minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

Readable:

   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-minutes.html

Or in plain text:

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Processing requirements for ARIA
          2. [5]<!DOCTYPE html>
          3. [6]profile attribute
          4. [7]normative language reference
          5. [8]any other issues?
          6. [9]Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus
          7. [10]process proposals
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <scribe> scribenick: annevk

    <masinter> [12]http://www.nabble.com/IETF---Uri-review-f13113.html

      [12] http://www.nabble.com/IETF---Uri-review-f13113.html

    <pimpbot> Title: Nabble - IETF - Uri-review forum & mailing list
    archive (at www.nabble.com)

Processing requirements for ARIA

    Cynthia: The goal is to have a WD by June 8
    ... By the end of May to have a document that describes the existing
    mappings from HTML
    ... From there we want to figure out what is missing.
    ... Two things: implementation guidelines + mappings
    ... CR by the end of the year if we decide to go normative
    ... aggressive schedule but we think it is possible

    SR: report progress again in a couple of weeks?

    Cynthia: June 11 is ok

<!DOCTYPE html>

    JR: draft for about: has been submitted
    ... no discussion about the draft
    ... now we have to start the discussion on the URI mailing list

    SR: good progress

    JR: I'll report in two weeks

profile attribute

    JR: I would like to help speccing, but had no time yet so I thought
    it would be good to summarize my thoughts
    ... I have no time in the next few weeks but can take ownership of
    the action
    ... it has not been posted to the URI list yet
    ... it's not clear whether the authors wanted to do that or whether
    one of us has to do that

    <masinter> I will start discussion of about: scheme

    LM: I will make a post to the URI list

    ISSUE-59?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate
    document that is a normative language reference and if so what are
    the requirements -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59

      [13] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59

    <masinter> to the appropriate list for review of new URI schemes

    <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

    <DanC> ("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)

normative language reference

    SR: no meaningful process on the HTML5 XHTML namespace

    LM: any progress on the discussion with mr Pemberton?

    SR: not in the last couple of weeks and haven't come to any
    conclusion that would be of interest to PLH just yet

    DS: I think it would be fruitful to have a discussion between PLH
    and SR to get things going

    SR: I did have such a discussion on RDFa and have not yet anything
    meaningful to report
    ... [...] the ball is in my court to get various people to
    participate in RDFa
    ... Will follow up on the action on Ian on the mailing list

any other issues?

    [silence]

Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus

    SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
    ... does this need to be discussed?

    [silence]

    LM: I have some comments...
    ... The question is not so much whether the DP document is
    self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used
    appropriately in the document
    ... The DP document is ambigious
    ... What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we
    should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing
    something totally new

    <DanC> contra-positive

    LM: It has been used in the contra-positive

    <masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B

    LM: e.g. <head profile>

    [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not
    minuted]

    LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't;
    it seems like this has been applied inconsistently

    <dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but
    failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered

    AvK: what makes you say that?

    <dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be
    used as such

    LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some
    discussions that I would have to do some research on
    ... to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
    ... that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the
    DP itself

    <Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In
    practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.

    LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich
    contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing
    practice

    <Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them.

    LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but
    the practice in which the document has been used may not which is
    the nature of my concern

    AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might
    have reflected that for which I apoligize

    <Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the
    design principles.

    LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would
    actually describe the practices we use today

    <dsinger> why does the document need to be published or gain any
    more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't
    it, and hence internal?

    AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some
    point so it's not internal

    SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an
    issue and LC had concerns
    ... I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is

    <Laura> If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we
    have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I
    propose that the entire document be obsoleted.

    LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote

    DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we
    think
    ... I don't think it's useful as rulebook

    AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is

    DS: I'll ping Maciej

    SR: great

    <Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I
    propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:

    DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these
    TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as
    describing how people arrived somewhere. they are mostly used as a
    rhetorical tool, in practice

    <Laura> "Publication of this document does not constitute
    endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of
    these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine
    them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time.”

    [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I
    started using DougS. Sorry!]

    <masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how
    decisions were made

process proposals

    SR: I may have created some confusion
    ... What I tried to say is that for things that are not in the spec
    that should be in the spec we need text
    ... Things that are not specced will obviously not be included

    DougS: is there some indication that spec text will be taken into
    account as IH has gone out of his way to reject proposed text in the
    past

    SR: If that happens I will ask someone else to do the merging

    AvK: can you point to examples?

    DougS: the most specific example is spec text the SVG WG put forward

    SR: I don't think there's consensus on what DougS has proposed

    DougS: it might be of interest to this group when I was at a recent
    meeting of authoring vendors. When I mentioned that SVG would be put
    into HTML there was deep concern among SVG authoring vendors that
    there would be changes they were not informed about
    ... I suggested that they post to public-html and www-svg
    ... I will follow up with them as well

    SR: thanks for that

    [adjourned]


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:46:14 UTC