- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:20:45 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Available at
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html
Text version:
HTML Weekly Teleconference
08 Oct 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009OctDec/0001.html
Attendees
Present
Julian, Eliot_Graff, carlos, annevk, msporny_, Sam, Plh,
Rich, Mike, laura, Matt, Stevef, dsinger, Paul, adrianba,
Masinter, jerryEzrol, Maciej, Cooper.a, Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets
some
Chair
Sam
Scribe
plh
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]review of action items
2. [5]CfC emails
3. [6]TPAC/TC39
4. [7]HTML decision policy
5. [8]Reminder about gathering
6. [9]Scribe for next meeting?
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
review of action items
[11]ISSUE-76 -- Concerns about Microdata section and
inclusion/exclusion of RDFa -- OPEN
[11] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
Manu: got through the [12]html+rdfa and pubrules.
... everything looks like it's ready to go
... now we need the transition request. Mike?
[12] http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/Overview.html
[13]ACTION-147 -- Paul Cotton to work with Manu on making HTML+RDFa
ready to publish -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
[13] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/147
Paul: sent some [14]suggestions. status need some tweaking.
... some missing references
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0240.html
Paul: Mike needs a short name for the draft. html+rdfa
Manu: rdfa-in-html ?
... I'll look at Paul's email
[15]ACTION-147 Work with Manu on making HTML+RDFa ready to publish
closed
[15] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/147
[16]ACTION-139 -- Manu Sporny to propose 3 separate HTML5 drafts and
the external Microdata draft -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN
[16] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/139
Manu: since rdfa is separated from the main body. it makes sense to
pull the microdata section out of the main spec as well.
... we need pull it out, then we need 2 alternatives to reference
normatively or not to microdata and html_rdfa.
... I'm working on the 3 documents.
... there should be discussion about separating out microdata, and
on making references to microdata/html+rdfa.
Sam: now that we have the process in place, we can move forward
Manu: I'll put a discussion topic then. My preference is of course
to pull microdata out, and reference normatively microdata and
html+rdfa
[17]ACTION-139 Propose 3 separate HTML5 drafts and the external
Microdata draft due date now 10-15
[17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/139
<mjs> fwiw my preference, and I think this would be easier to get
consensus on, is to refer to neither normatively
[18]ACTION-137 -- Larry Masinter to update IRI spec based on
comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), --
due 2009-09-28 -- OPEN
[18] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/137
Larry: we're having a meeting at Google on Monday with Martin
Duerst, Erik van der Poel, Mark Davis; call in with IETF area
directors & proposed chair.
... I'm hoping to get Ian Hickson as well
... hoping to make some progress on the process and on the content
... the goal is to align html spec for URL with every other internet
spec
... so we need to get everybody on board
... feel good on making progress on getting the parties on board
... would report back next week
Sam: when will this be completed?
Larry: lots of parties that need to be involved. fallback is to say
that html is different from others.
Sam: we need to set some expectation on when we'll use forward
without waiting
Larry: 2 weeks before last call
Sam: we're trying to get this stuff done within a month. that's the
rough idea.
Larry: it's progressing a lot faster than expected, so I'm
optimistic.
[19]ACTION-137 Update IRI spec based on comments to Public-IRI
(Including those from HTML-WG members), due date now 10-15
[19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/137
Larry: not sure I'll be able to make the call, but will send email
[20]ACTION-138 -- Steve Faulkner to produce a matrix based on
Henri's work -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
[20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/138
Steve: still working on it. it's taking over by the [21]ARIA User
Agent Implementation Task Force at the moment
[21] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-aapi-minutes.html
Steve: we've been discussing it. different approach now. working out
from the spec and see where we disagree.
... we'll need to liaise with other WAI Groups as well
Rich: will you be coming with proposed edits?
Steve: yes, that's the intent
Rich: Sam, what's the expectation for the draft/edits?
Sam: we'll discuss that later in this call
Steve: I can report next week but this issue will be taken over by
the task force
Maciej: we already an issue open for this. if what you're going to
do is to propose edits, I recommend starting those specific changes
in bugzilla, since we don't have a case of the editor rejecting the
edits yet
action-138, due 10-22
Sam: and we'll discuss the process at the end
[22]ACTION-144 -- Manu Sporny to produce a separate spec for profile
attribute -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
[22] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/144
Manu: this issue overlaps with RDFa slightly. profile is being
obsoleted in HTML 5. plan is get rid of it in the future.
... some people have an issue with that. some are fine with it being
replaced by a rel reserved word
... it attempts to solve the versioning problem in HTML.
... so it's linked to a couple of issues
Manu: the proposal, [23]Extended Processing Behavior in HTML5 uses
the version attribute
... that's effectively what profile was trying to do
... there has been discussed on there. we could make changes in RDFa
1.1 and still provide backward compatibility with RDFa 1.0 if we had
this version attribute. so there is a real reason for that.
... the discussion so far went through a wide range.
... so there will be an other draft
... hoping for more feedback on the new one
[23] http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-epb.html
Larry: not sure it was clear how independent this work is from RDFa.
<mjs> I have issues with "version" too but I'll take it to email
Sam: the original issue is broader
Manu: Doug Schepers is interested in using RDFa in SVG. It could
potentially used in other drafts.
Julian: the current HTML 5 does not make profile conforming. it's
only in the section about obsolete attributes that are not
conforming.
<msporny_> +1 to what Julian said.
Julian: given the amount of documents that relies on @profile, or
the amoun of specs using it, we need to make it conforming.
Sam: it would be good to use bugzilla as well here. nice to have a
specific proposal associated with it
Manu: seems ok. I thought it was rejected by Ian in the past
Sam: I think Ian is not likely to take it but let's go through the
bugzilla
<Julian> (documents may not be *relying* on @profile, but they
contain it because they want to conform to other specs, and there's
simply no good reason to make this non-conformant until those other
specs have moved to a different mechanism (which we'd need to
specify))
ACTION: Manu to create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile [recorded
in [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
Created ACTION-150 - Create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile [on
Manu Sporny - due 2009-10-15].
action-144 due 10-29
[25]ACTION-144 Produce a separate spec for profile attribute due
date now 10-29
[25] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/144
action-127?
[26]ACTION-127 -- Paul Cotton to establish process for "official WG
response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN
[26] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/127
Paul: still working with the HCG to figure upcoming last calls
... see my [27]status report ... responding to all solicitations on
the chairs list
... one we can use as an example is MathML 3.0
... I arrange to have their last call close after TPAC
... so we need volunteers to review it
... currently we use MathML 2.0 in HTML 5. should we change it to
MathML 3.0 would be one of the questions
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0241.html
Sam: asking for volunteers seems fine to me. re MathML 3.0, let's
enter an issue in bugzilla
ACTION: Paul to enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0 [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
Created ACTION-151 - Enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0 [on Paul
Cotton - due 2009-10-15].
action-127 due 10-22
[29]ACTION-127 establish process for "official WG response" to other
WG's RFC on LC drafts due date now 10-22
[29] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/127
No new issues
No issue to close
CfC emails
Sam: we got approval on both task forces. volunteers?
Paul: got one volunteer for test tf.
MichaelCooper: got some volunteers for the HTML/PF TF, from both
sides.
Sam: so we need to have this in hand
MichaelCooper: will send the info over
Manu: testing. we got a suite of tests for RDFa in HTML5. we'll
submit those
Paul: can you reply on the thread saying that?
Manu: sure
Larry: scope of testing tf. will the tf give feedback on things that
are not testable?
Maciej: anyone can give feedback at anytime, that includes the TF
Larry: I'm suggesting if it would be useful to highlight this so
they keep it in mind. their goal is to improve the spec
Sam: we have a decision for the TF and you now want to change the
scope?
Larry: if everyone is happy we can move on
Paul: first task of the TF is to define its scope actually...
... send email to the TF or participate in it
<paulc> Testing TF re scope see point 8 in
[30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0687.htm
l
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0687.html
Larry: thank you
TPAC/TC39
<rubys> [31]W3C Combined Technical Plenary / Advisory Committee
Meeting
[31] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/
<rubys> [32]Registration for the 2009-11 face-to-face meeting of the
HTML Working Group (Santa Clara, California)
[32] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/2009-11-f2f/
Sam: there is a WBS going on. please reply there.
... don't think we have a firm agenda yet.
... friday morning, 10-12 is with TC39
... comments?
Larry: seems to me that it was more an issue with webapps than us
Sam: it's not specific to us, it also includes webapps indeed
Paul: how does TC39 going to meet with the webapps wg?
Sam: scheduling has been a logistic nightmare. best we could come
with
Paul: the list coming out of TC39 was more pertinent to webapps...
Maciej: logistics would be difficult to change now, so we could host
it
<masinter> just seems misleading to call this TC39/HTML when the
topic isn't specific to HTML. I don't mind there being a meeting of
W3C with TC39 which invites HTML WG members, it's just calling it a
"joint meeting" that seems odd
Cynthia: the accessibility task force would be meeting on
monday/tuesday, one item is to provide input for the TC39 as well
Sam: please announce that on the list
plh: TC39 is interested in some topics and is welcoming W3C groups
in the room on Friday, from 10 to noon. list of topics: Support of
ES5 in WebIDL, Guidance from WebIDL for Web APIs, Execution model
and locking of resources, Global variables. I18n is interested in
setting and managing locale in ECMAScript but is willing to meet at
a different time with them.
HTML decision policy
[33]HTML Working Group Decision Policy
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0189.html
Maciej: we have a draft. two phases. first bugzilla. main difference
is that we're using bugzilla as the main entry point instead of
email
... if you file a big, the editor will give you an initial feedback
... if you're not satisfied with you, you can go in the issue
tracker
... escalation process
... you would make a change proposal
... we're asking for change proposal to have a summary, a rational,
and details of the proposal (spec text or edit instruction)
... if you ask the Chairs upfront, you can ask for exception to spec
text or edit instruction.
... there will be deadlines associated with the escalation process
... if no one volunteers for a change proposal, it's timeout after a
month
... ditto if you volunteer but don't deliver
Maciej: this is to guarantee everyone gets full due process.
... look at the document for details
<msporny_> +1 for this newly documented process... it's a move in
the right direction.
Maciej: especially if you want to provide feedback on the specs
Manu: how does it integrate with the WHATWG editorial process?
Maciej: if you want to communicate with Ian Hickson out of band,
that's ok and we won't track you, but if you want your comment to be
tracked by us, use our process
Cynthia: how do one do a change proposal? in bugzilla?
<masinter> is a goal to insure that the responses to comments come
from "the working group" and are agreed to?
Maciej: could be a separate document, wiki, etc. we're happy to
help.
Adrian: editor response section. spec diff, we have some technical
issues regarding spec diff.
<masinter> and if so... is it also a goal to insure that changes to
the spec which are not in response to comments also are reviewed by
the working group?
Maciej: Ian mentioned that he has multiple changes queued up, so
difficult to put it the exact revision number. we'll address that by
making sure somebody develops a tool, or volunteers to produce the
information.
Adrian: concerned about going through the spec for changes...
Maciej: you'll go throught the logs
Adrian: it's fine if the checkin addresses more than one issue, but
concerned if there is no link.
Maicje: we'll refine the process/responses as we go
Maciej: for the summary changes, do a change proposal
... are you ok with the one month deadline?
Cynthia: I'm ok with one month
Rich: concerned about the size of changes sometimes. not sure if it
will work.
... the process is that we have an issue on standard ARIA support
... huge set of changes, then we'll have discussion on bugzilla?
<masinter> wonders if there might be a plan for reviewing the
process and seeing if it is working, say, 6 weeks after the new
process is instituted
Maciej: for ARIA, we need to have requests for each change related
to ARIA. ie file bugzilla bugs individually.
Rich: we're willing to give it a try
<rubys> +1 to masinter's suggestion
Cynthia: fine
Steve: ditto
<mjs> masinter, to address your last question, yes, we should
monitor whether the process is working, and 6 weeks from now seems
like a fine time to check in
Reminder about gathering
David: I just wanted to remind people of the informal accessibility
workshop. Maybe folks are put off by the requirement to speak, but
it doesn't have to be an academic paper. Just identify in advance
what expertise and knowledge and ideas you can share with the group;
we want talkers and workers
David: please sign up
Cynthia: remote participation?
David: we've got several requests, I'll check
Larry: btw, there is also [34]Doodle: Participation in IRI
specification development
[34] http://doodle.com/afp2fuek353ynv38
Scribe for next meeting?
Sam: any volunteer?
[none heard]
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
* [NEW] ACTION: Manu to create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
* [NEW] ACTION: Paul to enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0
[recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 19:20:50 UTC