W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Minutes HTML WG 4 February 2010

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:38:01 -0800
Message-id: <EFA45E40-F0DB-4DBD-BEA8-01446893475E@apple.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/04-html-wg-minutes.html



- DRAFT -

HTML Weekly Teleconference

04 Feb 2010

Agenda

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Gregory_Rosmaita
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
mjs
Contents

Topics
Summary of Action Items
<Hixie> is there a page that describes the various public-html-* lists?
<Hixie> the equivalent of http://whatwg.org/mailing-list but for the HTML WG?
<MikeSmithX> Hixie: nope
<MikeSmithX> I suppose I should make one
<Hixie> would be nice to link to it from the acknowledgements (see the foot of the spec)
<MikeSmithX> OK
<MikeSmith> Hixie: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/lists/
<Hixie> MikeSmith: thanks
<MikeSmith> Hixie: is that what you had in mind?
<Hixie> yeah
<MikeSmith> cool
<rubys> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 04 February 2010
hi everyone
<cardona507> good morning everyone
<Mark> Mark Foladare is present
<rubys> scribenick: mjs
<MikeSmith> scribe: mjs
First item is action items due February 4th
<masinter> action-127?
<trackbot> ACTION-127 -- Maciej Stachowiak to establish process for "official WG response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts -- due 2010-02-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/127
rubys: action-127 - maciej?
mjs: I just sent a rough draft of a proposed policy to the list
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0085.html
masinter: make sure that it is linked from the action
<masinter> not linked from the action, if you say "ACTION-127" in the message, it will get auto-linked
<masinter> otherwise please edit action directly to put in link! Thanks
<masinter> suggest marking it pending review
rubys: should the action still be open?
mjs: remaining steps are to respond to feedback and call to consensus
<masinter> action-163?
<trackbot> ACTION-163 -- Michael(tm) Smith to mediaWiki successor for current MoinMoin based wiki -- due 2010-02-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/163
rubys: next action on MikeSmith - MediaWiki successor
<rubys> mjs: action is now pending-review
<masinter> please link wiki into action item?
<rubys> action-163 due 10 Feb
<trackbot> ACTION-163 MediaWiki successor for current MoinMoin based wiki due date now 10 Feb
<masinter> links in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
<Julian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010JanMar/0009.html
rubys: next item is proposed publications
<Julian> (agenda)
rubys: we have links on the homepage to the proposed drafts
... I realize some may be controversial, we will likely handle this as a Call for Consensus
<MikeSmith> action-163: if systems team has not migrated content from the ESW wiki by Feb 10, I propose we just tell people to move any content they want over manually -- copy/paste -- and then we shut down editing of the old ESW wiki and do all new work at the MediaWiki one
<trackbot> ACTION-163 MediaWiki successor for current MoinMoin based wiki notes added
rubys: I notice that we haven't talked about html4-diffs
... we should ask Anne to update it so we can publish it as we usually do with the HTML5 draft
masinter: I wonder if anyone has reviewed this...
<masinter> link from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/ is dated Sep 2009
<masinter> points to http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/
<MikeSmith> anne, you plan to update the html-diffs doc for the next round of publication?
masinter: the diffs document is old
rubys: we need to ask Anne to update it
paulc: the diffs document is not a useful source of information on changes
rubys: the diffs document has traditionally been updated the week before we publish
<MikeSmith> anne has always gotten the diffs doc updated very quickly and well prior to every new WD publication of the spec
<masinter> I think RDFa and microdata are both out of scope for the committee; if the status of the documents had been updated to make the status clear, that might have been a compromise, but it doesn't look like that isn't happening.
paulc: Larry is dissatisfied with the way the status sections of HTML+RDFa and Microdata got changed
<masinter> HTML+RDFa might be OK, haven't looked again, but Microdata definitely doesn't look right
rubys: next item on the agenda, calls for proposals that close this week
... there are none
<masinter> issue-83?
<trackbot> ISSUE-83 -- Use of the dt and dd elements in figure and details content models -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/83
rubys: next item on the agenda is new calls for proposals / calls for consensus this week
... there is one: ISSUE-83
... last I saw, Shelley had removed her remaining objection
... next item on the agenda: issues to move forward on
<masinter> issue-27?
<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- @rel value ownership, registry consideration -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
rubys: ISSUE-27 rel-ownership - looks like we are near consensus, next step might be a Call for Consensus
<Julian> +1 to CfC on this
rubys: can I ask for an opportunity to ask a question?
paulc: in this case we are effectively taking a dependency on another document
... I want to make sure that when we get consensus we are clear on whether this document would block or help our progress
rubys: certainy as we add more dependencies, the dependencies themselves could impede our progress in the future
masinter: sounds like something that should be visible
<masinter> the URL dependency for example, should have some actions to track
rubys: ISSUE-66 image-analysis seems like we are not quite at consensus, may need counter-proposals
<masinter> issue-66?
<trackbot> ISSUE-66 -- image analysis heuristics -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/66
<masinter> issue-88?
<trackbot> ISSUE-88 -- Should meta/@content allow a list of languages instead of just a single language? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/88
rubys: next issue is issue-88 content-language-multiple, seems like we may be close to consensus on that
<rubys> ack
aphillip: hi, this is Addison, chair of I18N Working Group
... want to ask what it is that we're close to consensus on
<r12a> http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Htmlissue88
rubys: ^
aphillip: ah, that's our proposal
rubys: any other questions or comments?
<paulc> summary: new CfC on 27 and 88
rubys: next agenda item: new issues this week
... no new issues this week
<paulc> summary: Call for counter proposals on 66
rubys: next item on the agenda is discussion items
... f2f meeting we have been discussing - at the moment it's on hold
... exploring focus on cross-group coordination
masinter: some ideas on agenda items that might encourage progress
<rubys> ack
<masinter> if you proposed a sample agenda, it might focus the discussion of "whether to have a meeting in general" to "whether to have a meeting with those agenda items"
paulc: Larry's point is well taken which is that people want to know the return on investment, so having a concrete agenda may help
<masinter> well, if not "concrete" at least "fleshed out" or "proposed"
<paulc> yes
rubys: next item on the agenda is process feedback
... we have some feedback and we need to track that better - proposal is to have a bugzilla component
masinter: I asked for the process document to be expanded and clarified
rubys: my opinion is that a number of questions will require changes to the document - we need a way to track that
... Mike: can you set up a bugzilla component for decision policy?
MikeSmith: sure, yeah
rubys: make the component "decision policy"
<paulc> Are the Chairs agreeing to take the existing comments into Bugzilla?
<masinter> it's both a process and policies that affect how the process is being followed
paulc, I can put Larry's comments in bugzilla
<paulc> Thanks, Maciej
rubys: the last discussion is on licensing - I don't have a quick link but there is a members-only survey
... of the AC
<masinter> should cross-working group review policy be added? It seems to be related? WHy not merge the two?
rubys: whether Member companies would be willing to accept a more liberal license
<paulc> FAQ on licensing: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq (possibley Member only)
rubys: next item is scribe for the next meeting...
<MikeSmith> I added a new component called "working group Decision Policy"
masinter: the IRI working group has been approved
... it's meeting in Anaheim in March
... went to meeting of Unicode core Working Group, got them to agree to participate and help
paulc: Larry, could you send the info on the IETF meeting in March?
rubys: anything else before we adjourn?
... meeting adjourned
<cardona507> goodbye
<Laura> bye
<paulc> We need to generate the minutes
MikeSmith: how do I get the bot to generate the minutes?
<paulc> trackbot, generate minutes
<trackbot> Sorry, paulc, I don't understand 'trackbot, generate minutes'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
<MikeSmith> mjs, "RRSAgent, make minutes"
RSSAgent, make minutes
Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/04 17:36:05 $
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 17:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT