- From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:01:52 -0500
- To: <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
These are the draft minutes of the Hypertext Coordination Group meeting from February 26. Although a discussion of deprecating DOMActivate was planned for this call, we didn't actually discuss this because not all the key people were present. This topic is scheduled for the March 12 call. Note that there are some member-only links. - DRAFT - Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference 26 Feb 2010 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/2010JanMar/0030.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/26-hcg-irc Attendees Present Debbie Dahl, Kazuyuki Ashimura, Steven Pemberton, Robin Berjon, Bert Bos, Philippe Le Hégaret Regrets Paul Cotton, Daniel Glazman, Raphaël Troncy, Chris Lilley Chair Debbie Scribe Bert Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Actions 2. [6]Last calls 3. [7]DOMActivate 4. [8]BCP 47 5. [9]Google's secure services discovery proposal 6. [10]Distributed extensibility 7. [11]Any other business _________________________________________________________ Actions Debbie: All three open actions continue. No Doug here, cannot discuss DOMActivate without him. Any other topics to discuss? Last calls Debbie: One last call still open, a few just closed. Any upcoming? <Steven> No LCs from me Debbie: About upcoming last calls, be careful announcing in these public minutes, in case they aren't certain. DOMActivate Robin: Are there any objections actually to deprecating DOMActivate? Steven: A bit, we were told it was incorrectly implemented, but earlier it was said to be the portable way. So we have done work based on it, and now it is going to be deprecated? In a few years it may swing back. Deprecating doesn't seem the right thing to do. Too… fashionable? Robin: Might indeed not be the best option. Maybe there is a more subtle way to be found. Steven: Deprecating means all existing XForms content is no longer correct. Deprecating is too harsh. Pulls the rug from under our feet. But we shouldn't discuss without Doug. Not fair. Debbie: We cannot do much else today. Other topics? Philippe: Did you all see the e-mail from the Director about HTML WG? All: Yes. Philippe: But nothing to discuss. BCP 47 Steven: References to language codes should all be to BCP 47. That's the correct latest spec. Robin:Yes, that should be better known. I've seen the same mistake before. Maybe send a a message to <chairs@w3.org>? <plh> [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2001JanMar/0069.html [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2001JanMar/0069.html <kaz> [ the VBWG also modified ssml 1.1 so that it refers to BCP47 ] Philippe: I guess I can ask Richard to send a reminder to <chairs@w3.org> indeed. <scribe> ACTION: Philippe to ask Richard to send message about referencing BCP47 to chairs@w3.org [recorded in [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/26-hcg-minutes.html#action01] Google's secure services discovery proposal Robin: A protocol that respects privacy, potential replacement for OAuth. Other groups in that area may be interested in it. Philippe: We're looking at scopes of WGs. Security is done in various API-related groups. Robin: Security is in the charter, but unclear what it covers. Google's proposal comes from security people. Our security experst are interested in it. Maybe a cross-group task-force? Philippe: We also got questions about security in HTML5, e.g. Robin: There have already been workshops; Thomas would know better; perhaps more interWG coordination would be useful; people doing APIs should look and provide feedback. Debbie: Isn't there a security WG? Philippe: Not for the same things. WCS is more UI oriented. I encourage Robin to send to chairs. <darobin> ACTION Robin to send an email to chairs@ about Powerbox Robin: Not sure who else is interested. Philippe: At least HTML, and Geolocation. Robin: Geolocation is already aware of it. Debbie: Do we want to have a discussion about scope creep? Related to Director's message? Philippe: I just wanted to make sure people saw it. I don't think it affects any groups here today. Distributed extensibility Philippe: One other issue: distributed extensibility. We're looking for ideas by March 24. The TAG is already aware of it. The ideas are sought by the HTML WG. In their terminology it is a change proposal. Debbie: So that is for adding features by other parties than the WG? Philippe: Correct. Debbie: What already exists? We talked about the subject here before. There must be links somewhere. <plh> [14]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41 [14] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41 Philippe: Looong thread, would have to dig. The TAG looked into the proposal. Maybe looking in the TAG minutes is thus a quicker route to the proposals. Robin: Any reason why XBL2 isn't a solution? Philippe: XBL seems meant to attach behavior. Robin: And styling. You can use it any way you want. <darobin> -> re XBL2 [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/att-0036/00- part [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Nov/att-0036/00-part Steven: The HTML WG doesn't care a lot about validation. All unkown attributes remain in the DOM. The question is more how to validate extensions. Philippe: Relying on that is a hack. Steven: True. Philippe: Issue here is: can we do something else than a hack? Robin: XBL doesn't need namespaces, it can match on anything else as well. Any other business Debbie: We didn't discuss DOMActivate today. Do we still make the minutes public? I propose not. Steven: The minutes contain some member-only links. Debbie: We can just warn about those. Robin: I'd like public by default. Bert: I'd like the opposite, don't bother people if there is nothing to tell. Robin: Some of the security and other stuff could interest people. Debbie: OK, I will send the minutes to the public list. We will come back to DOMActivate next time. _________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 17:02:37 UTC