- 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