minutes: HTML WG weekly telcon 22 Jan 2009

     1. Convene
     2. Issue states
     3. ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
     4. ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
     5. ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat)
     6. ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
     7. issue-31 missing-alt
     8. ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml)
     9. ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
    10. ISSUE-55 (head-profile)
    11. ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch):
    12. ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)

Full text:
2009/01/22 18:14:59

and an inline copy for tracker and the email archive search engine,
etc. ...

                         HTML WG weekly telcon

22 Jan 2009


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0010.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-irc


          Masinter, Julian, Sam, DanC, Matt_May, hsivonen, Shepazu,
          Gregory_Rosmaita, Cynthia_Shelly, adrianba, ChrisWilson,
          Shawn_Medero, Mike

          Sam Ruby



     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]Issue states
         3. [7]ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
         4. [8]ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
         5. [9]ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat)
         6. [10]ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
         7. [11]issue-31 missing-alt
         8. [12]ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml)
         9. [13]ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
        10. [14]ISSUE-55 (head-profile)
        11. [15]ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch):
        12. [16]ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
     * [17]Summary of Action Items

   <gsnedders> takkaria: JPEG, I guess.


   <scribe> scribe: DanC

   <takkaria> gsnedders: yeah, but I thought JPEG was pretty much done
   with these days

   <pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-01-22 [w/addendum]
   from Sam Ruby on 2009-01-21 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from
   January to March 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

   <hsivonen> my regrets for the second half of the call (I have to
   leave in 30 minutes)

Issue states

   Sam: note update to issue states in [18]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML

     [18] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)

   (no comments)

   (last edited 2009-01-20 23:06:24 by SamRuby)

ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)

   <rubys> [19]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/

     [19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)

   Sam: I propose we publish [20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/

     [20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)

   hsivonen: I object to publishing it as a normative spec; it's
   valuable, but having 2 normative documents is a problem...
   ... also, markup-spec basically includes the schema from
   validator.nu , and I don't think it should be normative
   ... if it weren't my schema, I would like that, so on behalf of
   potential competitors, I don't think we should do that

   <deane> I object to publishing the markup-spec, it hasn't been
   reviewed by the group. There are other reasons for objecting, but I
   would rather discuss in email

   Sam: I hear your arguments; neither this doc nor the HTML 5 spec
   enjoys consensus; do you think your argument should prevent

   <Julian> depends on the definition of "publish"

   hsivonen: publishing as WD suggests an eventual REC, yes?

   <deane> The spec has been discussed at length by the group though

   [missed some; hope it wasn't essential technical stuff]

   <deane> publishing the spec is in the charter, it's not a new
   concept like the "markup-spec"

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask naively why does this document
   exist? what is its relationship to the HTML5 spec as submitted to

   <shepazu> mailing-list++

   Sam: the HTML 5 spec has a number of things that are controversial;
   the TAG asked us to look at other approaches, and this is one... the
   proposal to publish isn't a guarantee of its outcome

   <oedipus> GJR: note or REC track?

   Sam: regarding 2 normative specs, I think competition would be
   ... we can continue to discuss this proposal in the mailing list

   <hsivonen> IIRC, it isn't a proper subset

   Julian: my understanding is that the html-markup spec is derived not
   only from the validator.nu schema but also text from the HTML 5
   spec. it has sections pulled from the HTML 5 spec

   <deane> Sam, the HTML WG, has never decided if we need a
   markup-spec, so I don't think it's appropriate to publish

   Masinter: are people objecting to discussion of publication?

   <deane> It all arose from misinformation (like most things)

   <deane> I wasn't joking

   <deane> :)

   DanC: I understand the proposal to be to publish, not to discuss
   publishing. This WG takes several days between when questions are
   put and when the outcome of the decision is announced

   Sam: I'd like to have a high bar for objections...

   <dsinger> when did it become something that was even a potential
   deliverable (the intro says it is not an agreed deliverable of the
   group)? going straight from "not a deliverable" to "publish this"
   seems a leap, to me...

   <deane> hear hear

   DanC: well, whether a WG participant objects is up to that
   participant, right? I understand hsivonen to have objected,

   Doug: on behalf of Mozilla?

   DanC: yes

   HSivonen: as a validator.nu developer

   <dsinger> really concerned about having two specs and having to deal
   with contradictions, explain their relationship, and so on...what is
   the proposed publication status?

   (I understand Sam to have proposed status of WD)

   Sam: hsivonen, pls elaborate on your objection?

   hsivonen: having a normative specification built from a schema seems
   circular. [scribe doesn't think he got the gist of that]

   (I should have sent mail... I wonder about publishing Mike's doc as
   a NOTE called "A schema-based description of HTML 5"; but I'm not
   sure I should muddy the waters now...)

   Mike: it's currently in sync what validator.nu, but that's not an
   essential constraint

   <oedipus> +1 to sam on moving on

   <deane> I believe that the W3C has been sending mixed messages to
   people about what the HTML5 spec is, and what's in scope, and this
   IMO is how the request arose for a "markup-spec". So, IMO there is
   no need for such a document, it contridicts the main spec.

   <zcorpan> circular as in bugs in hsivonen's schema become bugs in
   the spec if the spec is generated from the schema (which become
   non-bugs since by definition it is correct behavior)?

ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008

   <hsivonen> the schema becoming out of sync with validator.nu would
   invoke my previous objection :-)

   Sam: note proposal to publish

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0012.html

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of
   HTML-5 from Chris Wilson on 2009-01-22
   (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to March 2009) (at

   <dsinger> ...thinks an informative documen might be useful, but a
   normative one bad...

   Sam: any objections?

   <deane> I think Mike's work should be incorporated into the main

ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat)

   <oedipus> pointer to emessage please

   Sam: we seem to have consensus around a recent proposal...

   hsivonen: proposing 2 valid doctypes: <!DOCTYPES html>, as current,
   and ...

   <zcorpan> (also constraints hsivonen some day prefers to implement
   in java instead of schema become undefined in the spec if the spec
   is generated from the schema)

   hsivonen: <!DOCTYPES html system "about:sgml-compat">

   <hsivonen> <!DOCTYPE html> and <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM

   <oedipus> +1 to hold off for a week

   start of thread is

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0063.html

   <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat from Sam Ruby on
   2009-01-08 (public-html@w3.org from January 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

   -1 hold off for a week

   <masinter> +1 hold off, "about:" scheme is unregistered

   <hober> How about a tag: URI?

   <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to request registration about:

   <Julian> Julian: the alternate doctype should be accepted as valid,
   otherwise there's no point in adding it.

   <hober> tag:w3.org,2009-01:sgml-compat or some-such

   DanC: I'm happy to consider this done provided someone volunteers to
   get about: registered as a URI scheme

   Masinter: that could be tricky... might need a registry of values

   <gsnedders> hober: That seems too long

   <hsivonen> hober, that date is dangerously close to a version number

   action-91 due next week

   <trackbot> ACTION-91 Propose 'legacy-compat' and report on feedback
   due date now next week

   <hober> IIRC you need at least the year, so I guess s/-01// would
   work too

   (er... trackbot???)

ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)

   <zcorpan> putting a date in there means you have to google for it
   (because it's impossible to remember all magic dates in doctypes,
   namespaces, etc)

   Masinter: I'd like us to review http [?]
   ... we talked about taking origin out... should we do that here?

   <MikeSmith> title: HTML WG weekly telcon

   DanC: I gather Hickson took the 401 stuff out after some

   Julian: yes, that text is gone...

   <masinter> thanks, that was my question

   Julian: I've been following Thomas Broyer's IETF ID; I gather a new
   draft is in progress
   ... what would a decision to postpone mean?

   Sam: I'd move this back to RAISED if we don't have a concrete

   DanC: when I proposed to postpone, I meant "not in HTML5", i.e.

   Masinter: seems addressed elsewhere, to me

   DanC: how does Thomas Broyer's proposal work? browser builder

   Julian: aside from a bug in opera, it doesn't require any browser
   builder changes
   ... it introduces a 'cookie' auth scheme...

   <rubys> I'd like to move on in a minute or two...

   <rubys> doesn't sound like the status is CLOSED or POSTPONED

   (I can't seem to get Julain to tell me who is in the critical path
   for deployment. who changes from 200 to 4xx? webmasters? any big
   webmasters lined up to do this?)

   Sam: so we can move this back to RAISED until further work is

   action-86 due 1 June 2009

   <trackbot> ACTION-86 Review Thomas Broyer's IETF ID to see if we can
   postpone ISSUE-13 due date now 1 June 2009

issue-31 missing-alt

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at

   Matt: yes, the WAI coordination group met and decided to put
   something to draft a position... in a couple weeks

   <Julian> DanC, users of web servers would need to change their code
   to return 401/WWW-Authenticate: Cookie instead of 200.

   Sam: lacking a concrete proposal, let's move this issue to RAISED,

   ACTION-98 due 5 Feb 2009

   <trackbot> ACTION-98 Discuss missing-alt with the WAI CG and report
   back due date now 5 Feb 2009

   <rubys> change Issue-31 state to RAISED and move the date on
   action-98 out two weeks, any objections?


   <trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Larry Masinter to make a proposal on
   doctypes and versioning -- due 2009-01-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/93

     [23] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/93

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-93 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <MikeSmith> action-76?

   <trackbot> ACTION-76 -- Chris Wilson to create poll on issue-32,
   based on Joshue's page from action-66 -- due 2009-01-31 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/76

     [24] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/76

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-76 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml)

   Doug: I expect progress today and next thu on ACTION-94 (
   ... I've been experimenting with <img> vs <object>, and

   <oedipus> shepazu, i am intrigued by your philosophy and would like
   to subscribe to your newsletter

ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)


   <trackbot> ACTION-79 -- Sam Ruby to - send email to spark issue-60
   -- due 2009-02-13 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/79

     [25] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/79

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-79 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   Sam: this is on my stack, but not high

   LMM: why postpone?

   Sam: if anybody wants it, fine by me...

   LMM: OK, I'll take it

   <oedipus> shepazu, let me know if i can help by porting info to:

     [26] http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5

   <pimpbot> Title: PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5 - ESW Wiki (at

ISSUE-55 (head-profile)


   <trackbot> ACTION-75 -- Michael(tm) Smith to raise question to group
   about Yes, leave @profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's
   summary of the discussion -- due 2009-02-19 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75

     [27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-75 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   Mike: We don't seem to have consensus

   <inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus

   <inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus

   DanC: took this action because didn't think more discussion would
   change anyone's mind; that's why the action is important

   MS: don't think survey appropriate

   DC: don't do a survey, then

   MS: basing decisions on results of surveys is best

   DC: putting question to people may be done via email

   MS: sending email and trying to evaluate results of email discussion

   DC: choice of survey: informational and
   speak-now-or-forever-hold-your piece

   <Joshue> JOC: Well the proposed survey for the summary attribute is
   its last recourse for a stay of execution. Is it a waste of time?

   MS: speculate from examination so far, will have formal objections
   to removing @profile

   SR: will get worse than that - base of zero and what works on web

   DC: should withdraw this action because MikeSmith no longer a chair

   SR: second that

   <inserted> ScribeNick: DanC

   <inserted> ScribeNick: DanC

   close action-75

   <trackbot> ACTION-75 Raise question to group about Yes, leave
   @profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's summary of the
   discussion closed

   <inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus

   MS: happy to have action withdrawn;

   SR: could move to RAISED or POSTPONED

   DC: moving to POSTPONED is giving another week for email review

   SR: someone needs to take an action

   DC: how do you propose we move forward

   SR: issue raised; differing opinions as how to resolve; further
   discussion likely to be circular

   LM: anyone change their mind?

   SR: wary of action item with no one assigned to it

   MS: volunteer to review issue and come up with recommendation

   <inserted> ScribeNick: DanC

   LMM: I'm willing to review the issue and make a proposal in 2 weeks

   oedipus, are you volunteering to clean up the minutes? if not,
   please stop

   <scribe> ACTION: masinter to review @profile due 2 weeks [recorded
   in [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Review @profile due 2 weeks [on Larry
   Masinter - due 2009-01-29].

ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch):

   DanC: the funding negotiation I've been doing with adobe about
   authoring materials is done, so this URI stuff might get a little
   lower priority

   LMM: I'm willing to help with the URI stuff

ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)

   LMM: [missed]
   ... adam posted a link to the new IETF draft

   <masinter> [29]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-origin-00

     [29] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-origin-00

   <pimpbot> Title: draft-abarth-origin-00 - The HTTP Origin Header (at

   (I don't see Adam's msg)

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at

   Sam: let's adjourn. I expect discussion on [chinese menu numbers]

   <dsinger> bye

   Sam, I think it's recording what you expect discussion on, with
   subject keywords, not just numbers... repeat, please?

   <Julian> issue-59, action-77

   <Julian> issue-54, action-91

   <Julian> as far as I recall


   Sam: I expect discussion on ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference),
   ISSUE-54 doctype-legacy-compat

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: masinter to review @profile due 2 weeks [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([32]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/01/22 18:14:59 $

     [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [32] 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, 23 January 2009 14:32:05 UTC