- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 01:11:35 +0900
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-html-wg-minutes.html
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JulSep/0038.html
Present
ChrisWilson, Eliot_Graff, Jerry, Sam, Julian, paulc,
+1.218.340.aaaa, Matt, rob, mjs, MikeSmith, Cooper, annevk,
Rich, cyns, adrianba, kliehm, Masinter, Radhika_Roy, Laura
Chair
Maciej
Scribe
MikeSmith
Contents
* Topics
1. review of action items
2. Review of issues proposed to be closed
3. Discuss Accessibility Task Force
4. Starting the HTML5 Test Suite and possible Testing Task
Force
_________________________________________________________
review of action items
action-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- Julian Reschke to review Thomas Broyer's
IETF ID to see if we can postpone ISSUE-13 -- due 2009-08-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/86
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/86
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-86 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: propose to close this. any objections?
close action-86
<trackbot> ACTION-86 Review Thomas Broyer's IETF ID to see if we can
postpone ISSUE-13 closed
<mjs> Lachy, due date for next update is fine
<Lachy> mjs, 2 weeks from now
<rubys> close issue-31
<trackbot> ISSUE-31 What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is
unknown/unavailable? closed
action-103?
<trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Julian Reschke to register about: URI
scheme -- due 2009-09-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-103 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: Lachy agreed to do this within two weeks
... action 103 should be re-assigned to Lachy
action-140?
<trackbot> ACTION-140 -- Cynthia Shelly to follow up with sean hayes
-- due 2009-09-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/140
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/140
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-140 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
cythia: OK to close this, have discussed with Sean Hayes
close action-140
<trackbot> ACTION-140 Follow up with sean hayes closed
Review of issues proposed to be closed
issue-48?
<trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Should user-agents generate quotes for the q
element -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/48
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/48
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-48 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: bugs have been filed on this, so believe this can be closed
<rubys> should issue 9 be closed?
<mjs> rubys, no, issue 9 should not be closed yet, as we have a
separate interest in it from SYMM WG
<rubys> ack
paulc: so what's the actual resolution on issue 48?
<kliehm> We agreed last week on closing Issue-48 since bug reports
are filed.
mjs: the resolution is that UAs do generate quotes
<annevk> (which agrees with what the issue asks for)
close issue-48
<trackbot> ISSUE-48 Should user-agents generate quotes for the q
element closed
issue-51?
<trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module,
which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-51 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: this is no longer an issue with the current ARIA draft
<hober> IIRC ARIA's role="" isn't the same attribute as the Role
Attribute Module's role=""
mjs: any objections?
annevk: the current ARIA draft does reference the role attribute
mjs: but as defined there, does not include CURIEs
<mjs> hober, yes, I believe that is true now
close issue-51
<trackbot> ISSUE-51 WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module,
which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? closed
issue-54?
<trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE html> --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-54 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: additional doctype form that uses "about:" URI scheme was
added.. so we need to register that scheme, and Lachy will be doing
that
... any objections to closing this?
<mjs> issue-60?
<trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- Reuse of 1999 XHTML namespace is potentially
misleading/wrong -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/60
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/60
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-60 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
close issue-51
<trackbot> ISSUE-51 WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module,
which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? closed
close issue-54
<trackbot> ISSUE-54 tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE html> closed
issue-60?
<trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- Reuse of 1999 XHTML namespace is potentially
misleading/wrong -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/60
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/60
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-60 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: [issue 60 overtaken by events] any objections to closing?
close issue-60
<trackbot> ISSUE-60 Reuse of 1999 XHTML namespace is potentially
misleading/wrong closed
issue-61?
<trackbot> ISSUE-61 -- Conformance depends on author's intent --
RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/61
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/61
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-61 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: iirc, basic issue is that some conf. requirements in spec are
subjective and not machine-checkable
<DanC> no, I'm out of the critical path for issue 61
mjs: e.g., "all elements and attributes must be used in conformance
with their defined semantics"
<DanC> I said so in mail to public-html and in last week's telcon.
<paulc> Is there an agreed upon set of "author's intents"?
MikeSmith: this is separate from the doc I'm working on
<hober> Hasn't this always been the case though? <h1>something that
the author just wanted to be big</h1> was never acceptable...
<DanC> hober, HTML 4 didn't make that non-conforming.
mjs: any questions or comments or objections?
paulc: was the purpose to collect requirements based on what the
author's intent was?
<hober> DanC: sounds like a bug in HTML 4 then...
<Laura> Agree with Julian. Think we should push that to next week as
DanC is not here.
<DanC> push what back? not issue 61 (for the Nth time)
<Julian> DanC, so do you want it closed?
<mjs> Laura, DanC is here on IRC and he doesn't think it needs to be
pushed back
<DanC> yes.
mjs: specific concern is whether we should have conformance
requirements of this kind at all, since they are subjective
<Laura> okay
close issue-61
<trackbot> ISSUE-61 Conformance depends on author's intent closed
issue-64?
<trackbot> ISSUE-64 -- Web Sockets API: in scope? requirement?
coordination -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/64
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/64
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-64 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: this goes back to when Web Sockets API and protocol were in the
HTML5 spec
... but now the API spec is in the W3C WebApps group, and the
protocol spec is at the IETF as in Internet Draft
... so this issue is now obsolete
... any objections to closing?
<paulc> Does the current charter reflect this change in venue for
this work?
Julian: currently is not an IETF WG working on this
... no HyBi WG exists yet
<DanC> well, let's record a decision that sockets is out of scope
for HTML 5, let's not just withdraw the issue (cuz that would leave
open the option for the editor to put it back in)
<paulc> +1
Julian: at this point, it is just an individual submission, and
how/where this Internet Draft will ever lead to RFC is unclear
<Julian> +1 to DanC's proposal
mjs: Julian, all true, but at least for HTML WG at this point, it is
not an issue
<hober> I didn't think the WG could make decisions synchronously
<jgraham> I thought decisions had to be made by email?
<ChrisWilson> "The WG must enable asynchronous participation"
<mjs> hober, I just said on the phone that to record a decision, we
should post it by email and give a week for lazy consensus
<DanC> the proposal to close this issue has been in email for a
couple weeks. if my take on it is considered non-trivially
different, we can re-start the clock
mjs: so, everybody OK with announcing on public-html that we plan to
close this, give 2 weeks to object?
paulc: let's do that
mjs: so in general, convention can be starting subject of "requst
for lazy consensus" messages on the list with some particular string
everybody in the group is also on the announce list, automatically..
it's populated from the DB
issue-75?
<trackbot> ISSUE-75 -- Microsoft Review of HTML5 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/75
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/75
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-75 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
mjs: originally raised by Sam, we have since gotten lots of great
feedback
<DanC> (re issue-61 on author's intent, "want" is a little strong;
I'd abstain if this WG did that sort of thing. I withdrew my
objection in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1118.htm
l )
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1118.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: ISSUE-61: conformance-language - suggest
closing on 2009-09-03 from Dan Connolly on 2009-08-21
(public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
mjs: anybody think this should not have been closed?
<paulc> Re: Recommendation: close ISSUE-54; file now post-Last-Call
issue for about: scheme registration.
paulc: why would we not do the scheme registration while we are in
LC (instead of after)?
mjs: we would not want to block LC if IETF mechanics are not in
place by the time we need to transition
paulc: OK, so it's about finalization of the scheme registration
<annevk> paulc, not sure if I misunderstood you just now on the
phone, but maybe it helps if I tell you that the scheme is called
"about"
mjs: any comments about the other issues we have proposed to close
or closed?
cynthia: perhaps we need a bug [or issue] for captioning,
specifically
mjs: we should have a specific issue for video accessibility, if we
don't already
<annevk> issue-9?
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- how synchronization works for <video> is
unclear -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9
mjs: I will make sure that one gets filed, if there is not one
already
... we need a specific issue for it
... I will check after the call
<DanC> +1 separate issue for video captioning
any other questions about issues under agenda item #2?
Discuss Accessibility Task Force
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force
mjs: chairs will be together face-to-face tomorrow, and this can be
among what we discuss
... anybody have comments to make about this on the call today?
... not seeing any comments, propose we move to next agenda item
<paulc> E-mail discussion takes place on the html mailing list [html
archives]. Please add the prefix "[a11y]" to your messages to
separate threads from other topics on the list.
paulc: I put in a link to the draft proposal ...
... why would there be a problem with participation if all
discussion takes place on the public-html mailing list anyway?
cynthia: I don't know that we have consensus [in PFWG] that we want
to do discussion on public-html instead of a separate mailing list
paulc: discussion in the past about opt-in vs. opt-out?
mjs: opt-in
... question is, if some approval is required, or if anybody can
join
paulc: in my experience, having a separate list helps to keep a
task-force focused on its work
mjs: yeah, there are definite advantages to having a separate list
<paulc> Chairs will discuss this more on Friday
paulc: OK, agree that this is something the chairs need to discuss
tomorrow
cythia: 7am US/West PFWG meeting tomorrow, will get you some info
after that
Starting the HTML5 Test Suite and possible Testing Task Force
<kliehm> The question in PFWG was if members would be required to
join HTML WG in order to wave patent rights, but the chairs are
looking into a solution.
mjs: exit criteria requires that we have two interoperable
implementations of each feature in the spec, and test suite to check
whether we have interoperable implementations
... so we will need to do work to build the test suite, and need
people to do it
<JasonU> Actually, I'm here
mjs: some indication that we have people from Microsoft who can
contribute to this
<DanC> note http://esw.w3.org/topic/HtmlTestMaterials (which I
just happened to be browsing for other reasons)
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HtmlTestMaterials
<paulc> here is an example of a W3C test suite built by a TF of a
WG: http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/test-suite/
http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/test-suite/
JasonU: I'm interested in getting a cross-vendor task force together
... versioning system, whether we wanted to adopt the CSS naming
system for tests
<mjs> ack
<mjs> ack
JasonU: and get other decisions made about [test infrastructure] in
addition to just the writing of the actual tests
paulc: see the link above for XQuery test suite
... it worked really well, separately off the work
... we have a "Convener" for that TF
<kliehm> A test suite would be great to test mapping of elements to
MSAA, too.
paulc: who would report back to the WG regularly
<DanC> anybody know where gsnedders's number syntax tests went? the
link from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0650.htm
l seems to be hosed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0650.html
paulc: that test suite had over 15,000 tests
... lots of decisions to be made around, e.g., if/how people can
submit their results
<JasonU> I suspect that a full HTML5 per-feature suite would be
on-par with this 15k
paulc: if you abstract from that page, I think it can help you see
lots of the important issues you'll need to deal with
mjs: recommend that next step should be e-mail discussion
... I'm sure there are lots of people on the list who are very
interested in testing
... would be best to get input from the list on the general
parameters of what the test suite would be like, and get volunteers
JasonU: I would be happy to put together an e-mail message to the
list to help get this started
mjs: so that's the end of the agenda we had for today
... anything else we need to discuss today?
<paulc> Great job to the Chair!
<rubys> good job Maciej!
mjs: or any comments at all?
[adjourned]
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 16:12:02 UTC