- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:12:55 +0000
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
aloha!
minutes from the 12 February 2009 HTML WG weekly teleconference are
available as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-html-wg-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-html-wg-irc
and as plain text following my signature; as usual, please log any
errors, mis-attributions, clarifications, and the like by replying
to this announcement on-list
note that the following resolution was agreed to:
RESOLUTION: action 72 closed
and that the following action item was assigned during the 12
February 2009 call:
ACTION: Sam should arrange a meeting between chairs of HTML WG
and XHTML WG to insure there is a plan for coordination of
vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
apologies to larry and sam for constantly getting them confused
whilst scribing, gregory.
_________________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
HTML WG Weekly Telecon
12 Feb 2009
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0025.html
See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-html-wg-irc]
Attendees
Present
ChrisWilson, Cynthia, DanC, Dave_Singer, Gregory_Rosmaita,
Joshue, Julian_Reschke, Sam, anne, dsinger, ifette_GOOG,
masinter, smedero
Regrets
Chair
Chris_Wilson
Scribe
Gregory_Rosmaita
Contents
* Topics
1. Convene, review agenda
2. ISSUE-32 (table-summary)
3. Actions Pending Review
4. ISSUE-20 (table-headers)
5. html5-xhtml-namespace
6. testsuite
7. missing @alt
8. Joint WAI PF-HTML WG Task Force
9. head-profile
10. Joint Task Force
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Convene, review agenda
<DanC> GR: I have a report back on summary, alt, and table headers
<Lachy> I'm here, IRC only (but won't be here for the whole meeting)
i can scribe, but have a noisy keyboard\
i can always go on mute
<scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus
<DanC> (pls mail rather tahn pasting)
ISSUE-32 (table-summary)
<ChrisWilson> reviewing items out of order to take Gregory's item
first...
<ChrisWilson> action-104?
<trackbot> ACTION-104 -- Gregory Rosmaita to inquire about table
summary and headers status at PFWG caucus on 2009-02-06 -- due
2009-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/104
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-104 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> action-104?
<trackbot> ACTION-104 -- Gregory Rosmaita to inquire about table
summary and headers status at PFWG caucus on 2009-02-06 -- due
2009-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/104
<ChrisWilson> GR:summary: discussion is ongoing
@summary: an ongoing discussion, as PF WG already made an official
announcement on this issue and requested the attribute be re-instated,
consult:
<pimpbot> oedipus: Huh?
@headers: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders - consensus
is that the new headers wording is good
<pimpbot> oedipus: Huh?
<DanC> (new headers wording; is that the 20 Dec edit?)
@alt: Steve's reply to Dan on the public HTML list clearly indicates
that the item should remain open as discussions are ongoing.
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0266.html)
<pimpbot> oedipus: Huh?
GJR: hope to have timely feedback soon on alt -- being discussed in
WAI Coordination Group
... may be able to givce concrete time-frame on friday
<rubys> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
GJR: to be on safe side - 2 to 3 weeks
... will try and get more detailed timeline at PF HTML Issues caucus
on friday
... will report back via email as well as follow up report in email
CW: circle back to summary
<Joshue> +q
JOC: officially pf already made response to summary issue
<DanC> (pointer to PF's position on summary?)
<Joshue>
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)
DC: that says summary should stay but not why
JOC: a lot of discussion and related threads on HTML wiki
CW: email just says need to discuss further -- like timeframe to work
out details
<Joshue> JOC: More on @summary
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/SummaryForTABLE - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
JOC: discussion been circular
GJR: the question isn't why put it back, but why was it taken out?
<anne> (I think the TF is about something else.)
<Joshue> JOC: I am talked out on this one.
<Joshue> JOC: +1 to GJR
<DanC> (I'd rather the TF were more established before handing it
something like @summary)
<anne> (I.e. about ARIA and HTML.)
LMM: don't want recriminations - question is does it belong in HTML5
or not -- one camp thinks belongs, other doesn't - need to move out of
entrenched position and arguments from other side
<masinter> that was me, LMM
GJR: a) summary was added specifically for an intended purpose; it is
supported by ATs and is very useful in orienting the user to the table
with which that user is about to interact -- longdesc for TABLE
LMM: intent, but hasn't been used that way -- statistics might be
disputed, but need better evidence of support
CW: don't want to debate suport r lack of suppoprt
<Joshue> JOC: Agree with Sam that we need to move beyond entrenched
attitudes but a little sure at this stage exactly how to do that.
<DanC> (with Larry? it was Larry)
GJR: why isn't AT support sufficient?
<Joshue> JOC: Sorry, Larry.
<Joshue> JOC: Chris, The problem is the nature of the required
evidence.
CW: if evidence in support in tools and use in content -- personal
standpoint, that would be enough -- point to evidence and issue should
be resolved
<DanC> (did I miss the data about support in authoring tools? where
was it given? it's not in 2008Aug/0213.html )
CW: don't know the data that says this is supoprted in accessibility
tools
<Joshue> +q
GJR: yes, i use AT for assistive technology
<DanC> (following some links, I see something about GwMicro and
Windows Eyes at
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-efb5f42844e374dbc45f
fe4dadd74ea8a29d54bf )
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/SummaryForTABLE - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
CW: get evidence out there in mail thread, point to it and should
resolve itself
<masinter> Dreamweaver supports table summary, and has "since time
immemorial"
LMM: dreamweaver suppored summary since time immemorial
<Joshue> JOC: That is pretty good evidence.
GJR: supported by Window-Eyes and JAAWS for Windows
... Orca on linux
<Joshue> Tools that support @summary
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-efb5f42844e374dbc45f
fe4dadd74ea8a29d54bf
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/SummaryForTABLE - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
CW: have evidence to answer one of my questions -- what about use?
JOC: want to make point that summary is little used in wild - is
REALLY useful, but not widespread; one of first pieces of advice that
accessibility evaluatoins turn up; chicken and egg situation
<DanC> table-summary argument, which notes DreamWeaver support
<pimpbot> Title: table-summary argument from Larry Masinter on
2009-02-03 (public-html@w3.org from February 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
GJR: put in for specific reason, for specifc users and there is
support for them
<Joshue> JOC: There is a reasonable adoption and useful tools.
CW: support in AT seems like done deal - how can one object to it
<Joshue> JOC: +1 to CW
+1 to CW
CW: isn't already widespread in content...
<DanC> (the JOC: notation is for recording what was spoken. for IRc
comments, no need )
<ifette_GOOG> <font> is in more widespread use than summary
<Joshue> JOC: The term widespread use is also relative.
<rubys> difficult to hear
<dsinger> impossible
scribe cannot hear
<dsinger> no-one can?
<ifette_GOOG> (I cannot hear either)
Cynthia Shelly joins
CW: summary and status of discussion; think come to point where
support in assistive tech and authoring tools; is there use of summary
in content -- if is, then simply should be reinsstated without
discussion unless someone has a reason why it is a bad idea to do so;
need to evangelize more to authors - should state "this is why it is
necessary"
<DanC> looking at http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE
DC: reviewing arguments on wiki page
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/SummaryForTABLE - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
CS: issue 32?
DC: yes
... page doesn't look balanced
GJR: been up there for a long time and this topic under active
discussion for quite some time; so the onus to document or raise
objections is on the objectors
CS: goals of removing it?
DC: simplicity, i expect
CW: simplicity and lack-of-use
<Joshue> JOC: simplicity for whom?
LMM: my reading is strongest argument is number 3
<anne> improper use according to the same studies at least
<DanC> number 3 = "Summary is explicitly invisible metadata and
therefore is more likely to be missing or inaccurate than data that is
visible to all UAs."
LMM: survey found missing or inaccurate
GJR: what is the source of that claim
<DanC> (my point was that the wiki topic is not currently balanced, so
not easy to use for WG purposes)
LMM: argument is based on google index for summary -- show frequently
inaccurate
... don't think personally it is a strong reson for removal
GJR: agree - if that were the case, deprecate blockquote
<Joshue> JOC: It is not a strong enough reason to loose it.
<DanC> (joshue, unless you're recording what you said orally, it's
distracting to use the JOC: notation)
CW: invisible meta-data and unlikely to be updated - what is source?
GJR: in Open Accessibility use of "summary" is required in our
standards and documents
<anne> masinter, it was not just based on Google studies, there were
independent studies as well
CS: may need to add something akin to aria-labelledby to point to
paragraph
<DanC> I don't recall other studies, anne ... looking... would
appreciate pointers...
CS: shorter summary and association with text elsewhere on page
... number 3 is true, but that is case with a lot of accessibility
markup
+1 to CS' point
<DanC> (we don't seem to have any advocates of the "keep it out"
position on the call.)
<jgraham> How often is the other accessibility markup
missing/misleading
CW: not hearing who thinks this should be removed -- see some
objections, but evidence of support from authoring tools and assistive
technologies
<masinter> My question is whether proper usage is increasing or
decreasing. If proper usage is decreasing, 3 holds more weight. If
proper use is increasing, 3 isn't a strong argument.
CS: anyone strongly in favor of removing it
<smedero> danc, I believe one of the studies was done by Philip
Taylor: http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/summary.html
<pimpbot> Title: summary (at canvex.lazyilluminati.com)
CW: send email to group asking for those who oppose and want it out,
should speak now or forever hold their piece, and then set an action
to restore it to the draft
<rubys> suggest not using the word 'reinstate', suggest 'add' instead.
<jgraham> masinter: It's maybe too hard to do that study because
sample bias will outweigh any effect
DC: Phil Taylor - other markup more important
... Anne?
<jgraham> (that is systematic bias, not random bias)
SR: question worth asking again
<anne> DanC, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Dec/0175.html
under "TABLE SUMMARY"
<pimpbot> Title: Table feedback from Ian Hickson on 2008-12-20
(public-html@w3.org from December 2008) (at lists.w3.org)
<DanC> thanks, anne
CW: send mail to group and say anyone who thinks should be removed
speak now
<anne> I don't think any of that has been refuted yet, but I may have
missed something
DC: anne came up with a pointer to mail from december 2008
<DanC> [[
<DanC> Some of the other sources of data:
<DanC> http://projectcerbera.com/web/study/2007/tables
<DanC> http://projectcerbera.com/web/study/2008/tables
<DanC> http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/summary.html
<DanC> ]]
<pimpbot> Title: Tables - Project Cerbera (at projectcerbera.com)
<pimpbot> Title: Collections of Interesting Data Tables - Project
Cerbera (at projectcerbera.com)
<pimpbot> Title: summary (at canvex.lazyilluminati.com)
<anne> masinter, you always talk about the Google index, but there's
in fact no mentioning of that
LMM: reviewed that -- email from ian summarizing arguments - pointers
to previous mail, which are better captured in wiki
DC: mentioned google studies
<anne> masinter, so I'm sort of doubtful of you just dismissing that
e-mail
DC: Joshue have you looked at those studie
JOC: monitored them on and off
... studies of different tables -- illustrate a lot of different
things
<masinter> "nothing particularly new has been
<masinter> raised on the topic since the last times I looked at this"
CW: hixie's response basically says "use caption to do many things
summary is useful for" - interprets data to mean that most uses of
summary are bad
GJR: i would balance that against the advice given by WCAG
<anne> but dimensions you do not want to give in summary either...
that information is intrinsic to the table...
GJR: caption for a TABLE is akin to a Header or a terse descriptor;
summary is a more verbosxe descriptor akin to a longdesc for the table
... 2 different things
<DanC> (does "more verbose" come from HTML 4 or WCAG? or is it
oedipus's personal take?)
<jgraham> oedipus: That is different to the description I have heard
from other people
CW: write up on wiki is old
... doesn't detail reasons con; not sure going to get resolved;
fundamental question - is necessary to provide hidden meta-data or
assistive tech oriented meta data
<masinter> whethere it is necessary to allow that information to be
provided
GJR: summary is part of section 508 compliance
<Joshue> it is necessary.
CW: would appreciate it if wiki updated
... need non-biased evaluation of issue; collecting pointers in this
IRC log will be useful
<Joshue> This is vital meta data to aid comprehension and improve the
user experience for non-visual users.
CW: don't want to be an edit-war; those on pro side, edit pro section,
those on con side, edit con section, don't go back and forth with it;
will talk with SR about making decisions in this particular
circumstance
<DanC> (I don't see "summary is longer" at
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/tables.html#adef
-summary )
<pimpbot> Title: Tables in HTML documents (at www.w3.org)
<anne> DanC, can't find anything about "verbose" in WCAG1.0 or HTML4
<Joshue> Without @summary a user often has to interrogate a complex
data table just to find out if it is useful.
<Stevef> H73: Using the summary attribute of the table element to give
an overview of data tablesWCAG 2.0 technique
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H73.html
<pimpbot> Title: H73: Using the summary attribute of the table element
to give an overview of data tables | Techniques for WCAG 2.0 (at
www.w3.org)
<anne> DanC, WCAG 1.0 is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#table-summary-info
<pimpbot> Title: HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 (at www.w3.org)
DC: relavant
... GJR said something about summary being longer -- looked in HTML4
and looked in WCAG and didn't find anything
<Stevef> danc: look at the example in the wcag 2.0 technique
<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H73.html
<pimpbot> Title: H73: Using the summary attribute of the table element
to give an overview of data tables | Techniques for WCAG 2.0 (at
www.w3.org)
SF: wcag2 technique
<rubys> I strongly suggest that people who want to see summary
(re-)added, make their case on the wiki
rubys, why onus on re-adding rather than contra arguments?
<DanC> (so close action-104 and make a new one on Chris?)
CW: do not remove arguments from other side
<Joshue> JOC: @Sam we (sic) will update the wiki
LMM: latter part of discussion revealing
<rubys> oedipus: both are need.
LMM: positive that had discussion; think making progress
<DanC> thanks Stevef; that WCAG H73 reference is something I hadn't
looked at
<Stevef> danc: no problem
<DanC> (I'm interested to stay after the call and help get the wiki
topic more balanced; unfortunately, I'm not available. :-/)
LMM: for some things that have been accepted as given in accessibility
community; linkage to authoring GLs from spec itself would be helpful
to improve what is there and hence improve chances that summary and
others work properly
<anne> (does it really make sense to spend an entire telcon on
summary=?)
CW: suggest we move on
DC: action on whom?
<DanC> action-104?
<trackbot> ACTION-104 -- Chris Wilson to inquire about table summary
and headers status at PFWG caucus on 2009-02-06 -- due 2009-02-19 --
OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/104
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-104 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
CW: moved to myself -- due next week - will work with sam
<masinter> it makes sense to work out mechanisms by which these
otherwise previously unresolvable issues can get resolved
Actions Pending Review
<ChrisWilson> action-72?
<trackbot> ACTION-72 -- Dan Connolly to propose to close this issue
based on recent HTML 5 spec draft and test materials from WCAG 2 --
due 2009-02-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/72
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-72 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
CW: action 72 on DanC
ISSUE-20 (table-headers)
DC: hixie sent message in december 2008; includes headers on TH
element, which wasn't allowed earlier
<DanC> my msg
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0231.html
<pimpbot> Title: revised table headers design is OK, right? from Dan
Connolly on 2009-02-11 (public-html@w3.org from February 2009) (at
lists.w3.org)
DC: extracted example and ran by validator.nu and got thumbs up
... henri updated validator - sent email to ask are we done here?
... chaals looked into it; like to spend more time thinking about it
... JGraham reminded us about his code, but can't garuntee matches
spec
... willing to hold ball until i hear more from chaals or james or
some third independent party
<jgraham> FWIW I implemented the code by reading the spec. I can't
promise it is bug free
DC: investigate specific concerns rather than keep an overview of
entire spec in head
<DanC> ACTION-72 ?
<trackbot> ACTION-72 -- Dan Connolly to propose to close this issue
based on recent HTML 5 spec draft and test materials from WCAG 2 --
due 2009-02-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/72
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-72 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
CW: can close action 72
RESOLUTION: action 72 closed
html5-xhtml-namespace
DC: who has ball now?
<anne> (seems to me it would be good if someone volunteered to review
jgraham's code...)
CW: discussion currently ongoing in list and an open issue
DC: who has the ball?
CW: if anyone wants to pick up the ball and run with it, happy to
assign action item
<jgraham> anne: Or write testcases for this part of the spec
<DanC> (I don't like having OPEN issues with no open action)
LMM: action i would recommend is schedule for chairs of HTML WG and
XHTML WG meet and propose a coordination plan so vocabularies in
proper compatible namespaces
SR: let larry word action item and i will own it
<ChrisWilson> action-83?
<trackbot> ACTION-83 -- Chris Wilson to come up with a 16x16 image
icon for IE for implementation chart -- due 2009-02-06 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/83
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-83 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
testsuite
CW: action 83 - can close - sent pointer to list
<masinter> ACTION: Sam should arrange a meeting between chairs of HTML
WG and XHTML WG to insure there is a plan for coordination of
vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Should arrange a meeting between
chairs of HTML WG and XHTML WG to insure there is a plan for
coordination of vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. [on Sam Ruby
- due 2009-02-19].
DC: someone volunteered to be test suite coordinator, but didn't have
time
CW: don't recall
DC: in IRC discussion
danc, sampablocooper?
<jgraham> takkaria volunteered but not 'till March or so
DC: yes, takkaria
CW: would be good idea for us to start pushing that harder
<jgraham> Andi Sidwell
DC: in particular stuff around table headers - i made one test file,
james made another, chaals mentioned test cases
<DanC> s/james asked for another/
CW: action item to drum up someone to coordinate test suites
DC: want to, but over committed; hope table headers issue results in
test cases
GJR: also test docuemnts by Gez Lemon and Steven Faulkner
<DanC> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HtmlTestMaterials
<pimpbot> Title: HtmlTestMaterials - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
CW: a lot of pointers to tests in list archives
<DanC> ^ if you now stuff that isn't linked there, I'd appreciate it
if you'd link it
CW: hope that those UA devs who have HTML5 test suites inform us about
that
DanC: whenever i have 3 minutes i do update the wiki page
... not added cross-origin tests from MS to list yet
... GJR please add Gez and Steven's examples to the wiki page
<ChrisWilson> action chriswilson to work out with co-chair and staff
how to spark test suite coordination next week
<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Work out with co-chair and staff how
to spark test suite coordination next week [on Chris Wilson - due
2009-02-19].
<Philip> (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Testsuite has pointers to many
of the existing test suites)
GJR: will do
<pimpbot> Title: Testsuite - WHATWG Wiki (at wiki.whatwg.org)
missing @alt
DanC: where end up?
CW: pushed back 2 weeks, pending review
<DanC> (that should be open, I think)
<ChrisWilson> action-99?
<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Larry Masinter to review @profile -- due
2009-02-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/99
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-99 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Joint WAI PF-HTML WG Task Force
head-profile
LMM: sent emessage about it
CW: dan moved to "pending review" wants to discuss next steps
DC: thought we thought issues have to have owners; 2 issues clearly
stated - to me think time to close issue
<Zakim> cyns, you wanted to report status update on PF - HTML - ARIA
task force discussed last week
Joint Task Force
<DanC> i.e. Joint WAI PF/HTML WG Task Force
CS: will be facillitating that and sending out invites early next week
- those who would like to join, email me and let me know
CW: circling back to @profile...
LMM: this is another issue where we need an effective decision process
<cyns> also, if there's anyone you want to nominate to help with WAI
PF HTML WG task force, please send me their name
DC: think critical mass in favor of leaving out, there are objectors,
too
LMM: some evidence of support in authoring tools and third-party
plug-ins, so there is some support; not an issue where any evidence of
misuse has been proffered
SR: which email?
<masinter> no evidence of misuse
<DanC> tools and such in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0571.html
<pimpbot> Title: let's keep metadata profiles (head/profile) in HTML
for use in GRDDL etc. from Dan Connolly on 2007-07-09
(public-html@w3.org from July 2007) (at lists.w3.org)
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/55
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-55 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<jgraham> masinter: The is much evidence that it is not used when it
is supposedly required to be used (e.g. microformats)
DC: dublin core uses it
LMM: sent screen shots to www-archive
... illustrate support
<DanC>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0032.html
<pimpbot> Title: headprofile support in Adobe Dreamweaver from Larry
Masinter on 2009-02-05 (www-archive@w3.org from February 2009) (at
lists.w3.org)
DC: cited in email to WG?
LMM: yes
<masinter> cited in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0109.html
<pimpbot> Title: RE: Implementation of headprofile from Larry Masinter
on 2009-02-05 (public-html@w3.org from February 2009) (at
lists.w3.org)
SR: need to assign to someone
<jgraham> It looks like DW just implements it as any other attribute
that takes a URI
LMM: can try and track down more information about support in
authoring tools, if needed
danC, it is @profile in head
<DanC> (I wonder if we have 3 independent parties in favor of keeping
head/@profile; LMM and I maybe...)
<Julian> me
<DanC> but what about head/@profile, I wonder
GJR is in favor of keeping head/@profile
CW: action on Mike to get spec and new document published; transition
request sent; should be out imminently
... suggest that we adjourn
GJR: seconded
CW: any issues?
DC: everything looks up-to-date on agenda planning page in tracker,
ready to adjourn
ADJOURNED
<dsinger> bye
<anne> most likely
<ChrisWilson> yes, it was DSinger
<DanC> oedipus, do you have what you need to get a meeting record
emailed to the WG?
yes
<ChrisWilson> (he stated that he was on the call)
<DanC> thanks
no problem
<DanC> my email request for scribes produced zilch.
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Weekly Telecon -- 12 Feb 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Weekly Telecon -- 12 Feb 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-02-12 from Chris Wilson
on 2009-02-11 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to March
2009) (at lists.w3.org)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Sam should arrange a meeting between chairs of HTML WG
and XHTML WG to insure there is a plan for coordination of
vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 18:13:34 UTC