RE: {minutes} HTML WG Telecon 2010-10-14 actions, status of calls, issues and bugs, heartbeat drafts, task force reports

Minutes are available here:

HTML Weekly Teleconference
14 Oct 2010


Julian, Sam, paulc, Mike, [Microsoft], Radhika_Roy, adrianba, krisk, eliot, +1.971.998.aaaa, +, Janina_Sajka
Paul Cotton
Adrian Bateman

  *   Topics<>
     *   ACTION items due by Thursday, October 14<>
     *   New Issues This Week<>
     *   Items Closed Last Week<>
     *   Items Closing This Week<>
     *   Items Closing Next Week<>
     *   New Surveys This Week<>
     *   New Calls this week<>
     *   Working Group decisions<>
     *   Pending heart beat publications<>
     *   Issue updates<>
     *   Joint meeting with ECMA TC39<>
     *   Task Force Reports - Accessibility Task Force<>
     *   Task Force Reports - Testing Task Force<>
     *   Other business<>
     *   Scribe for next meeting<>
     *   Adjournment<>
  *   Summary of Action Items<>


<rubys> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 14 October 2010

<scribe> Agenda:

<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba

<paulc> Good morning, Adrian - are you aread to scribe?

<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman

<paulc> Great
ACTION items due by Thursday, October 14


<trackbot> ACTION-187 -- Maciej Stachowiak to inform the group that no comments on issue-9 requirements means they will be accepted -- due 2010-10-14 -- OPEN


<dpenkler> zakim aabb is dpenkler

paulc: this is the only one on maciej
... who isn't on the call

<paulc> mjs: can you give us an update?

ACTION-187 due 21 oct

<trackbot> ACTION-187 Inform the group that no comments on issue-9 requirements means they will be accepted due date now 21 oct
New Issues This Week

paulc: three in the agenda


<trackbot> ISSUE-129 -- replace or modify the ARIA section of the HTML5 spec -- raised



<trackbot> ISSUE-130 -- allow tables to be used for layout purposes -- raised



<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- raised


<paulc> Tracker requests:

paulc: in addition, per agenda 2d there are a series of tracker requests

<rubys> 7

paulc: there are 6 or 7 outstanding requests
... the chairs are asking if someone with tracker permissions will do the escalation
... otherwise the chairs will elevate next week
... since there are others who can do this we want to give them the opportunity
... anyone want to review the list or make any comments?
Items Closed Last Week


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


paulc: survey on distributed extensibility closed last week and the chairs have added it to their queue of work items to process the survey results


paulc: think the TAG sent feedback too

rubys: it's not in the survey but i added it to the issue page
Items Closing This Week


<trackbot> ISSUE-89 -- Remove Section 4.12 Common Idioms without dedicated Elements -- open


paulc: closed yesterday so chairs will add this to their list too
Items Closing Next Week


<trackbot> ISSUE-118 -- Specification breaks semantics of existing link relations "index" and "first" -- raised



<trackbot> ISSUE-122 -- alt text and description for Lady of Shalott example -- raised



<trackbot> ISSUE-123 -- Autofocus attribute security concerns -- raised


paulc: these are all calls for proposals and close oct 17
New Surveys This Week


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


paulc: straw poll issued due oct 21


<trackbot> ISSUE-74 -- How accessibility works for <canvas> is unclear. -- open



<trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- allow image maps on the canvas element -- open




<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- raised


paulc: chairs opened issue 131 too
... survey has been issued for these
... these two surveys have been sent out
New Calls this week


<trackbot> ISSUE-125 -- Requirement to break RFC 2616 compliance with respect to single quotes not needed for legacy content -- raised



<trackbot> ISSUE-126 -- Requirement to break RFC 2616 compliance with respect to backslashes not needed for legacy content -- raised


paulc: these are calls for proposals due nov 13


<trackbot> ISSUE-85 -- ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5 -- open


paulc: also have call for consensus closing on oct 20 next week
Working Group decisions

paulc: chairs issued two decisions this week


<trackbot> ISSUE-100 -- Remove the srcdoc attribute from the HTML5 specification -- closed



<trackbot> ISSUE-103 -- XML escaping in iframe/@srcdoc -- closed



paulc: there is email discussion on the list

rubys: i responded on www-archive because it was more of a process question
Pending heart beat publications

paulc: Mike Smith is on the call, update?

MikeSmith: initially asked editors to put oct 12 on draft but didn't manage to get everything staged by that time
... next window is tuesday
... so asking editors to change date to next tuesday 19 oct
... we'll do that then
... i asked manu if there had been substantive updates to the RDFa draft - i don't think so so it might not be necessary to update it
... waiting to hear back from manu
... unless the chairs figure it is desirable to publish anyway

paulc: just looking at editor's draft, which is later than WD
... that implies some change

MikeSmith: think this might be just to revert it to ED and change previous publication date
... i.e. just the usual housekeeping but not making substantive changes

paulc: all of these documents cross-reference each other so if you leave it then it'll point to an old draft

MikeSmith: yeah, true
... i'll try to get a response from Manu - he may not have time so if i don't hear back i'll do the necessary updates

paulc: thanks for doing this

MikeSmith: i want to bring up one other issue - if you go to the latest version of the editor's draft of the spec


MikeSmith: there's a note at the bottom that is quite prominent that says it is an out of date document and points to the editor's draft as the latest version
... the intent is that this will appear only on the TR version
... it's just a tab that appears at the bottom of the browser window and the intent is that readers of the WD see that the ED has changes that are not reflected in the WD
... i think we should have a discussion about whether that should be there
... i don't think we've discussed this in the group and i think it's necessary to talk about before we publish

Julian: paul probably can't see it because maybe it doesn't work in IE

<Zakim> rubys, you wanted to ask about the updated status section

MikeSmith: that would be a problem too since it's not doing what it is intended

rubys: we want RDFa republished because of the changes to the intro text about where to file comments

Julian: wanted to make one technical suggestion

<paulc> ack +

Julian: think this is done with absolute CSS positioning and this slows down browsers even more than just the large document
... i understand that the point of the text is to make people go somewhere else

<paulc> The latest stable version of the editor's draft of this specification is always available on the W3C CVS server and in the WHATWG Subversion repository. The latest editor's working copy (which may contain unfinished text in the process of being prepared) contains the latest draft text of this specification (amongst others). For more details, please see the WHATWG FAQ

Julian: i don't know why we would publish a draft saying people should go somewhere else

paulc: the intro text already has this note
... not sure why we need more than this

MikeSmith: well we have had a problem with implementers referring to the WD when significant changes have been made to the ED

<paulc> But the text already says: "Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. "

MikeSmith: and this caused some implementers in some cases to be wasting time because they were using the WD instead of the ED

paulc: the paragraph already warns people about this

MikeSmith: i guess it is up to the chairs to decide what to do

paulc: i suggest we remove it from the WD and that you ask the editor to do that

rubys: i'm okay with that

MikeSmith: i'll do that

paulc: thanks!
Issue updates


<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- how accessibility works for <video> is unclear -- open


paulc: we have the user requirements and requested spec changes in the agenda

<paulc> ACTION-187?

<trackbot> ACTION-187 -- Maciej Stachowiak to inform the group that no comments on issue-9 requirements means they will be accepted -- due 2010-10-21 -- OPEN


paulc: we want to make sure that if people didn't provide comments we take the requirements as accepted

janina: there is agreement via the e-mail list in the subteam for one specific addition
... from the open subtitles conference in NY
... we decided not to update for caption
... this was localised feedback and we need to be more international
... we wanted to add the example of ancilliary content that we stumbled across since it is html5
... specific for javascript that annotates video
... after that i don't think there is any impediment for closing on these
... the group is interested to understand when the spec language will be in
... we have a new law in the united states where if you broadcast something digitally and put it on the web you have to meet these requirements

paulc: we have the user requirements, they have been out since august, the TF wants to make one update

janina: i will have the update done by friday

paulc: and then on the spec additions you're saying they haven't been done and you'd like to know the schedule

janina: yes, exactly

paul: this was requested in september and there aren't any replies on the public archive
... the chairs will take an action to follow-up

<scribe> ACTION: paulc to check on the status of the request for spec additions related to the <track> element [recorded in]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Check on the status of the request for spec additions related to the <track> element [on Paul Cotton - due 2010-10-21].
Joint meeting with ECMA TC39

paulc: want to bring this to the attention of the group
... this is the follow-up to the joint meeting from Nov 2009
... it's great news that cameron has returned and has already started editing
... he will be attending
... it will be in the Bay area but the exact location hasn't been set yet
... we'll update when we hear
... would like to encourage people to attend if they can for this one day meeting
Task Force Reports - Accessibility Task Force

janina: all of the groups are moving forward in their areas
... i sat in on the aria mappings meeting and they are going through the remaining bugs
... we heard in the call today about the bugs requiring work
... not much to report - people still working on the current issues

paulc: are there any issues that the TF needs help with?

janina: not that i'm aware of
... there were questions about whether i had correctly represented the the canvas position correctly

paulc: is this about the survey for issue-74?

cyns: the question was about the survey went with only ian's counter proposal but not the original proposal
... janina reminded me we withdrew the original
... but ian's counter proposal was countering something that wasn't there
... we decided to postpone the change proposal until it is more mature
... wasn't sure if the plan was to deal with the counter-proposal


rubys: this survey is different from the others that listed all the change proposals

<paulc> issue-131?

<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- raised


rubys: we broke out the individual items because the proposals overlap
... so for the first question - it gives the issue but then lists the change proposals that contribute to the question
... we did put out issue 131 that we'll deal with later

cyns: i guess my confusion is that item 4 looks like the counter proposal to issue 131

rubys: we should maybe consider deferring question 4 - i can see your point

paulc: i think sam's suggestion is that you should flag this issue on the public list and then the chairs will respond

cyns: i'll do that

paulc: if you do it quickly, you'll get a quick response
... anything else we need to discuss?
Task Force Reports - Testing Task Force

<krisk> October is turning out to be a busy month (22 posts to the list so far, most in a month was in june with 55 posts)

krisk: october is a busy month - we extended the meeting schedule
... it's the same time/ day of week/ etc

no meeting on 11/2 because of tpac

and no meeting on 12/28 because of the holidays

krisk: i'll be at tpac if people want to meet face to face
... we met on 10/5 and the next meeting is tuesday 10/19

<krisk> Notes ->

paulc: update on where we are on accepted tests and the queue?

krisk: we have 187 approved tests and no bugs
... we'll have getElementsByClassName and some canvas tests added next
... there is some dicussion about tests that cover multiple w3c specs
... vs normative requirements per the html5 spec
... the one case that sparked this discussion was combining svg with canvas
... the html5 doesn't have a normative requirement that canvas support svg
... would like to encourage vendors to update the xml for their conformance report

paulc: how many do you have?

krisk: we have the all the main ones but most of the vendors have new versions of their software and there are new tests

paulc: did the svg/canvas issue create a bug on the spec?

krisk: well, the spec doesn't specify any image formats today
... we could create a bug
... there are some things we have to assume like javascript
... but others we have to test and you could definitely test canvas without testing svg

paulc: so you're trying to understand the core

rubys: this will be controversial because we don't specify media codecs and this might open up that issue again

krisk: the thread ended really with the point that we don't need to make this a requirement
... but in future this kind of combination will be more common
... with svg it's an open spec, a recommendation

paulc: okay, any other comments?

krisk: no, that's it

paulc: any questions?
Other business

paulc: anyone want to discuss anything else?
Scribe for next meeting

paulc: sam will chair next week, paulc will scribe unless anyone else wants to

<Julian> bye

paulc: i'll adjourn the meeting then

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: paulc to check on the status of the request for spec additions related to the <track> element [recorded in]

[End of minutes]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cotton
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:05 AM
Cc: Adrian Bateman; Janina Sajka; Kris Krueger; Sam Ruby; Maciej Stachowiak (
Subject: {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-10-14 actions, status of calls, issues and bugs, heartbeat drafts, task force reports

The HTML Working Group will have its usual weekly teleconference on

2010-10-14 for up to 60 minutes from 16:00Z to 17:00Z.

Tokyo 01:00+1, Amsterdam/Oslo 18:00, London/Dublin 17:00,

New Jersey/York 12 noon, Kansas City 11:00, Seattle/San Francisco 09:00.

Chair of the meeting: Paul Cotton

Scribe:  Adrian Bateman

(See the end of this email for dial-in and IRC info.)

== Agenda ==

1. ACTION items due by Thursday, October 14

a) ACTION-187: Inform the group that no comments on issue-9 requirements means they will be accepted [Maciej]

2. New Issues This Week:

a) ISSUE-129: aria-mapping

b) ISSUE-130: table-layout

c) ISSUE-131: caret-location-API

d) Outstanding Tracker Requests

Note that there are a number of TrackerRequests pending.  Chairs wish to encourage WG members to raise issues and/or suggest concrete text for the issue.

3. Items Closed Last Week

a) ISSUE-41: decentralized-extensibility, Respond to survey, due Oct 7

4. Items Closing This Week

a) ISSUE-89: idioms, survey closes Oct 13

5. Items Closing Next Week

a) ISSUE-118: broken-link-types, change proposals due Oct 17

b) ISSUE-122: shalott-example, change proposals due Oct 17

c) ISSUE-123: autofocus, change proposals due Oct 17

6. New Surveys This Week

a) ISSUE-32: table-summary, Straw Poll for Objections due Oct 21

c) ISSUE-74, ISSUE-105

The Chairs have opened a new issue on caret:

and plan to proceed to a survey:

7. New Calls this week

a) ISSUE-125: charset-vs-quotes, Call for Proposals closes Nov 13

b) ISSUE-126: charset-vs-backslashes, Call for Proposals closes Nov 13

c) ISSUE-85: anchor-roles, Call for Consensus closes Oct 20

8. Working Group decisions

a) ISSUE-100: srcdoc, Working Group decision

b) ISSUE-103 srcdoc-xml-escaping, Working Group Decision

9. Pending heart beat publications

What is the target date for the heart beat publications?

10. Issue updates

a) ISSUE-9 Media Accessibility

a.i) User Requirements

a.ii) Requested Spec Additions

11. Joint meeting with ECMA TC39

"ECMA TC39 planning on dedicating the meeting of November 17 to the topic

of WebIDL, specifically on topics such as improving the bindings to


12. Task Force Reports

a) Accessibility Task Force, Janina

b) Testing Task Force, Kris

13. Other business

14. Scribe for next meeting

15. Adjournment

== Dial-in and IRC Details ==

Zakim teleconference bridge

+1.617.761.6200, +, +44.203.318.0479

code: HTML (4865)

Supplementary IRC chat (logged)

#html-wg on port 6665 or port 80

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 16:57:06 UTC