See also: IRC log
just wanted to make clearer verbiage about backwards compatibility especially targetted for i18n, a11y and device independence
<DanC> ACTION: ChrisW discuss XHTML name coordination with XHTML 2 WG in the Hypertext CG [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<DanC> by way of agenda review, looking at actions from last time
<DanC> ACTION: MikeSmith to write up a summary of changes for last [period of time], description of where changes go [WITHDRWAWN] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
DanC: 5 minutes into meeting time -- any remaining agenda requests?
<DanC> or did the office move eat you up, Chris?
<ChrisWilson> yes, working on it.
DC: will chair due to ChrisW's being inconvenienced by his move
<ChrisWilson> Thanks, Dan
<DanC> progress http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/Overview.html 1.8 $ of $Date: 2007-09-13 21:14:39
<DanC> and recent mail from mjs
DC: abstract status intro and first 2 principles
CW: reading mail
DC: happy talked about what is
supposed to be produced and what browsers should be expected to
eat -- need to repeat -- people not hearing it
... pick up on survey input on do not break the web?
CW: yes
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results
DC: negative responses to question: "depends upon quality of wheel..." "disagree without comment"
CW: consider specifying that technology i think covers it; open to discussion of solution editable
DC: anyone think of better example
CW: content editable implementations differ, wouldn't automatically accept
DC: would take a lot of screen real estate for a good pertient example
<ChrisWilson> Perhaps we should change the example to not imply that we're automatically accepting contenteditable
DC: "not clear what a widely used..." -- a lot is people basically saying "depends upon wheel"
CW: not automatically accept the wheel -- agree to disagree -- general case, if wheel already there, consider that feature over reinventing something new, unless demonstratively better
DC: no actionable feedback in Do
Not Reinvent the Wheel
... 5 strongly disagree with
<mjs_> my plan for that principle was to retitle it to "Consider Existing Implementations" or something like that
<mjs_> or "Adopt Some De Facto Standards"
DC: comments express a lot of distrust; principles are just principles
<mjs> so it's clear that it is a suggestion, not a mandate
DC: [reviews negative
answers]
... laura suggests dropping it
<Lachy> proposed rewording of pave the cowpaths here http://www.w3.org/mid/46C0A255.7080407@lachy.id.au
CW: earlier recasting of 3.3
DC: good point
CW: doesn't add a whole lot to
explicitly have in there
... lightning rod -- cowpaths redundant
DC: agree
<ChrisWilson> Dropped again?
<mjs> and for "Pave the Cowpaths" something like "Study Authoring Practices"
<mjs> people say things like "we shouldn't pave this cowpath", but it's hard to argue that "we shouldn't study this authoring practice"
<DanC> mjs, is Cowpaths redundant w.r.t. "... invent the wheel"?
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results#xenr
DC: evolution not revolution
<mjs> DanC, they are meant to be corresponding principles for existing nonstandard implementation features and existing practices in content
disagrees from Jason White - "this is redundant"
<DanC> [[ I suggest to change the principle to "Promote progressive design" ]]
DC: [reviews disagreements]
<Lachy> cowpaths isn't redundant. cowpaths is more about use cases, the wheel is more about actual implemented features
DC: promote progressive
design
... "words but not subtext" ?!?!
<ChrisWilson> Side note - I think "and content will live longer" should be struck from the Evolution not Revolution principle. It's tangential
DC: another promote progressive
design
... solve real problems
<ChrisWilson> DC asks when we can publish this
DC: a little too tired to continue review; when should we publish this thing? negotiate internally about heartbeat requirements, and don't mind if take a little longer
LH: edit and pass before WG with deadline
<mjs> I think I can significantly improve it and reduce likely controversy in the next week or so
<DanC> DanC: yes, after mjs finishes the pass he's engaged in, I'm inclined to publish
<DanC> mjs, care to give an ETA? something like 2 weeks?
<mjs> DanC, I think 2 weeks is a good FPWD target
<DanC> thanks
DC: that's all i need on DP for today
LH: general comment -- IRC rewording these and a number of people disagree -- make specific suggestions, not comments like "like wording but not subtext"
MikeSmith: real world wording -- cliches or truisms; using them as shorthand -- fundamentally opposed to wording, do so on point and suggest something constructive -- better
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest that some disagree comments amount to splitting of hairs over wording and we are always likely to have a certain number of such disagreements
DC: gregory's asked question once
or twice -- chris lilley here so can answer
... looks in archive for CL's answer to query
<DanC> Re: Web Forms 2 - version clarification, please? Chris Lilley
DC: W3C Working Draft of august
2006
... to update TR/webforms some working group needs to
publish
... this group could, but not right now
GJR: that's why we are tasked to charter and scope
<DanC> http://dev.w3.org/html5/web-forms-2/Overview.html
DC: october 2006 draft could be
pushed to TR
... differences are trivial
... mostly editorial, since august
... want to go over so that no one left concerned
... business of forms task force itself
GJR: maciej on IRC
... one of the things i thought might speed was to work on a
wiki so not lost in deluge of email
... ChrisL amenable to idea, but don't know upon which wiki to
work
DC: move to migrate
mediawiki
... don't think grass going to necessarily greener on different
wiki
GJR: forms WG have wiki
DC: ESW wiki fine by me; new wiki straight forward (but not strongly encouraged)
Lachy: HTML wiki could swallow it -- easy to get lost
<MikeSmith> [I agree that mediawiki would bring a new set of problems; but Rotan Hanrahan (who's quite familiar with both Mediawiki and MoinMoin) is convinced that Mediawiki causes much less pain
DC: system team working on it; 22
wikis and don't want to give mediawiki to one until can get to
all
... email and try a teleconference in meantime
<Lachy> oedipus, I said: ESW wiki doesn't have talk pages, that causes discussion to get mixed into the articles and difficult to follow and edit
DC: forms task force not stuck on anything in particular
DC: want to move US time 2 hours earlier on alternate
CW: could do at 9
DC: would have to leave for conflict meeting
<ChrisWilson> (thats 1 hour earlier)
<Lachy> I wonder if it would be possible to merge the ESW wiki and whatwg wiki, and then mirror it on both w3 and whatwg.org?
DC: not available to chair on 27
september
... ChrisW can you chair on that date
CW: going to be on the road -- in fact, conflicts with keynote speech
DC: could chair the day after -- 21 september -- a friday
GJR: what time
<DanC> Fri Sep 21 at 1pET?
1700 UTC
<Hixie> Lachy: that sounds like a lot of pain for little gain, but from the whatwg side i'm happy for you to do that if you think it's worth it
EDT is UTC -4
DC: reschedule or cancel meeting on 27 september -- could reschedule but would have to be a week later
<mjs> Lachy, Hixie: mirroring could be in the form of a CNAME
<DanC> PROPOSED: to meet 21 Sep Fri 1p Boston time, DanC to chair
<mjs> (if w3c is ok with that)
<DanC> I'll confirm by email
CW: first week of october
<DanC> PROPOSED: to cancel 27 Sep
<Hixie> mjs: i'm sure they'd want different branding too
DC: found middle ground between
conferences -- announced that, so everyone should know
... on wednesday, plenary happening - have draft agenda --
there is a member tech plenary list -- suggest that whomever
can get there 8 november for plenary; we convene after lunch on
9 september
... 17 registrants and a dozen or so requesting invited expert
status
... broad representation
<Hixie> oh while we're talking abouth the plenary, i should announce in the interests of transparency and full disclosure that google will be funding james graham's attendance, and will probably be funding two other people though those details have yet to be finalised.
<DanC> noted, hixie
DC: continue to meet through lunch saturday morning
DC: anything else about F2F?
DC: detailed reviews coming in regularly; haven't done my audit of reviews in a while
ChrisW: microsoft review still delayed - not before beginning of next week
DC: how about before telecon
CW: on eve of sounds like good plan
DC: HTML5 spec going out at same time or after DP?
CW: after
GJR: after
DC: Sam Ruby still not ready to
jump in with both feet
... could use someone in this role; W3C still searching for
permenant staff contact
... thoughts on triage team?
CW: ???? (couldn't hear)
DC: you want to keep the ball
CW: yes
DC: continue that action item, then
<DanC> ACTION: ChrisW to start setting up a team to triage issues [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
DC: merits attention of entire
WG
... [searches for pointer]
Lachy: Joshue who wrote
<Lachy> http://www.w3.org/mid/46DD6F27.6070608@cfit.ie
GJR: there is a wiki page with
links
... sliced into easily digestable portions
<Lachy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0103.html
<DanC> From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
<DanC> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:43:51 +0100
<DanC> with links to videos such as http://www.cfit.ie/html5_video/final/Table1.wmv
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityTesting
DC: common user task -- can you find price of OJ on web site, look at how many succed and how many fail
<Hixie> those videos are very interesting, i studied the header and longdesc ones in detail. has he updated the summary one yet? it used to be a dupe of the headers video.
DC: one video allowing person to editorialize -- did i look at wrong parts?
Lachy: rest similar
DC: useful, but not what i was expecting
GJR: guidelines for user testing?
DC: worth celebrating in any case
<Hixie> yeah you have to ignore joshue's comments as he editorialises :-) but the actual use parts are quite interesting
GJR: should we set some?
DC: cool that hixie really studying videos
<DanC> good point, hixie.
DC: end of prepared agenda
<DanC> yes, some videos is a whole lot better than no videos
<Hixie> i love studying them in detail
<Hixie> it's a goldmine of helpful guidance
<DanC> * Hixie would highly recommend not setting the bar high, we want to encourage input regardless of quality really, since otherwise we might see no input at all
<DanC> ADJOURN.