toward an issues list/agenda for the HTML WG

OK, so the IRC office hours experiment went a little
better than the email brainstorming experiment.
I'm keeping an issues list/agenda; it covers
some of the highlights from IRC as well as recent email,
and has pointers to the full log of the IRC chat.
   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16

I'm used to the combination of a mailing list and a
weekly teleconference. Once a week, the chair prepares
an agenda that carries over a few things from last week,
plus picks up some of the new threads that don't seem
to be taking care of themselves in email. If you weren't
satisfied with the response you got by email, you can show
up at the teleconference and clarify or try to raise the
priority. If you couldn't read all the mail that went
on that list, you can at least look at the agenda to see
what the high priority things are.

In this group, the participants don't sign up for weekly
teleconferences when we join the group, but as chair, I still
need some sort of regular sync point, so I'm likely
to do the IRC-office-hours thing periodically... maybe
every week, maybe every other week. I do intend to call
teleconferences some weeks. I might try that next week.

Here's what we've got so far, after a couple weeks of email
and one go-round of IRC office hours.


  NOTE WELL: If you want to send mail about one of
   the issues below, use or start a thread about the
   issue; please let's not have a huge thread
   with zillions of technical issues all under
   the subject "toward an issues list..."


[[
This is a list of issues, agenda, and to-do items that the chair keeps
for the HTML Working Group; it should be up to date within a week or
two. This is $Revision: 1.4 $, last modified $Date: 2007/03/22 21:08:12
$.

     1. mailing list mechanics Posting to this list Anne van Kesteren
        (Thursday, 8 March); re-raised by mjs 21 March
     2. HTML spec baseline. charter says HTML4; shall we skip ahead to
        HTML5 in one step? a 14 March message from Glazman in the
        brainstorming thread suggests choosing a some version of the
        HTML5 spec for review 
                we could, with permission from Apple, Opera, and
                Mozilla, have both this HTML working group's
                specification and the WHATWG's specification be the same
                actual document 
                Ian Hickson Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:58:38 +0000
     3. Forms baseline. Barstow 9 March seeks confirmation that this WG
        will "take over" Web Forms 2.0. Raggett 12 Mar: Preparing to
        launch the Forms Task Force ... 
        
        Also raised in IRC office hours:
        
        # [18:53] <mjs> 3) how should we participate in the joint forms task force with the Forms Working Group?
     4. candidate requirement: parsing to tree-shaped Dom see 21 Mar IRC
        discussion starting 18:19 (in what timezone?), including test
        case sketches in blog entries such as Tag Soup: How UAs handle
        <x> <y> </x> </y> of 2002-11-21
     5. face-to-face meeting around XTech in Paris in May? Note
        Glazman's 14 March offer to host in Paris, and Wilson's 20 March
        message that says he has begun making plans to attend XTech. The
        call-for interest results suggest various participants are
        interested and available, including the following member
        representatives: 
              * Dreamlab Technologies AG: Schnitzenbaumer
              * Google, Inc.: Hickson. (not interested, but "If we do
                have a meeting, having it in Europe near XTech would be
                the most convenient time for me.")
              * Opera: Bolstad, van Kesteren, Eriksen
              * Disruptive Innovations:Glazman (offers to host)
              * Mozilla Foundation: Sivonen
     6. conflict with principle of modularity: HTML parsing, <script>,
        and document.write() test/issue details? Dan Connolly (Thursday,
        15 March)
     7. candidate requirement re editing: 
                there should I think be a requirement in the
                specification that implementors provide a way to
                manually add and modify markup in the edited text, so
                that there is always the opportunity to add or modify
                information in a way that is not supported by the
                editor. 
                Laurens Holst
                Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:45:50 +0900 
     8. interoperability of object: 
                Today, <object> is probably the least interoperable
                element in HTML. 
                Asbjørn Ulsberg 19 Mar 2007 22:04:32 +0100 
        
        Indeed, object was standardized prematurely (lesson learned from
        HTML 4 WG chairing, let's hope). Test cases and story telling
        (use cases)...
        
        
     9. candidate requirement: market threshold: 
                at one point the charter did say a total 10%, which was
                reviewed by the Webkit team, and everyone involved
                agreed was better. 
                Ian Hickson 15 Mar 2007 14:27:30 +0000
        
        See also webkit blog discussion. The text from that version of
        the charter is:
        
                The HTML Working Group's work will be considered a
                success if there are multiple independent complete and
                interoperable implementations of its deliverable that
                are widely used (with a total market share, measured by
                at least two widely recognized reporting organizations,
                of 10% or more of the Web browser market).
        
        Changing the charter at this point is expensive, but that
        requirement is perhaps worth adopting by WG decision.
        
        One idea from a chat with Chris W. is to survey the top 200 web
        sites regularly.
        
]]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 21:22:39 UTC