IRC log of html-wg on 2007-08-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:08:49 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
00:12:51 [heycam]
heycam has joined #html-wg
00:55:08 [schepers]
schepers has joined #html-wg
00:57:08 [karl]
karl has joined #html-wg
00:59:23 [Zeros]
Zeros has joined #html-wg
01:07:10 [olivier]
olivier has joined #html-wg
01:28:39 [foca]
foca has joined #html-wg
01:48:40 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
02:05:04 [Zeros]
Zeros has joined #html-wg
02:07:02 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
02:24:41 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
02:45:15 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
02:47:48 [sbuluf]
sbuluf has joined #html-wg
03:01:29 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
03:02:12 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
03:09:27 [heycam]
heycam has joined #html-wg
03:13:36 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
03:36:10 [Philip`]
Philip` has joined #html-wg
03:36:12 [jgraham]
jgraham has joined #html-wg
03:43:52 [Zeros]
Zeros has joined #html-wg
03:51:29 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
04:03:15 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
04:21:38 [karl]
karl has joined #html-wg
04:22:37 [Bob_le_Pointu]
Bob_le_Pointu has joined #html-wg
04:26:29 [Lionhear1]
Lionhear1 has joined #html-wg
05:09:53 [karl]
05:14:06 [Zeros]
Zeros has joined #html-wg
05:15:44 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
05:16:40 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
05:28:31 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
05:42:15 [schepers]
schepers has joined #html-wg
05:54:28 [Lionhear1]
Lionhear1 has left #html-wg
05:58:22 [schepers]
schepers has joined #html-wg
07:26:33 [Sander]
Sander has joined #html-wg
07:36:10 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
07:36:16 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
07:53:08 [zcorpan_]
zcorpan_ has joined #html-wg
07:53:19 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
08:34:40 [mjs_]
mjs_ has joined #html-wg
09:13:12 [hendry]
hendry has joined #html-wg
09:38:14 [hasather]
hasather has joined #html-wg
09:43:56 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
10:27:55 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
10:29:09 [foca_]
foca_ has joined #html-wg
10:29:12 [myakura]
myakura has joined #html-wg
10:33:52 [tH_]
tH_ has joined #html-wg
11:24:21 [olivier]
olivier has joined #html-wg
11:27:36 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
11:51:16 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
12:07:13 [edas]
edas has joined #html-wg
12:08:14 [smedero]
smedero has joined #html-wg
12:10:07 [matt]
matt has joined #html-wg
12:32:52 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
12:49:37 [jmb]
jmb has joined #html-wg
13:13:04 [jmb]
jmb has joined #html-wg
13:39:27 [Sander]
Sander has joined #html-wg
13:58:16 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
14:14:52 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
14:17:11 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
14:25:57 [billmason]
billmason has joined #html-wg
14:32:06 [smedero]
smedero has joined #html-wg
14:41:14 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
15:00:33 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
15:18:28 [Carol_King]
Carol_King has joined #html-wg
15:22:46 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
15:31:21 [xover]
xover has joined #html-wg
15:56:40 [hasather]
hasather has joined #html-wg
15:58:42 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
16:00:20 [gsnedders]
gsnedders has joined #html-wg
16:05:26 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
16:58:20 [Carol_King]
Carol_King has joined #html-wg
18:12:56 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
18:56:11 [matt]
matt has joined #html-wg
19:30:40 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
19:37:26 [hasather]
hasather has joined #html-wg
20:07:44 [gsnedders]
gsnedders has joined #html-wg
20:20:18 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
20:28:08 [hasather]
hasather has joined #html-wg
20:51:00 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
20:52:01 [hasather_]
hasather_ has joined #html-wg
21:01:37 [DanC]
hmm... what have we got in the way of a design principles candidate?
21:02:23 [DanC]
well, is still at Revision: 1.4 $ of $Date: 2007-08-16 15:39:50
21:05:33 [gsnedders]
DanC: are you still planning on pushing out all three docs, or just the design principles?
21:05:34 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
21:06:47 [DanC]
good question
21:07:11 [DanC]
trying to do business during August was not one of my better ideas.
21:08:04 [Dashiva]
It has been rather quiet lately
21:08:38 [DanC]
I don't have a good sense for the level of support for publishing the HTML 5 spec. It would be nice to do an informal poll before putting the question formally.
21:10:29 [Dashiva]
There is one thing I have wondered. We're going to spend 5-10 years on this spec, and I suspect every part of the spec will be changed at least once. There can't be much harm in publishing the current version considering how temporary it is
21:10:52 [Dashiva]
We're only publishing to satisfy heartbeat, aren't we?
21:14:12 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
21:17:03 [mjs]
hi everyone
21:17:32 [gsnedders]
Dashiva: pretty much, yeah.
21:18:09 [gsnedders]
I'd've published a FPWD as soon as we adopted the spec, on grounds that everything in it was up for review anyway (and will be for many years)
21:18:49 [Philip`]
I assume it's not valid to object to publishing just because the current draft has some particular technical points that one disagrees with (e.g. it doesn't say alt is required, or whatever), since then nothing could be published until the whole thing was a completed recommendation and all issues had been addressed
21:19:05 [Philip`]
but I have no idea what would be a valid objection to publishing
21:20:49 [gsnedders]
Philip`: consensus isn't a requirement to publish a FPWD. approval from the director is.
21:21:31 [gsnedders]
Philip`: any member could register a formal objection, though, on technical grounds.
21:21:41 [gsnedders]
Philip`: it'd be stupid to do so for the above reasons, though
21:22:12 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
21:22:58 [Dashiva]
gsnedders: Well, we did get two invalid formal objections on the very first survey, so I wouldn't be surprised if we got more now
21:24:10 [gsnedders]
Dashiva: oh, I never said we wouldn't get any :)
21:26:52 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
21:28:24 [Dashiva]
21:28:54 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
21:30:04 [Dashiva]
That wouldn't fall back gracefully in UAs using legacy encoding
21:31:06 [gsnedders]
Yes, but it caused a syntax error in my brain not having the accent!
21:31:19 [gsnedders]
It caused my brain to abort processing that comment.
21:32:06 [Dashiva]
Maybe your brain needs to use a non-draconian parser :p
21:32:28 [gsnedders]
Maybe I did too much Classical Studies finding out about Draco :P
21:33:24 [robburns_]
robburns_ has joined #html-wg
21:39:12 [karl]
karl has joined #html-wg
21:39:31 [karl]
21:40:02 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
21:40:33 [karl]
SGML Python parsers benchmark
21:40:57 [karl]
the author made an update for html5lib
21:46:39 [Philip`]
I guess the others are all (partially) written in C?
21:48:24 [jgraham]
Our bottleneck is basically reading characters from the input
21:49:25 [Philip`]
(but I think that was fixed by buffering enough)
21:50:44 [jgraham]
I wonder if he used the release version or the version in svn, which should be faster...
21:51:37 [jgraham]
(because, amongst other things, it buffers more)
21:55:50 [Philip`]
Could you add a note on the html5lib front page saying that 0.9 is hopelessly outdated and everyone should use SVN instead (at least until 1.0 is released)? :-)
21:57:12 [jgraham]
Still I'm less behind schedule than the html-wg /rimshot
21:57:39 [DanC]
we're scheduled to spend 3 years on this spec, not 5-10. (I'll keep repeating it until it becomes true. 1/2 ;-)
22:00:27 [mjs_]
mjs_ has joined #html-wg
22:01:08 [jgraham]
DanC: I'll quote you on that in 2017 :)
22:01:50 [DanC]
we'll see
22:02:27 [Dashiva]
"3 years should be enough for any spec"
22:11:25 [bogi]
bogi has joined #html-wg
22:20:21 [jgraham]
It sounds like a "adaptation" of "640K should be enough for anyone"
22:24:48 [aroben_]
aroben_ has joined #html-wg
22:27:20 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
22:27:50 [jgraham]
DanC: I think I disagree that all conformance properties should be machine checkable. I don't see the problem with requiring conformant documents to use the alt attribute to provide alternate text for an image (rather than e.g. SEO keywords)
22:28:09 [jgraham]
but that's not a machine checkable requirement
22:29:02 [jgraham]
Indeed, I'm not sure how one would phrase the spec to avoid non-machine checkable requirements
22:30:50 [DanC]
I didn't say machine-checkable, though I do preper that. I said objective. i.e. any two independent observers should agree on whether a document conforms or not
22:31:14 [DanC]
and the spec should provide a clear, objective judgement.
22:31:33 [jgraham]
DanC: Given my experience of humans, machine checkable and objective are the same thing :)
22:31:58 [DanC]
there are fairly obvious exceptions; e.g. that a program terminates.
22:33:35 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
22:34:21 [jgraham]
OK. I was thinking more of things requiring judgement like the alt attribute. It's pretty clear that there are a variety of opinions on what represents equivalent content for an image, but I do not think that we should have weaker text describing how alt is to be used just because of that
22:34:58 [DanC]
well, we disagree
22:35:36 [DanC]
I'm not sure it's "weaker" to give a different name for judgements like that.
22:35:52 [jgraham]
What's the advantage of giving it a different name?
22:41:43 [DanC]
it makes conformance objective
22:41:52 [DanC]
which is what the market expects, I'm pretty sure
22:46:25 [matt]
matt has joined #html-wg
22:48:43 [jgraham]
It's not the common use of the word conformant; in general use it just means adhering to the rules. Presumably the rules in the HTML 5 spec should include things like "use the elements correctly" so it's nice to have a word to describe this. Note that the draft comes close to defining a "valid" document as one that passes machine checkable conformance criteria in the sense that a "validator" is a mechanical conformance checker.
22:49:30 [jgraham]
I think the market generally uses the word "valid" at present so maybe having two terms is OK
22:49:45 [DanC]
a name for the class of documents that conformance checkers are expected to say OK to seems critical. And ... gee... "conforming" seems pretty good.
22:50:20 [Philip`]
How would you explain to authors the difference between "img elements MUST have a src attribute containing a URI" (objective, machine-checkable) and "img elements MUST have an alt attribute containing a textual equivalent of the image" (subjective)?
22:50:31 [jgraham]
Even though they probably don't conform to all the rules set out in the spec?
22:51:03 [DanC]
I'd change the subjective one to SHOULD, since it doesn't actually affect interoperability.
22:52:03 [jgraham]
DanC: That's the kind of weaker text I mentioned above
22:53:13 [DanC]
if the alt attribute is some random bit of text, none of the software is going to notice or care, so rfc2119:must doesn't apply there.
22:53:22 [DanC]
it's probably worth cross-referencing WCAG
22:55:57 [jgraham]
DanC: I don't see where rfc2199 says MUST should only be used for conditions that affect software.
22:55:57 [chaals]
chaals has joined #html-wg
22:56:01 [chaals]
Morning all
22:57:53 [jgraham]
e.g. abuse of alt seems to fit "In particular, they MUST only be used [...] to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm"
22:58:09 [Chris]
Chris has joined #html-wg
22:58:17 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
22:58:47 [MikeSmith]
chaals - hei
22:58:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-wg
22:58:53 [DanC]
Zakim, this will be HTML
22:58:53 [Zakim]
ok, DanC, I see HTML_WG()7:00PM already started
22:59:02 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
22:59:03 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
22:59:03 [RRSAgent]
22:59:53 [DanC]
Chris, I'm not sure how much of the telcon I can stay for. it's back-to-school night and I have music practice in an hour. I think I'm 4ple-booked (if you count eating dinner)
22:59:56 [Zakim]
23:00:15 [Chris]
23:00:16 [Zakim]
23:00:26 [Zakim]
23:00:50 [Zakim]
23:00:54 [Zakim]
23:01:05 [chaals]
zakim, code?
23:01:05 [Zakim]
the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), chaals
23:01:36 [Zakim]
23:01:44 [chaals]
zakim, ipcaller is me
23:01:44 [Zakim]
+chaals; got it
23:02:32 [DanC]
agenda + Convene, review agenda, actions
23:02:50 [DanC]
agenda + Design Principles
23:02:56 [billyjack]
billyjack has joined #html-wg
23:03:05 [rubys]
rubys has joined #html-wg
23:03:06 [Zakim]
23:03:23 [chaals]
zakim, mute me please
23:03:23 [Zakim]
chaals should now be muted
23:03:24 [billyjack]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
23:03:25 [Zakim]
+billyjack; got it
23:03:41 [DanC]
(billyjack is Mike Smith, W3C)
23:04:34 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
23:05:57 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
23:05:57 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene, review agenda, actions" taken up [from DanC]
23:06:12 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
23:06:19 [DanC]
23:06:42 [DanC]
CW reviews agenda...
23:06:57 [DanC]
ACTION: ChrisW discuss XHTML name coordination with XHTML 2 WG in the Hypertext CG [CONTINUES]
23:07:29 [DanC]
CW: CG meets tomorrow; I saw recent mail from Dean [?] that looks like most of what I'll take there.
23:07:46 [DanC]
ACTION: DanC to discuss survey with Chris W and issue it, based on the most mature/agreed ones [DONE]
23:07:55 [rubys]
Dean Edridge
23:07:56 [DanC]
ACTION: DanC to reserve a bridge for this alternating schedule [DONE]
23:08:00 [oedipus]
23:08:03 [DanC]
ACTION: Gregory to contact T.V. Raman about the Forms Task force [DONE]
23:08:22 [mjs_]
mjs_ has joined #html-wg
23:08:36 [DanC]
ACTION: DanC to set up an announcement mailing list, noodling with chaals [DONE]
23:09:09 [DanC]
. ACTION: MikeSmith to write up a summary of changes for last [period of time], description of where changes go
23:09:17 [chaals]
(bars are already going to be closed in Oslo anyway :)
23:09:18 [DanC]
ACTION: MikeSmith to write up a summary of changes for last [period of time], description of where changes go [CONTINUES]
23:09:54 [DanC]
agenda + issue tracking
23:10:15 [DanC]
zakim, take up item issue
23:10:15 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "issue tracking" taken up [from DanC]
23:10:56 [johnst]
johnst has joined #html-wg
23:11:15 [hober]
hober has joined #html-wg
23:11:28 [MikeSmith]
q+ to suggest we use an actual online bug-tracking system (e.g. bugzilla)
23:11:36 [DanC]
DanC: @@
23:11:41 [sbuluf]
sbuluf has joined #html-wg
23:11:57 [Chris]
survey results -
23:12:11 [DanC]
DanC: not sure the wiki issues list nor the list I'm maintaining is keeping up with demand... thinking about Sam's suggestion for a secretary
23:12:11 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
23:12:11 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest we use an actual online bug-tracking system (e.g. bugzilla)
23:12:46 [Chris]
is a bugtracker a good way to track issues?
23:13:58 [rubys]
+1 on triage team concept
23:14:20 [DanC]
(note that a bugzilla instance was set up ; it didn't get much traction. see for details.)
23:15:04 [DanC]
ChrisW: I don't mind using a bug system, though a triage team is important in any case...
23:15:18 [DanC]
... and a list of one-line descriptions of bugs is important.
23:15:42 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith: we don't have to make it completely open for anybody to be able to raise a new issue in the tracker; a group of designated WG members could be given perms to raise new issues
23:15:49 [chaals]
23:15:53 [chaals]
ack me
23:15:54 [Zakim]
chaals, you wanted to suggest trackbot cause it fits nicely with W3C tools and is simple and to
23:16:32 [DanC]
(the TAG is starting to use trackbot/tracker; I don't love it, but Dom is handling RFEs at a satisfying rate.)
23:16:38 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith: using trackbot might be good ... definitely good dogfood case
23:16:45 [DanC]
(that's chaals talking)
23:17:59 [DanC]
(for reference: )
23:18:30 [Chris]
who should be the triage team?
23:20:37 [DanC]
ACTION ChrisW: start setting up a team to triage issues
23:20:56 [DanC]
Zakim, is mjs here?
23:20:56 [Zakim]
DanC, I do not see Mjs anywhere
23:20:57 [chaals]
[chaals volunteers]
23:21:04 [DanC]
Zakim, take up design
23:21:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take up design', DanC
23:21:07 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item design
23:21:07 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Design Principles" taken up [from DanC]
23:21:08 [mjs_]
DanC: I am here but not on the phone
23:21:16 [DanC]
ah. ok, mjs
23:21:23 [mjs]
(and can't call cause I am in another meeting)
23:21:30 [DanC]
23:21:33 [mjs]
but if you have questions I can answer here
23:21:42 [Chris]
Ah, the stealth meeting multi-task. I salute you.
23:21:52 [Chris]
survey results:
23:22:54 [chaals]
scribeNick: chaals
23:22:58 [chaals]
scribe: chaals
23:23:13 [chaals]
Chris: let's go through looking at what the disagreements are
23:23:18 [chaals]
zakim, please mute me
23:23:18 [Zakim]
chaals should now be muted
23:23:24 [hober]
hober has joined #html-wg
23:23:58 [DanC]
(Chris, I think I gotta go now. Anything you can do in the direction of getting a WD out, I support.)
23:24:09 [Chris]
OK. thanks Dan.
23:24:25 [Zakim]
23:24:27 [chaals]
ack me
23:24:52 [chaals]
topic: degrade gracefully.
23:25:09 [chaals]
Chris: Laura said "use the term 'user agent'" not browser.
23:25:32 [chaals]
... I think we can accept that.
23:25:34 [Chris]
Feedback 1: Laura Carlson, "don't use browser, use user agent". I think we can accept that.
23:25:36 [chaals]
ack me
23:26:24 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
23:26:47 [chaals]
CMN: can accept that - let's move on
23:26:49 [MikeSmith]
q+ to ask about browsers question
23:27:10 [chaals]
Chris: Changing canvas example to a generic new element - think we should use something imaginary that will not be in the spec.
23:27:12 [Chris]
Feedback 2: Laura Carlson, "change <canvas> to <newelement>". I'm inclined to do this.
23:27:26 [MikeSmith]
q+ to suggest we need to record any resolutions we make
23:27:37 [oedipus]
+1 to generic "newelement"
23:27:46 [chaals]
RESOLUTION: We change 'browser' to user agent
23:28:21 [MikeSmith]
q+ to suggest that we put/stick with "browsers and other UAs"
23:28:40 [chaals]
Chris: Not sure it is a good idea that sites should require a specific user agent
23:29:25 [chaals]
CMN: Should be clear that you need some kind of fallback content that does the same job, not just says "you need a particular user agent"
23:29:45 [chaals]
Chris: Can you degrade gracefully enough that something will work on an older user agent?
23:30:14 [chaals]
CMN: These are principles, and the principle is pretty straightforward - it should work
23:30:25 [chaals]
Chris: for some reasonable value of "work"
23:30:33 [chaals]
RESOLUTION: We change 'canvas' to 'newelement'
23:31:34 [chaals]
RESOLUTION: We overrule Scott Turner and accept the basic principle
23:32:30 [chaals]
Mike: The main problem we are trying to solve is interoperability of browsers. Other user agents are important so we should leave in at least the mention of the word browsers.
23:32:46 [chaals]
ack mik
23:32:46 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to ask about browsers question and to suggest we need to record any resolutions we make and to suggest that we put/stick with "browsers and other UAs"
23:33:30 [chaals]
Mike: We should not be mandating to the editor that they don't say "browser" anywhere, although "user agent" should be mentioned too.
23:34:44 [chaals]
s/RESOLUTION: We change 'browser' to user agent/RESOLUTION: We do not change 'browser' to user agent everywhere, the text is OK/
23:35:34 [Chris]
Richard Ishida had comments on the list:
23:37:20 [oedipus]
deserves an explicit mention -- blockquote deprecated for presentational purpose in HTML 4.01 to little effect
23:37:34 [chaals]
RichardIshida suggests that the principle should be "degrade gracefully where possible - i.e. don't be beholden to every browser ever shipped"
23:38:07 [chaals]
Chris: Think that the fact this is a principle not a law covers this. Deprecating support is IMHO a bad idea, but deprecating practices is a good idea.
23:38:42 [chaals]
... I think the degrade gracefully section already says that effectively
23:39:34 [Chris]
Design principles:
23:40:56 [chaals]
CMN: Think that Richard's comment is covered by the text. "Should work reasonably well" is sufficiently flexible (and can be understood by the man on the Clapham Omnibus)
23:41:17 [chaals]
RESOLUTION: We think the principle meets Richard's request as written
23:41:34 [Chris]
back to "supports existing content"...
23:41:39 [chaals]
23:41:49 [chaals]
Topic: Support existing content
23:42:25 [Chris]
Laura Carlson: stipulate that current web sites shouldn't stop work in HTML5 UAs.
23:42:41 [mjs_]
mjs_ has joined #html-wg
23:42:55 [Chris]
*is not convinced this is necessarily possible.
23:43:31 [Chris]
yes, there will be, mjs_
23:44:39 [chaals]
Chris: First part - current sites shouldn't stop working. If you make it stronger than it is, we have a problem with things built for IE 6 and whether that has to work for HTML 5. The question is how strongly you take this principle - existing content already does browesr switching...
23:45:34 [chaals]
... if you make this too strong, then you create problems. IE has to have an HTML 5 mode and we hope not to kee doing that in the future, but current behaviour for old browsers is kind of goofy. I think this is already covered in the text.
23:46:14 [chaals]
... inclined not to do anything with the first part of the feedback.
23:46:32 [chaals]
CMN: Yeah, I am happy with the current wording in that respect
23:47:05 [chaals]
RESOLUTION: We do not strengthen the statement about sites working in HTML 5
23:47:18 [Zakim]
23:47:34 [chaals]
Chris: agree that we should strike "We need to judge whether the value of the change is worth the cost."
23:47:37 [chaals]
CMN: Agree too.
23:47:48 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
23:47:53 [chaals]
CMN: I wil come back to the "support existing content" in the context of accessibility.
23:49:05 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
23:49:12 [chaals]
... Accessbility is generally implemented much slower, so content that serves accessibility should be supported more strongly ...
23:49:15 [billyjack]
billyjack has joined #html-wg
23:49:23 [oedipus]
+1 to chaals' observation
23:49:44 [chaals]
RESOLUTION: Strike the sentence "We need to judge whether the value of the change is worth the cost."
23:49:55 [chaals]
RATIONALE: It's a truism.
23:50:17 [Zakim]
23:50:23 [chaals]
Comment that Valid content, not cross browser content, should get the most weight
23:50:28 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
23:50:28 [Zakim]
+MikeSmith; got it
23:50:51 [mjs]
incidentally, I wonder why this telecon is passing resolutions, since in theory decision process was all supposed to be via channels that allow asynchronous distributed participation like the mailing list
23:51:24 [chaals]
Chris: I think valid markup should be given the most weight, but saying that legacy invalid markup shouldn't stop working takes a lot of the value out of that statement.
23:52:07 [mjs]
I thought our charter ruled out passing resolutions by telecon
23:52:45 [Chris]
mjs - mistake in wording. we're discussing the bits of feedback, and what appropriate action to address that feedback could be. They are all subject to approval by the WG in email.
23:53:15 [chaals]
[/me wonders i he should change all "resolution" to "proposed res..." but thinks that is easier for mike to do with s///g in cleaning up (to keep the highlight style and make it easy to generate the summary]
23:53:20 [Chris]
Think of them as "the set of people on the call right now thinks this would be a good resolution," not "thus sayeth the WG, stop talking about it now."
23:53:56 [mjs]
ok, I was just taking RESOLUTION to mean the same thing it usually does in w3c Working Group minutes
23:54:20 [Chris]
Perfectly understandable. Sorry about that.
23:54:44 [Chris]
anyone else have thoughts about the valid markup comment from Laura?
23:55:00 [Chris]
Laura: "Cross-browser content on the public Web should be given the most weight." should be changed to "Valid markup should be given the most weight, but legacy invalid markup shouldn't stop working."
23:55:03 [MikeSmith]
[we could change to "proposed" during clean-up of the minutes, or we could just consider these to be resolutions that we go back to the group with these suggested changes]
23:55:13 [Chris]
MikeSmith - good idea.
23:55:27 [mjs]
I disagree that valid markup should be given more weight
23:55:52 [oedipus]
should support valid markup that can validate against a DTD
23:56:25 [MikeSmith]
q+ to say that we should give weight to valid markup, and probably not use "valid" at all (use "conformant" instead) for this case anyway
23:56:39 [Chris]
I think there's some value in encouraging well-written markup - e.g. wellformed - but I don't want to focus on ivory tower HTML4.01.
23:56:56 [oedipus]
yes, mikeSmith - conformant is the word
23:56:58 [chaals]
CMN: I think it should be "well-written markup" that gets weight - a vague term meaning validity, working on lots of browsers, working on mobile, supporting accessibility, are the things that should have weight
23:57:10 [chaals]
ack MikeSmith
23:57:10 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we should give weight to valid markup, and probably not use "valid" at all (use "conformant" instead) for this case anyway
23:57:15 [Chris]
mjs, what does "cross-browser" capture for you that "valid markup" doesn't?
23:57:20 [mjs]
valid/conforming markup is a minority of web content and non-representative of the general web
23:57:25 [MikeSmith]
even the term "well formed" is not appropriate here
23:57:32 [mjs]
cross-browser means it works in multiple browsers today
23:57:51 [Chris]
that's true. Would you give weight to overlapping <b> and <i> tags?
23:57:51 [mjs]
in other words, content that only works in a single version of a single browser might be given less weight
23:57:52 [chaals]
[how many is multiple...?]
23:58:22 [chaals]
[mjs, more browers is better as a rule for giving weight?]
23:58:32 [mjs]
overlapping <b> and <i> should continue to be supported in a reasonably compatible way, yes, and I think the spec does that
23:58:59 [chaals]
Mike: Wellformed etc are relevant to XML, but not really HTML. Sticking to "conformant" makes more sense, but I agree with Maciej that it is not necessary to change this.
23:59:40 [Chris]
I think "cross-browser" actually doesn't capture the majority of web content or is representative of the general web.