- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:52:50 -0600
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
HTML Weekly Teleconference 15 Jan 2009
1. Convene, take roll, review agenda
2. W3C publications heartbeat
3. ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the table-headers
algorithm in the HTML 5 spec
4. ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope): Origin header: in scope? required
for this release?
5. ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable text
equivalent is unknown/unavailable?
6. ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and MathML into
text/html
7. ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't generate <!
DOCTYPE html>
fully text: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-html-wg-minutes.html
and inline text copy for tracker, mail search engine...
HTML Weekly Teleconference
15 Jan 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0001.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-html-wg-irc
Attendees
Present
Sam, +049251280aaaa, Julian, dsinger, Matt_May, Joshue,
hsivonen, Mike, DanC, Lachy, ChrisWilson, +1.408.536.aacc,
+1.519.538.aadd, MurrayM, LarryM, Shepazu, [Microsoft],
smedero, Mike.a
Regrets
Chair
ChrisWilson
Scribe
rubys
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene, take roll, review agenda
2. [6]W3C publications heartbeat
3. [7]ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the
table-headers algorithm in the HTML 5 spec
4. [8]ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope): Origin header: in scope?
required for this release?
5. [9]ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable
text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?
6. [10]ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and
MathML into text/html
7. [11]ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't
generate <!DOCTYPE html>
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene, take roll, review agenda
<DanC> (ideally, we would have updated those actions and sent out
the contents of [13]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda at
T-24hrs, but hey... we'll get there)
[13] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
<trackbot> Date: 15 January 2009
<pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly -
HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2008-11-20 from Sam
Ruby on 2009-01-13 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to
March 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
<DanC> and this is sorted:
[14]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
[14] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
<pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly -
HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
W3C publications heartbeat
ChrisWilson: let's talk about the heartbeat requirement first
... we need to get publication notes detailing changes from the last
draft
... any objections?
<anne> Is it realistic to get a detailed changelog?
LarryM: LarryM: do we need a review first?
<Joshue> I would like to see the poll on @summary go ahead before
the next iternation of the spec or the draft is published.
ChirsWilson: no, it this isn't a new document
<DanC> an update of html4-diff is much appreciated; i think the
level of detail you typically come up with is fine, anne
LarryM: if you do an action with no significance, why do the action?
DanC: there is a lot of new forms material...
<ChrisWilson> Anne, how detailed are you considering pubnotes to be?
I wasn't thinking checkin-by-checkin changelog; but the overview,
e.g. webforms, would be important imo
<Joshue> I don't like the fact that @summary has been dropped. This
was a unilateral decision and I think the wider group should
consulted. Without this process @summary wioll have little to no
chance of being reinstated.
LarryM: I don't have any more comments...
<masinter> yes
<DanC> Larry, at one point I tried to be sure every section had been
reviewed by 2+ HTML WG reviewers:
[15]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SpecReviews
[15] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SpecReviews
<ChrisWilson> Josh, is that related to current topic or a new topic?
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/SpecReviews - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
<Joshue> zaki, unmute me
<Lachy> which attribute is being discussed?
<hsivonen> Lachy, summary
Joshue: I think it important to resolve the summary issue before the
next heartbeat document
<Lachy> summary was never in the spec
DanC: I don't believe that summary was dropped since the last draft
<anne> ChrisWilson, [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changelog
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changelog
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> issue-32?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for
unsighted navigation? -- OPEN
<trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
[17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<anne> ChrisWilson, that's about as much as I can commit to
DanC: does issue 32 need to be resolved before the next publication?
<hsivonen> Joshue, why should issue 32 block the heartbeat when none
of the other open issues are blocking?
DanC: I symphatize for the issue, but don't believe that it need to
be solved before publication
ChirsW: I would like to move forward towards publishing, Dan, do we
need a poll?
<Joshue> Just giving my two cents.
DanC: no
ChrisW: I will send a mail out
<masinter> I would like the opportunity to review the draft in
detail, and want to make sure that agreeing to publishing the
working draft doesn't preclude raising issues
<ChrisWilson> action ChrisWilson send mail to WG saying we will
issue new WD due tomorrow
<trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Send mail to WG saying we will issue
new WD due tomorrow [on Chris Wilson - due 2009-01-22].
<DanC> issue: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-65 - HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
; please complete additional details at
[18]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/65/edit .
[18] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/65/edit
<anne> masinter, it never does
<anne> masinter, publishing is just sending out a note for wider
review
<masinter> thanks, yes
ChrisW: publishing the working draft does not preclude raising
issues
... I want to do pending review actions first
what list are we all looking at?
ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the table-headers algorithm
in the HTML 5 spec
<ChrisWilson> action-87?
<trackbot> ACTION-87 -- Michael(tm) Smith to ensure Ian Hickson
follows up on semantics-tables messages -- due 2008-12-20 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/87
[19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/87
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-87 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<Joshue> regarding @summary please note the request from the PF to
keep the attribute
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0213.htm
l
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0213.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: Request for PFWG WAI review of summary for
tabular data from Al Gilman on 2008-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from
August 2008) (at lists.w3.org)
<DanC> so [21]http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H43.html is still
non-conforming?
[21] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H43.html
scribe is confused, issue-20 has an action which is due 2009-01-30
<pimpbot> Title: H43: Using id and headers attributes to associate
data cells with header cells in data tables | Techniques for WCAG
2.0 (at www.w3.org)
<gsnedders> DanC: yes
DanC: would the validator flag the example?
Hsivonen: no
DanC: great!
<DanC> "HTML 5 draft allows @headers on td but not on th."
<DanC> is th/@headers allowed now?
Chris: I'll look into this, but I think we can close it
<anne> DanC, yes
<DanC> spiffy.
<anne> DanC, see
[22]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabu
lar-data.html#the-th-element
[22] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular-data.html#the-th-element
(many): yes
<pimpbot> Title: 4.9 Tabular data HTML 5 (at www.whatwg.org)
<masinter> did Matt_May liaison get on agenda?
ChrisWilson: status of 87 is now closed, I'd like to leave 72 open
to remind me to review it...
ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope): Origin header: in scope? required for this
release?
<ChrisWilson> action-89?
<trackbot> ACTION-89 -- Michael(tm) Smith to make a proposal to the
WebApps WG that we take this on as a work item there, with Adam
Barth as the editor -- due 2009-01-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/89
[23] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/89
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-89 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
MikeSmith: consensus is that this doesn't belong in webapps
<DanC> it was in the editors' draft as of
[24]http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2524&to=2525
[24] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2524&to=2525
<pimpbot> Title: (X)HTML5 Tracking (at html5.org)
MikeSmith: we can close 63
DanC: It was (previously) in the draft
<masinter> action is to bring proposal to IETF?
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - is
MikeSmith: it still is, the plan is to move it out
<anne> MikeSmith, really, did we discuss that? The Origin header is
currently defined in a WebApps WG draft, after all...
DanC: I wouldn't mid a recorded decision that we aren't doing it
ChrisW: Is there something we need to do?
DanC: the consensus in the IETF liason call is that this belongs in
the IETF
ChrisW: we can close this item
<masinter> liaison need to track?
DanC: I'd like a decision!
ChrisW: I'll do that
Larry: do we need to track this?
DanC: I'm content that this is being tracked
ChrisW: I propose closing the issue and action
DanC: I think it has had enough attention
<masinter> closing it sounds good to me
DanC: Sam?
Sam: should there be an action to remove it from the spec?
Doug: would it be prudent to leave it in the spec pending some
action?
Larry: I think it would be imprudent to keep it in the spec...
Doug: I'm fine either way..
larry: If we are deferring to the IETF, we are saying we aren't
doing it.
<DanC> (rubys, we've experimented with hixie carrying tracker
actions, and the current status is that he doesn't; somebody else
takes an action to work with hixie...)
MikeSmith: my action is done
ChrisW: Is this actually referenced in the HTML spec?
DanC: it was
Julian: the spec currently has this text
<Julian> it's in
[25]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin
[25] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)
ChrisW: We need an action
Henri: I can take this action
<trackbot> ACTION-96 -- Henri Sivonen to to ensure editor removes
Origin header: from spec -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96
[26] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-96 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> feel free to give a different ETA, hsivonen
<DanC> a la: action-96 due 15 Feb 2009
<anne> I'm not sure I agree this is the right course of action. It
only affects HTML forms... Didn't we establish this last time this
was discussed?
<anne> Also, the WebApps WG are the ones currently defining the
Origin header...
<MikeSmith> trackbot, comment action-96 see
[27]http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081211#l-45 : Hixie:
"splitting off the protocol part of websocket, the content-sniffing
section, the uri section, and a brief definition of the Origin
header, and submitting them as four tentative IDs"
[27] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081211#l-45
<trackbot> ACTION-96 to ensure editor removes Origin header: from
spec notes added
ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is
unknown/unavailable?
Matt: what's the goal here?
DanC: I just want the overall plan for having it fixed in general,
no need to worry about trying to get it fixed by the next draft
Matt: I can come back next week with status
<ChrisWilson> whoops, didn't mean to hit enter yet.
<ChrisWilson> just a sec, Henri
<ChrisWilson> thx
Matt: this is a topic I don't expect the HTML spec to solve...
<Joshue> Just for the record
[28]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute
[28] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/IssueAltAttribute - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
<DanC> (taking a peek at
[29]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute to see how it
does with NPOV...)
[29] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/IssueAltAttribute - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
<smedero> This was the last editor's summary on @alt:
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0759.htm
l
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0759.html
<pimpbot> Title: The alt="" attribute from Ian Hickson on 2008-08-26
(public-html@w3.org from August 2008) (at lists.w3.org)
Matt: the current draft doesn't close the door on optional alts, and
I'm unsure how to proceed from here.
<DanC> (re HTML/IssueAltAttribute "latest published" is at risk of
going stale ...)
hsivonon: what should a piece of software do if a user is
uncooperative? what are the sequences of bytes that a validator must
flag as nonforming?
<Joshue> @Dan, yeah it probably needs updating
<pimpbot> Joshue: Huh?
hsivonen: my position is that a data format should allow a signal
for an authoring tool to indicate that a user did not provide the
data, and that should be conforming
<DanC> Josue, so far, I don't see any critical NPOV problems in that
wiki summary, though; we seem to be getting better at using the wiki
<DanC> (it would be nifty if the arguments hsivonen and matt are
talking about were easy to find in that wiki summary)
<Joshue> Dan, yeah, it is a pretty good overview of these myriad
issues and related offshoots.
cynthia: what worked well in the past is the alt attribute is
required, but an empty string is ok, why does that need to change?
<dsinger> the discussion was that the empty string then becomes
ambiguous: it's also used to say that an image is, for example,
purely decorative
<dsinger> the UA cannot then tell the difference betwen "alt
desirable but unavalable" and "alt wasn't needed"
cynthia: I agree with Matt that descriptions as to what is a valid
alt tag belongs in WAI...
<anne> cyns, why? alt="" is not just an accessibility technique
<anne> cyns, it's important for e.g. text browsers as well
Doug: Henri? would you agree that if all you are validating is HTML,
then you shouldn't flag a missing HTML, but a validator that also
also was aware of WCAG would validate more?
hsivonen: yes
<cyns> slight modification of summary of my statement: what is
*good* or *appropriate* alt in a scenario is not a language issue,
but an authoring issue. should not be in the language spec.
hsivonen: it may be a different class of message
<pimpbot> Title: IRC logs: freenode / #whatwg / 20081211 (at
krijnhoetmer.nl)
<anne> cyns, the language should tell authors how to write it, no?
<anne> cyns, the language spec...
doug: fine, this may be a communication issue; not requiring it in
the language doesn't mean that it can't be flagged
hsivonen: right
<cyns> anne, the language should tell the author what is valid, but
not necessarily what content is equivalent.
<takkaria> I'm not sure what quite what use defining a language is
if you don't define how to use it in certain situations
matt: DreamWeaver gives you options, but if you don't make a
decision, no alt tag is generated, and I consider that a "pass"
<jgraham> FWIW I guess not putting information about alt usage in
HTML 5 will jsut mean fewer authors are exposed to that information
matt: not letting you save non-conforming documents is a non-starter
in the marketplace
<anne> cyns, why not? the author needs to know how to write the
language properly
<masinter> this is a case where defining what the language *means*
independently of how authors should author and browsers should
interpret is a good idea
<anne> cyns, the language specification should tell the author how
to properly include an image, imo
<anne> masinter, I don't really see why that matters
matt: having the validators be the gatekeeper has provided
significant value in the past
<masinter> alt="" means something different than 'no alt'.
<dsinger> the assumption that HTML generation is coincident with a
person who knows what the non-text content is like, is not tenable
<masinter> different requirements on interpreters and generators
<cyns> anne, examples, yes, but not every possible scenario. fine in
an authoring guide, but it and WCAG should be single-sourced in that
case
<anne> masinter, sure, that's all in the specification
<anne> cyns, but WCAG is for accessibility, doesn't cover e.g.
search engines or text browsers
<takkaria> how can you talk about waht a language means
independently of how people should understand it?
<DanC> (pointer to relevant part of ATAG docs, anyone?)
hsivonen: authoring tools should do what DreamWeaver does, and
believe that that ATAG 2.0 should direct tools to do what DW does
<dsinger> not all HTML is made by interactive tools...
<shepazu> so, if the government requires that content for government
web content follow WCAG guidelines, then there will be market
pressure for an authoring tool to force/encourage authors to add alt
text, regardless of whether it is is for HTML or WCAG validity
<masinter> there are different constraints on the content and on the
tools for generating content
hsivonen: we shouldn't make HTML5 require that some streams that can
be generated using ATAG guides be considered non-conforming
<masinter> different constraints on visual display browsers and
screen readers
<dsinger> I agree with Julian; weare going over old ground that took
hours on the mailing list
<Joshue> +1 to Henri, I agree there should not be rubbish values
inserted into content just to satisfy a validator
<DanC> (julian, if you can point to a succinct summary, then that
might save us time, but otherwise, yes, some redundant discussion is
natural)
masinter: if you try to do everything in one specification, it will
be hard to read and contain a lot of information that is irrelevant
to many classes of users.
<dsinger> Dan, I fear that no-one is satisfied (not even the editor)
matt: the WAI coordination group is planning on discussing this.
... I can report back next week on this and on summary
<DanC> dsinger, I don't expect the editor to commit text he's not
satisfied with... without an explicit note. is there one?
chris: I'll update the status
<trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Discuss missing-alt with the WAI CG
and report back [on Matthew May - due 2009-01-22].
<Joshue> summary attribute
[31]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
[31] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<masinter> and action 90 and action 92 should both be closed
<DanC> close action-90
<trackbot> ACTION-90 Ask Matt May if he can help represent WAI WGs
in the HTML WG closed
ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and MathML into
text/html
<ChrisWilson> action-94?
<trackbot> ACTION-94 -- Doug Schepers to report back on SVG WG's
integration proposal re: issue-37 -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/94
[32] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/94
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-94 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
doug: I've moved the action back to next week
ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE
html>
<ChrisWilson> action-91
rubys: proposed on the list, awaiting feedback from the editor
<DanC> well, the "report on feedback " part isn't done
ChrisW: what's the current status
rubys: we have a proposed change, and waiting on the editor to make
the change
DanC: sam, you've seen all the feedback you think you need to see?
rubys: yes
ChrisW: what is limited quirks?
<DanC> +1 empty string, i.e. <!DOCTYPE html "">
<Julian> +1 as well
<anne> ChrisWilson, limited quirks is a new name for "almost
standards mode" (because it's now part of to be standard)
<DanC> +0 legacy-compat
<Lachy> no, it would by <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "">
<ChrisWilson> thanks Lachy, I was going to say that.
<Julian> +1 on empty string, +0 on legacy-compat
<hsivonen> sigh, a moment ago we were so close to declaring
consensus on "legacy-compat"
<DanC> sorry, lachy, I'm perhaps going too fast
<ChrisWilson> Henri, no I don't think we were
<Lachy> I object to using the empty string version
<hsivonen> I'm +1 on "legacy-compat" and -1 on ""
Lachlan: does not support "", prefers xstl-compat or legacy-compat
<ChrisWilson> takkaria, I disagree
rubys: I've yet to hear anybody argue against legacy-compat
<shepazu> how about "processor-compat"?
<gsnedders> I'm +1 on "legacy-compat" and -1 on "" too
<masinter> is the objection that the word 'legacy' is pejorative?
<Lachy> the only problem with legacy-compat is that it's not
entirely clear that it's meant for compat with legacy generator
tools, like XSLT, rather than legacy consumers like browsers
chriswilson: I'm not happy with legacy-compat, it implies that
something is wrong.
DanC: "" is better?
<hsivonen> masinter, the string is pejorative on purpose to make
people prefer <!DOCTYPE html>
<Julian> +1 on the reasons ChrisW is giving.
<anne> ChrisWilson, but something is wrong...
ChrisW: yes
... I don't understand the goal of being perjorative on purpose
<masinter> if you want to be pejorative, do it on your blog, not in
the spec
<masinter> pejorative
<masinter> byeee
ChrisW: requests Sam to reply to the previous thread, and keep the
action open.
Sam: OK
ChrisW: I move that we adjourn
numerous seconds
meeting adjourned...
<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 15 Jan 2009 (at
www.w3.org)
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.134
([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/01/16 17:51:14 $
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 17:53:45 UTC