Re: Input on the agenda

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 12:43 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> As per Sam's request:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > It now occurs to me that if you were willing to provide a similar amount 
> > of input weekly (say, on Monday) on the items that appear on 
> > <> with a due date within the 
> > next 11 days (i.e., covering both the immediate call and the next), that 
> > would be most helpful.
> This e-mail is a report of the status of issues on the agenda that have 
> actions due before 2009-03-06, from the persective of the spec.

Thanks; that's helpful.

I concur: the ball is not in your court on any of these.

> ISSUE-31 (missing-alt): What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is 
> unknown/unavailable?
> ISSUE-20 (table-headers): Improvements to the table-headers algorithm in 
> the HTML 5 spec
> ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE 
> html>
>    It's not clear to me what needs changing in the spec for these issues. 
>    For all three, the spec seems detailed and I am not aware of any 
>    actual problems having been raised and not yet addressed.
> ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements for 
> aria states and properties when used in html
>    This is pending on work by the ARIA group.
> ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml): Integration of SVG and MathML into text/html
>    This is pending on a response from the SVG group. Implementation work 
>    has been occurring in browsers, though, and this may become a moot 
>    point if those ship.
> ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference): Should the HTML WG produce a 
> separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what 
> are the requirements
>    I intend to autogenerate such a document from the spec later this year, 
>    though if Mike or someone else is willing to maintain such a document, 
>    and if we can ensure that there are no conflicts in some way, that 
>    might make that moot, which would save me some time. Unless we have 
>    some way to have a high level of reliability, though, I'd be very 
>    concerned about having two normative documents. Conflicts between the 
>    two would be very bad.
> ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch): Assess whether "URLs" section/definition 
> conflicts with Web architecture
>    This is pending work by DanC to split the controversial part out into 
>    an I-D for RFC standards track.
> HTH,
Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 18:52:38 UTC