{minutes} HTML WG issue-tracking telcon 2008-06-12

The HTML Working Group had its weekly issue-tracking telcon on
2008-06-12 for 90 minutes from 16:00Z 17:30Z.


          Shawn Medero, Doug_Schepers, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson,
          MikeSmith, Steve_Faulkner, Lachy, anne

          Julian, DanC, ChrisWilson


          Gregory, MikeSmith


     * Topics
         1. convene weekly HTML WG issue-tracking telcon
         2. ternary state of the tracker
         3. HTML Authoring Guide
         4. Open Issues and Actions
     * Summary of Action Items

convene weekly HTML WG issue-tracking telcon

   <smedero> oedipus, I'm not convinced the names are right...

   <smedero> but who knows

   <smedero> Steve_Faulkner joined before I did... so he should be in
   the first slot, right?

   <oedipus> GJR has 2 agenda requests: 1) ternary state of tracker
   (formal request of chairs made) and 2) a week's extension for my
   proposal to the forms task force list as i have had severe
   infrastructural problems (including an entire day without

   minutes from last week:


   <smedero> k-o

   <oedipus> ternary state:


   <oedipus> chrisW's reply:


   any items to add to the agenda for today?

   anne: is the chair thing on the agenda?

   <oedipus> who is in a position to say something?

   <anne> MS: W3C is discussing this internally, not going to get a
   resolution in the next hour; please hold your breath

   <anne> ... a little longer

   <anne> MS: hopefully fixed by tomorrow

ternary state of the tracker

   <oedipus> my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made
   sure was logged

   <oedipus> in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens
   an issue, it is

   <oedipus> not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the
   chairs in their

   <oedipus> capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to
   the effect that:

   <oedipus> * RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on
   list and in

   <oedipus> at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed




   <oedipus> * CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved -
   note that

   <oedipus> issues should be closed only after being addressed at a
   telecon, so

   <oedipus> that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be
   logged and

   <oedipus> objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the
   chairs that

   <oedipus> the issue should not be closed

   <oedipus> or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED"
   issues as "PROPOSED"?

   <smedero> Along these lines, I tried to sort out how we came to the
   three issue states we currently have:


   <oedipus> why not?

   <oedipus> doesn't a plus one from a chair cary weight?

   <anne> it doesn't affect the argument

   MikeSmith: as far as Chris Wilson's +1 message, I don't find that
   particularly useful
   ... in general, "+1" messages to the list are rarely, if ever,
   useful in discussions on the list

   <oedipus> shepazu: ignoring plus one messages discourages
   participation - sometimes there's nothing left to add to a well
   articulated post

   shepazu: can I slightly disagree with that?

   <Lachy> if there's nothing left to add, then there's little point in
   posting anything at all.

   <oedipus> is following up on issues the responsibility of the issue
   tracking team?

   <Laura> A +1 adds an additional voice of support to a concept or

   <Lachy> the problem with +1's, which we had trouble with back when
   the group started, is that it floods people's inboxes with mostly
   useless messages and takes up valuable time from reading potentially
   more important messages

   <shepazu> discouraging "+1" can suppress minority opinion by
   alienating list members who might have nothing more to say but who
   do agree with the poster... it's a good way to make sure that only
   the most vocal are represented in the considerations

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that we need a statement on
   behalf of the chairs as to what the three states mean

   <shepazu> Lachy, agreement by a large number of people *is*
   something to add

   <Lachy> and it seems to imply that the opinion of the person who
   sent the +1 actually carries weight, when it may well not carry any
   at all, except in rare cases

   <Lachy> shepazu, no, it's not, because it's the quality of the
   argument, not the quantity of support

   <Lachy> that matters

   <shepazu> ... unless you are keen on suppressing other opinions from
   finding a voice

   <oedipus> GJR thinks issue raising and tracking needs to be
   addressed by the chairs so that we can progress towards something
   resembling stability and consensus

   <shepazu> Lachy, sometimes, but not always... many decisions are
   simply a matter of what the most people want, and have no deep
   technical merits to either side

   MikeSmith: I am not inclined to require that we obligate ourselves
   to take action on every RAISED issue in any way different than what
   we have already been doing.

   <Steve_f> 'quality of argument' is a qualitative statement, showing
   support for an argument reinforces the argument

   <oedipus> concerned by


   <oedipus> especially "same level of response that I give any e-mail
   sent to the WHATWG

   <oedipus> list; that is, given full consideration and given an
   explicit response.

   <oedipus> why not the same consideration to issues raised in the

   <oedipus> and on public-html?

   MikeSmith: We will be using bugzilla as a means for allowing anybody
   to raise issues against that spec and to be able to track them.

   <shepazu> also, it doesn't take long to process a message that says
   only "+1"

   <oedipus> SF: issue - summary attribute been raised twice - how do i
   get it on issue tracker?

   <oedipus> MikeS: appropriate for bugzilla

   <oedipus> LC: already in tracker

   <oedipus> MikeS: really? what is issue number?

   <oedipus> LC: issue 32 - was closed by hixie

   <Lachy> +1's should be reserved only for issues where a vote
   matters, and in which case it should be done with a survey, not a
   bunch of +1 mails

   <oedipus> MikeS: other issue is that hixie was told to do what he is
   doing - when issue in issue tracker and editor done responding to it
   as editor, he was told to close it out and that's what he's been
   doing; don't have state in tracker that marks "resolved by editort"
   -- bugzilla provides far more granularity

   <oedipus> MikeS: editor could mark an issue as resolved to his
   satisfaction in bugzilla


   <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? --

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32


   <oedipus> LC: how to get from bugzilla to issue tracker

   <oedipus> MikeS: discuss on telecons; number of issues in my
   estimation don't merit enough attention to be discussed on weekly
   calls - especially 42 through 50; summary does need resolution, but
   night and day to GJR's issues


   <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? --

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32


   <oedipus> DS: "pending state" needed?


   <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? --

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32


   <oedipus> GJR notes to shepazu that that was his original request
   until he realized that RAISED served the same function

   <smedero> Ian closed it because he needed wanted more

   <oedipus> MikeS: limitation of tracker - resolution needs chairs
   intervention - reopened issue 32 and will remain open until have a
   resolution that allows it to be closed; not resolved now -- needs
   more discussion

   <oedipus> SF: in situation where have issue considered resolved by
   editor and chairs, but not by members of WG, how are those issues

   Steve_f: in a situation that is considered resolved by the editor
   and by the chairs, what is the recourse?

   <shepazu> oedipus, not quite... raising an issue means that it is in
   the system to make sure it's considered, while "pending review" can
   mean that work has been done on it

   <oedipus> SF: are some substantial issues that editor considers
   resolved, but WG members do not - what is resolution path?

   <oedipus> shepazu, i was trying to work within the framework of the
   available tools...

   <Lachy> I don't see the value in reopening the summary attribute
   issue until there are more substantial arguments, that aren't simply
   rehashing the same arguments from before

   <Lachy> I don't think people saying they object to the issue being
   closed, which is basically all there has been, qualifies as such a

   <oedipus> SF: marked as closed, reopened, then closed again, then
   reopened again - not going to be resolved in near future -- WG
   working on it from different angles, but if doesn't get resolved
   through conversation/discussion has to be resolved via a vote

   <oedipus> MikeS: alt issue closed is same problem with summary

   <oedipus> SF: substantive issue not resolved should stay as open
   issue on tracker

   <oedipus> MikeS: will happen going forward - issues will not be
   closed without my (mikeS) say so

   <oedipus> MikeS: should review all closed issues - if any anyone
   feels closed prematurely, bring up and reopen, as did with summary

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to have chairs address hixie's comments


   <oedipus> GJR worried by hixie ignoring issue tracker and WG wiki,
   but offering to give bugzilla entries the same precedence he gives
   to WHAT WG feedback -- this is very problematic and unsettling



   <oedipus> MikeS: hixie already said that that is his stance -- if
   that is "correct" interpretation of his role is a seperate issue

   <oedipus> MikeS: Laura, received question about priority of response
   (WHAT WG over HTML WG) - need to make clearer what are the priority
   issues and bring them to hixie; complicated by discussion about the
   issues 42-50 which i don't think merit any special attention than
   any other issues no matter their origin; those issues were not
   agreed to as priority

   <oedipus> MikeS: gives me more leverage to get hixie to reprioritize

   <oedipus> MikeS: will make easier - fact that issues 42-50 raised
   without review process makes it difficult

   <oedipus> MikeS: agree we need to have more of a coordinated
   consensus about which issues we want to make priorities; cannot
   insist that every issue raised on public-html more important than
   those raised anywhere else


   <oedipus> GJR how can you say it is not an issue by fiat when those
   attending calls keep raising them

   <oedipus> GJR: what is "review process"? how can we raise issues if
   no "review process" defined

   <oedipus> MikeS: equally confused by fact that GJR and RobB don't
   understand difference between an important issue and parochial

   <oedipus> GJR notes that a blind man's poison is another man's food

   <oedipus> MikeS: alt required a show stopper for Last Call; issues
   42-50 don't rise to that level

   <oedipus> MikeS: same level as other issues floated on list - if
   everyone in community who wanted to make their own issue a special
   priority, there would be no way for us to track issues with real
   priority; tracker needs to be a place where we are looking only at
   high priority issues

   <oedipus> MikeS: need to formulate a way to define issues that rise
   to issue tracker level

   <oedipus> MikeS: another class of issues: issues raised by other
   working groups; example: issue added on behalf of Al Gilman (chair
   of PF); issues that affect relationships with other WGs or other
   specifications, need to be resolved at highest priority; need to
   resolve issue now or during last call -- that's the kind of issue
   that should go on tracker

   <oedipus> DS: only flaw is that criteria hasn't been made clear to
   group; need to declare how things are given issue status - as
   important as "principles of operation" - group decides on system to
   manage issues and actions - should be codified someplace

   <oedipus> GJR: looking for clarification from chairs

   <oedipus> GJR: original comments on MS in role as staff contact, not
   as chair or whatever



   <oedipus> MikeS: not documented by me so far -- added statement to
   WG homepage

   <oedipus> MikeS: probably needs more detail -- will provide and send
   out to list to ensure everybody aware of policy

   <oedipus> DS: that would be very helpful - detail you went into
   today about LC is very important

   <Steve_f> +1 to that

   <Laura> +1 from me too

   <oedipus> MikeS: recognize that this is a problem, but trying to
   prioritize issues -- getting working draft published taken time, now
   that it has been published, have more time to pay to details

   <oedipus> DS: know you're doing double-duty - perhaps co-chair could
   help out more with day-to-day WG decisions

   <oedipus> MikeS: will discuss with him when returns from vacation

   <oedipus> SF: an issue brought to PF's attention and they consider
   it to be substantive, and that is communicated to HTML WG, would
   that get on Issue Tracker as open issue?

   <oedipus> MikeS: will say unequivocally that any issue from another
   WG will get into tracker and be addressed; that is W3C process;

   <oedipus> SF: thanks for clarification

   <Lachy> HTML5 Authoring Guide

   <oedipus> MikeS: any other topics to be added?

   <oedipus> scribeNick: oedipus

   MikeS: Lachy been working on HTML Authoring Guidelines

   <shepazu> Lachy++

   <Lachy> I've made some updates to the authoring guide, focussing
   mainly on the syntax section

HTML Authoring Guide

   <Lachy> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/#elements


   MikeS: checked in changes - current version in CVS reflects latest
   changes, right?

   <Lachy> I'm going to try and get something worth publishing as an
   FPWD within the next couple of weeks

   <Lachy> yes, I checked in the most recent changes about 30 minutes

   LH: brief summary of changes - added syntax change descriptions,
   differences between HTML and XHTML - will add major elements to
   section after that and hope to have draft ready for publication in a
   week or 2

   MikeS: want to stick to 3 month heartbeat req; next version of spec
   in September 2008; would like something publishable at least a month
   before next heartbeat release
   ... 10 September 2008
   ... another useful thing would be to give a heads up on public-html
   list and give a summary of what you've changed

   LH: ok

   MikeS: thanks for your work - great to see the document moving along

Open Issues and Actions

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda


   MikeS: for action 54 remind me where we are at?

   <MikeSmith> action-54?

   <trackbot> ACTION-54 -- Gregory Rosmaita to work with SteveF draft
   text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on
   img elements -- due 2008-06-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54


   <anne> Is it ok if Lachy and I leave now for some food?

   <MikeSmith> oedipus: still awaiting response from PF ... aiming to
   have that by next week's call

   MikeS: current due date 19 june 2008 so if can get feedback would be

   GJR: will discuss with AlG and if need more time will get a
   chair-to-chair request

   MikeS: overdue action items

   <MikeSmith> action-34?

   <trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Lachlan Hunt to prepare "Web Developer's
   Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on
   2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34


   ALERT: meeting continues for another 30 minutes (or until issue
   review done)

   MikeS: changed due date to 26 june to give lachy a couple of weeks -
   will keep updated every 2 weeks

   <MikeSmith> "Lachlan working on this, with goal to have something
   WD-ready by mid-August"

   MikeS: same overdue action items from last week -- assigned either
   to ChrisW or DanC - will keep open until have chance to talk with

   <MikeSmith> action-14?

   <trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Chris Wilson to get more information on MS
   patent review with <canvas> -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/14


   MikeS: due date today - chrisW moved due date to today's date
   ... 150 days from 22 january - so 22 june 2008 is due date for
   patent review
   ... any patent disclosures with regards the draft published on 22
   january are due 22 june - this applies to anyone and everyone
   ... don't know current situation with all patent stakeholders; apple
   been doing review - as well as MS

   DS: issue will be obsolete after 22 june 2008

   MikeS: right
   ... need chrisW to update
   ... downside of tracker - doesn't give audit trail
   ... test cases don't apply to open source discussion; from w3c team
   side, have not received/seen any change in w3c license policy
   ... w3c documents cannot be modified and published in modified form;
   applies to rec-track documents, but don't distinguish between
   normative rec-track documents and notes (which are non-normative);
   more important to ensure don't have conflicting versions of
   standards being published
   ... my own opinion - don't know what info DanC has that might affect

   <smedero> MikeSmith: From Dom@W3 about Action changelog - "Note that
   actions created from IRC do not carry that information, since it
   isn't possible (or at least practical) to define who asked to create
   the action based on the IRC commands."

   MikeS: forms working group (action 56)

   GJR: needs more time to propose to task force - hopefully by end of

   <MikeSmith> action-56?

   <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to wilson to follow up with
   Forms WG to make sure they understand this plan of action by
   5/1/2008 -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56


   MikeS: ChrisW hasn't had communication with forms task force

   GJR: no, hasn't

   MikeS: inclined to close out - will keep open until ahve chance to
   talk with ChrisW about it

   <MikeSmith> action-63?

   <trackbot> ACTION-63 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG response to 6
   Jun 2007 PF WG msg re table headers
   l -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN


   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/63


   MikeS: table headers - did have change - headers attribute readded
   to draft; GJR what is position of WAI on status of this?

   GJR: will email the WAI Coordination Group to get status report from
   WAI chairs

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#headers


   DS: thanks mike for keeping track of a ridiculous amount of info

   MikeS: volume of change makes hard for most people to keep up to
   date; trying to keep a running record and recycling info to the WG;
   need to publish a message weekly that says "these are the changes
   that have been made this week" so that have more eyes on changes and
   don't sneak up on people

   GJR strong +1 to MikeTMSmith's weekly post

   <MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/pubnotes/


   MikeS: going to make accessibility related changes a highlight; all
   WG members should review changes to spec to keep up to date on
   current status, so that those with special interests and expertise
   (especially accessiblity) are in the loop
   ... will also be working on a better way to recycle to group regular
   updates on changes
   ... biggest set of issues left -- next week, instead of approaching
   in serial manner, start with "big issues"
   ... couple of raised issues related to HTTP which we haven't taken
   up and do need to take up - julian has expertise

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/closed


   MikeS: look at closed issues - didn't know that summary issue in a
   closed state, so good to review
   ... anything that should be reopened?

   <smedero> MikeSmith: TAG is still dicussing:


   <smedero> sigh

   <smedero> whatever

   <smedero> heh

   MikeS: a lot of duplicates

   <MikeSmith> issue-41?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41


   MikeS: reopen issue 41 - an issue for discussion with TAG - example
   of what should be kept open on tracker
   ... don't know what can do about "decentralized accessiblity" --
   issue for TAG and a lot of others (WAI, Ubiquitous Web, etc.)
   ... any others people want opened?


   MikeS: in remaining time, want to look at open issues briefly

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open


   <MikeSmith> issue-51?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module,
   which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51


   MikeS: not sure what issue precisely is - ARIA has dependency on
   XHTML - extension of Role Attribute Module - Role module references
   CURIEs normatively
   ... CURIEs put forward by XHTML2 WG - not sure if TAG has made a

   GJR: TAG concerned about CURIES - multiplicity of ways of defining
   short URIs a worry, but no declarative finding; XHTML2 WG continues
   to work on CURIEs draft

   <MikeSmith> oedipus: TAG has issued a finding that they have some
   reasons to be uneasy with the current CURIE spec ... XHTML2 WG is
   working on addressing the concerns

   <MikeSmith> oedipus: this has been a problem with PF as far as ARIA

   GJR: PF taking CURIE agnostic view -

   DS: don't think HTML WG should be considering

   <MikeSmith> ... our PF policy has been to use @role as outlined, and
   we worry about CURIEs when a decision comes down about CURIEs

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#common1


   MikeS: long-term concern, but nothing about ARIA in HTML5 spec, so
   no attempt to address CURIEs; haven't incorporated ARIA attributes
   into spec, so not of immediate concern, but will be an issue if
   CURIEs end up being endorsed by TAG; as far as way that spec is
   currently defined, CURIE syntax might be in conflict with
   conformance criteria already in HTML5 spec - specifically
   ... RDFa integration also a question - use case for CURIEs from RDFa
   task force - if have RDFa integrated into HTML5 will have CURIE

   tag on CURIE: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html


   CURIE Issue in TAG Tracker:


   DS: SVG will be making formal proposal, and will be working in
   public over the next weeks

   MikeS: would like to go through issues in raised state

   <shepazu> after taking feedback into account

   MikeS: agenda for next week - will post a list of specific issues
   for discussion to discern which have consensus upon

   <shepazu> np

   MikeS: move we adjourn

   scribe's note: seconded by all

   <MikeSmith> [adjourned]

Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 00:53:30 UTC