See also: IRC log
<hsivonen> advance regrets for having to leave early
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
<DanC_> minutes 12 July
DanC: reviews are coming in; I'm
happy to see detailed test discussions arising
... the tasks survey shows WG members that plan to review
various sections by various dates...
<DanC_> tasks survey results, remixed, highlighting spec review schedule
DanC: last week hsivonen gave a succinct summary...
"<hsivonen> I've seen detailed review from myself, zcorpan [Simon Pieters], gsnedders and Rob Burns"
DanC: Robert Burns proposed indexing reviews in the wiki, and I agree that's a good idea.
<DanC_> Re: Wiki Section for Draft Reviews Connolly 09 Jul 2007
<DanC_> topic/HTML/SpecReviews
<DanC_> DanC: looking at the review schedule... sorry I'm late on my intro review... I see a DOM review scheduled for 2007-07-31; anybody seen progress on that?
Dan goes "around the table" noting sections people here are reviewing...
DanC: Since the chairs are obliged to track dependencies, I figured I'd review the references section. That's mostly "TBD" but there's stuff in the intro about relationship to other specs, so I figure I should look at that. Sorry I didn't make the 15 July plan; plan to by 31 July.
Julian: I plan to review "3.7 Document metadata" and such, but just reading the comments from others on that section has used up all my time so far.
DanC: yes, if you can read reviews from others, that's good; but maybe you'll reach a point where even though you haven't read all the mail from others, you'll send your own review. Or, if you decide that section has already been reviewed enough, you can just skip it.
ChrisW: Microsoft is doing a pretty detailed review, internally. I expect we'll send detailed comments on some sections by end of August.
Gavin: I haven't picked any sections to review yet.
DanC: please do fill out the tasks survey; if detailed spec review isn't what interests you most, there are plenty of other tasks, from translation to testing and so on.
<DanC_> HTML WG tasks survey
hsivonen: on schedule.
implemented tree builder and tokenizer...
... so things are going as planned
DanC: with reviews coming in thru end of august, perhaps better to aim for mid sep for spec release
DanC: We had a lot of discussion of design principles; I didn't track all of it very well, so I'm thinking about ways to figure out the level of support for the current (April 30) draft. I'm thinking about a survey with one question per principle...
<DanC_> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples
<DanC_> design principles survey (not yet opened)
DanC: I mentioned it in IRC discussin with mjs, and he asked me to wait until he had addressed some outstanding comments. I've been struggling to sync with him since.
ChrisW: I think "don't break the web" got replaced by 2 others, and those are disputed
<Julian> which ones are the ones being disputed?
DanC: ah yes... mention of "don't break the web" in the agenda is out of date. [fixed in 1.32]
ChrisW: maybe I should follow up with mjs.
<scribe> ACTION: ChrisW to ping mjs re pending comments on design principles [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
DanC goes around the table on design principles...
DanC: I'm trying to use the design principles in the design review discussion; it worked well once and poorly once
ChrisW: there are some things I'd like expanded... e.g. "secure by design". I think we'll have to make a decision on the disputed principles soon. There are arguments both ways, but it's important to say something.
<scribe> ACTION: Gavin_Sharp to review design principles in the next two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
hsivonen: yesterday I saw
discussion about being "structural"; it seems low priority to
me.
... I agree with "visible metadata" and "no version syntax"
DanC: timing? stick with Mid Aug?
(some concur)
DanC: I'm interested in help with email traffic shaping. Some of it happens spontaneously. A few people have said they might do more of it given explicit support from the chair. I need regular synchronous communication with anyone that I'm going to explicitly support in this role, whether in teleconferences like this or other phone calls or IRC.
Marcin: indeed, the traffic is overwhelming. How about some subject line conventions?
DanC: I very much agree that anyone who is going to send email to 400 inbox should take half a minute to carefully consider the subject header. I have said as much in email, as have others. I don't want to repeat myself much, lest I become part of the problem.
<DanC_> Care with subject lines and threads [was: Proposal to Adopt ...] Dan Connolly (Wednesday, 11 April)
<DanC_> Please, check subjects... Charles McCathieNevile (Saturday, 14 July)
DanC: We could do an automated FAQ posting or something, but individual attention is often much more effective.
Marcin: Maybe put the section name at the start of the subject rather than "part of my review..."?
DanC: "part of my review of 3.12 Phrase elements (importance <strong> element)" seems like a fine subject, to me.
Marcin: I'm not sure how to find the relevant reviews when I want to see them, though. I know the wiki isn't for original research, but maybe we could use a wiki somehow?
DanC: yes, that's the purpose of the SpecReviews topic: once someone has sent a review by email, the fact that they sent a review is a verifyable fact that is fine to put in the wiki.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SpecReviews
hsivonen: I have sent each comment as a separate message based on established patterns from WHATWG and discussion with the editors, but I include "detailed review of [section name]" to match conventions in this WG.
<DanC_> Character encoding errors (detailed review of parsing algorithm) Henri Sivonen (Wednesday, 18 July)
DanC: yes, that works well for me.
<hsivonen> unfortunately, my time is up. have to leave.
ChrisW: I wonder how to incorporate voting/group-priority, digg-style into the system
DanC: yes... hmm.. some way to do
"+1" that doesn't involve mail to 400 inboxes
... perhaps that's an idea that's worth floating... on the
other hand, threads on collaboration mechanics in public-html
grow quickly and don't usually lead to tangible improvements.
There are other mailing lists at W3C that might be good places
to discuss such things... www-collaboration, etc.
DanC: The detailed spec review discussions include various test materials. It's a little chaotic. I think that's OK for now... I'm inclined to keep putting this on the agenda in hopes that some order emerges from the chaos. We had some good ideas last week. Meanwhile, I started a wiki topic to index materials as they come up; for example, some I18N tests that are relevant to HTML and some recent work on microsyntax texting from Sneddon.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HtmlTestMaterials
ChrisW: might talk to CSS WG too
DanC: Ah yes... and the Mobile BP WG...
<DanC_> Testing the submission framework for the Open Mobile Web Test Suite
DanC: we have offers, in the tasks survey, to do testing and report results
DanC: I'm out 26 July; I offer to chair 2 Aug.
<scribe> ACTION: ChrisW to try to find a Seattle/OZ/Asia time [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
26 July is cancelled. Next meeting is scheduled for 2 Aug, 1700Z.