- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:22:43 +0200
- To: "'public-html-wg-announce@w3.org'" <public-html-wg-announce@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Guten Abend!
The minutes from the 6 August 2009 HTML WG weekly teleconference are
available as hypertext at:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.html>
and as an IRC log at:
<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-irc>
and as plain text following my signature; as usual, please log any
errors, mis-attributions, clarifications, and the like by replying
to this announcement on-list.
Best regards, Julian
-- snip --
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
HTML Weekly Teleconference
06 Aug 2009
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-irc
Attendees
Present
Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, dsinger, Masinter,
+1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef, Matt_May,
+47.40.28.aadd, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, mjs, kliehm,
Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, annevk
Regrets
Chair
rubys
Scribe
Julian
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
* [5]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<jgraham> *irc
<rubys1> trackbot, start call
<trackbot> Sorry, rubys1, I don't understand 'trackbot, start call'.
Please refer to [6]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
<pimpbot> Title: IRC Trackbot (at www.w3.org)
<rubys1> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 06 August 2009
<dsinger> zakim [apple] has dsinger
<mjs> I'm on - I think
<Lachy> I guess I must be [IPcaller]
<Lachy> oh, maybe not
<mjs> it's awful quiet on the call
<dsinger> ?
<kliehm> I'm on the phone, too, should be +49 (or VOIP)
<Lachy> no, I dropped off. calling back
<kliehm> zakim aabb is mjs
<scribe> scribe: Julian
<rubys> issue-35
<rubys> issue-35?
<trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for
aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN
<trackbot> [7]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
[7] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
[8]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
[8] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
cynthia: making progress, FPWD this month planned
... working on HTML mappings
<rubys>
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-05 from Ian
Hickson on 2009-08-05 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at
lists.w3.org)
cynthia: report again in 3..4 weeks
rubys: hixie asked for specific feedback
cynthia: differences in WG process
... do not respond before all comments are processed
... ETA 3..4 months
... explains the HTML vs ARIA mapping issue
SteveF: (misssed this)
mjs: explains hixie's comments
<DanC> I'm interested to see ARIA integrated by reference too,
though it's not clear to me how that would work
mjs: ...inconsistent state between HTML and ARIA semantics... make
non-conforming?
<jgraham> To integrate it by reference it would need to define all
the areas of overlap between aria semantics and native semantics
mjs: ARIA currently says host language can't override
... q
<mjs> to type my remarks into the record:
SteveF: promises feedback next week
<mjs> 1) What Ian specifically wants is to make inconsistent states
between native markup and ARIA roles/properties noncomforming -
right now ARIA doesn't let a host language do that
Murray: asks for mechanism to describe conformance
<mjs> 2) (from my earlier remarks) we should ask PFWG to expedite
processing of this specific comment
masinter: inclusion vs reference of ARIA
... motivation for the current plan
<Stevef> [10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
[10] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
<pimpbot> Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
1.0 (at www.w3.org)
<kliehm> Murray, the ARIA DTD extends the HTML DTD, but doesn't
prohibit any inconsistencies.
<masinter> So I heard Sam say that he had not heard of anybody
advocating inclusion of ARIA rather than reference to the ARIA spec
<jgraham> I assume the issue is not includion vs reference so much
as how much HTML needs to say about the mapping between native
semantics and aria semantics
<jgraham> i.e. I assume no one is proposing duplicating aria in HTML
<annevk> Why does ARIA override?
<masinter> i'm doing a text search on ARIA in
[11]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
[11] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)
stevef: not sure whether there's a problem with the current draft
<DanC> I think mjs said something about a problem with WAI ARIA not
allowing host languages to set conformance requirements; steve can't
find any such problem in a current draft
<mjs> can someone provide a link to the current editor's draft?
<DanC> again, [12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
[12] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
<pimpbot> Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
1.0 (at www.w3.org)
<rubys> stevef would like ian to reconfirm that he still has an
issue with the current draft
<annevk> also, things like " assistive technology SHOULD assign
preference to the WAI-ARIA feature" seem incorrect, given that the
browser tells something to the assistive technology, not the other
way around
<DanC> "The appearance of the name literal of any concrete WAI-ARIA
role (see section 7.3.2) as one of these substrings MUST NOT in and
of itself make the attribute value illegal in the host-language
syntax" -- 6.1.1. Role Attribute
<jgraham> (as a concrete example I believe the issue is things like
<input type=radio role=checkbox>
<jgraham> )
<annevk> Anne: wouldn't it be better to wait until ARIA is out of
LC?
<DanC> mjs, you seem to be reading a comment from hixie; pointer,
please?
<annevk> Maciej: that would delay it too much
<kliehm> I can imagine designers who want a radio button to *look*
like a checkbox, so that's no contradiction then.
rubys: pushing back one week
<mjs> DanC, I followed the link from what rubys linked earlier:
[13]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/details?comment_id=267
[13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/details?comment_id=267
<pimpbot> Title: Comment details - PFWG Public Comments (at
www.w3.org)
<rubys> issue-32?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for
unsighted navigation? -- OPEN
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
[14] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
[15]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
[15] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<DanC> (I concur with a point dbaron made: having groups talk to
each other with low latency isn't as good as having individuals get
together and talk. There's a time for formal group-to-group stuff,
but it should be the exception, not the rule)
murray: great compromise
... thanks to the people involved
<annevk> Julian: from my point of view the spec is far away from
expressing consensus
<annevk> Julian: I would vote for John's draft
julian: not satisfied with the compromise
<masinter> I agree with Julian, FWIW
<DanC> (I continue to see shelley object, but I gather she's already
made her argument and doesn't feel a need to repeat it. Does anybody
have a pointer to something that captures her concerns?)
mjs: asks people to look at the text,. avoiding a vote
<masinter> I think it is astounding how much debate it took to get
this far, and it makes me querstion whether the group is ready to
reach last call on schedule
<Laura> John's recap saying table summary is an open question:
<Laura>
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.htm
l
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html
<pimpbot> Title: Movement on summary from John Foliot on 2009-08-06
(public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
mjs: explains the "should"
<Laura> Steve saying the @summary text is adequate for now but
doesn't see it making last call.
<Laura>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0302.htm
l
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0302.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
Steven Faulkner on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
(at lists.w3.org)
<Laura> Me asking to have summary in the draft marked as open. Sam
previously said it is the proper way to handle it.
<Laura>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0315.htm
l
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0315.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
Laura Carlson on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
(at lists.w3.org)
<Laura> Sam saying @summary is "well on its way" to being closed.
<jgraham> FWIW I don't see any substantial change from the current
text taking us closer to a maxima of acceptability
<Laura>
[19]http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware
[19] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware
<pimpbot> Title: Sam Ruby: Disappearing Silverware (at
intertwingly.net)
<Laura> Shelley calling it "painting people into a corner".
<Laura>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0317.htm
l
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0317.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
Shelley Powers on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
(at lists.w3.org)
<Laura> Leif suggesting that we should have Sam's support for
*keeping* it marked as an open.
<masinter> example of difficulties of coming to consensus on
authoring conformance requirements
mjs: says it's not obsolete (?)
<Laura>
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0319.htm
l
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0319.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Leif
Halvard Silli on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
(at lists.w3.org)
masinter: issue not addressed
... general underlying problem with conformance requirements
<pimpbot> Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from
Shelley Powers on 2009-08-04 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009)
(at lists.w3.org)
masinter: discouraged by compromise and time spent on it
Matt_May: some of the uncontroversial
... there are also design considerations
... "obsolete, but conforming" will cause more discussions
... keep the advice, but no warning needed
I agree with Matt was saying
<cshelly> +1
<annevk> +1
dsinger: explains that there's a meta-problem behind @summary
<annevk> (to dsinger)
mjs: asks masinter to clarify his concern
masinter: see Julian's mail
<DanC> (+1 to what, cshelly and annevk?)
<annevk> (I mentioned that in my next line, DanC)
<cshelly> +1 to dsinger
<rubys> I believe that they were +1'ing the notion of the chairs
getting together and working out the process (dsinger's comment)
<DanC> tx
murray: repeats that helping access. for tables is important
... don't prematurely obsolete
... lots of work to do left
<mjs> I'd like to note again for the record that the text does *not*
make the summary attribute obsolete
cshelly: new text ok for next draft
mjs, it appears in "12.1 Conforming but obsolete features". Why?
<mjs> Julian, that's the section that defines all the warnings in
the spec
<Julian_> cshelly: PFWG happy with process
<Julian_> cshelly: @summary not the most important issue
<mjs> Julian, all the other warnings are for conforming but obsolete
features, but the warning for summary is clearly stated in a
distinct way, referring to its definition in the <table> section
<Julian_> mjs, not helpful, IHMO. The effect is the same.
<jgraham> AFAICT the spec is very clear that @summary just triggers
a warning in section 12.1
<Julian_> cshelly: proposes a TF
<kliehm> Which brings me to the point wether there will a F2F
meeting at TPAC 2009?
<Zakim> Lachy, you wanted to comment on the issue of publishing
Working Drafts in the future
Lachy: do not let procedural and technical issues mix
... let (FP)WDs be published without any discussion
<Stevef> +1 to lachlans suggestion
<rubys> +1 to lachlan's suggestion
<dsinger> I don't think I can agree that any document can be
published from a WG without any discussion or agreement. That's an
individual draft.
<cshelly> +1 to dsinger
<Lachy> dsinger, since WD explcitly don't require concensus of the
group, what harm does it do?
<jgraham> Maybe any document that has been FPWD may be published
again without discussion
<DanC> -1 to lachlan's suggestion. it's healthy that publication
decisions re-awaken sleeping dissent and such.
Julian: not "obsolete but conforming" + "produce warning" -> does
not compte
mjs: reminder about petent review clock for new PFWD
<Lachy> ok, that's fair enough about FPWD due to the patent review
issues
<dsinger> First Public Working Draft: "Entrance criteria: The Chair
must record the group's decision to request advancement. Since this
is the first time that a document with this short name appears in
the Technical Reports index, Director approval is required for the
transition."
cshelly: points out that what was going on is good; we need to get
things out of the way before LC
murray: found the discussion helpful, not harmful
<DanC> (FYI, last call comments shouldn't come from WG members; last
call is a decision that the WG is done handling its own
issues/comments.)
<rubys> if people who have already had a turn simply wish to repeat
comments, I ask that they remove themselves from the queue
murray: points out that there could be multiple levels of warnings
<cshelly> danc, that's exactly why we need to agree on things before
LC. If we don't, then there will be lots of comments from WG
members.
mjs: connecting technical discussions to procedural ones is
dangerous
rubys: allowing other people to produce WDs helps
<dsinger> well, I think if Ian feels that there is a strong
consensus which he doesn't agree with, he'll concede
<cshelly> +1 rubys
<DanC> LC comments from WG members are out of order/non-sensical. LC
is a decision that the WG is done. For a WG member to then send a
comment doesn't make sense.
masinter: wants question to publish clarified
<cshelly> danc, I agree. that's why I think it's important to have
these discussions about a public working draft, to force us to
discuss and reach consensus
rubys: explains WD doesn't need to be better of perfect
masinter: has concerns with the current editor's draft
<jgraham> Having a public working group must change the expectations
here, surely?
<DanC> the level of consensus should go in the status section. I
wonder if we've been doing that.
masinter: proposes sections to be marked as controversial
<dsinger> I surely believe we all have concerns. if there weren't
many, we'd be heading into last call :-)
rubys: issue marker for @summary is currently missing
... will recommend to publish soon
<mjs> cshelley, I will agree that would should resolve issues in a
timely way and well before LC, I just think there are healthier ways
to do it than using a WD publication as a forcing function
cshelly: need to start addressing contentious issues now
<jgraham> In particular because the distinction between "in the
working group" and "not in the working group" is very different to
other groups; almost anyone with feedback can be "in the working
group"
<dsinger> thank you for fine chairing...
<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at
www.w3.org)
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135
([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/06 17:02:25 $
_________________________________________________________
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/no one advocated/he had not heard of anybody advocating/
Succeeded: s/the/to the/
Succeeded: s/shelly/shelley/
Succeeded: s/belivee/believe/
Succeeded: s/progress/process/
Succeeded: s/warning/warning in/
Succeeded: s/(PF)/(FP)/
Succeeded: s/peple/people/
Succeeded: s/rules/expectations/
Succeeded: s/rubys, pushing back one week/rubys: pushing back one week/
Found Scribe: Julian
Inferring ScribeNick: Julian
Default Present: Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, dsinger, Ma
sinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef, Matt_May, +47.40.28.aa
dd, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, mjs, kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, a
nnevk
Present: Sam +1.703.234.aaaa Julian Radhika_Roy dsinger Masinter +1.415
.595.aabb +47.40.28.aacc Stevef Matt_May +47.40.28.aadd Lachy +1.519.37
8.aaee Laura mjs kliehm Cynthia_Shelly DanC annevk
Found Date: 06 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.
html
People with action items:
[25] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
End of [26]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:23:32 UTC