IRC log of html-wg on 2007-11-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:03:50 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
00:07:13 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #html-wg
00:08:53 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
00:10:56 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
00:11:29 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
00:37:24 [andreas]
andreas has joined #html-wg
00:37:48 [Marcos_]
Marcos_ has joined #html-wg
00:46:09 [Marcos__]
Marcos__ has joined #html-wg
00:48:03 [MikeSmith]
Marcos__ - buenos días
00:48:28 [Marcos__]
heya mikesmith :)
00:49:20 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #html-wg
00:52:57 [MikeSmith]
Marcos__ - andreas works for Opera here in Tokyo
00:54:23 [Marcos__]
mikesmith, how's the workshop going? what are you discussing?
00:55:43 [MikeSmith]
Marcos__ - discussing something bout modalities
00:55:46 [MikeSmith]
multiple ones
00:55:52 [MikeSmith]
that's about as much as I know
00:56:08 [Marcos__]
hehe
00:56:12 [MikeSmith]
only 2.5 hours of sleep last night
00:56:22 [MikeSmith]
so I'm a little slow on the uptake at this point
00:56:54 [Marcos__]
fair enough
00:57:20 [Marcos__]
at least you didnt show up drunk :)
00:57:30 [Marcos__]
...or did you? :D
00:57:59 [MikeSmith]
not drunk -- just slightly buzzed
00:58:45 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
01:05:58 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
01:06:52 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
01:18:05 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #html-wg
02:13:27 [sbuluf]
sbuluf has joined #html-wg
02:26:50 [JanC]
JanC has joined #html-wg
03:05:53 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
04:25:44 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
05:13:21 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
05:17:30 [gavin_]
gavin_ has joined #html-wg
05:42:02 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has joined #html-wg
06:15:18 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
06:24:47 [andreas]
andreas has joined #html-wg
06:28:47 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
06:59:21 [xover]
xover has joined #html-wg
07:02:43 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has joined #html-wg
07:03:57 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #html-wg
07:20:30 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
07:30:41 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has joined #html-wg
08:33:27 [tH_]
tH_ has joined #html-wg
08:45:22 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
09:01:20 [Julian]
Julian has joined #html-wg
09:15:36 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has joined #html-wg
09:16:50 [tH_]
tH_ has joined #html-wg
09:28:09 [ROBOd]
ROBOd has joined #html-wg
09:28:16 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
09:43:08 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #html-wg
09:46:35 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
09:48:58 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
09:51:59 [jgraham]
jgraham has joined #html-wg
09:53:24 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has joined #html-wg
09:53:44 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has left #html-wg
09:54:22 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
10:13:54 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has joined #html-wg
10:14:07 [Lionheart]
Lionheart has left #html-wg
10:15:30 [marcospod]
marcospod has joined #html-wg
10:34:01 [Sander]
Sander has joined #html-wg
10:41:05 [marcospod]
marcospod has joined #html-wg
11:00:48 [marcospod]
marcospod has joined #html-wg
11:14:00 [myakura]
myakura has joined #html-wg
11:29:47 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #html-wg
11:35:59 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
11:45:34 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
13:07:02 [smedero]
smedero has joined #html-wg
13:10:05 [marcospod]
marcospod has joined #html-wg
13:25:52 [aaronlev]
DanC: i can make the html wg meeting today but will miss the first part
13:43:31 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
13:45:19 [DanC]
ok; when do you think you can join?
14:08:17 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
14:08:55 [DanC]
hmm... where's mikesmith? I'd like 2 more topic anchors before the aria thing in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-html-wg-minutes-other.html
14:09:24 [Lachy]
Yay! HDP is being published :-)
14:10:16 [Lachy]
DanC, any idea when the spec will be published?
14:10:44 [anne]
I made the specification ready for publication yesterday
14:13:48 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #html-wg
14:23:10 [anne]
DanC, any updates on the other drafts, which had pretty much the same feedback through the survey?
14:25:46 [DanC]
working on it
14:34:35 [torus]
torus has joined #html-wg
14:35:03 [torus]
torus has left #html-wg
14:39:09 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
14:50:27 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
15:08:08 [Julian]
Julian has joined #html-wg
15:13:46 [smedero]
smedero has joined #html-wg
15:26:52 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
15:39:44 [billmason]
billmason has joined #html-wg
15:43:13 [aaronlev]
DanC: can you delay the aria discussion until 15-20 minutes after the hour?
15:44:19 [Sander]
Sander has joined #html-wg
15:45:20 [DanC]
I think so; actually, I forgot to put aria on the agenda.
15:45:37 [DanC]
is Hixie around to eyeball this canvas question? http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/
15:51:18 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
15:54:36 [DanC]
can anybody else eyeball it? anne? mjs?
15:59:45 [Philip]
Is it relevant that canvas specification is mostly about documenting existing practice, since it's already implemented in most major browsers, and is not about developing a new feature?
16:14:04 [DanC]
I thought I captured a sense of that
16:14:51 [DanC]
"Do use cases such as games, shared whiteboards, and yahoo pipes and others in the ESW wiki motivate a requirement that HTML 5 provide an immediate mode graphics API and canvas element?"
16:15:04 [DanC]
oh... I could cite the relevant design principle.
16:15:25 [DanC]
I'm inclined to leave it up to wiki-elves to do that. I think the WBS question is clear enough.
16:26:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-wg
16:26:15 [DanC]
Zakim, this will be html
16:26:15 [Zakim]
ok, DanC; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 34 minutes
16:26:42 [DanC]
agenda + Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z
16:27:37 [DanC]
HTML WG teleconference 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda (logs: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ )
16:27:44 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: HTML WG teleconference 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda (logs: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ )
16:27:58 [DanC]
agenda + ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles
16:28:07 [DanC]
agenda + ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s)
16:28:16 [DanC]
agenda + ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element
16:28:23 [DanC]
agenda + # ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5
16:28:31 [DanC]
agenda 5 = ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5
16:28:43 [DanC]
agenda + ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization
16:28:56 [DanC]
agenda + face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review
16:36:04 [gsnedders]
DanC: it looks fine to me, but I'd make it explicit that it is just defining current behaviour, and being compat with current content
16:38:46 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
16:40:08 [DanC]
this question is not a judgement on the details of the design; just the requirement
16:40:24 [DanC]
thanks for the quick feedback, in any case
16:40:44 [DanC]
yes, I announced it when it was clear that you understood the question
16:42:39 [DanC]
er... where's MikeSmith?
16:54:38 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg
16:59:36 [Zakim]
HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started
16:59:37 [Zakim]
+JulianR
17:00:04 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
17:00:52 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
17:00:54 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
17:00:55 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
17:01:18 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:01:18 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-irc#T17-01-18
17:01:25 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
17:01:25 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z" taken up [from DanC]
17:01:35 [Zakim]
+DanC
17:01:35 [Zakim]
+??P9
17:02:46 [rubys]
rubys has joined #html-wg
17:03:06 [oedipus]
scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
17:03:11 [oedipus]
scribenick: oedipus
17:03:18 [DanC]
Meeting: HTML WG Weekly
17:03:43 [DanC]
Zakim, agenda?
17:03:43 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
17:03:44 [Zakim]
1. Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z [from DanC]
17:03:47 [Zakim]
2. ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles [from DanC]
17:03:49 [Zakim]
3. ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s) [from DanC]
17:03:51 [Zakim]
4. ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element [from DanC]
17:03:53 [Zakim]
5. ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5
17:03:55 [Zakim]
6. ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization [from DanC]
17:03:58 [Zakim]
7. face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review [from DanC]
17:04:30 [Zakim]
+Sam
17:05:24 [DanC]
Zakim, passcode?
17:05:24 [Zakim]
the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), DanC
17:06:16 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
17:06:25 [ChrisWilson]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
17:06:25 [Zakim]
+ChrisWilson; got it
17:06:59 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #html-wg
17:07:12 [anne]
anne has joined #html-wg
17:07:27 [oedipus]
GJR: to coordinate some IRC time to discuss HTML5 stylesheet issues with the editors/interested parties -- a limited color pallatte using named colors needs some negotiation (and some eyeballs) and i'm still testing actual support for CSS generated text using :before and :after
17:07:32 [DanC]
22 Nov telcon cancelled
17:07:45 [oedipus]
CW: skip next week's meeting -- next meeting 29 November 2007 at 1700z
17:08:02 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:08:02 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles" taken up [from DanC]
17:08:13 [anne]
Zakim, who is here?
17:08:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, hsivonen, DanC, Sam, ChrisWilson
17:08:13 [oedipus]
TOPIC: HTML Design Principles
17:08:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see anne, aaronlev, rubys, Lachy, ChrisWilson, oedipus, Zakim, gavin, Sander, billmason, smedero, Julian, timbl, shepazu, marcospod, myakura, zcorpan, tH, xover, Thezilch,
17:08:20 [Zakim]
... gavin_, mjs, JanC, marcos, jmb, heycam, gsnedders, paullewis, DanC, Shunsuke, Hixie, Dashiva, Philip, drry, Bert, laplink, bogi, jane, krijnh, deltab, beowulf, hsivonen,
17:08:22 [anne]
Zakim, passcode?
17:08:23 [Zakim]
... trackbot-ng, Bob_le_Pointu, RRSAgent
17:08:24 [Zakim]
the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne
17:08:34 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/18 HTML Design Principles
17:08:39 [oedipus]
DanC: migrated issues to issue tracker -- issue 18
17:08:52 [Zakim]
+??P13
17:08:55 [oedipus]
DanC: completed action to email negative responders
17:09:08 [Zakim]
+anne
17:09:19 [DanC]
Zakim, ??P13 is aaronlev
17:09:19 [Zakim]
+aaronlev; got it
17:09:24 [oedipus]
DanC: Mike(tm)Smith still needs to compile minutes from saturday's HTML f2f session
17:09:33 [oedipus]
DanC: mjs Action 20 completed
17:09:45 [oedipus]
DanC: explores for a "comments" mailing list
17:10:13 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/
17:10:32 [oedipus]
DanC: feedback on HDP should be sent to public-html-comments@w3.org
17:10:54 [oedipus]
s/feedback/outside feedback/
17:11:01 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:11:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, hsivonen, DanC, Sam, ChrisWilson, aaronlev, anne
17:11:13 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:11:13 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s)" taken up [from DanC]
17:11:28 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/19
17:11:30 [oedipus]
TOPIC: HTML5 Specification Draft Release
17:11:51 [oedipus]
DanC: had conversation with PTaylor about formal objection - action done
17:12:09 [oedipus]
DanC: completed action to email negative and non-responders - done
17:12:44 [oedipus]
Chairs have said the question does not carry -- WG will keep working on spec
17:12:58 [DanC]
DanC found out non-responders are not ok to publish
17:13:08 [oedipus]
Anne: graphics API a problem?
17:13:34 [oedipus]
DanC: publication starts the clock on W3C process
17:14:02 [oedipus]
Anne?/Henri?: deadline? make something available?
17:14:49 [hsivonen]
s/Anne\?\/Henri\?/Anne/
17:14:50 [oedipus]
DanC: like those who responded no to releasing draft to explain comments on questions; question may need to be refined
17:15:03 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:15:03 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element" taken up [from DanC]
17:15:13 [oedipus]
TOPIC: ISSUE 15 Immediate Mode Graphics
17:15:45 [oedipus]
DanC: ChrisW get info from MS (10 december deadline); DanC put question to WG http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/
17:15:51 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:15:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, hsivonen, DanC, Sam, ChrisWilson, aaronlev, anne
17:16:22 [jgraham]
jgraham has joined #html-wg
17:16:35 [oedipus]
Anne: how does modification of activity affect charter? results clear -- if say "yes" then might be changed
17:17:16 [oedipus]
DanC: question is "who is everyone" -- question to HTML WG and question to W3C; feedback at TPAC was that this issue is in scope; not critical path for denying discussions
17:17:29 [oedipus]
Anne: membership ok with it, can we carry on as usual?
17:17:40 [oedipus]
DanC: presuming all goes well, continue on in parallell
17:18:37 [oedipus]
JulianR: can answer in week
17:19:07 [oedipus]
Henri: can answer in week; question posed isn't what i want answered -- 3 of top 4 already implementing
17:19:15 [oedipus]
ChrisW: questions 3 out of 4
17:19:29 [ROBOd]
ROBOd has joined #html-wg
17:19:32 [oedipus]
DanC: a lot of people have made up their mind, but the question still has to be fielded
17:20:03 [DanC]
q+ to suggest a survey with some options in parallel
17:20:26 [oedipus]
ChrisW: in scope of WebAPI or not? 3 of 4 implemented shouldn't make issue one for HTML WG -- question whether covered by charter or patent policy; some implementors don't believe charter needs to be implemented, but that is my gut feeling
17:21:11 [oedipus]
DanC: considering doing an informal survey in parallel with formal survey; CANVAS tag in HTML WG and CANVAS tag in HTML WG or other WG? if formal question doesn't carry, still gaining info
17:21:30 [ChrisWilson]
My point is that 3 out of 4 implementers implementing means this IS in scope of "the platform"; the question, to my mind, is whether this is covered by our charter and therefore covered by the patent policy.
17:22:00 [oedipus]
DanC: been suggested that html5 spec should have CANVAS in it and cite document with graphics API -- question of whether HTML WG develops document or another WG develops document
17:22:11 [ChrisWilson]
The goal in creating a W3C WG with a patent policy is to explicitly lay out what that WG is going to do, so companies getting involved in the WG know what IP they may be offering up.
17:22:15 [oedipus]
Anne: rather keep it in HTML WG; willing to answer survey
17:22:16 [ChrisWilson]
Charters cannot be open-ended.
17:22:28 [Lachy]
isn't everything in the spec covered by the patent policy, regardless of whether it's explicitly in the charter?
17:22:58 [oedipus]
JulianR: spec already too complex -- need to seriously discuss way to take things out and harmonize with existing specs
17:23:26 [DanC]
agenda + outcome of HTML for authors session
17:23:56 [oedipus]
GJR: spec too complex, but can answer any survey
17:24:03 [ChrisWilson]
Lachy, everything in the spec IS covered by the patent policy. Joining a working group cannot be opening a company's entire patent portfolio in a free-for-all, or those with large patent portfolios would be foolish to participate at all - weakening the point of having a patent policy.
17:24:44 [oedipus]
Henri: formal survey first, then consider steps to separate API portions of spec; question of whether anything should be taken out of spec dependent upon who is going to edit that portion of spec -- do we have expertise?
17:25:04 [oedipus]
SamR: can't answer within week; support informal survey; do have charter concerns
17:25:13 [Lachy]
so the real question is, does Microsoft have patents that they do not want to give up, but which they would be forced to if canvas were included?
17:25:15 [oedipus]
ChrisW: yes, can answer question
17:25:22 [oedipus]
AaronL: not likely to have opinion now
17:25:29 [rubys]
oedipus: I said I CAN answer within a week
17:25:29 [DanC]
trackbot-ng,
17:25:32 [DanC]
trackbot-ng, status
17:25:45 [ChrisWilson]
Lachy, without having a charter that scopes the WG's specifications, I can't know the answer to that question.
17:25:47 [DanC]
ACTION: Dan consider informal survey on canvas tactics
17:25:47 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-21 - Consider informal survey on canvas tactics [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-11-23].
17:25:52 [oedipus]
SCRIBE'S NOTE: Sam Ruby CAN answer within a week
17:26:09 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:26:09 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC
17:26:14 [DanC]
ack danc
17:26:14 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to suggest a survey with some options in parallel
17:26:17 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:26:17 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5" taken up
17:26:18 [ChrisWilson]
With the charter we have now, our legal staff did not investigate our graphics patents.
17:26:29 [oedipus]
TOPIC: ISSUE 14 ARIA Role Integration
17:26:33 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/14
17:26:58 [oedipus]
DanC: action on URI extensibility -
17:27:11 [DanC]
some progress: http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/11/a_story_about_namespaces_mime.html
17:27:11 [oedipus]
AaronL: hard time figuring out what was being proposed
17:27:22 [oedipus]
DanC: specific questions?
17:27:24 [Lachy]
ChrisWilson, didn't the legal department look at the existing whatwg spec, so that they would have a better idea of what to look for, rather than relying on the vague charter?
17:27:42 [DanC]
http://norman.walsh.name/2007/11/12/implNamespaces
17:27:50 [oedipus]
AaronL: page to other links, couldn't ascertain what was DanC's contribution
17:27:56 [ChrisWilson]
Lachy, the WHATWG spec is not our charter.
17:27:59 [hsivonen]
q+ to talk about Norm Walsh's blog post
17:28:03 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
17:28:12 [ChrisWilson]
Nor has the WHATWG spec been stable in that time frame.
17:28:14 [rubys]
concrete charters tend to trump draft specs
17:28:18 [oedipus]
AaronL: summary, please?
17:28:18 [ChrisWilson]
(i.e. not added features)
17:28:35 [oedipus]
DanC: let WG members read at leisure; may do more work on page to make clearer
17:28:37 [DanC]
ack hsivonen
17:28:37 [Zakim]
hsivonen, you wanted to talk about Norm Walsh's blog post
17:29:06 [ArneJ]
ArneJ has joined #html-wg
17:29:23 [oedipus]
Henri: NormW's post suggests implicit namespaces in parser; considering constraints of aria- proposal don't think what NormW wrote satisfies requirements; can't do something to make DOM APIs act differently
17:29:27 [oedipus]
DanC: can if want to
17:30:14 [oedipus]
Henri: then introduce discrepancy in DOM scripting; changes way XML is parsed to infer namespaces from content-type deeper change than previously proposed; want not to afftect DOM API scripting -- examine RDF
17:30:26 [oedipus]
DanC: couple of steps ahead of me -- good feedback
17:30:39 [oedipus]
AaronL: will speak with Henri offline
17:30:57 [oedipus]
DanC: cost to changing APIs -- still thinking through
17:31:46 [oedipus]
scribe's note: DanC and MichaelC's actions continued
17:31:58 [oedipus]
DanC: next telecon not until 2 weeks
17:32:39 [oedipus]
AaronL: clarity always welcome; asked Doug Schepers and Bill for date by which they will decide aria- ; told me tied to other issues and gave no date
17:32:46 [DanC]
q+ to ask for a test pointer
17:32:59 [hsivonen]
s/examine RDF/could define a URI mapping for apps that need it for GRDDL to RDF mapping without affecting the DOM/
17:33:06 [oedipus]
GJR: PF yesterday discussed what next steps can take to further discussion
17:33:39 [DanC]
good tests? http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/
17:34:16 [DanC]
<div aria="something">
17:34:51 [DanC]
http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/role/
17:34:54 [anne]
s/something/checkbox/
17:35:04 [oedipus]
AaronL: SVG does not want to change "role" to "aria"
17:35:14 [aaronlev]
http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/new/checkbox
17:35:24 [anne]
http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/states/001.htm
17:35:34 [oedipus]
http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/ARIATestTests
17:35:36 [hsivonen]
DanC, it is about <div role='checkbox'> or <div aria='checkbox'>
17:35:37 [aaronlev]
s/SVG does/I do
17:36:05 [oedipus]
GJR: comparative tests needed?
17:36:07 [oedipus]
DanC: yes
17:36:21 [hober]
hober has joined #html-wg
17:36:26 [oedipus]
GJR: will communicate back to PF
17:36:52 [oedipus]
AaronL: like tests with role="checkbox"
17:37:11 [DanC]
DanC: thanks; I'll study http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/states/001.htm and http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/new/checkbox
17:37:18 [oedipus]
UIUC ARIA Tests: http://test.cita.uiuc.edu/aria/
17:37:42 [DanC]
s/SVG does not want/I do not want/
17:37:45 [oedipus]
AaronL: clarifies -- not SVG WG, but my impression of what SVG is saying
17:37:58 [DanC]
aaronlev: I don't recommend the UIUC tests
17:38:17 [hsivonen]
DanC, did you mean test cases or proposed syntax examples?
17:38:55 [oedipus]
GJR: need comparative tests of single concept using diff markup proposals
17:38:57 [DanC]
I tend to call them tests; sorry if that's confusing
17:39:20 [oedipus]
AaronL: don't think there is controversy save for attribute name "role" and "aria"
17:39:26 [oedipus]
DanC: would like comparative tests
17:39:50 [Hixie]
DanC: i can't answer the canvas question. I strongly feel that a canvas API is already in scope, and I strongly object to reopening the charter rathole. But the question asks whether I think it is in scope and says that a "yes" answer reopens the rathole.
17:39:57 [oedipus]
ACTION GJR: coordinate comparative tests using competing ARIA proposals
17:41:02 [DanC]
ack danc
17:41:02 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask for a test pointer
17:41:10 [oedipus]
DanC: AlG promised that test materials used at HTML f2f would be given stable URIs
17:41:10 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:41:10 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization" taken up [from DanC]
17:41:24 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/16
17:41:30 [oedipus]
GJR: will follow up with PF test suite builders/maintainers
17:41:39 [DanC]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/offline-webapps/ Editor's Draft 11 November 2007
17:41:45 [oedipus]
Anne action completed with editor's draft of 11 november
17:41:54 [oedipus]
ChrisW: not seen yet
17:42:18 [oedipus]
DanC: good to have the document ready; like a few more keywords in abstract: caching, SQL
17:42:26 [oedipus]
Anne: can add -- pretty clear, i think
17:42:50 [oedipus]
DanC: suggests using ToC to populate abstract
17:43:30 [oedipus]
SamR: plan to review
17:43:38 [oedipus]
DanC: page and a half
17:43:46 [oedipus]
SamR: will review this weekend
17:44:34 [oedipus]
ACTION: SamRuby review oflline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007
17:44:34 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - SamRuby
17:45:04 [DanC]
trackbot-ng, status
17:45:24 [oedipus]
ACTION: Julian review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007
17:45:24 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-22 - Review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [on Julian Reschke - due 2007-11-23].
17:45:50 [oedipus]
ChrisW: don't have an opinion; from another perspective, offline and SQL not in charter
17:46:12 [oedipus]
DanC: publication a natural way to start conversation; Anne, thinking of note or working draft?
17:46:16 [oedipus]
Anne: note
17:46:31 [oedipus]
DanC: inclined to publish in a few weeks
17:46:36 [oedipus]
Anne: reasonable
17:46:49 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
17:46:49 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review" taken up [from DanC]
17:46:59 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 8
17:46:59 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "outcome of HTML for authors session" taken up [from DanC]
17:47:11 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Outcome of HTML for Authors' Session
17:47:15 [oedipus]
DanC: record of session?
17:47:53 [hsivonen]
http://www.w3.org/2007/11/09-html-wg-minutes.html
17:47:56 [mjs]
mjs has left #html-wg
17:48:14 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
17:48:22 [mjs]
our charter does in fact contain "Data storage APIs"
17:48:26 [oedipus]
DanC: is it an accurate/reasonable catch of what transpired?
17:48:56 [ChrisWilson]
..."if the WebAPI WG fails to deliver."
17:49:05 [oedipus]
DanC: 2 actions noted in minutes
17:49:21 [DanC]
1 is a dup
17:49:38 [DanC]
ah... it's ACTION-5 by tracker
17:49:42 [Hixie]
the webapi wg has failed to deliver their own deliverables, let alone ours
17:49:52 [oedipus]
Henri: not sure if reached some kind of agreement; no consensus on best practices --
17:50:12 [ChrisWilson]
Have they stated that to the W3C staff?
17:50:14 [oedipus]
DanC: read not a call to create task force, but a proposal via email from KarlD
17:50:20 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: yes
17:50:30 [ChrisWilson]
Can you send a pointer?
17:50:49 [oedipus]
DanC: moves to adjourn
17:50:56 [oedipus]
scribe's note: NO dissent
17:51:10 [oedipus]
Henri: plan on staying around to check records
17:51:19 [oedipus]
ChrisW: seconds motion to adjourn
17:51:19 [DanC]
ADJOURN.
17:51:20 [hsivonen]
not to stay around
17:51:25 [Zakim]
-JulianR
17:51:31 [Zakim]
-hsivonen
17:51:33 [Zakim]
-aaronlev
17:51:40 [oedipus]
s/staying around/not staying around
17:51:52 [Zakim]
-Sam
17:51:54 [oedipus]
SamR: please don't add to issue tracking just yet -- shortly
17:52:23 [Zakim]
-ChrisWilson
17:52:29 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, look at any status e-mail in hcg
17:53:03 [anne]
Yeah, it's pretty clear that the Web API WG has not enough volunteers to edit
17:53:10 [ChrisWilson]
oedipus, yes and yes.
17:53:22 [oedipus]
thanks ChrisW -- anne, i am joining WebAPI
17:53:28 [oedipus]
zakim, please part
17:53:28 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, DanC, hsivonen, Sam, ChrisWilson, anne, aaronlev
17:53:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-wg
17:53:29 [ChrisWilson]
It's pretty clear we suffer from the same problem.
17:53:39 [anne]
it seems that Hixie is doing just fine
17:53:42 [anne]
to me, anyway
17:53:53 [oedipus]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
17:53:59 [oedipus]
rrsagent, create minutes
17:53:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:54:05 [oedipus]
rrsagent, format minutes
17:54:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:54:18 [anne]
ChrisWilson, could you perhaps e-mail the list with what you consider to be out of scope?
17:54:40 [ChrisWilson]
? Anything not captured in the charter?
17:54:48 [oedipus]
chair: Dan_Connolly
17:54:51 [oedipus]
rrsagent, create minutes
17:54:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:54:55 [oedipus]
rrsagent, format minutes
17:54:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:55:00 [anne]
ChrisWilson, basically, yeah
17:55:12 [oedipus]
chair+ Dan_Connolly
17:55:16 [oedipus]
rrsagent, create minutes
17:55:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:55:19 [oedipus]
rrsagent, format minutes
17:55:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:55:34 [DanC]
chair: DanC
17:55:56 [oedipus]
any regrets received?
17:56:14 [DanC]
Regrets+ mikko
17:56:18 [DanC]
(I think)
17:56:27 [oedipus]
rrsagent, create minutes
17:56:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:56:28 [anne]
anne has left #html-wg
17:56:31 [oedipus]
rrsagent, format minutes
17:56:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:56:45 [oedipus]
regrets+ mikko
17:56:47 [oedipus]
rrsagent, create minutes
17:56:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:57:02 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, as far as i am aware, everything in the spec if well covered by our charter.
17:57:20 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, after all, the charter was written mostly after teh spec, and with the spec in mind.
17:57:21 [DanC]
oedipus, there's bunch of irrelevant stuff at the top, but you don't have write access to /2007/11 ... perhaps you could (a) take a copy of 16-html-wg-minutes.html , edit it manually, and mail it to me and www-archive ?
17:57:45 [oedipus]
yes, i can do that
17:57:49 [DanC]
thanks
17:58:04 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, also, if you think hyatt and i aren't editing fast enough, it would be helpful to know what you think should be being edited faster
17:58:16 [oedipus]
will get it to you and www-archive asap
17:58:21 [DanC]
Hixie, please consider the charter from the perspective of someone wholly unfamiliar with HTML 5. e.g. a patent laywer at VendorCo
17:58:47 [Hixie]
DanC, first, we do, and second, the only person complaining is microsoft, and they aren't "someone wholly unfamiliar with HTML 5"
17:59:05 [Hixie]
DanC, they are in fact intimiately aware that html5 exists and is why this group was created.
17:59:15 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
17:59:29 [DanC]
no, microsoft is not the only person complaining; they're the only one nice enough to do it on the public record
17:59:32 [ChrisWilson]
Hixie, from a quick glance through the ToC, canvas and offline; session history and navigation; client-side storage (both types) unless the WebAPI WG fails to deliver; server-sent DOM events; and the connection interface are not in our charter.
17:59:41 [ChrisWilson]
s/nice/foolish
17:59:55 [oedipus]
danC, how far down do you want me to snip - to "convene meeting"?
18:00:04 [DanC]
yes, down to convene
18:00:06 [oedipus]
ok
18:00:18 [DanC]
and fix the duplicate items in the TOC, if you would
18:00:27 [oedipus]
have done
18:00:32 [DanC]
good
18:00:46 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, wow, i didn't realise how desparate you were to try and slow down the group.
18:00:57 [DanC]
Hixie, cut it out
18:01:01 [mjs]
ChrisWilson, you have a unique way of reading the charter
18:01:01 [ChrisWilson]
I'll try not to take the comment literally or personally.
18:01:01 [Hixie]
oh please
18:01:08 [Hixie]
it's blatently obvious what chris is doing
18:01:20 [Hixie]
no-one in their right mind would claim session history wasn't under HTML5's purview
18:01:22 [DanC]
no, it's not, and it's rude of you to presume
18:01:54 [ChrisWilson]
Hixie, why should it matter? You will continue to create your HTML 5 standard in the WHATWG; and it will continue to ignore patents and IPR.
18:02:14 [ChrisWilson]
s/should it matter/should it matter to you/
18:02:32 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, we specifically came here to w3c to allow the spec to be covered by the patent policy for you
18:02:47 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, and now you're claiming you don't think the spec is covered by the charter.
18:03:50 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson, what can we do going forward to make sure the spec isn't pared down, is published soon, and is published with your participation?
18:04:04 [ChrisWilson]
One moment.
18:04:11 [oedipus]
danC, should i trim the "diagnostics" section?
18:05:05 [oedipus]
the question of whether the spec should be pared down is a decision for the WG to make, not a unilateral decision by the editors
18:05:30 [ChrisWilson]
Hixie: in a company with a large patent portfolio, getting approval to allow RF licensing of IP requires knowing what you're signing up to.
18:06:14 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: sure, that's why when we originally proposed the scope we made it explicit. the w3c staff cut it down saying that it was being redundant.
18:06:20 [ChrisWilson]
That means the charter has to cover exactly what areas are going to be in the spec, because comparing a 500-page specification against [large company]'s entire patent portfolio is not an easy thing to do.
18:06:23 [oedipus]
hixie, isn't the point of editing to make things as clear as possible? that entails clarifications and such that may lead to "paring" in one place and "growth" in another...
18:06:53 [ChrisWilson]
Then let
18:06:59 [ChrisWilson]
erk
18:07:13 [Hixie]
oedipus: (i just meant removing entire sections, i agree that editing work includes making things clearer.)
18:07:41 [jmb]
jmb has joined #html-wg
18:08:59 [ChrisWilson]
Then let's scope out what the charter SHOULD be, and get the charter changed to reflect that. More to the point, I think there should be separate groups handling some of these items; I agree, fwiw, that session history and navigation might belong here, but I don't honestly think connections do. I believe they belong in the webapi group.
18:09:32 [ChrisWilson]
At any rate, it's irresponsible of me to agree to a spec that I don't think our IP reviewers were covering.
18:10:29 [ChrisWilson]
I understand, for example, (because at least you and Maciej have repeatedly said) that the Canvas API is a fairly stable bit of the WHAT WG HTML5 spec.
18:11:40 [ChrisWilson]
I understand anyone's ability to get you to change that API is basically zero at this point (aside from the one or two minor points you mentioned as being in flux). That doesn't mean that I can blithely say "I'm sure we wouldn't mind giving up IP in that area" without what IP we have there being reviewed.
18:11:45 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: what can we do to publish _soon_, though? rechartering takes easily 6 months which is simply not an option for us.
18:12:06 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: i'd like to know what we can to publish the current spec soon, with your participation
18:12:54 [ChrisWilson]
Publish all of the current HTML5 spec, with Microsoft's participation? I don't know. I'm not sure it will be possible; it will depend on the patent review I'm kicking off right now with our legal team to look at the areas I mentioned above that I don't think are in the spec.
18:13:29 [ChrisWilson]
s/spec/charter
18:14:24 [ChrisWilson]
If that review is taking more than 90 days, or if it turns up areas of concern to the IP owners, then I would have to depart the WG, because that's the only option left. That's one of the reasons why RF WGs are best off not trying to bite off the entire world.
18:15:09 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: wow, so there is the chance that microsoft would rather leave the group than license patents?
18:15:15 [ChrisWilson]
I understand you all think this is me being obstructionist, and that's unfortunate. I have to work within the system of a corporation with a large patent portfolio, and that means being responsible with their IP.
18:15:22 [ChrisWilson]
No, that's not it.
18:15:34 [smedero]
I'm a little confused as common-man involved in this process. The <canvas> element is about three years old... though I don't know the exact date it made it into the WHATWG HTML5 sepc.
18:15:55 [Hixie]
smedero: i'm pretty confused myself :-)
18:16:00 [ChrisWilson]
It's not "license patents". It's that what you are asking for is a open-ended "whatever patents might cover technology we think is handy to shove into the HTML5 spec."
18:16:00 [oedipus]
DanC and ChrisW: cleaned minutes attached to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/0053.html
18:16:06 [smedero]
It seems clear that the patent issues were going to be a problem... that's completely reasonable.
18:16:15 [oedipus]
cleaned minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/att-0053/2007-11-16-html-wg-minutes-cleaned.html
18:16:21 [smedero]
It just feels like this issue should have been reviewed much sooner in this process.
18:16:34 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: the html5 spec at this point is past feature freeze, so there won't be any new things that can be covered by patents.
18:16:40 [ChrisWilson]
Indeed. My apologies. I have a couple of day jobs too.
18:17:27 [ChrisWilson]
Really? Do you believe that every area that is going in to HTML5 from the WHATWG side is already there, and if we capture everything that's in there today into our charter to my satisfaction, that's not going to change?
18:17:30 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: so anyway you are saying there is no way to publish the current spec soon with your participation? that it's either publish later, publish without you, or publish something smaller?
18:17:33 [ChrisWilson]
(That's a serious question)
18:17:57 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: yes, as far as i'm concerned we're in feature freeze, i don't expect any new features to be added before CR.
18:18:05 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: (there's no "whatwg side" to this, btw)
18:18:09 [oedipus]
ChrisW and DanC: just found another regret notification: Marcin Hanclik's regrets: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/0052.html
18:18:46 [ChrisWilson]
The best possible case is that I take the current spec, categorize the areas, pass it back to legal for review, and the owners of the patents they turn up are all okay with RF-licensing that IP to the W3C for HTML5.
18:18:52 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: obviously if microsoft has anything they'd like added they would be considered, since that would presumably sidestep the patent problem, and we want to make microsoft happy with the spec.
18:19:13 [ChrisWilson]
So, to echo one of my ultimate bosses' most unfortunate statements, that depends on your definition of soon.
18:19:31 [ChrisWilson]
I don't think we have anything that we've been holding on to, no.
18:19:34 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: by "soon" i meant this week
18:20:01 [Hixie]
well, next week i guess
18:20:04 [Hixie]
what with it being friday
18:20:56 [oedipus]
ChrisW: for what it is worth, i don't think you're being obstructionist -- your being realistic and practical, something that most of us in spec writing don't necessarily need be...
18:20:58 [ChrisWilson]
Then that's possible - I told Dan last week I am explicitly removing myself from any decision-making around this - but that is running the risk I listed above, that the expanded patent review won't finish and Microsoft would have to depart prior to the 90-day countdown.
18:21:53 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: aah, interesting.
18:22:12 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: well that makes sense
18:22:27 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: that's the same risk google would take too
18:22:52 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: seems like that's the best course then
18:23:04 [Hixie]
it sidesteps the whole charter can of worms
18:23:31 [ChrisWilson]
What's the same risk Google would take?
18:24:20 [Hixie]
that our patent review wouldn't be complete in 90 days
18:25:37 [ChrisWilson]
The part that is frustrating is that ideally, if you create a clear enough charter, then you don't need to do a patent review every time a new document is issued by the WG; you do a review before joining the group, and then you know what is at stake.
18:25:46 [Hixie]
i agree
18:26:03 [Hixie]
like i said, the original scope list that i and others proposed for html5 was very detailed
18:26:06 [ChrisWilson]
If I have to go through a whole legal review every time there is a new document in a WG, I'm going to have to quit so I don't slit my wrists.
18:26:09 [Hixie]
and explicitly covered all these things
18:26:30 [Hixie]
w3c staff said that the list had too much redundancy and made it smaller, as i recall
18:26:33 [Hixie]
not sure why
18:26:52 [ChrisWilson]
Hmm. Nor am I; I was not involved in developing the charter at all, actually.
18:27:05 [ChrisWilson]
(other than the voting at the AC level, where I advised)
18:27:28 [Hixie]
yeah they didn't even contact me until someone pointed out to them that maybe they should at least consult the guy who'd edited the html5 spec for the past few years
18:27:41 [Hixie]
and even then they only unofficially asked for my advice
18:27:59 [mjs]
Apple's legal review may be hard to complete in 90 days as well, but I would still prefer to just publish and start the clock
18:28:26 [Hixie]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Nov/author.html#msg56 is where i sent the feedback i had
18:28:53 [Hixie]
look in particular at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Nov/0045.html
18:30:12 [Hixie]
afk, bbiab
18:30:36 [mjs]
I'm not sure it's possible to predict all applicable patents short of an actual draft anyway
18:30:48 [mjs]
that's why FPWD and LC are what starts the review clock
18:30:50 [anne]
anne has joined #html-wg
18:32:08 [ChrisWilson]
That may be true - but we should at least know what areas are going to be covered. And I disagree with the scope of the charter Ian pointed to (0045) for this group.
18:32:30 [ChrisWilson]
I don't understand, btw, why the presumption that WebAPI has failed/is failing.
18:33:25 [mjs]
I don't think they have failed at everything, but they (we) certainly haven't delivered all their original charter deliverables
18:33:46 [ChrisWilson]
why not?
18:34:01 [anne]
no dedicated editors
18:34:41 [anne]
editing specs these days is much harder than it was before (if you look at the amount of detail of HTML 5 versus HTML 4 for instance)
18:34:42 [mjs]
nor have they even started on any kind of data storage API, nor does that seem likely to happen any time soon
18:35:13 [anne]
it's like writing an implementation in English
18:35:31 [ChrisWilson]
See, I don't get that. There's one in current HTML5; you guys are on that group too; why do you not just take that spec, move it into that group, get buyoff, stamp it and move on?
18:35:38 [ChrisWilson]
anne: ?
18:36:40 [mjs]
splitting specs is not easy
18:36:47 [ChrisWilson]
It seems like it's useful outside the context of HTML, and moving it into a group like that would make it quicker, not slower.
18:36:49 [mjs]
so far XMLHttpRequest has semi-succeeded
18:37:01 [anne]
i'm already editing cross-site requests, xhr 1 and 2, and several drafts for the HTML WG, besides QA work I do for Opera and trying to keep up with everything relevant
18:37:02 [mjs]
(though Microsoft's rep still objects to the remaining HTML dependencies)
18:37:12 [mjs]
and Window kind of failed
18:37:18 [ChrisWilson]
I understand breaking up HTML5 into, say, separate "tabular data" and "media elements" specs would be hard.
18:37:20 [mjs]
(due to lack of my time)
18:37:20 [anne]
i think i'm one of the few in the Web API WG who actually manages to produce stuff
18:38:08 [mjs]
I think lots of stuff would be better if split off in principle but I don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good
18:38:18 [kingryan]
kingryan has joined #html-wg
18:38:57 [ChrisWilson]
But it seems like taking the two client-side storage sections and making them a separate spec would make it easier to focus on. Not to mention use them outside of HTML.
18:39:41 [mjs]
in theory, yes
18:39:49 [mjs]
in practice, I'm not aware of a qualified and available editor
18:39:59 [ChrisWilson]
For what? Client-side storage?
18:40:54 [ChrisWilson]
afk
18:42:57 [Philip]
DanC: You said "There aren't any votes yet" 12 minutes ago, but I currently see 16 votes
18:43:59 [hober]
As one of those 16 voters, I'm all for withdrawing & rewording the question to take into account the feedback on it
18:46:32 [anne]
unless someone can point out volunteers this is really a theoretical question imo
18:48:05 [gsnedders]
DanC: <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/> claims it isn't open yet for me
18:49:04 [anne]
i guess it will be rephrased
18:49:47 [gsnedders]
maybe I didn't go all the way back to where I left, then
18:52:07 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #html-wg
19:06:36 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: there are a number of sections (setTimeout, Window, XHR, alt stylesheets OM) that have been taken out of HTML5. Only one of them (XHR) has so far managed to get any real traction.
19:06:59 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: so much so that i had to pull window back into HTML5 because I had dependencies that were falling by the wayside because of the issue
19:08:20 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: setTimeout and the alt stylesheets OM are tiny bits that wouldn't even take much editing time -- if we could find someone to edit those, then we could consider taking out the much bigger and more important bits out
19:09:20 [Hixie]
ChrisWilson: but if we can't even find competent editors with enough time to edit those tiny bits, i would consider it irresponsible of us to take out the other bits and just throw them over the wall and hope for an editor, especially considering that the sections in question are amongst those sections that browser vendors have indicated are the most critical to html5's success
19:10:32 [Hixie]
bbiab, going to work
19:13:53 [DanC]
mjs, 20 minutes turned out to take longer... could you pick a time later this afternoon?
19:14:10 [DanC]
16 votes? hmm...
19:14:30 [DanC]
"No answer has been received." -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results
19:15:12 [Philip]
"16 answers have been received."
19:15:15 [Philip]
Cached?
19:15:26 [hober]
I see "3 answers have been received." must be cache
19:15:35 [hober]
shift-reload: 16
19:16:12 [DanC]
ah. shift-reload
19:16:36 [DanC]
"Future questions should avoid conflating distinct issues." indeed. this one should too
19:26:39 [Julian]
Julian has joined #html-wg
19:44:02 [timbl]
timbl has left #html-wg
19:45:08 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
19:58:56 [kingryan]
kingryan has joined #html-wg
20:07:08 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
20:26:16 [kingryan]
is http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/ closed for editing?
20:28:04 [gsnedders]
yeah
20:34:29 [edas]
edas has joined #html-wg
20:36:31 [jgraham]
jgraham has joined #html-wg
20:40:24 [jgraham_]
jgraham_ has joined #html-wg
20:49:17 [DanC]
yes, closed for editing... I'm getting back to that now...
20:49:46 [jgraham_]
jgraham_ has joined #html-wg
20:50:20 [mjs]
DanC: I'll be around this afternoon some
20:53:44 [DanC]
ok... do you have a sense of how many questions yet?
20:55:12 [rubys]
rubys has left #html-wg
21:04:46 [mjs]
how many questions for what?
21:11:06 [edas]
edas has joined #html-wg
21:32:06 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
21:36:40 [DanC]
oops; hi mjs. can you see http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/ ? prolly not
21:39:02 [DanC]
ok... I moved the charter stuff from http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/ to the tactics survey
21:39:11 [DanC]
mjs? kingryan ? Hixie ? anybody around to take a look?
21:42:49 [DanC]
any opinions?
21:42:53 [DanC]
i.e. is it coherent?
21:43:07 [DanC]
rather: are the 2 surveys coherent?
21:43:26 [hober]
It's not clear what question 2 in the tactics survey implies re: HTML 5 spec
21:43:40 [gsnedders]
hober: agreed
21:43:55 [kingryan]
concur
21:44:18 [kingryan]
DanC: is it implying that canvas be extracted into a separate document?
21:44:29 [gsnedders]
DanC: for question five can we just use Yes/No?
21:44:51 [DanC]
this one is unclear? "2. Canvas and immediate mode graphics API introductory/tutorial note"
21:44:56 [gsnedders]
DanC: yeah
21:45:05 [oedipus]
DanC: Should CANVAS and immediate mode graphics be spun off into a note, similar to Offline Web Applications? That is: a sort of extended abstract that might grow into a tutorial.
21:45:20 [hober]
For instance, I'd like to answer: "keep <canvas> in the html5 spec, don't recharter. additional documents (tutorials, etc.) are fine if someone wants to work on them."
21:45:22 [gsnedders]
DanC: also, regarding "charter a new W3C working group for the 2d graphics API" — Opera has experimental 3D support now
21:45:31 [DanC]
spun off? no; the design would stay where it is
21:45:43 [Philip]
(Mozilla has more advanced experiemental 3D support too)
21:45:50 [Philip]
s/e//
21:46:11 [oedipus]
DanC: Should CANVAS and immediate mode graphics be released first in the form of a note, similar to Offline Web Applications? That is: a sort of extended abstract that might grow into a tutorial.
21:46:37 [DanC]
reload; I changed it to: "How about a note to supplement the detailed specification, similar to ..."
21:47:42 [DanC]
what would yes and no mean for question 5? I want information on preferences as well as what people find acceptable
21:47:42 [hober]
I'd like a "no opinion" option on 2, although I suppose simply not answering conveys that...
21:48:11 [DanC]
right; you can just not click any of the options...
21:48:18 [DanC]
... though once you click one of them, you're kinda stuck
21:48:58 [oedipus]
that sounds like reason enough to add "no opinion" as an option
21:49:39 [jgraham]
Q2. on the second one is a bit brief
21:49:52 [jgraham]
s/second/tactics/
21:50:33 [jgraham]
Maybe s/How about/Should the Working Group produce/
21:50:42 [Lachy]
3d canvas could probably be done in webapi
21:51:47 [DanC]
yes, "How about" is overly colloquial; fixed
21:55:13 [DanC]
I'm pretty happy with it now
21:56:56 [Philip]
s/XMLHTTPRequest/XMLHttpRequest/
22:02:23 [hasather]
hasather has joined #html-wg
22:03:03 [DanC]
ok, I announced both of them, subject to change for a day
22:05:11 [DanC]
hmm... the requirement formal question doesn't have separate "no" and "formally object" options.
22:10:32 [hober]
which is the 'requirement formal question'?
22:13:06 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/
22:13:30 [DanC]
anybody know where Hixie and/or mjs went?
22:15:16 [hober]
[11:10] <Hixie> bbiab, going to work
22:15:41 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
22:18:09 [DanC]
ah. thanks, hober.
22:20:45 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
22:21:58 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
22:22:30 [Philip]
DanC: Is it intentional that req-gapi-canvas/results shows 32 non-responders, while tactics- shows 489?
22:23:32 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
22:23:34 [Philip]
Ah, looks like the difference between a response-represents-organisation and response-is-just-personal survey
22:24:13 [DanC]
yes
22:24:51 [DanC]
though the 32 is low due to a bug; it should could public invited experts, I think
22:27:13 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
22:35:06 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
22:40:19 [jgraham_]
jgraham_ has joined #html-wg
22:42:35 [Philip]
jgraham_: By "a highly-inoperable mechanism", did you mean "highly-interoperable"?
22:46:56 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
22:48:45 [jgraham_]
Philip: Yeah, that would b a typo ;)
22:49:13 [gavin]
gavin has joined #html-wg
23:04:13 [gsnedders]
DanC: "Canvas and immediate mode graphics API introductory/tutorial note": An introduction to why it exists, or a tutorial about how to use it? They're very different.
23:06:57 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
23:09:03 [Philip]
gsnedders: A tutorial should teach readers when it is a suitable technology to use instead of the alternatives, so that would also serve as an introduction to why it exists
23:11:17 [sbuluf]
sbuluf has joined #html-wg
23:12:21 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
23:36:44 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg
23:37:18 [marcos]
marcos has joined #html-wg
23:38:33 [jgraham__]
jgraham__ has joined #html-wg
23:41:18 [jgraham]
jgraham has joined #html-wg
23:51:08 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #html-wg