See also: IRC log
<DanC> minutes 18 Oct
<hsivonen> advance regrets that I have to leave before the hour is up
DanC: I'll chair again 15 Nov
CW: regrets 15 Nov
<scribe> Scribe: Chris Wilson
<scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisWilson
Dan: if you haven't looked at the TP day agenda, please do.
<DanC> TP day agenda
Dan: particularly "Future
Formats: HTML5 and XHTML2"
... "Openness of Working Groups"
<DanC> @@update pointer to weds fun
Thursday, W3C is NOT providing lunch. We are starting at 1:30PM.
List of registrants shows 20-odd WG participants, +20-30-odd observers.
Many of observers will only be there 1 day.
Anne: Chaals at-risk for HTML WG ftf; WebAPI meets at the same time
Dan: We should start by going around the table?
Anne: maybe just people who want to work on a topic come forward?
Chris: we can cap time?
Dan: only have one short presentation right now; was thinking of recruiting UAs to give pitches?
Chris: we should make sure to reserve the time for unconference pitches.
Dan: It's traditional at a WG 1st
ftf meeting to do an intro to W3C... process, architecture,
etc.; it's old hat to many WG members, but might be just what
some people need to contribute more effectively
... I'll put myself on the short prez list for "this end is up for the W3C"
... That's Thursday; Friday we'll go on the unconf plan determined on Thursday, Saturday is large group
<discussion of unconference management ensues>
<DanC> (pointer to your unconference pitch in email, hsivonen ?)
<hsivonen> the pointer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0393.html
Anne: don't forget to leave time to report back.
<DanC> @@note report-back session might take the place of the 4pm slot on Fri
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to find out if we can stay late on Fri [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action01]
<DanC> reviewing ACTION: Maciej to finish editing pass based on pending comments, e.g. from August review of HTML Design Principles survey; particularly accessiblility
Dan: mjs gave an ETA of this weekend; I wished for something by this Fri...
Anne: no miracle so far
<DanC> . http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/Overview.html 1.10 $ of $Date: 2007-10-22 11:09:19
<mjs> hi ChrisWilson
<mjs> might have time tonight but I have an all-day meeting today
<DanC> go mjs, go!
<DanC> hope springs eternal
Dan: I would really like to put the question formally tomorrow
DanC: if we have a design principles candidate
Dan continues to hope for a miracle
<oedipus> possibly related UAAG 2.0 Requirements - new public draft (31 october 2007)
<DanC> ACTION: Maciej to finish editing pass based on pending comments, e.g. from August review of HTML Design Principles survey; particularly accessiblility [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action02]
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to review progress on design principles; if looks ok, put publication question to the WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action03]
Chris: Dan, I'm fine with putting the Design Principles question formally when you're ready, don't block on me
<DanC> Laura Carlson supports Steve Faulkner's proposal 
<DanC> "Design features to be accessible, universal, and inclusive. Access by everyone regardless of ability is an essential. Deliverables will satisfy accessibility requirements. To ensure this we will work closely with the WAI<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#wai>."
Dan: three individuals who commented say they would be satisfied by those words
<DanC> * Dan Connolly has 0 actions
<DanC> * James Graham has 0 actions
<DanC> * Julian Reschke has 0 actions
<DanC> * Gregory Rosmaita has 0 actions
<DanC> * Michael(tm) Smith has 0 actions
<DanC> * Chris Wilson has 0 actions
<DanC> smedero, hi.
<DanC> are you around?
<oedipus> only real post of substance on tracker: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0367.html
<smedero> Hi, Dan. Yes, I'm on IRC.
<DanC> > "Currently I work at a non-profit research institution that creates
<DanC> > large-scale linguistic data for research purposes"
<smedero> Happy to volunteer for issue tracking work.
<oedipus> GJR signed up for FORMs review
DanC: let's try not to put big fuzzy things on the issues list
<DanC> jgraham, any thoughts on issues? fire when ready on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
?: jgraham was active recently... not on issue tracking, but around SVG and HTML ...
DanC: but looking at SVG and HTML as a potential issue reminds me... some things make more sense as requirements questions, i.e. "should we do this at all?" than design questions, i.e. "how should we do this?"
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to add a tracker product for requirements and for spec/design [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action04]
DougS: is anyone actually opposed to SVG?
Dan: I'm opposed to just about everything on the grounds that I want to keep the scope of this spec as small as I can; I want to have good requirements discussions for anything new-ish.
Anne: Some people oppose SVG on the principle that it's presentational
<oedipus> some people support SVG because it is structured and has built-in native accessibility (desc, title)
<Lachy> I'm not opposed to introducing SVG or MathML into HTML syntax
<ChrisWilson_> we should consider that together with the extensibility proposal from Sam Ruby
Dan: There's a TAG issue with that
We should add that to the issues list.
Henri?: we could discuss just SVG independent of the general extensibility issue.
DanC: right; we can have issues at various levels, and we can decide to postpone some issues; i.e. close them without really solving them, though tracker doesn't seem to have direct support for "postponed" just yet
<oedipus> GJR thinks problem is mis-understanding of XHTML Roles Module -- basis of ARIA is XHTML Role Module's extensibility mechanism
Dan: I spent some time auditing spec reviews; made the goal of the wiki page more explicit: "in hopes of showing that each section was reviewed by at least a couple HTML WG members."
DanC: I couldn't find review of
Preformatted text section
... nor Interaction
<DanC> 3.5 Interaction
Dan: <pre> is pretty straightforward, but lack of review of the click() stuff concerns me
<Julian> ...yes, that concerns me as well.
DanC: I'm still getting used to the idea of pasting the DOM specs into the HTML spec
Doug: If there is stuff that should be generalized, it should be added to generic DOM, but HTML-specific stuff doesn't concern me.
<DanC> DanC: does anybody know of test materials relevant to 3.5 Interaction?
<DanC> e.g. any test cases for "The click() method must fire a click event at the element,"
Anne: I can't remember where the tests for Focus and such are; I wonder if that part of the spec is stable enough to test
DanC: ah... good to see that this section is marked "Big Issue"
<DanC> "Big Issue: Well that clearly needs more." -- 3.5.2. Focus
GR: Would it be possible to use named colors in the styling of the spec, since screenreaders can't always find hex colors?
<Lachy> I believe the Big Issue notes were already made more accessible. The text "Big Issue:" is inserted by script into the DOM, so screen readers should see it
[discussion of screenreader function]
<hsivonen> (my time is up. sorry. bye. see you in the f2f)
<DanC> ACTION: GR to suggest accessibility improvement for "Big issue" marker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] ChrisW discuss XHTML name coordination with XHTML 2 WG in the Hypertext CG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action06]
CW: a next step is the TP session Weds
<DanC> DC reported outcome of CW's action http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0385.html
<DanC> editor's thoughts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0386.html
<DanC> ACTION: GR to let XHTML 2 WG know about HTML 5 editor's thoughts (0386) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/01-html-wg-minutes#action07]
<smedero> Hi DanC, sorry I couldn't be on the call directly.
<DanC> might have been nice, but it's OK
<smedero> I have some time tomorrow I could talk by phone... and there's a decent chance I can make the ftf next week.
<anne> DanC, btw, subsections of 4. are far more complicated than 3.5
<smedero> W3C's Tracker seems ideal for this group... it certainly beats the ESW wiki.
<anne> 3.5 contains some really quite basic APIs
<anne> so far anyway
<smedero> When I last looked into this (just over a month ago) there were only like six "issue" pages that actually matched the issue template the editors created.
<smedero> The rest of the pages read more like background research or even position papers... but not issues.
[some time later]
<DanC> is smedero around? I just added him to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/