minutes for 2009-09-17 telcon

[sorry for the delay in getting these posted]


          Manu_Sporny, Julian_Reschke, Sam_Ruby, Paul_Cotton,
          Laura_Carlson, Doug_Schepers, Maciej_Stachowiak,
          Larry_Masinter, AnneVanKesteren, MikeSmith, ChrisWilson,
          MattMay, Carlos, Cynthia_Shelly, adrianba




     1. ISSUE-55 (head-profile) ACTION-99 on Chris Wilson
     2. ISSUE-32 (table-summary) ACTION-136 on Matthew May
     3. ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch) ACTION-137 on Larry Masinter
     4. ISSUE-76 (Microdata/RDFa) on Manu Sporny
     5. ACTION-127 (review of other WG's specs) on Paul Cotton
     6. ACTION-134 (WG test suite) on Doug Schepers
     7. ACTION-103 on Lachlan Hunt: Register about: URI scheme
     8. ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference) on Mike Smith
     9. ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope) Origin header

ISSUE-55 (head-profile) ACTION-99 on Chris Wilson

   sam: Chris has said that he's not interested in pursuing this issue
   any further.

   <paulc> PaulC just joined.

   <MikeSmith> issue-65?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008 --

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/65


   sam: Anybody else interested in pursuing this further?

   <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-65 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <mjs> Lachy: thanks

   sam: propose that we close the action and promote the issue to
   raised, any objections?

   julian: Trying to understand the process here
   ... I think it's clear what needs to be done, we just need the spec
   to be changed.

   sam: Should this be marked up as a separate spec?

   julian: This should be specified separate of RDFa.
   ... What's needed is a separate spec.

   Sam: Right, somebody needs to do that.

   Manu: I can propose some text for @profile, since we're working on

   <MikeSmith> close action-99

   <trackbot> ACTION-99 Propose head/@profile/microdata solution closed

   <rubys1> action manu to produce a separate spec for profile
   attribute due in 3 weeks

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Produce a separate spec for profile
   attribute due in 3 weeks [on Manu Sporny - due 2009-09-24].

   <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that it's not necessarily clear
   at all that the HTML5 spec itself needs to include @profile, and as
   TimBL has said, a spec can be as small as one page

   mike: As far as the W3C director is concerned, there is no physical
   limits on how small a specification can be
   ... Specifically for this, it could be documented as a separate
   ... it's not clear that this should be included in the core of HTML5

   <julian> (the proposed RDFa+HTML spec currently defines
   head/@profile and link/@rel=profile...

   mike: It's not clear that @profile meets the criteria that it's
   broadly useful to web authors.

   <julian> ...moving it into a separate spec, untangling it from RDFa
   can help resolving the profile issue)

   mike: That's not to say that it's not useful, but it's not broadly
   useful to authors. So it makes sense to place it into another

   <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- head/@profile missing, but used in other
   specifications/formats -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/55


   <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-55 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   mike: Sounds like Manu is going to go ahead and do that, so we have
   a clear way forward with this.

   Sam: Anybody else have input? I think we have a plan forward.

ISSUE-32 (table-summary) ACTION-136 on Matthew May

   <MikeSmith> action-144?

   <trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Manu Sporny to produce a separate spec for
   profile attribute due in 3 weeks -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/144


   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-144 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <MikeSmith> action-136?

   <trackbot> ACTION-136 -- Matthew May to send draft to the list, due
   in three weeks -- due 2009-09-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/136


   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-136 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   <Laura> Summary Spec Text Drafted

   sam: We have got a document from Cynthia, what are the next steps?





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

   Cynthia: I think we have a document and we now need feedback.

   <pimpbot> Title: FW: [html] Summary draft from Cynthia Shelly on
   2009-09-14 (public-html@w3.org from September 2009) (at

   Mike: Shelley added a bug to that as well.

   <Laura> The definition of a closed issue is: "CLOSED = The chairs
   believe either the WG has resolved the issue (via spec editing) or
   the issue has been withdrawn."

   Sam: I don't think the issue is closed. There is active forward

   Cynthia: We need to have a deadline for a decision.

   Sam: A deadline on what?
   ... The next step would be to update the draft in two weeks.

   <MikeSmith> close action-136

   <trackbot> ACTION-136 Send draft to the list, due in three weeks

   <rubys1> action cynthia update table summary draft due in 2 weeks

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Update table summary draft due in 2
   weeks [on Cynthia Shelly - due 2009-09-24].

ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch) ACTION-137 on Larry Masinter

   Sam: Larry had recently posted something, do you want to comment on

   Larry: The chair of IDNA workgroup has agreed to meet with Ian to
   talk about these issues.

   <rubys1> action-137?

   <trackbot> ACTION-137 -- Larry Masinter to update IRI spec based on
   comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), --
   due 2009-09-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/137


   <trackbot> ACTION-137 -- Larry Masinter to update IRI spec based on
   comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), --
   due 2009-09-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-137 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

   Larry: We're trying to resolve the conflict between what web
   browsers want and what other specs need. We're going to start work
   at IETF to address this issue.

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/137


   <pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 17 Sep 2009 (at

   Larry: The feedback from Martin Duerst is that we need to change the
   IRI spec to match what the HTML5 document proposes.

   <MikeSmith> +1 to drastic change in IRI document being necessary

   Larry: John Klensin, editor of IDNA documents, says we need to avoid
   paths where percent-encoded addresses are presented to DNS.

   <julian> s/Clenson/Klensin/

   Larry: We need to figure out how to deal with percent-encoded values
   in the authority field.

   <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to ask Larry for his thoughts on use
   of the term "URL" in the IRIbis draft

   Larry: The goal of this exercise is to define URIs and IRIs in IETF
   in a way that HTML5 can make a normative reference to those

   <MikeSmith> julian, it doesn't necessarily need to be ready in time
   for LC

   Larry: Getting all of these people on the same mailing list would be

   <julian> MikeSmith, so an internet draft would be sufficient for

   Larry: The IETF will proceed in generating IETF documents as quickly
   as they can, and the chair of the IDNA workgroup has said that he'd
   talk with Ian and come up with a process that is effective.

   Mike: Larry, from the notes I've seen and the messages that you've
   sent - we don't need to be that concerned about the schedule. We
   just want an indication that it's headed in the right direction.
   ... the biggest concern that we have is that there was originally
   some spec text in HTML5 that got dropped on the floor when migrating
   it into IRIbis

   Larry: Those issues are not closed, there are some things that are
   still open. It seems like there was no place to put them until we
   got this reorganization resolved.

   Mike: at some point, we have to consider doing some audits on what
   was needed is still there in the new documents.

   Larry: yes, that is still an action item for me.
   ... I wanted to make sure that there was a path for this document.

   Mike: So the other thing, Larry, from some of your notes it seems
   like the term "URL" in the HTML5 draft is problematic.
   ... What you're proposing is that URL, as used, it's consistent with
   the HTML5 draft
   ... We don't want to have a discussion on that right now...

   Larry: The term "URL" has a current widespread usage that is
   somewhat ambiguous.
   ... So, using a term that is ambiguous in a formal specification by
   giving it a precise definition is problematic.
   ... If IETF defines what that term means, then HTML5 can use that
   ... The reason that HTML5 needed to define a new term is because
   there was no good technical normative reference for URL.
   ... Let's fix the technical normative reference issue.

   Maciej: Larry, I asked his in an e-mail in response to this new
   ... Once concern I have is that HTML5 is referencing a spec that
   isn't moving forward. It can't reference IRIbis because there are
   some important algorithm definitions that are not good.
   ... This sounds like a good way forward, but getting a new working
   group going is a problem.
   ... What could we do in the interim to not block HTML5's progress.

   Larry: I understand the timing issues, and I don't think we're
   proposing holding up the HTML5 spec in any way.
   ... We're just trying to get people together to talk about this

   Sam: When is the new date for updating the IRI spec?

   Larry: I can incorporate the questions in the document in the next
   ... I want to make sure Maciej's question was answered.

   Maciej: Willing to take the question offline, let's move on.

ISSUE-76 (Microdata/RDFa) on Manu Sporny

   julian: I checked the WEBADDRESS draft, there are some things that
   would never be in IRIbis that are HTML specific
   ... There need to be deeper edits.

   <rubys1> issue-76?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-76 -- Concerns about Microdata section and
   inclusion/exclusion of RDFa -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76


   <rubys1> action-139?

   <trackbot> ACTION-139 -- Manu Sporny to produce 3 separate HTML5
   drafts and the external Microdata draft -- due 2009-09-18 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/139


   <julian> msporny: there are four new drafts, one of which is
   RDFa+HTML, to be published as FPWD

   <julian> msporny: 2 remaining issues, raised by Henri

   <julian> msporny: disagreement whether these are spec or
   implementation issues


   <MikeSmith> 11WebApps!!!

   Paul: Somebody needs to take an action to notify W3C about
   publishing as FPWD.

   Sam: When should we talk about these other drafts? Two weeks from

ACTION-127 (review of other WG's specs) on Paul Cotton

   <scribe> scribenick: msporny

   <MikeSmith> action-127?

   <trackbot> ACTION-127 -- Paul Cotton to establish process for
   "official WG response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts -- due
   2009-09-15 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/127


   manu: Sounds good.

   paul: I went back over the last nine months and looked at all of the
   LC requests.



   paul: The request to review the ARIA spec is the only thing that
   should be reviewed by HTML WG.
   ... We should ask which documents people expect us to review.

   <shepazu> (you should definitely review DOM3 Events, which should be
   going to LC soon)

   paul: Once I've figured that out, I can figure out what kind of
   process we'd like to have in place.

ACTION-134 (WG test suite) on Doug Schepers

   Doug: You should definitely review DOM3 Events... it's going to LC
   within the next month or two.
   ... Several of us went up to Boston, we started to build a testing
   ... it does two things:
   ... It does automated testing in all the major browsers.
   ... It has a crowd-sourcing aspect that allows people to submit,
   review, comment on, and review tests.
   ... Anybody can tie into this system... all these tests are going to
   be focused on Web-focused technologies.
   ... CSS, Geolocation, HTML, etc.
   ... The idea is that if we crowd-source the review of these tests,
   it'll be much faster and more effective than if we do it as a group.

   <paulc> W3C Chairs minutes (member only):


   Doug: We should be rolling that out pretty soon.

   Sam: Would you like a new date on the action?

   Doug: We should close the action. I'll send out progress as it

   Paul: This item was publicized only this week. It would be good if
   we could extract the information we talked about in the chairs
   meeting and make it more public.
   ... We would like a written description so far.

   Doug: I'd like to keep it a bit under wraps for now, there's a bit
   of documentation online:
   ... I'll post the link later.

   <shepazu> http://omocha.w3.org/wiki/


   Doug: I'll see what we can do about HCG.

ACTION-103 on Lachlan Hunt: Register about: URI scheme

   <rubys1> per


ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference) on Mike Smith

   Sam: I moved it back a week to give us an update...
   ... Mike?

   Mike: I don't have any specific updates and no promise about it.
   ... we can close this issue, I think.
   ... I will try to get this issue closed before the next meeting.

ISSUE-63 (origin-req-scope) Origin header

   Sam: Anybody have any comments on this?

   Mike: There is a bugzilla issue for this, but I don't have it
   ... I'll try to post it if I can find it in the next couple of

   Larry: My personal opinion is that the HTML document should not
   contain network protocol additions.
   ... They should be separated out into an other document so other
   specs could reference the protocol without having to reference

   <MikeSmith> that's the case currently with this particular header,
   so no problem

   Maciej: From conversations with Ian, the plan for this is to either
   replace Origin header with another header, or drop the item
   ... We should re-review when that is done to see if everyone is

   <mjs> (the other header is Sec-From, which is defined in its own

   Paul: So, it sounds like what Maciej is saying is that we have an
   implicit or explicit dependency on the editor to do something.

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7599


   <MikeSmith> issue-63: related bugzilla bug -


   <trackbot> ISSUE-63 Origin header: in scope? required for this
   release? notes added

   Sam: Sounds like there is forward progress being made, status is no
   different from last week.

   <Laura> Janina's email regarding the Accessibility Task Force:



   <pimpbot> Title: Re: Accessibility Task Force from Janina Sajka on
   2009-09-16 (public-html@w3.org from September 2009) (at

   Sam: As a Work Group we've done everything that we can do.
   ... Anybody object to PLH and (somebody else) to move this forward?

   <MikeSmith> no objection from me.. latest message for Janina seems
   to indicate we have resolution

   Paul: So, we'll follow this forward to next weeks meeting.

   Sam: Sounds like they're making progress.
   ... I don't think there are any major issues with the Testing Task



   <pimpbot> Title: RE: HTML WG Testing Task Force from Paul Cotton on
   2009-09-17 (public-html@w3.org from September 2009) (at

   Paul: It's in the style of the previous proposal for the
   accessibility task force.
   ... Maybe we should just let people respond to this.
   ... It's very possible that testing people might not want to get the
   main HTML WG e-mail feed.
   ... We need to figure out a way to protect them from the deluge of
   HTML WG e-mails, but still make them members of the HTML WG.

   <MikeSmith> MikeSmith notes that Paul noted the problem of how to
   handle testsuite contributors from volume of e-mail on the
   public-html list

   Paul: The last time we put something like this forward, it created
   some discussion.

   <hober> I find that most email clients have some kind of filtering
   feature; can't TF people just filter public-html to /dev/null if
   they find it overwhelming?

   Paul: Registration period for TPAC for $50/day fee goes up next
   ... You need to register before the 21st of September to get the
   $50/day fee.
   ... When we were discussing TPAC, the hotel is under room pressure
   ... By early October, they might be out of rooms.

   Sam: Anything else?

   Paul: One of the TPAC panels is going to be on HTML extensibility.
   ... The best technical plenaries are the ones with blood on the
   floor :)
   ... They're thinking of instead of a panel discussion that it should
   be a debate.

   Sam: Cage match! :)

   <MikeSmith> +1 to Paul's comment about "blood on the floor"
   discussions being the most interesting

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 17 Sep 2009 (at

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 17 Sep 2009 (at

   <mjs> masinter`: I replied to your public-iri email last night

   <mjs> masinter`:
   on process questions


   <pimpbot> Title: Re: IDNA, IRI, HTML5 coordination from Maciej
   Stachowiak on 2009-09-17 (public-iri@w3.org from September 2009) (at

   <mjs> (also had a separate email with some minor technical comments)

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 17 Sep 2009 (at

   <shepazu> I would like for the HCG minutes to be public... I still
   don't understand why that can't be done


Michael(tm) Smith

Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 04:49:20 UTC