Minutes from Hypertext CG on 8 April

Minutes from the 8 April 2011 teleconference of the Hypertext CG are
provided below in text, and are also available as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/08-hcg-minutes.html

   W3C

                                                           - DRAFT -

                                          Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference
                                                          08 Apr 2011

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
   Regrets
   Chair
          ChrisL

   Scribe
          janina

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Introductions
         2. wiki
         3. hcg wiki
         4. registries
     * Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 08 April 2011

   <ChrisL> trackbot, start telcon

   <trackbot> Meeting: Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference

   <trackbot> Date: 08 April 2011

   <ChrisL> hi Paul

   <paulc> Good morning - getting settled in an airport lounge office - will call in shortly

   <scribe> scribe: janina

   <kaz> giuseppe from opera

Introductions

   giuseppe, introduces himself

   <kaz> yosuke, introduces himself

   I'm not catching the names ...

   <ChrisL> List of Coordination Group members http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=34315

   Dan Burnett also introduces himself in this capacity

   <ChrisL> you can upload a photo, too

wiki

hcg wiki

   <ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/wiki/Main_Page

   chris, plan is to use the hcg wiki for upcoming agendas

   chris, world readable, but coordination group member writable only

   chris, the hope is that this will expedite our work

   debby: suggests tracking additional admin details there, scribe list, etc

registries

   debby: believe i first raised the question, different positions approaches
   ... emotion subgroup of multimedia wants to code
   ... decided not useful to put the coding in the spec
   ... rather wanted to point to a registry instead
   ... so issued a emotion vocabulary note
   ... should publish today
   ... rejected iana because of lengthy pub time

   doug: notes we've been discussing registries for over two years

   chris: don't believe we have a consensus position nevertheless

   <kaz> dan burnett

   <Zakim> Bert, you wanted to clarify the essential point is not registries, but bottlenecks.

   dan: likes iana because of maintanace process;

   <paulc> HTML WG issue on registry: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

   <Bert> Bert

   <kaz> bert bos

   bert: concerned over single point of failure

   <paulc> WG decision published today: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0204.html

   dan: prefers to limit this kind of work to an organization that has demonstrated it knows how to manage it

   paul: issue-27 in html-wg relates to this issue, decided today and refutes whether iana has a good procedure
   ... html rejected both
   ... describing html decisioning process: starts with bugs, then elevated to issues, proposals and counter-proposals,
   surveys wg, and chairs attempt to identify the wg decision by looking for weakest objectionable position

   doug: i expect to appeal this decision

   paul: it's called a formal objection

   chris: an interesting document

   <ChrisL> but as its 11 minutes old i hadn't read it before

   paul: please note the bottom of our decision messages where we point to the process for reopening for reconsideration
   ... reads from the decision

   <ChrisL> ok so the issue can be re-opened with new evidence, or just blocked by a formal objection

   <shepazu> [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen The Chair MAY reopen a decision
   when presented with new information, including:

   <shepazu> additional technical information,

   <shepazu> comments by email from participants who were unable to attend a scheduled meeting,

   <shepazu> comments by email from meeting attendees who chose not to speak out during a meeting (e.g., so they could
   confer later with colleagues or for cultural reasons).

   <shepazu> ]]

   paul: noting html wg trying to get to last call where a long process is expected

   <shepazu> I stand corrected

   paul: html chairs don't expect to work on objections until candidate cr status

   doug: recognizes w3 has little experience, but also has heard of poor experience in iana
   ... surprised to hear some like iana
   ... calls out microformats specifically

   paul: suggests the evidence described here wasn't in the html survey, thus not considered

   doug: understand this an html wg decision about a particular, single registry

   paul: yes

   doug: perhaps my new information would rather concern a different registry at w3c

   paul: reads again from the decision

   dan: notes this is one w3 decision from one w3 group
   ... only reason voice browser decision to go with iana hasn't moved further is that I have yet to do the work on it
   ... believes there are still strong disagreements on how to proceed aong wgs

   <shepazu> +

   debby: wonders if we even could have a unified process because of the need to also work with other organizations

   dan: may well be possible for w3 to smooth the process for its specs at another organization
   ... ietf and iana continue discussion on smoothing process between them
   ... this could happen even if w3c doesn't standardize

   doug: agrees
   ... however, suggests any org is a single point of failure locus
   ... rather we should look at shared registry with different ways to get into the registry

   <ddahl> maybe the w3c should maintain a registry of registries

   doug: we've previously discussed a registry process which isn't specifically located at any particular organization
   ... suggests we hold a conversation like that with the other organizations
   ... then, once a particular registry is stable, the other orgs mirror

   chris: there appears to be the need to indicate that a particularly registry has been requested and is in process
   ... perhaps that's two queues, or two views of the queue

   doug: agrees

   dan: like the idea esp for fault tolerance
   ... concerned how this raises a synchronization problem
   ... needs to be a normative and definitive point
   ... so, which registry to trust ultimately?

   <yosuke> [ yosuke: Web and TV IG will not need any registry for now, but if we move on to the next step after the IG or
   during the IG, I mean, creating some standards related to TV, there is strong possibility that we need huge registry. ]

   doug: correct, but we're not they
   ... suggest it's ok to let the market decide

   <ddahl> it seems that a TV-related registy might involve working with a totally new organization, e.g. other than iana
   or Microformats

   doug: suggests w3 serve the communities that want to be served by w3, and others go to the other orgs they want

   dan: understand, not sure it will work, but willing to consider

   <ChrisL> janina: we can easily mirror while saying which is authoritative, like in dns

   dan: likes that

   paul: has experience with a 'central' registry where some values are delegated to 'sub' registries
   ... odbc for instance
   ... supports additional fields that some wanted

   <yosuke> s/discuss it for me/for me to discuss it/

   chris: noting unicode registry which supports a 'private' use area
   ... this works

   <ChrisL> computer graphics metafile

   chris: did not work
   ... if one used an unusual line style, for instance, has no fallback and shows error
   ... registering didn't get one anywhere
   ... this is why svg took a different approach

   dan: iana has done this -- top level domains registered at iana, but nothing else
   ... believe setting up a w3c tree at iana was one proposal

   doug: would like to know more on that

   <Zakim> ddahl, you wanted to talk about next steps, should we continue discussion or follow up on some of the
   suggestions that have been proposed?

   doug: don't believe this solves single point of failure problem

   debby: notes our time is waning, what next on this?

   doug: happy to raise this in the team, esp in context of html decision

   chris: suggests next time perhaps too soon

   debby: next call will be may 6


-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 17:02:07 UTC