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

[minutes] 20091008 HTML Working Group call

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:20:45 -0400
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1255029645.4137.73.camel@chacal>
Available at

Text version:

                      HTML Weekly Teleconference

08 Oct 2009


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


          Julian, Eliot_Graff, carlos, annevk, msporny_, Sam, Plh,
          Rich, Mike, laura, Matt, Stevef, dsinger, Paul, adrianba,
          Masinter, jerryEzrol, Maciej, Cooper.a, Cynthia_Shelly





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]review of action items
         2. [5]CfC emails
         3. [6]TPAC/TC39
         4. [7]HTML decision policy
         5. [8]Reminder about gathering
         6. [9]Scribe for next meeting?
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

review of action items

   [11]ISSUE-76 -- Concerns about Microdata section and
   inclusion/exclusion of RDFa -- OPEN

     [11] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

   Manu: got through the [12]html+rdfa and pubrules.
   ... everything looks like it's ready to go
   ... now we need the transition request. Mike?

     [12] http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/Overview.html

   [13]ACTION-147 -- Paul Cotton to work with Manu on making HTML+RDFa
   ready to publish -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

     [13] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/147

   Paul: sent some [14]suggestions. status need some tweaking.
   ... some missing references

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0240.html

   Paul: Mike needs a short name for the draft. html+rdfa

   Manu: rdfa-in-html ?
   ... I'll look at Paul's email

   [15]ACTION-147 Work with Manu on making HTML+RDFa ready to publish

     [15] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/147

   [16]ACTION-139 -- Manu Sporny to propose 3 separate HTML5 drafts and
   the external Microdata draft -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN

     [16] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/139

   Manu: since rdfa is separated from the main body. it makes sense to
   pull the microdata section out of the main spec as well.
   ... we need pull it out, then we need 2 alternatives to reference
   normatively or not to microdata and html_rdfa.
   ... I'm working on the 3 documents.
   ... there should be discussion about separating out microdata, and
   on making references to microdata/html+rdfa.

   Sam: now that we have the process in place, we can move forward

   Manu: I'll put a discussion topic then. My preference is of course
   to pull microdata out, and reference normatively microdata and

   [17]ACTION-139 Propose 3 separate HTML5 drafts and the external
   Microdata draft due date now 10-15

     [17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/139

   <mjs> fwiw my preference, and I think this would be easier to get
   consensus on, is to refer to neither normatively

   [18]ACTION-137 -- Larry Masinter to update IRI spec based on
   comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), --
   due 2009-09-28 -- OPEN

     [18] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/137

   Larry: we're having a meeting at Google on Monday with Martin
   Duerst, Erik van der Poel, Mark Davis; call in with IETF area
   directors & proposed chair.
   ... I'm hoping to get Ian Hickson as well
   ... hoping to make some progress on the process and on the content
   ... the goal is to align html spec for URL with every other internet
   ... so we need to get everybody on board
   ... feel good on making progress on getting the parties on board
   ... would report back next week

   Sam: when will this be completed?

   Larry: lots of parties that need to be involved. fallback is to say
   that html is different from others.

   Sam: we need to set some expectation on when we'll use forward
   without waiting

   Larry: 2 weeks before last call

   Sam: we're trying to get this stuff done within a month. that's the
   rough idea.

   Larry: it's progressing a lot faster than expected, so I'm

   [19]ACTION-137 Update IRI spec based on comments to Public-IRI
   (Including those from HTML-WG members), due date now 10-15

     [19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/137

   Larry: not sure I'll be able to make the call, but will send email

   [20]ACTION-138 -- Steve Faulkner to produce a matrix based on
   Henri's work -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

     [20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/138

   Steve: still working on it. it's taking over by the [21]ARIA User
   Agent Implementation Task Force at the moment

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-aapi-minutes.html

   Steve: we've been discussing it. different approach now. working out
   from the spec and see where we disagree.
   ... we'll need to liaise with other WAI Groups as well

   Rich: will you be coming with proposed edits?

   Steve: yes, that's the intent

   Rich: Sam, what's the expectation for the draft/edits?

   Sam: we'll discuss that later in this call

   Steve: I can report next week but this issue will be taken over by
   the task force

   Maciej: we already an issue open for this. if what you're going to
   do is to propose edits, I recommend starting those specific changes
   in bugzilla, since we don't have a case of the editor rejecting the
   edits yet

   action-138, due 10-22

   Sam: and we'll discuss the process at the end

   [22]ACTION-144 -- Manu Sporny to produce a separate spec for profile
   attribute -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

     [22] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/144

   Manu: this issue overlaps with RDFa slightly. profile is being
   obsoleted in HTML 5. plan is get rid of it in the future.
   ... some people have an issue with that. some are fine with it being
   replaced by a rel reserved word
   ... it attempts to solve the versioning problem in HTML.
   ... so it's linked to a couple of issues

   Manu: the proposal, [23]Extended Processing Behavior in HTML5 uses
   the version attribute
   ... that's effectively what profile was trying to do
   ... there has been discussed on there. we could make changes in RDFa
   1.1 and still provide backward compatibility with RDFa 1.0 if we had
   this version attribute. so there is a real reason for that.
   ... the discussion so far went through a wide range.
   ... so there will be an other draft
   ... hoping for more feedback on the new one

     [23] http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-epb.html

   Larry: not sure it was clear how independent this work is from RDFa.

   <mjs> I have issues with "version" too but I'll take it to email

   Sam: the original issue is broader

   Manu: Doug Schepers is interested in using RDFa in SVG. It could
   potentially used in other drafts.

   Julian: the current HTML 5 does not make profile conforming. it's
   only in the section about obsolete attributes that are not

   <msporny_> +1 to what Julian said.

   Julian: given the amount of documents that relies on @profile, or
   the amoun of specs using it, we need to make it conforming.

   Sam: it would be good to use bugzilla as well here. nice to have a
   specific proposal associated with it

   Manu: seems ok. I thought it was rejected by Ian in the past

   Sam: I think Ian is not likely to take it but let's go through the

   <Julian> (documents may not be *relying* on @profile, but they
   contain it because they want to conform to other specs, and there's
   simply no good reason to make this non-conformant until those other
   specs have moved to a different mechanism (which we'd need to

   ACTION: Manu to create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile [recorded
   in [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

   Created ACTION-150 - Create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile [on
   Manu Sporny - due 2009-10-15].

   action-144 due 10-29

   [25]ACTION-144 Produce a separate spec for profile attribute due
   date now 10-29

     [25] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/144


   [26]ACTION-127 -- Paul Cotton to establish process for "official WG
   response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN

     [26] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/127

   Paul: still working with the HCG to figure upcoming last calls
   ... see my [27]status report ... responding to all solicitations on
   the chairs list
   ... one we can use as an example is MathML 3.0
   ... I arrange to have their last call close after TPAC
   ... so we need volunteers to review it
   ... currently we use MathML 2.0 in HTML 5. should we change it to
   MathML 3.0 would be one of the questions

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0241.html

   Sam: asking for volunteers seems fine to me. re MathML 3.0, let's
   enter an issue in bugzilla

   ACTION: Paul to enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0 [recorded in

   Created ACTION-151 - Enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0 [on Paul
   Cotton - due 2009-10-15].

   action-127 due 10-22

   [29]ACTION-127 establish process for "official WG response" to other
   WG's RFC on LC drafts due date now 10-22

     [29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/127

No new issues

No issue to close

CfC emails

   Sam: we got approval on both task forces. volunteers?

   Paul: got one volunteer for test tf.

   MichaelCooper: got some volunteers for the HTML/PF TF, from both

   Sam: so we need to have this in hand

   MichaelCooper: will send the info over

   Manu: testing. we got a suite of tests for RDFa in HTML5. we'll
   submit those

   Paul: can you reply on the thread saying that?

   Manu: sure

   Larry: scope of testing tf. will the tf give feedback on things that
   are not testable?

   Maciej: anyone can give feedback at anytime, that includes the TF

   Larry: I'm suggesting if it would be useful to highlight this so
   they keep it in mind. their goal is to improve the spec

   Sam: we have a decision for the TF and you now want to change the

   Larry: if everyone is happy we can move on

   Paul: first task of the TF is to define its scope actually...
   ... send email to the TF or participate in it

   <paulc> Testing TF re scope see point 8 in

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0687.html

   Larry: thank you


   <rubys> [31]W3C Combined Technical Plenary / Advisory Committee

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/

   <rubys> [32]Registration for the 2009-11 face-to-face meeting of the
   HTML Working Group (Santa Clara, California)

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/2009-11-f2f/

   Sam: there is a WBS going on. please reply there.
   ... don't think we have a firm agenda yet.
   ... friday morning, 10-12 is with TC39
   ... comments?

   Larry: seems to me that it was more an issue with webapps than us

   Sam: it's not specific to us, it also includes webapps indeed

   Paul: how does TC39 going to meet with the webapps wg?

   Sam: scheduling has been a logistic nightmare. best we could come

   Paul: the list coming out of TC39 was more pertinent to webapps...

   Maciej: logistics would be difficult to change now, so we could host

   <masinter> just seems misleading to call this TC39/HTML when the
   topic isn't specific to HTML. I don't mind there being a meeting of
   W3C with TC39 which invites HTML WG members, it's just calling it a
   "joint meeting" that seems odd

   Cynthia: the accessibility task force would be meeting on
   monday/tuesday, one item is to provide input for the TC39 as well

   Sam: please announce that on the list

   plh: TC39 is interested in some topics and is welcoming W3C groups
   in the room on Friday, from 10 to noon. list of topics: Support of
   ES5 in WebIDL, Guidance from WebIDL for Web APIs, Execution model
   and locking of resources, Global variables. I18n is interested in
   setting and managing locale in ECMAScript but is willing to meet at
   a different time with them.

HTML decision policy

   [33]HTML Working Group Decision Policy

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0189.html

   Maciej: we have a draft. two phases. first bugzilla. main difference
   is that we're using bugzilla as the main entry point instead of
   ... if you file a big, the editor will give you an initial feedback
   ... if you're not satisfied with you, you can go in the issue
   ... escalation process
   ... you would make a change proposal
   ... we're asking for change proposal to have a summary, a rational,
   and details of the proposal (spec text or edit instruction)
   ... if you ask the Chairs upfront, you can ask for exception to spec
   text or edit instruction.
   ... there will be deadlines associated with the escalation process
   ... if no one volunteers for a change proposal, it's timeout after a
   ... ditto if you volunteer but don't deliver

   Maciej: this is to guarantee everyone gets full due process.
   ... look at the document for details

   <msporny_> +1 for this newly documented process... it's a move in
   the right direction.

   Maciej: especially if you want to provide feedback on the specs

   Manu: how does it integrate with the WHATWG editorial process?

   Maciej: if you want to communicate with Ian Hickson out of band,
   that's ok and we won't track you, but if you want your comment to be
   tracked by us, use our process

   Cynthia: how do one do a change proposal? in bugzilla?

   <masinter> is a goal to insure that the responses to comments come
   from "the working group" and are agreed to?

   Maciej: could be a separate document, wiki, etc. we're happy to

   Adrian: editor response section. spec diff, we have some technical
   issues regarding spec diff.

   <masinter> and if so... is it also a goal to insure that changes to
   the spec which are not in response to comments also are reviewed by
   the working group?

   Maciej: Ian mentioned that he has multiple changes queued up, so
   difficult to put it the exact revision number. we'll address that by
   making sure somebody develops a tool, or volunteers to produce the

   Adrian: concerned about going through the spec for changes...

   Maciej: you'll go throught the logs

   Adrian: it's fine if the checkin addresses more than one issue, but
   concerned if there is no link.

   Maicje: we'll refine the process/responses as we go

   Maciej: for the summary changes, do a change proposal
   ... are you ok with the one month deadline?

   Cynthia: I'm ok with one month

   Rich: concerned about the size of changes sometimes. not sure if it
   will work.
   ... the process is that we have an issue on standard ARIA support
   ... huge set of changes, then we'll have discussion on bugzilla?

   <masinter> wonders if there might be a plan for reviewing the
   process and seeing if it is working, say, 6 weeks after the new
   process is instituted

   Maciej: for ARIA, we need to have requests for each change related
   to ARIA. ie file bugzilla bugs individually.

   Rich: we're willing to give it a try

   <rubys> +1 to masinter's suggestion

   Cynthia: fine

   Steve: ditto

   <mjs> masinter, to address your last question, yes, we should
   monitor whether the process is working, and 6 weeks from now seems
   like a fine time to check in

Reminder about gathering

   David: I just wanted to remind people of the informal accessibility
   workshop. Maybe folks are put off by the requirement to speak, but
   it doesn't have to be an academic paper. Just identify in advance
   what expertise and knowledge and ideas you can share with the group;
   we want talkers and workers

   David: please sign up

   Cynthia: remote participation?

   David: we've got several requests, I'll check

   Larry: btw, there is also [34]Doodle: Participation in IRI
   specification development

     [34] http://doodle.com/afp2fuek353ynv38

Scribe for next meeting?

   Sam: any volunteer?

   [none heard]


Summary of Action Items

     * [NEW] ACTION: Manu to create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile
       [recorded in
     * [NEW] ACTION: Paul to enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0
       [recorded in

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 19:20:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT