W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > January to March 2009

minutes: HTML WG telecon 2009-02-10 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:12:55 +0000
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090212181147.M43616@hicom.net>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:08:40 UTC