
[23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda.html (at
www.w3.org)
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/23-agenda.html
DanC: does the draft have examples, sorta seeds of test cases?
Cynthia: perhaps... it does have some examples
TPAC 2009 admin
Mike: I did it... interested to know if the chairs are OK with it
Sam: OK by me; go ahead
[pointer?]
action-115?
<trackbot> ACTION-115 -- Michael(tm) Smith to set up WBS for HTML WG
participants to attend HTML WG f2f during TPAC 2009 -- due
2009-05-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/115
[24] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/115
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-115 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> action-115?
<trackbot> ACTION-115 -- Michael(tm) Smith to set up WBS for HTML WG
participants to attend HTML WG f2f during TPAC 2009 -- due
2009-05-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/115
[25] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/115
draft seems to be
[26]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/2009-11-f2f/
[26] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/2009-11-f2f/
<MikeSmith> DanC, yep
action-123 due 23 July
<trackbot> ACTION-123 Discuss choice of embedding vcard microdata
instead of referencing IETF spec and defining conformance reqs for
HTML5 due date now 23 July
URI/URL issue @@
<masinter> action-125?
<trackbot> ACTION-125 -- Julian Reschke to coordinate with LMM and
DanC to get an Internet Draft that addresses some HTML 5 href issues
-- due 2009-07-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/125
[27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/125
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-125 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Julian: we're organizing a BOF at the next IETF, and Larry is
working on updating the IRI spec
Larry: I started from the IRI spec, thinking this is a new protocol
element, separate from IRIs and and LEIRIs, but I think this [?] is
a change to the mapping from IRI to URI...
... but I think the mapping needs another parameter, i.e. the
encoding of the document character set, which defaults to utf-8...
... also, space handling should be tweaked...
(yup, sounds right to me)
Larry: that's the design I have in mind ... I haven't gotten around
to soliciting review by email
Julian: hmm... that's not the case in Atom documents... have to be
careful about that default
Larry: ah; right... yes.
<Julian> (need to be careful about to which document formats the new
encoding consderations apply - HTML5 would, Atom not (?))
ACTION-125 due 1 Aug
<trackbot> ACTION-125 Coordinate with LMM and DanC to get an
Internet Draft that addresses some HTML 5 href issues due date now 1
Aug
Overdue actions
ACTION-38 due 30 July
<trackbot> ACTION-38 Chairs to review need for amending charter with
Director due date now 30 July
Sam that was pending on the XHTML 2 stuff.
ISSUE-7 video-codecs
<masinter> DanC: two minds, like image -- don't need to spec it,
other hand, might be important
LMM: I think the factors affecting the choice of codec are largely
outside the control of this WG: perceptions about licensing,
quality, etc. ...
... I'm more concerned with the perception that some decision got
made when it didn't
... my suggestion is: the issue is still open...
... one idea is a note on the small number of choices and why we
haven't chosen
... is it possible to move the <video> tag to a separate document,
with its own schedule?
Sam: I'm interested in volunteers
DanC: video is feature #1 in community discussion of HTML 5;
separating its schedule would be a challenge
Sam: I'm calling for volunteers to take an active position on this
issue; Ian has stated his.
... I note Rob Sayer's start
<scribe> ACTION: Sam review status of video codec positions
[recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Review status of video codec
positions [on Sam Ruby - due 2009-07-16].
action-130 due 30 July
<trackbot> ACTION-130 Review status of video codec positions due
date now 30 July
Cynthia: a deadline helps some people
Julian: the diff between April and the current draft is that he took
out the "it would be nice..." [requirements] text. The actual text
to remove the Theora codec was a year ago or so.
... I'm not sure why the statement of desired codec was removed
<Julian> the text that was removed recently is:
[29]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/video.html#video-and
-audio-codecs-for-video-elements
[29] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/video.html#video-and-audio-codecs-for-video-elements
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at www.w3.org)
<Julian> Rob's mail:
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0267.htm
l
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0267.html
<pimpbot> Title: proposed audio/video codec text from Rob Sayre on
2009-07-07 (public-html@w3.org from July 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
Doug: didn't Rob S. already take a position?
Sam: I read it as a "what if...?" sort of thing but I'll check
SteveF: I'd like canvas accessibility to be a tracker action
(er... issue)
<Laura> [31]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AddedElementCanvas
[31] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AddedElementCanvas
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/AddedElementCanvas - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
issue: canvas accessibility
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-74 - Canvas accessibility ; please complete
additional details at
[32]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/74/edit .
[32] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/74/edit
issue-74: see also
[33]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AddedElementCanvas
[33] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AddedElementCanvas
<trackbot> ISSUE-74 Canvas accessibility notes added
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/AddedElementCanvas - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
<scribe> ACTION: Stevef report on canvas accessibility [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Stevef
<pimpbot> planet: Which browser has the best support for HTML 5
currently?
<11[35]http://stackoverflow.com/questions/150577/which-browser-has-t
he-best-support-for-html-5-currently>
[35] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/150577/which-browser-has-the-best-support-for-html-5-currently
ISSUE-31 (missing-alt)
issue-31?
<trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- What to do when a reasonable text equivalent
is unknown/unavailable? -- OPEN
<trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
[36] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-31 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Cynthia: what happened to the change request?
[anybody got a pointer to the change request?]
<Laura> WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5
<Laura> [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
[37] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
<pimpbot> Title: WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives
in HTML 5 (at www.w3.org)
<Lachy> Is this the WAI CG mail being discussed?
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0070.htm
l
[38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0070.html
<pimpbot> Title: WAI-CG Consensus Recommendations on Alternative
Text in HTML 5 from Janina Sajka on 2009-06-11 (www-archive@w3.org
from June 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
Cynthia: what's the process for getting traction on this?
<Lachy> -->
[39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/att-0070
/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/att-0070/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html
<pimpbot> Title: WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives
in HTML 5 (at lists.w3.org)
Sam: I'll try to clarify by email...
... I'm working with people getting CVS access, helping them produce
documents...
<Lachy> It appears that that WAI CG text alternatives document was
never sent to the HTML WG, only to www-archive and wai-xtech
Cynthia: the document WAI produced is more of a requirements list
SteveF: I'm interested to write the design part
<Lachy> ... so I'm not surprised the HTMLWG haven't done anything
with it
good point, Lachy
<scribe> ACTION: steve draft ALT spec [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Draft ALT spec [on Steve Faulkner -
due 2009-07-16].
action-131 due 7 Sep
<trackbot> ACTION-131 Draft ALT spec due date now 7 Sep
<Laura> I'll help with it Steve.
ADJOURN.
<scribe> ACTION: Stevef report on canvas accessibility [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Stevef
<scribe> ACTION: Steve report on canvas accessibility [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Report on canvas accessibility [on
Steve Faulkner - due 2009-07-16].
<Stevef> lachy: it was forwarded to the html wg list by shelley
powers (i think)
action-132 due 23 July
<trackbot> ACTION-132 Report on canvas accessibility due date now 23
July
<Laura> bye
<Lachy> Stevef, ok. I must have missed it. But for future reference,
please make sure the WAI CG actually sends feedback to public-html
if they intend us to do something abou tit
<Stevef> forwarded 11th june
[43]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0391.htm
l
[43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0391.html
<pimpbot> Title: forwarding: WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text
alternatives in HTML 5 from Shelley Powers on 2009-06-11
(public-html@w3.org from June 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
<Stevef> lachy: janina missed putting the html wg on the list, i am
sure she meant to as it was directed to the HTML WG
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Larry insure that the versioning discussion at least
touches on XHTML 2 interactions with the /1999/xhtml namespace
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Sam review status of video codec positions [recorded
in [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: steve draft ALT spec [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Steve report on canvas accessibility [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Stevef report on canvas accessibility [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Stevef report on canvas accessibility [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-html-wg-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [52]scribe.perl version 1.135
([53]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/07/09 19:17:14 $
_________________________________________________________
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 19:47:02 UTC