{minutes} HTML WG telecon 2012-04-12: issues, survey, decisions, Media TF, and F2F

Full minutes available at:


12 Apr 2012







      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]ACTION items due by Thursday, April 12
          2. [5]New Issues This Week
          3. [6]Items Closed Last Week
          4. [7]Items Closing This Week
          5. [8]Items Closing Next Week
          6. [9]New Calls this week
          7. [10]New Surveys this week
          8. [11]Decisions this week
          9. [12]Other Business
         10. [13]Scribe for next meeting
         11. [14]Adjournment
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

ACTION items due by Thursday, April 12

    paulc: there are none

New Issues This Week

    paulc: there are no new issues, and there still is one tracker

Items Closed Last Week


    <trackbot> ISSUE-194 -- Provide a mechanism for associating a
    full transcript with an audio or video element. -- open

    <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/194

      [17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/194

    paulc: we have two proposals in hand, and the chairs are now
    due to review those


    <trackbot> ISSUE-148 -- Algorithm for detecting the charset=""
    parameter -- closed

    <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/148

      [18] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/148

    paulc: survey closed on April 6, Sam temporarily reopened it to
    allow a late comment, and there still is some dialog going on


      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0051.html

    paulc: the chairs will have to decide how to handle this
    message; we may reopen the survey temporarily to allow this to
    be added
    ... any comments?

Items Closing This Week


    <trackbot> ISSUE-184 -- Add a data element -- open

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/184

      [20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/184

    paulc: CfC closed last night
    ... I don't see any objections
    ... I'm expecting that a decision will be issued fairly quickly


    <trackbot> ISSUE-198 -- Ensure innerHTML and related APIs are
    subject to the W3C patent policy -- open

    <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/198

      [21] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/198

    paulc: there has been some debate. The chairs may reissue the


    <trackbot> ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing
    capability to fallback content -- open

    <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201

      [22] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201

    paulc: closed yesterday, we received the counter proposals; the
    chairs will hold off any actions until the F2F in May
    ... this was a request from the a11y TF, and is a reasonable


    <trackbot> ISSUE-183 -- Enhance and simplify the time element
    -- open

    <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/183

      [23] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/183

    paulc: closes tomorrow
    ... are any of the authors on the call?

    rubys: Cameron posted his change recently


      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0065.html

    <paulc> [25]http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-183

      [25] http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-183

    paulc: that would put this back into the chairs queue to

Items Closing Next Week


    <trackbot> ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule
    that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open

    <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

      [26] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

    paulc: the A11y TF is actively working this issue

New Calls this week

    paulc: there are none

New Surveys this week

    paulc: there are none

Decisions this week

    paulc: there are none

Other Business

    CfC: Create Media Task Force

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0007.html

    paulc: we got a request to extend this by a week; I've extended
    this consensus to next wednesday

    <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to talk about IRI WG ticket
    related to issue 189

    Call for agenda topics for May face-to-face meeting

      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0006.html

    paulc: we already have one suggestion
    ... we currently have 30 people registered for the HTML WG
    ... the registration closes on monday
    ... we will look for candidate items up to the point of the
    meeting, which will be run in an unconference style
    ... comments?

    mike: I sent mail about issue 189


      [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0075.html

    mike: the IETF IRI working group had a ticket opened on this


      [30] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/123

    mike: if you look at that ticket, you will see that the current
    status is CLOSED/FIXED; seen as out of scope
    ... the IRI working has no plans to work this


      [31] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-189

    mike: the issue contains an assertion that we need to work with
    the IETF. It is not clear who to coordinate with if the IRI
    working group hasn't taken this up.
    ... if the status changes, I will communicate that back
    ... neither of the chairs of the IRI WG are members of the HTML

    julian: as the one who opened the HTML WG issue and the IRI
    ticket I can speak to both.
    ... I was in Paris with the IRI WG 14 days ago. They have no
    plans to discuss this until they are asked by the HTML WG.
    ... I don't know with whom Mike has spoken, the feedback he
    provided is not what I remember from that meeting
    ... I know that I am on the hook to update my CP. My update
    will state that we need coordination, and I don't volunteer to
    be that person as I don't believe that feature is needed.

    paulc: date for update:

    julian: I plan to get to that next weekend; it won't be a big

    paulc: ETA would Monday, April 16th

    <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that no, I don't think the
    IRI WG is expecting to be formally contacted by the HTML WG

    mike: the IRI WG has taken no resolution indicating that they
    are waiting on anything

    <tantek> rubys - just saw mention of 183 - I'm on IRC but not
    on the phone.

    mike: Julian if you believe differently, please ask them to
    confirm that.

    julian: It is quite possible that's not in the minutes.

    <tantek> I must admit I'm having trouble following the length
    and complexity of the CJones proposal

    mike: I talked to both chairs
    ... we don't have agreement that any coordination is necessary.
    That's what is in dispute.

    julian: it wouldn't be the IRI WG, it would be the apps area in
    ... I talked Thomas and Mark, we have a meta-coordination area

    mike: you should talk to PLH too

    <tantek> what's the best way to iterate on / respond to
    [32]http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-183 ? a point by
    point discussion?

      [32] http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-183

    julian: if an action item were assigned to me, I would close it
    as already done

    paulc: is your advise to wait for the IETF

    julian: there is nobody official who can answer that
    ... this is something that should be handled on the liaison

    paulc: I will convey this to PLH

    <paulc> tantek: I suggest you respond directly to the email and
    if your points are sufficiently different then split the
    response into separate emails with appropriate Subject: fields

    <paulc> BTW "the email" I meant the one where Cameron announced
    his revision.

    paulc: any other business?

    <cjones> tantek: i'm keen to answer any questions you have on
    the proposal

    janina: from the A11y TF, we would like to get on record
    requesting that issue-201 hold off further action until after
    the F2F

    paulc: I've already mentioned it on the call; we will likely
    respond on public-html on that item today
    ... any other other business?

    <tantek> biggest problems are with the objections to <time>
    being dependent on future hypotheticals, and the suggestion to
    use input types instead put far more burden on authors - why
    should an author have to decide between type="date" and
    type="datetime" and the numerous other datetime related input

    paulc: none heard

Scribe for next meeting

    ted volunteers to scribe

    maciej is the likely chair


Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:46:35 UTC