- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:11:15 +0900
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
The HTML Working Group had its weekly issue-tracking telcon on
2008-06-19 for 90 minutes from 16:00Z 17:30Z.
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html
Present
Julian, MikeSmith, ChrisWilson, anne, smedero, Joshue,
+1.703.843.aabb, DanC, +1.814.308.aacc, aroben,
Laura_Carlson, Kelly_Gifford
Regrets
Steve_Faulkner
Chair
MikeSmith
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* Topics
1. Convene meeting, review agenda
2. issue-32 table-summary
3. issue 33
4. ISSUE-33 ping-referer
5. update on overdue actions
6. Triage of raised issues
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene meeting, review agenda
<Joshue> I promise to help with scribing some day but not today as
it is rather load where I am at the moment!
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
<Joshue> yes, @summary discussion is needed.
<smedero> aroben: document in IRC who said what on the telecon
MS reviews agenda...
issue-32?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<Joshue> issue 32 is @summary
<oedipus_laptop>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008AprJun/0114.h
tml
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008AprJun/0114.html
<oedipus_laptop> scribe's cheat sheet
<aroben> thanks oedipus_laptop
<Julian> issue 33 is referer header, which should be on the agenda
as well
<Joshue> is pending review
<oedipus_laptop> http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
<Joshue> @summary currently [$1\47]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<oedipus_laptop> http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
<oedipus_laptop> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
<hober> Should our response to the XHTML2 WG be on the agenda (if it
isn't already)?
<oedipus_laptop> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
<oedipus_laptop> hober, yes
issue-32 table-summary
<MikeSmith> I propose we discuss issue 32 and take until :22 minutes
after on it at most
<MikeSmith> issue-32?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
(wierd... it says pending review on
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues )
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues
<Joshue> would like to see a new action item related to issue 32
<smedero> (hrm... does, trackbot work from a cache?)
Josh: I'd like to see an action item where we review the reasons for
removing table/@summary
MS: action on who?
<Joshue> I will take this action item on
<Joshue> aplogies for any noise from my channel
<oedipus> GJR will work with joshue if he wants
<hober> Is there any new information w.r.t. @summary?
MS: the target is an optional attribute, yes?
<oedipus> is there any new rationale on why it should be dropped?
Joshue: right
<anne> (I think the rationale from the editor was, fwiw, that there
was not enough rationale for it to be added.)
<Laura> Some applicable Issue 32 WAI docs
<oedipus> but it was REMOVED not ADDED
<Laura> Technique H73 for WCAG 2.0: Using the summary attribute of
the table element to give an overview of data tables
<Laura> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H73.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H73.html
<Laura> Principle 1: Perceivable - Information and user interface
components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive
<Laura> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable
<Laura> Adaptable WCAG2 Guideline 1.3
msg from hixie where he dropped @summary
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.htm
l
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
<Laura> Create content that can be presented in different ways (for
example simpler layout) without losing information or structure
<MikeSmith> ACTION: Joshue to collate information on what spec
status is with respect to table@summary, research backgound on
rationale for retaining table@summary as a valid attribute [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Joshue
<Laura>
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-structure-separation
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-structure-separation
<Joshue> Maybe keep it as issue 32 and rename
<MikeSmith> ACTION: MikeSmith to assign action to Josue to collate
information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary,
research background on rationale for retaining table@summary as a
valid attribute [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Assign action to Josue to collate
information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary,
research background on rationale for retaining table@summary as a
valid attribute [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-06-26].
<smedero> I can rename it... if anyone has a suggestion?
<Joshue> just for tidy housekeeping
<Joshue> @summary is very useful
<hober> That principle 1 is a good argument for <p> before/after
<table>, not @summary. That way all users benefit from the summary
text!
<Joshue> If you can find rational for dropping please forward to me
this seems to be a suggested renaming: mechanism to provide a
summary of high density information easily discernible from a
cursory visual glance
--
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0167.htm
l
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0167.html
<oedipus> hober, what summary does is what your brain does
automatically when you visually process a table
<oedipus> hober, there is no gestalt view for the non-visual user or
those with very limited viewports
<Laura> Table summary discussion on public-html:
<Laura>
http://w3.markmail.org/search/%22summary%20attribute%22%20list:o
rg.w3.public-html?page=1
http://w3.markmail.org/search/%22summary%20attribute%22%20list:org.w3.public-html?page=1
<Laura>
http://w3.markmail.org/search/%22table%20summary%22%20list:org.w
3.public-html?page=1
http://w3.markmail.org/search/%22table%20summary%22%20list:org.w3.public-html?page=1
DanC: is a bunch of research overkill? it seemed to me that the
editor skipped the issue because the title presumed a solution; a
simple re-phrasing of the issue title seems like a good next step
<Joshue> I have yet to see solid rational for removing @summary from
spec
<Joshue> I will mute
<Joshue> thanks
<smedero> My understanding is that Hixie & Hyatt haven't "removed"
or "dropped" @summary... it just not in the spec at present.
WHATWG's HTML 5 started with a clean slate and elements and
attribtues were added as research and test cases came in.
MS: issues is tracked under my name due to technical limitations
DanC: estimated due date?
<oedipus> smedero, but isn't HTML5 supposed to be "evolved from HTML
4.01" by charter?
<robburns> lost my skype connection so I'm only on irc at the moment
(trying to reestablish now)
Joshue: it may take time to get feedback from the WAI PF WG... how
about 2 weeks
<Joshue> Say two weeks for me to return on Issue 32 @summary
<Joshue> Ok
<oedipus> smedero, the objection is that what was added to html4x
for a very definite reason, should either be retained or
enhanced/improved, not dropped
<Joshue> Thats it
<smedero> oedipus, understood... just reiterating past statements
from Hixie and trying to help folks understand why it is not in the
spec. It was not intentionally removed as far as I can remember.
action-66?
<trackbot> ACTION-66 -- Michael(tm) Smith to assign action to Josue
to collate information on what spec status is with respect to
table@summary, research background on rationale for retaining
table@summary as a valid attribute -- due 2008-07-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/66
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/66
<MikeSmith> Action-66 is due August 4
<oedipus> smedero, thanks - not implying that it was removed due to
ill-intent, just that there is a history behind each of those
elements and attributes which i want the WHAT WG to appreciate
<smedero> oedipus, ok, clear!
smedero, "summary="" is not in." is clearly intentional.
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.ht
ml )
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
<hober> oedipus: It's quite possible to appreciate the history and
still advocate dropping them. :)
<MikeSmith> any other comments on the @summary issue for now?
<oedipus> hober, yeah, but not without discussion
<smedero> DanC: Ahh, good find there.
issue-33?
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- spec requires non-compliant Referer header --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
issue 33
ISSUE-33 ping-referer
<Joshue> @summary is very useful well supported. Am interested in
looking forward at other solutions but it must be based on a solid
rational
JR: the offending text is no longer there
... so it seems reasonable to close this issue, but I wasn't sure
about whether to do that myself
MS: closing issues in calls seems good so that more than one person
considers it and so we have a record
<Joshue> The Google data which cites that shows the summary
attribute on ~2.5% of tables. Note: The following information was
collected by Google in December 2005. Does not of itself mean that
the attribute is not useful. It means that it is underutilised and
that is all. [$1\47]
<MikeSmith> Any objections to closing this out?
<oedipus> no objection to ping-refer
DanC: we can't make WG decisions without async participation; seems
easier to just withdraw the issue
MikeSmith: yeah; it hasn't really been discussed by the group
close issue-33
<MikeSmith> issue-33?
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- spec requires non-compliant Referer header --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
<MikeSmith> trackbot, close issue-33
<trackbot> Sorry, MikeSmith, I don't understand 'trackbot, close
issue-33'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
for help
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
<smedero> I'll do that... I'm on the web interface now.
issue-33?
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- [WITHDRAWN] spec requires non-compliant
Referer header -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
<smedero> ahh there we go.
MikeSmith goes back to agenda review... raised issues?
scribe: or XHTML 2 response?
<oedipus> danC, this one:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0251.htm
l ?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0251.html
scribe: or overdue issues?
update on overdue actions
action-14?
<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Chris Wilson to get more information on MS
patent review with <canvas> -- due 2008-06-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/14
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/14
<oedipus> hard deadline of end of month, right?
<hober> I thought the deadline was tomorrow
<hober> (the 20th)
CW: we're reviewing this and all of HTML 5, noting the 20 Jun
deadline...
<oedipus> hober, you are right
CW: if the scope of <canvas> grows, that would mean more work
<oedipus> do people know about the canvas-api list?
CW: this action dates from before 1st WD, and the 1st WD pretty much
obviates this action
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/
close action-14
<trackbot> ACTION-14 get more information on MS patent review with
<canvas> closed
action-29?
<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on the idea of a
free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring -- due
2008-06-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29
<MikeSmith> DanC: I don't know whether this actually ever got to the
management team for an actual yes/no
<anne> I note that <canvas> recently gained a text API that is part
of the second WD
<oedipus> anne, yes
<MikeSmith> action-29
<MikeSmith> action-29?
<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on the idea of a
free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring -- due
2008-06-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29
<anne> Besides ImageData for easier manipulation that's probably the
most major addition.
action-38?
<trackbot> ACTION-38 -- Dan Connolly to chairs to review need for
amending charter with Director -- due 2008-05-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38
<oedipus> anne, agree
<hober> what sort of charter amendment?
<scribe> continues
<anne> hober, not clear yet
hober, the question is whether the scope of the HTML 5 draft is so
different from the charter that either (a) the charter should change
or (b) the spec should change
<anne> or (c) that all is fine ;)
<smedero> Particularly the charter issue came up at Boston TPAC with
regards to <canvas>
right, anne, I wrote "whether"
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
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
<anne> DanC, fair enough
<oedipus> task force runs out soon - need to plan for what comes
after it turns into a pumpkin
CW: yes, it's time to consider what to do next since we don't have
much in the way of results from the forms TF
<oedipus> forms has been thinking nuts and bolts, while the TF
charter anne drafted had abstract requirements as deliverable
<oedipus> collision of expectations
action-56?
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to chris Wilson to work with
MikeSmith and DanC on (re)plan of action for forms coordination with
Forms WG -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
action-61?
<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG responds to
PF WG on Omitting alt Attribute
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.htm
l -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/61
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/61
<aroben> MikeSmith: we seem to have skipped action-57
<MikeSmith> aroben: thanks, checking now
<Joshue> Steve could not make the call today, so he sends apologies.
MS: this seems overtaken by other work on issue-31 missing-alt
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0205.htm
l
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0205.html
close action-61
<trackbot> ACTION-61 Ensure HTML WG responds to PF WG on Omitting
alt Attribute
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.htm
l closed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
<oedipus> AlG call for participation in ALT discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0205.htm
l
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0205.html
DanC: added action-61 to make sure we responded as a WG to the PF
WG's request
action-57?
<trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Chris Wilson to respond to extensibility
discussion -- due 2008-07-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/57
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/57
<MikeSmith> ChrisW will follow up on action-57
(trying to connect action-57 to the distributed extensibility
issue... failing)
action-62?
<trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG response to
XHTML 2 WG re name of XML serialization
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0385.htm
l -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0385.html
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/62
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/62
<oedipus> is action 57 in response to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0251.htm
l
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0251.html
<hober> oedipus: s/57/62/
<oedipus> hober, thanks
Danc: again, this is a request from a peer WG and I felt obliged to
track it until our WG had decided something and responded
MS: want to continue?
action-63?
<trackbot> ACTION-63 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG response to 6
Jun 2007 PF WG msg re table headers
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.htm
l -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/63
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/63
DanC: this should be connected to the table-headers issue; can't
seem to get tracker to do that
<Lachy> yes, headers="" is on TD elements
MS: I think some spec changes have been made related to table
headers
<smedero> The email DanC linked to earlier notes that header is in
the spec:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.htm
l
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
Anne: right; current draft of HTML 5 includes table headers
MS: so perhaps this is a non-issue?
<Lachy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.htm
l Hixie's response about headers=""
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
<anne> It's in http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular.html#headers
for instance
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular.html#headers
<oedipus> quoth hixie: ""Given the problem of conveying the meaning
of tables to users who are not able to directly see the tables,
solutions (such as headers="") have to be evaluated on the basis of
whether or not they address the problem better than not having the
solution at all""
<oedipus> quoth hixie: "Conclusion: headers="" probably neither
helps nor harms this page in existing user agents."
<Lachy>
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabu
lar.html#the-td headers attribute defined in spec here
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular.html#the-td
<MikeSmith> Joshue: you there?
DanC: one possibility for turning
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.htm
l into a WG decision is to mail the WG saying "any objections?"
though I'd rather we had test cases when we close issues
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
<oedipus>
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabu
lar.html#headers
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular.html#headers
<smedero> I believe Ben Millard's research on headers was
instrumental in the March 2008 decision:
http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/
http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to propose a test case regarding table
headers/id [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Propose a test case regarding table
headers/id [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-06-26].
<Joshue> Sorry Dan!
<Laura> header examples:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DroppedAttributeHeaders#head-66e4ad
a3f06ead1e14e5172f57405120a0b2e02c
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DroppedAttributeHeaders#head-66e4ada3f06ead1e14e5172f57405120a0b2e02c
well, it was worth a try
Laura, care to pick one of those?
<oedipus> also:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ExplicitAssociationPatterns#head-27
604d3fc1ffdb981a52a4144d36777d598016a2
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ExplicitAssociationPatterns#head-27604d3fc1ffdb981a52a4144d36777d598016a2
<smedero> Bugzilla issues changed this week:
http://tinyurl.com/6qrymq
http://tinyurl.com/6qrymq
<robburns> oedipus we're now discussing issue-tracker issues
<anne> DanC, another example:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data
/shrtable_02.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_02.html
<oedipus> headers/id in a spec: http://a11y.org/kafs AND
http://a11y.org/kafs-gta
http://a11y.org/kafs
http://a11y.org/kafs-gta
<smedero> DanC: How about a <table>+header example from the W3C
itself: http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix
http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/raised
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/raised
<smedero> (Well, at least that should use header=""... I'm not sure
it does scanning the source)
<oedipus> matrix doesn't use headers/id
<smedero> : (
Triage of raised issues
issue-1?
<trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP
method -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/1
JR: this has been discussed, resulting in divided opinions
<anne> prolly peanuts compared to alt=""
<anne> :)
<oedipus> smedero, not even scope on matrix
<oedipus> smedero, headers/id are used in tables which are
fundamental part of http://a11y.org/kafs (RFC track spec)
http://a11y.org/kafs
DanC: is there more data to get?
JR: I don't think so
<Joshue> gotta go. I will start work on action item 32 re @summary
and fine tune the wording of the action item in order to ensure that
it correctly represents the issue. Bye
MS: this is clearly a WG issue, since it's been discussed
considerably and it involves another WG
DanC: so how about putting the question?
<Lachy> shouldn't we wait till Hixie actually looks at that section
of the spec before we close the issue?
MS: let's give it some time in OPEN state first
<anne> Lachy, he has...
<Lachy> ok, then close it.
<Laura> Dan: Joe Clark's
http://joeclark.org/access/cinema/reviews/
http://joeclark.org/access/cinema/reviews/
<anne> Lachy, that's not how it works
ah... good... that's one concrete page, Laura. the next step is to
reduce it to a small example. any help doing that is appreciated
<MikeSmith> Scribnick: MikeSmith
<MikeSmith> Scribenick: MikeSmith
MikeSmith will take issue-1 to the group for review
<oedipus> danC: there are smaller tables with id/headers and such at
http://a11y.org/a11y-dom-api
http://a11y.org/a11y-dom-api
<anne> also see end of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0085.htm
l fwiw
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0085.html
<anne> (revisit the feature if it fails to get implemented)
issue-5?
<trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Is there a need to expand the available
<button> types to include 'radio' or 'toggle'? -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/5
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/5
<smedero> There hasn't been discussion of that feature outside of
the f2f... meeting.
not taking this up at this point because there has not been
significant discussion on this list, no other WG asking for this
<Julian> issue-6?
<trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- Pros and cons of keeping video and audio in
the scope of the HTML working group -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/6
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/6
the fact that we have already published a two WDs with video and
audio in them has to some degree made this a moot point
this is a candidate for just being closed
<Julian> issue-7?
<trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- codec support and the <video> element --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7
issue 7 remains important but getting resolution remains outside the
control of the HTML WG
<Julian> issue-9?
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- how synchronization works for <video> is
unclear -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9
I think issue 9 does not need to be taken up by the group
<smedero> I've got to drop off now, regrets.
another issue that could go to bugzilla, maybe
<oedipus> i have to drop off too, but wanted to note 2 things:
<Julian> issue-10?
<trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- how similar should SMIL and <video> attribute
names be? -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
<oedipus> as far as issue 35
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35) i noted in the
notes that the issue should be closed due to the erroneous nature of
its underlying assumption and provided details and pointers
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35)
<oedipus> as far as issue 51
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51) i think that it
can be closed by noting:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0182.htm
l and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0183.htm
l)
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0182.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0183.html)
<smedero> I can move certain Tracker issues to Bugzilla if that's
what you'd like to see happen MikeSmith. Assign an action, email me
directly, or ping me on IRC...
smedero: OK, I look into it
anne: I'm not sure I agree with oedipus statement that this should
be closed
... Henri Sivonen has discussed this too, and I think it's on
Hixie's TODO list ...
... and perhaps we should wait until we have more implementation
experience ...
<Lachy> Issue 35 should definitely remain open. Gregory's arguments
against it don't make sense
<hober> agreed
so I note that oedipus has written, "values of the attribute are not
CURIEs [CURIE], but simply strings."
<anne> AvK: I don't think the role attribute module actually
reflects what implementations do
<anne> ... the implementations just treat them as string values not
qnames or whatever
<anne> ... seems much simpler for everyone involved...
<anne> AvK: HTML and XML would be the same as far as I can tell, but
no qnames
<anne> ... euh, curies?
we got up through issue-10 in our review of raised issues
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to propose a test case regarding table headers/id
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Joshue to collate information on what spec status is
with respect to table@summary, research backgound on rationale for
retaining table@summary as a valid attribute [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: MikeSmith to assign action to Josue to collate
information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary,
research background on rationale for retaining table@summary as a
valid attribute [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 05:11:55 UTC