{minutes} HTML WG telecon 2012-09-20

Available at:

                       HTML Weekly Teleconference

20 Sep 2012


          MartinSoukup, Radhika_Roy, ddorwin, Cooper, Sam, hober,
          Eliot, Plh, paulc, Cynthia_Shelly, John_Foliot,
          jaymunro, Art_Barstow, Judy, mjs, adrianba




     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Adaptive Image Element Proposal
         2. [4]Evolving AppCache discussions
         3. [5]Proposed rewording of ISSUE-204 text
         4. [6]Information on TPAC F2F meeting
         5. [7]ISSUE-30 change proposal status
         6. [8]Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014
         7. [9]Chair and Scribe for next meeting
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   Paul: let's switch to other business

Adaptive Image Element Proposal

   Paul: I took an action item to create a bugzilla component for

   <scribe> ACTION: Paul to create a bugzilla component for the
   Adaptive Image Element Proposal [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Create a bugzilla component for
   the Adaptive Image Element Proposal [on Paul Cotton - due

Evolving AppCache discussions

   Paul: ongoing thread about mailing lists
   ... we have people on both sides
   ... the technical discussion aren't proceeding in the meantime

   Maciej: I would suggest a preference poll to figure this out
   ... this is not substantive

   [no objection to the idea]

   <scribe> ACTION: Maciej to create a preference poll for the
   appcache mailing list [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-222 - Create a preference poll for
   the appcache mailing list [on Maciej Stachowiak - due

Proposed rewording of ISSUE-204 text

   Paul: can Ted or someone else give a status?

   Ted: additional discussion in bugzilla. last spec edit was to
   put the new wording as of Thursday last week.
   ... I don't think we've gone to a conclusion on how to tweak
   the wording further

   Paul: do we have outstanding bugs?
   ... are we moving towards consensus?

   Ted: when I made the edit on Thursday I called for people to
   file bugs on that text
   ... didn't see any coming so far

   Janina: apologizes if I didn't catch you wanted additional bugs
   for that
   ... I'm happy to do that and will do today
   ... I think it's one bug
   ... we have two use cases and we need the language to support

   Paul: it might be useful to follow up in email as well
   ... is the bugzilla message good enough?

   Ted: getting as many people involved sounds good to me
   ... so bugs and email is fine

Information on TPAC F2F meeting

   Paul: sent a reminder
   ... we received a request for a coordination meeting
   ... from MLW-LT
   ... we'll start building some sort of agenda


     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0255.html

   Paul: I'll remind people that there is a daily meeting fee,
   with exceptions for the TPAC sponsors
   ... fee increase after a day in October. It triples!

   --> [14]http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012 Schedule

     [14] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012


     [15] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/SessionIdeas

   put your proposals for TP breakout sessions there

ISSUE-30 change proposal status

   Paul: giving the proposed plan, wasn't sure what to do.

   Janina: the consensus poll has continued to draw a traffic on
   the list
   ... the ongoing discussion isn't raising new information
   ... it's a fruitful discussion though
   ... not sure if it's important conversation
   ... one of the key contributors is upset by the proposed plan
   ... I support the new approach mindful of the fact that it
   delays the resolution further

   Paul: maybe the best thing to do is to skip over this for the
   ... and talk about the proposed plan

   Judy: the consensus poll was done on schedule and the results
   were summarized
   ... it supported the earlier consensus
   ... there is a discussion going on with some good give and take

   <janina> Text Subteam minutes at:

   Judy: given the proposed plan, it makes sense to figure out how
   the discussion would be moving from here


     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0282.html

   Judy: but the action was complete and reported

Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014


     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html

   3.html proposed plan

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html


     [19] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html


     [20] http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/09/getting_html5_to_recommendatio.html

   Sam: there is a plan, a blog entry...
   ... the plan emphasizes modularity. gives 2014 for 5.0 and 2016
   for 5.1
   ... looking for a call for consensus when the major comments
   die down


     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0269.html

   Sam: there is indeed at least one bug in the plan since pubdate
   is not in the spec
   ... we'll be updating the plan based on feedback
   ... for 185, the proposed plan says we retain pubdate but the
   spec doesn't have it. it's a bug in the plan.


     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0284.html

   Sam: we got input from Steve that it would prefer that the
   Techniques for providing useful text alternatives remains in
   the HTML WG
   ... we'll respect the wish from the editor

   Judy: the comment was that the location was a concern for now

   Janina: the language in section 4.8 is still a concern for
   ... 4.8 is a problem for a11y

   Paul: we talked about this and didn't put anything in the plan
   since it talks about open issues
   ... but we understand it's an important concern
   ... maybe it would be better if we can identify how we plan to
   process this concern

   Janina: indeed, we're still trying to figure out the best
   process path

   Judy: [corrected minutes]
   ... for issue 30, the summary of the feedback on the decision
   got truncated in the minutes of the html a11y tf
   ... will need to recreate that


     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0283.html

   Sam: concern regarding validation. we do believe that Mike will
   be responsive to adding stuff in the w3c validator


     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0282.html

   Sam: if there is a problem with that, we should discuss further
   ... Steve created a new spec on how to resolve the hgroup issue

   <Judy> s/Judy: for now/Judy: the comment was that the location
   was a concern for now/

   Sam: he would prefer we make change the main spec to make it
   easier for someone to create an extension spec for hgroup

   Paul: the first one requires a correction. second requires a
   description about section 4.8 and alt techniques. third one
   needs more discussion. the validator may cause a plan update.

   Sam: it sounds that people are ok to leave the alt techniques
   in the html wg for now

   Paul: we still need to deal with the underlying concern

   sam: agreed

   Paul: any discussion in PF?

   Janina: an topic is the importance of messaging around this and
   the fact that extensions are first class citizen in the

   <rubys> tf minutes:

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-a11y-minutes.html

   Paul: one question regarding the schedule for the CR exit
   criteria and the CfC for the plan itself
   ... we don't have a firm plan
   ... and people are wondering how long they have to absorbe the
   plan and give feedback

   Maciej: imho, we could have a CfC on the CR exit criteria next
   ... for the plan itself, we need to let it go further for now

   Paul: some people in the html a11y didn't pay attention to the
   CR exit criteria

   <rubys> exit criteria:

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0215.html

   Judy: the update on the CR exit criteria didn't go to the tf
   ... concern about allowing the vertical stacks

   <JF> +1 to Judy's comment

   Judy: I do believe that Maciej's update did take this into

   Paul: if there is feedback friom the a11y tf, we might delay
   the cfc for the cr exit criteria

   Maciej: indeed, if we get new feedback, we'll wait

   <adrianba> +1

   Maciej: I like that the plan results in shipping soon

Chair and Scribe for next meeting

   Paul: Maciej is on deck to chair
   ... anyone interested in scribing?
   ... I'm at risk for next week


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Maciej to create a preference poll for the
   appcache mailing list [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Paul to create a bugzilla component for the
   Adaptive Image Element Proposal [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:51:38 UTC