W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hypertext-cg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Minutes of the February 25 Hypertext Coordination Group call

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:16:19 -0500
To: <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006d01cbde6c$f2d10550$d8730ff0$@conversational-technologies.com>
These are the minutes of the February 25 Hypertext Coordination Group call.

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

              Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference
                              25 Feb 2011

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2011JanMar/0055

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/25-hcg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          PLH, Steven, Debbie, Doug, Kaz, Bert, Paul

   Regrets
   Chair
          Debbie_Dahl

   Scribe
          Kaz

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]action items
         2. [6]HTML5 and WebIDL
         3. [7]Registry discussion
         4. [8]XBL discussion
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

action items

   action-64?

   <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Chris Lilley to ask for a Wiki for HCG --
   due 2011-02-18 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [10]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/track/actions/64

     [10] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/track/actions/64

   debbie: Chris said he would talk with Doug about this

   doug: no he has not yet contacted me
   ... will send him an email

   debbie: ok

HTML5 and WebIDL

   plh: geolocation moving to PR, CSS Selecter, etc. are blocked

   <paulc> We have external groups with references to HTML5 that also
   have this problem.

   plh: HTML5 will not get Rec before 2014
   ... need to remove normative reference

   <paulc> For example I attended a JTC1 SC34 meeting on EPUB. EPUB 3
   is moving to refer to the W3C specs like HTML5 and CSS 2/3.

   <inserted> debbie: can we move normative references to WG Note?

   plh: 20 different references to HTML5

   <ddahl> plh: could cut and paste from HTML5 spec to other specs,
   HTML WG could publish a Note

   <plh>
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Feb/0036
   .html

     [11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Feb/0036.html

   plh: Web Performance WG discussion
   ... 23 different references

   [ the above message is on "Blocker for PR: links to HTML5 spec" ]

   plh: we can't move HTML5 to REC right now

   paulc: I attended a JTC1 SC34 meeting on EPUB.
   ... I think Mike Smith has talked with them

   [ EPUB 3 is moving to refer to the W3C specs like HTML5 and CSS 2/3
   ]

   paulc: Microsoft has many external standardization works
   ... e.g., DLNA
   ... what I explained about the HTML5 LC schedule was
   ... they want a stable spec to refer to

   plh: there are specs which need reference to a stable version of
   WebIDL
   ... there was a TC-39 meeting 2 or 3 months ago
   ... they reached some idea there
   ... did not have all the features we needed
   ... plenty of specs which refer to WebIDL...

   debbie: cut&paste (moving to WG Note) sounds good?

   paul: only one another solution
   ... XQuery, etc. solution
   ... simultaneously done as REC

   plh: we could move all the specs to PR

   <paulc> What is the Director's view on normative references? Can
   they be one step behind the referencing document?

   debbie: 5 years ago, IETF cut&pasted MRCP spec

   <ddahl> MRCP used NLSML, but now we have EMMA

   <ddahl> there are two specs that do basically the same thing, but it
   hasn't caused many problems in practice

   paulc: what is W3C's view on normative references?
   ... in the W3C, one step prior to REC is PR

   plh: we might be able to let it go
   ... but have not got Director's dicision

   paulc: e.g., the relation between SQL and COBOL was little
   ... but the relation between HTML5 and Web Notification is intimate,
   and the risk is high

   <paulc> interesting problem!

   debbie: any other comments?

   paulc: we're our own enemy...

   kaz: today's minutes should be public or not?

   plh: ok for public
   ... web performance message referred to is also public

   debbie: there was another example of VoiceXML blocked by SRGS etc.
   ... asked people to implement

   plh: Web Performance has 2 implementations

   paulc: Web Performance group has not reached conclusion
   ... HTML group can cut&paste the normative reference part
   ... can I go skiing this weekend ;)

Registry discussion

   paulc: another topic
   ... registry discussion

   plh: I was invited to registry discussion a few weeks ago
   ... W3C is considering to create a registry within W3C
   ... we have many media types which are not yet registered with IANA
   ... various reasons
   ... Larry Masinter got an action item to consider this topic

   paulc: discussion at Prague IETF conference as well
   ... March 27-April 1
   ... one week after XML Prague
   ... so having HCG discussion after that (in April) would be better

   debbie: April 8?

   <paulc> [12]http://www.ietf.org/meeting/80/index.html

     [12] http://www.ietf.org/meeting/80/index.html

   paulc: the above is link to IETF meeting
   ... pretty controversial topic
   ... would W3C consider to hold a registry?
   ... IETF procedure/timeline is too long
   ... that's why somebody like Larry and somebody like plh should be
   involved

   debbie: sounds like what we need to do is we invite Larry to April 8
   HCG call

   paulc: that's a draft plan

   debbie: and plh, who regularly participates in the call, as well
   ... Kaz, you want to invite somebody from VBWG?

   kaz: James Barnett, the SCXML editor, and Dan Burnett, the SSML 1.1
   editor (and VBWG chair)
   ... because SCXML's type attribute needs some registry, and SSML 1.1
   expects a registry at IANA

XBL discussion

   debbie: XBL discussion?

   doug: talked with Art Barstow and no problem
   ... the core XBL spec can be defined by the WebApps WG, and other
   groups who need more functionality can simply extend that core spec
   in their own specification
   ... that doesn't mean the extension can automatically get
   implementations

   <ddahl> we didn't actually confirm that we agreed to make the
   minutes public, are there any objections?

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 15:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 March 2011 15:17:04 GMT