minutes: HTML WG telecon 2009-08-06 [draft]

Guten Abend!

The minutes from the 6 August 2009 HTML WG weekly teleconference are
available as hypertext at:


and as an IRC log at:


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.

Best regards, Julian

-- snip --


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                       HTML Weekly Teleconference

06 Aug 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-irc


           Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, dsinger, Masinter,
           +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef, Matt_May,
           +47.40.28.aadd, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, mjs, kliehm,
           Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, annevk




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
      * [5]Summary of Action Items

    <jgraham> *irc

    <rubys1> trackbot, start call

    <trackbot> Sorry, rubys1, I don't understand 'trackbot, start call'.
    Please refer to [6]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

       [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

    <pimpbot> Title: IRC Trackbot (at www.w3.org)

    <rubys1> trackbot, start telcon

    <trackbot> Date: 06 August 2009

    <dsinger> zakim [apple] has dsinger

    <mjs> I'm on - I think

    <Lachy> I guess I must be [IPcaller]

    <Lachy> oh, maybe not

    <mjs> it's awful quiet on the call

    <dsinger> ?

    <kliehm> I'm on the phone, too, should be +49 (or VOIP)

    <Lachy> no, I dropped off. calling back

    <kliehm> zakim aabb is mjs

    <scribe> scribe: Julian

    <rubys> issue-35

    <rubys> issue-35?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for
    aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [7]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35

       [7] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35

    <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)


       [8] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35

    cynthia: making progress, FPWD this month planned
    ... working on HTML mappings


       [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-05 from Ian
    Hickson on 2009-08-05 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at

    cynthia: report again in 3..4 weeks

    rubys: hixie asked for specific feedback

    cynthia: differences in WG process
    ... do not respond before all comments are processed
    ... ETA 3..4 months
    ... explains the HTML vs ARIA mapping issue

    SteveF: (misssed this)

    mjs: explains hixie's comments

    <DanC> I'm interested to see ARIA integrated by reference too,
    though it's not clear to me how that would work

    mjs: ...inconsistent state between HTML and ARIA semantics... make

    <jgraham> To integrate it by reference it would need to define all
    the areas of overlap between aria semantics and native semantics

    mjs: ARIA currently says host language can't override
    ... q

    <mjs> to type my remarks into the record:

    SteveF: promises feedback next week

    <mjs> 1) What Ian specifically wants is to make inconsistent states
    between native markup and ARIA roles/properties noncomforming -
    right now ARIA doesn't let a host language do that

    Murray: asks for mechanism to describe conformance

    <mjs> 2) (from my earlier remarks) we should ask PFWG to expedite
    processing of this specific comment

    masinter: inclusion vs reference of ARIA
    ... motivation for the current plan

    <Stevef> [10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl

      [10] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl

    <pimpbot> Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
    1.0 (at www.w3.org)

    <kliehm> Murray, the ARIA DTD extends the HTML DTD, but doesn't
    prohibit any inconsistencies.

    <masinter> So I heard Sam say that he had not heard of anybody
    advocating inclusion of ARIA rather than reference to the ARIA spec

    <jgraham> I assume the issue is not includion vs reference so much
    as how much HTML needs to say about the mapping between native
    semantics and aria semantics

    <jgraham> i.e. I assume no one is proposing duplicating aria in HTML

    <annevk> Why does ARIA override?

    <masinter> i'm doing a text search on ARIA in

      [11] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

    <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)

    stevef: not sure whether there's a problem with the current draft

    <DanC> I think mjs said something about a problem with WAI ARIA not
    allowing host languages to set conformance requirements; steve can't
    find any such problem in a current draft

    <mjs> can someone provide a link to the current editor's draft?

    <DanC> again, [12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl

      [12] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl

    <pimpbot> Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
    1.0 (at www.w3.org)

    <rubys> stevef would like ian to reconfirm that he still has an
    issue with the current draft

    <annevk> also, things like " assistive technology SHOULD assign
    preference to the WAI-ARIA feature" seem incorrect, given that the
    browser tells something to the assistive technology, not the other
    way around

    <DanC> "The appearance of the name literal of any concrete WAI-ARIA
    role (see section 7.3.2) as one of these substrings MUST NOT in and
    of itself make the attribute value illegal in the host-language
    syntax" -- 6.1.1. Role Attribute

    <jgraham> (as a concrete example I believe the issue is things like
    <input type=radio role=checkbox>

    <jgraham> )

    <annevk> Anne: wouldn't it be better to wait until ARIA is out of

    <DanC> mjs, you seem to be reading a comment from hixie; pointer,

    <annevk> Maciej: that would delay it too much

    <kliehm> I can imagine designers who want a radio button to *look*
    like a checkbox, so that's no contradiction then.

    rubys: pushing back one week

    <mjs> DanC, I followed the link from what rubys linked earlier:

      [13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/details?comment_id=267

    <pimpbot> Title: Comment details - PFWG Public Comments (at

    <rubys> issue-32?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for
    unsighted navigation? -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

      [14] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

    <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)


      [15] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

    <DanC> (I concur with a point dbaron made: having groups talk to
    each other with low latency isn't as good as having individuals get
    together and talk. There's a time for formal group-to-group stuff,
    but it should be the exception, not the rule)

    murray: great compromise
    ... thanks to the people involved

    <annevk> Julian: from my point of view the spec is far away from
    expressing consensus

    <annevk> Julian: I would vote for John's draft

    julian: not satisfied with the compromise

    <masinter> I agree with Julian, FWIW

    <DanC> (I continue to see shelley object, but I gather she's already
    made her argument and doesn't feel a need to repeat it. Does anybody
    have a pointer to something that captures her concerns?)

    mjs: asks people to look at the text,. avoiding a vote

    <masinter> I think it is astounding how much debate it took to get
    this far, and it makes me querstion whether the group is ready to
    reach last call on schedule

    <Laura> John's recap saying table summary is an open question:


      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Movement on summary from John Foliot on 2009-08-06
    (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

    mjs: explains the "should"

    <Laura> Steve saying the @summary text is adequate for now but
    doesn't see it making last call.


      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0302.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
    Steven Faulkner on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
    (at lists.w3.org)

    <Laura> Me asking to have summary in the draft marked as open. Sam
    previously said it is the proper way to handle it.


      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0315.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
    Laura Carlson on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
    (at lists.w3.org)

    <Laura> Sam saying @summary is "well on its way" to being closed.

    <jgraham> FWIW I don't see any substantial change from the current
    text taking us closer to a maxima of acceptability


      [19] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware

    <pimpbot> Title: Sam Ruby: Disappearing Silverware (at

    <Laura> Shelley calling it "painting people into a corner".


      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0317.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
    Shelley Powers on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
    (at lists.w3.org)

    <Laura> Leif suggesting that we should have Sam's support for
    *keeping* it marked as an open.

    <masinter> example of difficulties of coming to consensus on
    authoring conformance requirements

    mjs: says it's not obsolete (?)


      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0319.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Leif
    Halvard Silli on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
    (at lists.w3.org)

    masinter: issue not addressed
    ... general underlying problem with conformance requirements

    <pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
    Shelley Powers on 2009-08-04 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
    (at lists.w3.org)

    masinter: discouraged by compromise and time spent on it

    Matt_May: some of the uncontroversial
    ... there are also design considerations
    ... "obsolete, but conforming" will cause more discussions
    ... keep the advice, but no warning needed

    I agree with Matt was saying

    <cshelly> +1

    <annevk> +1

    dsinger: explains that there's a meta-problem behind @summary

    <annevk> (to dsinger)

    mjs: asks masinter to clarify his concern

    masinter: see Julian's mail

    <DanC> (+1 to what, cshelly and annevk?)

    <annevk> (I mentioned that in my next line, DanC)

    <cshelly> +1 to dsinger

    <rubys> I believe that they were +1'ing the notion of the chairs
    getting together and working out the process (dsinger's comment)

    <DanC> tx

    murray: repeats that helping access. for tables is important
    ... don't prematurely obsolete
    ... lots of work to do left

    <mjs> I'd like to note again for the record that the text does *not*
    make the summary attribute obsolete

    cshelly: new text ok for next draft

    mjs, it appears in "12.1 Conforming but obsolete features". Why?

    <mjs> Julian, that's the section that defines all the warnings in
    the spec

    <Julian_> cshelly: PFWG happy with process

    <Julian_> cshelly: @summary not the most important issue

    <mjs> Julian, all the other warnings are for conforming but obsolete
    features, but the warning for summary is clearly stated in a
    distinct way, referring to its definition in the <table> section

    <Julian_> mjs, not helpful, IHMO. The effect is the same.

    <jgraham> AFAICT the spec is very clear that @summary just triggers
    a warning in section 12.1

    <Julian_> cshelly: proposes a TF

    <kliehm> Which brings me to the point wether there will a F2F
    meeting at TPAC 2009?

    <Zakim> Lachy, you wanted to comment on the issue of publishing
    Working Drafts in the future

    Lachy: do not let procedural and technical issues mix
    ... let (FP)WDs be published without any discussion

    <Stevef> +1 to lachlans suggestion

    <rubys> +1 to lachlan's suggestion

    <dsinger> I don't think I can agree that any document can be
    published from a WG without any discussion or agreement. That's an
    individual draft.

    <cshelly> +1 to dsinger

    <Lachy> dsinger, since WD explcitly don't require concensus of the
    group, what harm does it do?

    <jgraham> Maybe any document that has been FPWD may be published
    again without discussion

    <DanC> -1 to lachlan's suggestion. it's healthy that publication
    decisions re-awaken sleeping dissent and such.

    Julian: not "obsolete but conforming" + "produce warning" -> does
    not compte

    mjs: reminder about petent review clock for new PFWD

    <Lachy> ok, that's fair enough about FPWD due to the patent review

    <dsinger> First Public Working Draft: "Entrance criteria: The Chair
    must record the group's decision to request advancement. Since this
    is the first time that a document with this short name appears in
    the Technical Reports index, Director approval is required for the

    cshelly: points out that what was going on is good; we need to get
    things out of the way before LC

    murray: found the discussion helpful, not harmful

    <DanC> (FYI, last call comments shouldn't come from WG members; last
    call is a decision that the WG is done handling its own

    <rubys> if people who have already had a turn simply wish to repeat
    comments, I ask that they remove themselves from the queue

    murray: points out that there could be multiple levels of warnings

    <cshelly> danc, that's exactly why we need to agree on things before
    LC. If we don't, then there will be lots of comments from WG

    mjs: connecting technical discussions to procedural ones is

    rubys: allowing other people to produce WDs helps

    <dsinger> well, I think if Ian feels that there is a strong
    consensus which he doesn't agree with, he'll concede

    <cshelly> +1 rubys

    <DanC> LC comments from WG members are out of order/non-sensical. LC
    is a decision that the WG is done. For a WG member to then send a
    comment doesn't make sense.

    masinter: wants question to publish clarified

    <cshelly> danc, I agree. that's why I think it's important to have
    these discussions about a public working draft, to force us to
    discuss and reach consensus

    rubys: explains WD doesn't need to be better of perfect

    masinter: has concerns with the current editor's draft

    <jgraham> Having a public working group must change the expectations
    here, surely?

    <DanC> the level of consensus should go in the status section. I
    wonder if we've been doing that.

    masinter: proposes sections to be marked as controversial

    <dsinger> I surely believe we all have concerns. if there weren't
    many, we'd be heading into last call :-)

    rubys: issue marker for @summary is currently missing
    ... will recommend to publish soon

    <mjs> cshelley, I will agree that would should resolve issues in a
    timely way and well before LC, I just think there are healthier ways
    to do it than using a WD publication as a forcing function

    cshelly: need to start addressing contentious issues now

    <jgraham> In particular because the distinction between "in the
    working group" and "not in the working group" is very different to
    other groups; almost anyone with feedback can be "in the working

    <dsinger> thank you for fine chairing...

    <pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([23]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/08/06 17:02:25 $

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/no one advocated/he had not heard of anybody advocating/
Succeeded: s/the/to the/
Succeeded: s/shelly/shelley/
Succeeded: s/belivee/believe/
Succeeded: s/progress/process/
Succeeded: s/warning/warning in/
Succeeded: s/(PF)/(FP)/
Succeeded: s/peple/people/
Succeeded: s/rules/expectations/
Succeeded: s/rubys, pushing back one week/rubys: pushing back one week/
Found Scribe: Julian
Inferring ScribeNick: Julian
Default Present: Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, dsinger, Ma
sinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef, Matt_May, +47.40.28.aa
dd, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, mjs, kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, a
Present: Sam +1.703.234.aaaa Julian Radhika_Roy dsinger Masinter +1.415
.595.aabb +47.40.28.aacc Stevef Matt_May +47.40.28.aadd Lachy +1.519.37
8.aaee Laura mjs kliehm Cynthia_Shelly DanC annevk
Found Date: 06 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.
People with action items:

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.html

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

    End of [26]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:23:27 UTC