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

minutes of 2009-10-01 telcon

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 01:56:14 +0900
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091001165604.GB26265@sideshowbarker>
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-html-wg-minutes.html

   Present
          MichaelCooper Cynthia_Shelly Eliot_Graff Julian MikeSmith
          Philippe AnneVK Carlos MartinKliehm Laura Larry Maciej Paulc

   Chair: Maciej
   Scribe: MikeSmith

     * Topics
         1. Review of due and overdue action items
         2. New issues this week
         3. Status of Call For Consensus emails
         4. Scribe for next meeting
     _________________________________________________________

Review of due and overdue action items

   issue-41?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

       http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

   <paulc> I have having a hard time hearing the speaker.

   <paulc> Carlos: Can you mute?

   mjs: continue the e-mail discussion on issue 41, close the action
   item
   ... any comments?

   action-97: adrian posted proposal

   <trackbot> ACTION-97 Following SVG-in-HTML thread, propose
   decentralized extensibility strategy for HTML5 notes added

   close action-97

   <trackbot> ACTION-97 Following SVG-in-HTML thread, propose
   decentralized extensibility strategy for HTML5 closed

   issue-7?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- codec support and the <video> element -- OPEN

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

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

   action-130?

   <trackbot> ACTION-130 -- David Singer to review status of video
   codec positions -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/130

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/130

   <mjs> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/acc-media-html-gathering.html

      http://www.w3.org/2009/09/acc-media-html-gathering.html

   mjs: there will be an accessible media workshop prior to TPAC
   ... objections pot postponing the date on the action?

   action 130 due 2009-10-15

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 130

   action-130 due 2009-10-15

   <trackbot> ACTION-130 Review status of video codec positions due
   date now 2009-10-15

   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

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

   mjs: Manu not here this week, we can have him give an update next
   week
   ... and figure out what the next steps are

   action-141?

   <trackbot> ACTION-141 -- Maciej Stachowiak to document Last Call
   comment process -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/141

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/141

   <masinter> link issue 76 with distributed extensibility issue?

   mjs: chairs believe it's important to document our process for
   dealing with LC comments
   ... we are going to have a lot of LC comments, more than most other
   W3C specs in recent memory
   ... we want to be able to have a process to try to deal with most
   issues very quickly
   ... we believe we can start using the process now

   <masinter> +1 for documenting process for handling WG members pre-LC
   comments

   mjs: a need a few more days for chairs to complete the discussion
   ... questions or comments on this?

   masinter: I think the process for WG comments and handling also be
   formal
   ... start the process now, whether or not we're in LC yet

   action-141 due 2009-10-8

   <trackbot> ACTION-141 Document Last Call comment process due date
   now 2009-10-8

   issue-32?

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

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

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

   action-145 due 2009-10-15

   <trackbot> ACTION-145 Update table summary draft due date now
   2009-10-15

   action-146?

   <trackbot> ACTION-146 -- Paul Cotton to ask for a volunteer to run
   the testing Task Force -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/146

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/146

   action-148?

   <trackbot> ACTION-148 -- Paul Cotton to recruit a Task Force
   facilitator for the HTML WG -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/148

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/148

   action-146: Paul sent email to the list

   <trackbot> ACTION-146 Ask for a volunteer to run the testing Task
   Force notes added

   action-148: paulc sent email to the list

   <trackbot> ACTION-148 Recruit a Task Force facilitator for the HTML
   WG notes added

   close action-146

   <trackbot> ACTION-146 Ask for a volunteer to run the testing Task
   Force closed

   close action-148

   <trackbot> ACTION-148 Recruit a Task Force facilitator for the HTML
   WG closed

   paulc: I have not completed yet the action that requires some
   discussion with Manu

   issue-54?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE html> --
   CLOSED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54

   action-103?

   <trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Lachlan Hunt to register about: URI scheme
   -- due 2009-09-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103

   mjs: we should file an issue in the HTML5 CR component

   <paulc> BTW Action-147 from Paul is still outstanding
   (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/147

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/147

   masinter: there comments on this that the author hasn't responded to

   mjs: any volunteers to report on it?
   ... otherwise, I am OK with closing the action

   <paulc> I changed due date on ACTION-147 to next week.

   mjs: the action came about because we added about:legacy-compat as a
   part of the "legacy" doctype for XSLT engines to generate

   masinter: but the draft of the about: scheme registration didn't
   even mention about:legacy-compat
   ... is there a way to track this differently?

   anne2: we have a bunch of similar cases of scheme registrations that
   we will need to deal with, this is not unique

   mjs: yeah, we don't need to track this separately, so seems like we
   can close this action

   masinter: point is to check the normative references and see if they
   have progressed
   ... even of the URI documents are not approved, still want to be
   able to track -- just asking

   mjs: part of what we need to do before PR transition is check all
   the normative references ourselves

   masinter: just trying to figure out how we plan to keep track of the
   technical dependencies

   close action-103

   <trackbot> ACTION-103 Register about: URI scheme closed

   <paulc> I expect we will get LC comments on the exact references and
   their status.

   mjs: any other comments?

New issues this week

   issue-81?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Offline Web Applications section should use
   the term "representation" instead of "resource" -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81

   mjs: bunch of discussion on the list, mostly a matter of word choice

   <anne2> paulc, yeah, we just need to check it every now and then,
   but it goes for a lot of the references

   mjs: anybody have anything to say on this issue?

   masinter: I think I'll comment on the list -- there's the URL
   terminology but this is separate... issue really is -- if you
   consider it an issue -- about whether it's a problem to have the
   same terms used differently in this document as compared to existing
   documents

   <Zakim> Julian, you wanted to say that it's also about the spec
   being inconsistent in itself

   masinter: and confused use of resource vs representation can lead to
   problems in discussion of, e.g., conneg

   Julian: it's also a problem in that use of the term "resource" is
   internally inconsistent in the spec itself

   mjs: other comments?

   issue-82?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- Suggested replacement for head/@profile does
   not provide for disambiguation -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82

   mjs: this is about details of the UA processing requirements for
   head/@profile

   issue-83?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-83 -- Use of the dt and dd elements in figure and
   details content models -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/83

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/83

   mjs: this is capturing the objection that this reuse of dt and dd
   extends their semantics
   ... any comments?

   issue-84?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-84 -- Should spec discourage use of "legacy"
   doctypes? -- RAISED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/84

      http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/84

   mjs: we discussed the about:legacy form of the doctype

   Julian, is this about about:legacy doctype or about the XHTML 1.0
   and HTML 4.01 doctypes?

   <mjs> End of section 9.1.1

   <anne2> "The DOCTYPE legacy string should not be used unless the
   document is generated from a system that cannot output the shorter
   string.

   <anne2> "

   <Julian> Mike, originally the former

   <anne2> --
   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#doctype-legac
   y-string

      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#doctype-legacy-string

   Julian: I raised it because of the about:legacy doctype, but in
   discussion about this on IRC, the point was made that it doesn't
   make sense to discourage any conforming doctypes that trigger
   standards mode

Status of Call For Consensus emails

   mjs: I sent a CfC: Create Testing Task Force message
   ... so if you have objections or comments, follow up to that e-mail
   ... any questions or comments now?
   ... I also sent a CfC: Create HTML Accessibility Task Force message
   ... but I did not cite the actual work statement
   ... paulc followed up by posting a link to the actual work statement
   ... and I will follow up to make clear that everybody should review
   the actual work statement
   ... my mistake..
   ... questions or comments?

Scribe for next meeting

   mjs: I think rubys will be chairing
   ... I you volunteer to scribe, you will receive many 11brownie
   points

   plh, you volunteering?

   <plh> yes, I volunteered

   scribe will be plh

   mjs: any final questions or comments before we adjourn?

   masinter: there will be an IETF meeting the week after the TPAC

   <paulc> special hotel rate for TPAC expires on Oct 12.

   masinter: anybody else planning to be at the IETF meeting?

   <masinter> i'll email it

   <masinter> it's in Japan, MikeSmith

   <Julian> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/76/

      http://www.ietf.org/meeting/76/

   mjs: yeah, we should highlight that to the group

   masinter, I will probably still be in the US that week

   <masinter> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

      http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

   <Julian> IETF 76 - Hiroshima, Japan November 8-13 2009

   [adjourned]

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 16:56:24 UTC

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