00:03:50 mjs has joined #html-wg 00:07:13 shepazu has joined #html-wg 00:08:53 mjs has joined #html-wg 00:10:56 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg 00:11:29 mjs has joined #html-wg 00:37:24 andreas has joined #html-wg 00:37:48 Marcos_ has joined #html-wg 00:46:09 Marcos__ has joined #html-wg 00:48:03 Marcos__ - buenos días 00:48:28 heya mikesmith :) 00:49:20 shepazu has joined #html-wg 00:52:57 Marcos__ - andreas works for Opera here in Tokyo 00:54:23 mikesmith, how's the workshop going? what are you discussing? 00:55:43 Marcos__ - discussing something bout modalities 00:55:46 multiple ones 00:55:52 that's about as much as I know 00:56:08 hehe 00:56:12 only 2.5 hours of sleep last night 00:56:22 so I'm a little slow on the uptake at this point 00:56:54 fair enough 00:57:20 at least you didnt show up drunk :) 00:57:30 ...or did you? :D 00:57:59 not drunk -- just slightly buzzed 00:58:45 gavin has joined #html-wg 01:05:58 timbl has joined #html-wg 01:06:52 mjs has joined #html-wg 01:18:05 aaronlev has joined #html-wg 02:13:27 sbuluf has joined #html-wg 02:26:50 JanC has joined #html-wg 03:05:53 gavin has joined #html-wg 04:25:44 mjs has joined #html-wg 05:13:21 gavin has joined #html-wg 05:17:30 gavin_ has joined #html-wg 05:42:02 Lionheart has joined #html-wg 06:15:18 Thezilch has joined #html-wg 06:24:47 andreas has joined #html-wg 06:28:47 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg 06:59:21 xover has joined #html-wg 07:02:43 Lionheart has joined #html-wg 07:03:57 shepazu has joined #html-wg 07:20:30 gavin has joined #html-wg 07:30:41 Lionheart has joined #html-wg 08:33:27 tH_ has joined #html-wg 08:45:22 Lachy has joined #html-wg 09:01:20 Julian has joined #html-wg 09:15:36 Lionheart has joined #html-wg 09:16:50 tH_ has joined #html-wg 09:28:09 ROBOd has joined #html-wg 09:28:16 gavin has joined #html-wg 09:43:08 zcorpan has joined #html-wg 09:46:35 Lachy has joined #html-wg 09:48:58 Lachy has joined #html-wg 09:51:59 jgraham has joined #html-wg 09:53:24 Lionheart has joined #html-wg 09:53:44 Lionheart has left #html-wg 09:54:22 Lachy has joined #html-wg 10:13:54 Lionheart has joined #html-wg 10:14:07 Lionheart has left #html-wg 10:15:30 marcospod has joined #html-wg 10:34:01 Sander has joined #html-wg 10:41:05 marcospod has joined #html-wg 11:00:48 marcospod has joined #html-wg 11:14:00 myakura has joined #html-wg 11:29:47 aaronlev has joined #html-wg 11:35:59 gavin has joined #html-wg 11:45:34 timbl has joined #html-wg 13:07:02 smedero has joined #html-wg 13:10:05 marcospod has joined #html-wg 13:25:52 DanC: i can make the html wg meeting today but will miss the first part 13:43:31 gavin has joined #html-wg 13:45:19 ok; when do you think you can join? 14:08:17 Lachy has joined #html-wg 14:08:55 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 Yay! HDP is being published :-) 14:10:16 DanC, any idea when the spec will be published? 14:10:44 I made the specification ready for publication yesterday 14:13:48 shepazu has joined #html-wg 14:23:10 DanC, any updates on the other drafts, which had pretty much the same feedback through the survey? 14:25:46 working on it 14:34:35 torus has joined #html-wg 14:35:03 torus has left #html-wg 14:39:09 Lachy has joined #html-wg 14:50:27 timbl has joined #html-wg 15:08:08 Julian has joined #html-wg 15:13:46 smedero has joined #html-wg 15:26:52 Lachy has joined #html-wg 15:39:44 billmason has joined #html-wg 15:43:13 DanC: can you delay the aria discussion until 15-20 minutes after the hour? 15:44:19 Sander has joined #html-wg 15:45:20 I think so; actually, I forgot to put aria on the agenda. 15:45:37 is Hixie around to eyeball this canvas question? http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/ 15:51:18 gavin has joined #html-wg 15:54:36 can anybody else eyeball it? anne? mjs? 15:59:45 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 I thought I captured a sense of that 16:14:51 "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 oh... I could cite the relevant design principle. 16:15:25 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 has joined #html-wg 16:26:15 Zakim, this will be html 16:26:15 ok, DanC; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 34 minutes 16:26:42 agenda + Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z 16:27:37 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 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 agenda + ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles 16:28:07 agenda + ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s) 16:28:16 agenda + ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element 16:28:23 agenda + # ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5 16:28:31 agenda 5 = ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5 16:28:43 agenda + ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization 16:28:56 agenda + face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review 16:36:04 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 has joined #html-wg 16:40:08 this question is not a judgement on the details of the design; just the requirement 16:40:24 thanks for the quick feedback, in any case 16:40:44 yes, I announced it when it was clear that you understood the question 16:42:39 er... where's MikeSmith? 16:54:38 ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg 16:59:36 HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started 16:59:37 +JulianR 17:00:04 Lachy has joined #html-wg 17:00:52 +Gregory_Rosmaita 17:00:54 -Gregory_Rosmaita 17:00:55 +Gregory_Rosmaita 17:01:18 RRSAgent, pointer? 17:01:18 See http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-irc#T17-01-18 17:01:25 Zakim, take up item 1 17:01:25 agendum 1. "Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z" taken up [from DanC] 17:01:35 +DanC 17:01:35 +??P9 17:02:46 rubys has joined #html-wg 17:03:06 scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita 17:03:11 scribenick: oedipus 17:03:18 Meeting: HTML WG Weekly 17:03:43 Zakim, agenda? 17:03:43 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 17:03:44 1. Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z [from DanC] 17:03:47 2. ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles [from DanC] 17:03:49 3. ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s) [from DanC] 17:03:51 4. ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element [from DanC] 17:03:53 5. ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5 17:03:55 6. ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization [from DanC] 17:03:58 7. face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review [from DanC] 17:04:30 +Sam 17:05:24 Zakim, passcode? 17:05:24 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 +[Microsoft] 17:06:25 Zakim, Microsoft is me 17:06:25 +ChrisWilson; got it 17:06:59 aaronlev has joined #html-wg 17:07:12 anne has joined #html-wg 17:07:27 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 22 Nov telcon cancelled 17:07:45 CW: skip next week's meeting -- next meeting 29 November 2007 at 1700z 17:08:02 Zakim, next item 17:08:02 agendum 2. "ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles" taken up [from DanC] 17:08:13 Zakim, who is here? 17:08:13 On the phone I see JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, hsivonen, DanC, Sam, ChrisWilson 17:08:13 TOPIC: HTML Design Principles 17:08:15 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 ... 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 Zakim, passcode? 17:08:23 ... trackbot-ng, Bob_le_Pointu, RRSAgent 17:08:24 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/18 HTML Design Principles 17:08:39 DanC: migrated issues to issue tracker -- issue 18 17:08:52 +??P13 17:08:55 DanC: completed action to email negative responders 17:09:08 +anne 17:09:19 Zakim, ??P13 is aaronlev 17:09:19 +aaronlev; got it 17:09:24 DanC: Mike(tm)Smith still needs to compile minutes from saturday's HTML f2f session 17:09:33 DanC: mjs Action 20 completed 17:09:45 DanC: explores for a "comments" mailing list 17:10:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/ 17:10:32 DanC: feedback on HDP should be sent to public-html-comments@w3.org 17:10:54 s/feedback/outside feedback/ 17:11:01 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:11:01 On the phone I see JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, hsivonen, DanC, Sam, ChrisWilson, aaronlev, anne 17:11:13 Zakim, next item 17:11:13 agendum 3. "ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s)" taken up [from DanC] 17:11:28 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/19 17:11:30 TOPIC: HTML5 Specification Draft Release 17:11:51 DanC: had conversation with PTaylor about formal objection - action done 17:12:09 DanC: completed action to email negative and non-responders - done 17:12:44 Chairs have said the question does not carry -- WG will keep working on spec 17:12:58 DanC found out non-responders are not ok to publish 17:13:08 Anne: graphics API a problem? 17:13:34 DanC: publication starts the clock on W3C process 17:14:02 Anne?/Henri?: deadline? make something available? 17:14:49 s/Anne\?\/Henri\?/Anne/ 17:14:50 DanC: like those who responded no to releasing draft to explain comments on questions; question may need to be refined 17:15:03 Zakim, next item 17:15:03 agendum 4. "ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element" taken up [from DanC] 17:15:13 TOPIC: ISSUE 15 Immediate Mode Graphics 17:15:45 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 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:15:52 On the phone I see JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, hsivonen, DanC, Sam, ChrisWilson, aaronlev, anne 17:16:22 jgraham has joined #html-wg 17:16:35 Anne: how does modification of activity affect charter? results clear -- if say "yes" then might be changed 17:17:16 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 Anne: membership ok with it, can we carry on as usual? 17:17:40 DanC: presuming all goes well, continue on in parallell 17:18:37 JulianR: can answer in week 17:19:07 Henri: can answer in week; question posed isn't what i want answered -- 3 of top 4 already implementing 17:19:15 ChrisW: questions 3 out of 4 17:19:29 ROBOd has joined #html-wg 17:19:32 DanC: a lot of people have made up their mind, but the question still has to be fielded 17:20:03 q+ to suggest a survey with some options in parallel 17:20:26 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 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 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 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 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 Anne: rather keep it in HTML WG; willing to answer survey 17:22:16 Charters cannot be open-ended. 17:22:28 isn't everything in the spec covered by the patent policy, regardless of whether it's explicitly in the charter? 17:22:58 JulianR: spec already too complex -- need to seriously discuss way to take things out and harmonize with existing specs 17:23:26 agenda + outcome of HTML for authors session 17:23:56 GJR: spec too complex, but can answer any survey 17:24:03 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 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 SamR: can't answer within week; support informal survey; do have charter concerns 17:25:13 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 ChrisW: yes, can answer question 17:25:22 AaronL: not likely to have opinion now 17:25:29 oedipus: I said I CAN answer within a week 17:25:29 trackbot-ng, 17:25:32 trackbot-ng, status 17:25:45 Lachy, without having a charter that scopes the WG's specifications, I can't know the answer to that question. 17:25:47 ACTION: Dan consider informal survey on canvas tactics 17:25:47 Created ACTION-21 - Consider informal survey on canvas tactics [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-11-23]. 17:25:52 SCRIBE'S NOTE: Sam Ruby CAN answer within a week 17:26:09 Zakim, next item 17:26:09 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, DanC 17:26:14 ack danc 17:26:14 DanC, you wanted to suggest a survey with some options in parallel 17:26:17 Zakim, next item 17:26:17 agendum 5. "ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5" taken up 17:26:18 With the charter we have now, our legal staff did not investigate our graphics patents. 17:26:29 TOPIC: ISSUE 14 ARIA Role Integration 17:26:33 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/14 17:26:58 DanC: action on URI extensibility - 17:27:11 some progress: http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/11/a_story_about_namespaces_mime.html 17:27:11 AaronL: hard time figuring out what was being proposed 17:27:22 DanC: specific questions? 17:27:24 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 http://norman.walsh.name/2007/11/12/implNamespaces 17:27:50 AaronL: page to other links, couldn't ascertain what was DanC's contribution 17:27:56 Lachy, the WHATWG spec is not our charter. 17:27:59 q+ to talk about Norm Walsh's blog post 17:28:03 aroben has joined #html-wg 17:28:12 Nor has the WHATWG spec been stable in that time frame. 17:28:14 concrete charters tend to trump draft specs 17:28:18 AaronL: summary, please? 17:28:18 (i.e. not added features) 17:28:35 DanC: let WG members read at leisure; may do more work on page to make clearer 17:28:37 ack hsivonen 17:28:37 hsivonen, you wanted to talk about Norm Walsh's blog post 17:29:06 ArneJ has joined #html-wg 17:29:23 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 DanC: can if want to 17:30:14 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 DanC: couple of steps ahead of me -- good feedback 17:30:39 AaronL: will speak with Henri offline 17:30:57 DanC: cost to changing APIs -- still thinking through 17:31:46 scribe's note: DanC and MichaelC's actions continued 17:31:58 DanC: next telecon not until 2 weeks 17:32:39 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 q+ to ask for a test pointer 17:32:59 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 GJR: PF yesterday discussed what next steps can take to further discussion 17:33:39 good tests? http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/ 17:34:16
17:34:51 http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/role/ 17:34:54 s/something/checkbox/ 17:35:04 AaronL: SVG does not want to change "role" to "aria" 17:35:14 http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/new/checkbox 17:35:24 http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/states/001.htm 17:35:34 http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/ARIATestTests 17:35:36 DanC, it is about
or
17:35:37 s/SVG does/I do 17:36:05 GJR: comparative tests needed? 17:36:07 DanC: yes 17:36:21 hober has joined #html-wg 17:36:26 GJR: will communicate back to PF 17:36:52 AaronL: like tests with role="checkbox" 17:37:11 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 UIUC ARIA Tests: http://test.cita.uiuc.edu/aria/ 17:37:42 s/SVG does not want/I do not want/ 17:37:45 AaronL: clarifies -- not SVG WG, but my impression of what SVG is saying 17:37:58 aaronlev: I don't recommend the UIUC tests 17:38:17 DanC, did you mean test cases or proposed syntax examples? 17:38:55 GJR: need comparative tests of single concept using diff markup proposals 17:38:57 I tend to call them tests; sorry if that's confusing 17:39:20 AaronL: don't think there is controversy save for attribute name "role" and "aria" 17:39:26 DanC: would like comparative tests 17:39:50 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 ACTION GJR: coordinate comparative tests using competing ARIA proposals 17:41:02 ack danc 17:41:02 DanC, you wanted to ask for a test pointer 17:41:10 DanC: AlG promised that test materials used at HTML f2f would be given stable URIs 17:41:10 Zakim, next item 17:41:10 agendum 6. "ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization" taken up [from DanC] 17:41:24 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/16 17:41:30 GJR: will follow up with PF test suite builders/maintainers 17:41:39 http://dev.w3.org/html5/offline-webapps/ Editor's Draft 11 November 2007 17:41:45 Anne action completed with editor's draft of 11 november 17:41:54 ChrisW: not seen yet 17:42:18 DanC: good to have the document ready; like a few more keywords in abstract: caching, SQL 17:42:26 Anne: can add -- pretty clear, i think 17:42:50 DanC: suggests using ToC to populate abstract 17:43:30 SamR: plan to review 17:43:38 DanC: page and a half 17:43:46 SamR: will review this weekend 17:44:34 ACTION: SamRuby review oflline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 17:44:34 Sorry, couldn't find user - SamRuby 17:45:04 trackbot-ng, status 17:45:24 ACTION: Julian review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 17:45:24 Created ACTION-22 - Review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [on Julian Reschke - due 2007-11-23]. 17:45:50 ChrisW: don't have an opinion; from another perspective, offline and SQL not in charter 17:46:12 DanC: publication a natural way to start conversation; Anne, thinking of note or working draft? 17:46:16 Anne: note 17:46:31 DanC: inclined to publish in a few weeks 17:46:36 Anne: reasonable 17:46:49 Zakim, next item 17:46:49 agendum 7. "face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review" taken up [from DanC] 17:46:59 Zakim, take up item 8 17:46:59 agendum 8. "outcome of HTML for authors session" taken up [from DanC] 17:47:11 TOPIC: Outcome of HTML for Authors' Session 17:47:15 DanC: record of session? 17:47:53 http://www.w3.org/2007/11/09-html-wg-minutes.html 17:47:56 mjs has left #html-wg 17:48:14 mjs has joined #html-wg 17:48:22 our charter does in fact contain "Data storage APIs" 17:48:26 DanC: is it an accurate/reasonable catch of what transpired? 17:48:56 ..."if the WebAPI WG fails to deliver." 17:49:05 DanC: 2 actions noted in minutes 17:49:21 1 is a dup 17:49:38 ah... it's ACTION-5 by tracker 17:49:42 the webapi wg has failed to deliver their own deliverables, let alone ours 17:49:52 Henri: not sure if reached some kind of agreement; no consensus on best practices -- 17:50:12 Have they stated that to the W3C staff? 17:50:14 DanC: read not a call to create task force, but a proposal via email from KarlD 17:50:20 ChrisWilson: yes 17:50:30 Can you send a pointer? 17:50:49 DanC: moves to adjourn 17:50:56 scribe's note: NO dissent 17:51:10 Henri: plan on staying around to check records 17:51:19 ChrisW: seconds motion to adjourn 17:51:19 ADJOURN. 17:51:20 not to stay around 17:51:25 -JulianR 17:51:31 -hsivonen 17:51:33 -aaronlev 17:51:40 s/staying around/not staying around 17:51:52 -Sam 17:51:54 SamR: please don't add to issue tracking just yet -- shortly 17:52:23 -ChrisWilson 17:52:29 ChrisWilson, look at any status e-mail in hcg 17:53:03 Yeah, it's pretty clear that the Web API WG has not enough volunteers to edit 17:53:10 oedipus, yes and yes. 17:53:22 thanks ChrisW -- anne, i am joining WebAPI 17:53:28 zakim, please part 17:53:28 leaving. As of this point the attendees were JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, DanC, hsivonen, Sam, ChrisWilson, anne, aaronlev 17:53:28 Zakim has left #html-wg 17:53:29 It's pretty clear we suffer from the same problem. 17:53:39 it seems that Hixie is doing just fine 17:53:42 to me, anyway 17:53:53 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 17:53:59 rrsagent, create minutes 17:53:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:54:05 rrsagent, format minutes 17:54:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:54:18 ChrisWilson, could you perhaps e-mail the list with what you consider to be out of scope? 17:54:40 ? Anything not captured in the charter? 17:54:48 chair: Dan_Connolly 17:54:51 rrsagent, create minutes 17:54:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:54:55 rrsagent, format minutes 17:54:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:55:00 ChrisWilson, basically, yeah 17:55:12 chair+ Dan_Connolly 17:55:16 rrsagent, create minutes 17:55:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:55:19 rrsagent, format minutes 17:55:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:55:34 chair: DanC 17:55:56 any regrets received? 17:56:14 Regrets+ mikko 17:56:18 (I think) 17:56:27 rrsagent, create minutes 17:56:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:56:28 anne has left #html-wg 17:56:31 rrsagent, format minutes 17:56:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:56:45 regrets+ mikko 17:56:47 rrsagent, create minutes 17:56:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:57:02 ChrisWilson, as far as i am aware, everything in the spec if well covered by our charter. 17:57:20 ChrisWilson, after all, the charter was written mostly after teh spec, and with the spec in mind. 17:57:21 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 yes, i can do that 17:57:49 thanks 17:58:04 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 will get it to you and www-archive asap 17:58:21 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 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 DanC, they are in fact intimiately aware that html5 exists and is why this group was created. 17:59:15 gavin has joined #html-wg 17:59:29 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 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 s/nice/foolish 17:59:55 danC, how far down do you want me to snip - to "convene meeting"? 18:00:04 yes, down to convene 18:00:06 ok 18:00:18 and fix the duplicate items in the TOC, if you would 18:00:27 have done 18:00:32 good 18:00:46 ChrisWilson, wow, i didn't realise how desparate you were to try and slow down the group. 18:00:57 Hixie, cut it out 18:01:01 ChrisWilson, you have a unique way of reading the charter 18:01:01 I'll try not to take the comment literally or personally. 18:01:01 oh please 18:01:08 it's blatently obvious what chris is doing 18:01:20 no-one in their right mind would claim session history wasn't under HTML5's purview 18:01:22 no, it's not, and it's rude of you to presume 18:01:54 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 s/should it matter/should it matter to you/ 18:02:32 ChrisWilson, we specifically came here to w3c to allow the spec to be covered by the patent policy for you 18:02:47 ChrisWilson, and now you're claiming you don't think the spec is covered by the charter. 18:03:50 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 One moment. 18:04:11 danC, should i trim the "diagnostics" section? 18:05:05 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 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 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 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 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 Then let 18:06:59 erk 18:07:13 oedipus: (i just meant removing entire sections, i agree that editing work includes making things clearer.) 18:07:41 jmb has joined #html-wg 18:08:59 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 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 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 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 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 ChrisWilson: i'd like to know what we can to publish the current spec soon, with your participation 18:12:54 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 s/spec/charter 18:14:24 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 ChrisWilson: wow, so there is the chance that microsoft would rather leave the group than license patents? 18:15:15 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 No, that's not it. 18:15:34 I'm a little confused as common-man involved in this process. The 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 smedero: i'm pretty confused myself :-) 18:16:00 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 DanC and ChrisW: cleaned minutes attached to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/0053.html 18:16:06 It seems clear that the patent issues were going to be a problem... that's completely reasonable. 18:16:15 cleaned minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/att-0053/2007-11-16-html-wg-minutes-cleaned.html 18:16:21 It just feels like this issue should have been reviewed much sooner in this process. 18:16:34 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 Indeed. My apologies. I have a couple of day jobs too. 18:17:27 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 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 (That's a serious question) 18:17:57 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 ChrisWilson: (there's no "whatwg side" to this, btw) 18:18:09 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 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 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 So, to echo one of my ultimate bosses' most unfortunate statements, that depends on your definition of soon. 18:19:31 I don't think we have anything that we've been holding on to, no. 18:19:34 ChrisWilson: by "soon" i meant this week 18:20:01 well, next week i guess 18:20:04 what with it being friday 18:20:56 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 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 ChrisWilson: aah, interesting. 18:22:12 ChrisWilson: well that makes sense 18:22:27 ChrisWilson: that's the same risk google would take too 18:22:52 ChrisWilson: seems like that's the best course then 18:23:04 it sidesteps the whole charter can of worms 18:23:31 What's the same risk Google would take? 18:24:20 that our patent review wouldn't be complete in 90 days 18:25:37 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 i agree 18:26:03 like i said, the original scope list that i and others proposed for html5 was very detailed 18:26:06 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 and explicitly covered all these things 18:26:30 w3c staff said that the list had too much redundancy and made it smaller, as i recall 18:26:33 not sure why 18:26:52 Hmm. Nor am I; I was not involved in developing the charter at all, actually. 18:27:05 (other than the voting at the AC level, where I advised) 18:27:28 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 and even then they only unofficially asked for my advice 18:27:59 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Nov/author.html#msg56 is where i sent the feedback i had 18:28:53 look in particular at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Nov/0045.html 18:30:12 afk, bbiab 18:30:36 I'm not sure it's possible to predict all applicable patents short of an actual draft anyway 18:30:48 that's why FPWD and LC are what starts the review clock 18:30:50 anne has joined #html-wg 18:32:08 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 I don't understand, btw, why the presumption that WebAPI has failed/is failing. 18:33:25 I don't think they have failed at everything, but they (we) certainly haven't delivered all their original charter deliverables 18:33:46 why not? 18:34:01 no dedicated editors 18:34:41 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 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 it's like writing an implementation in English 18:35:31 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 anne: ? 18:36:40 splitting specs is not easy 18:36:47 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 so far XMLHttpRequest has semi-succeeded 18:37:01 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 (though Microsoft's rep still objects to the remaining HTML dependencies) 18:37:12 and Window kind of failed 18:37:18 I understand breaking up HTML5 into, say, separate "tabular data" and "media elements" specs would be hard. 18:37:20 (due to lack of my time) 18:37:20 i think i'm one of the few in the Web API WG who actually manages to produce stuff 18:38:08 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 has joined #html-wg 18:38:57 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 in theory, yes 18:39:49 in practice, I'm not aware of a qualified and available editor 18:39:59 For what? Client-side storage? 18:40:54 afk 18:42:57 DanC: You said "There aren't any votes yet" 12 minutes ago, but I currently see 16 votes 18:43:59 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 unless someone can point out volunteers this is really a theoretical question imo 18:48:05 DanC: claims it isn't open yet for me 18:49:04 i guess it will be rephrased 18:49:47 maybe I didn't go all the way back to where I left, then 18:52:07 dbaron has joined #html-wg 19:06:36 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 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 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 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 bbiab, going to work 19:13:53 mjs, 20 minutes turned out to take longer... could you pick a time later this afternoon? 19:14:10 16 votes? hmm... 19:14:30 "No answer has been received." -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results 19:15:12 "16 answers have been received." 19:15:15 Cached? 19:15:26 I see "3 answers have been received." must be cache 19:15:35 shift-reload: 16 19:16:12 ah. shift-reload 19:16:36 "Future questions should avoid conflating distinct issues." indeed. this one should too 19:26:39 Julian has joined #html-wg 19:44:02 timbl has left #html-wg 19:45:08 Lachy has joined #html-wg 19:58:56 kingryan has joined #html-wg 20:07:08 gavin has joined #html-wg 20:26:16 is http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/ closed for editing? 20:28:04 yeah 20:34:29 edas has joined #html-wg 20:36:31 jgraham has joined #html-wg 20:40:24 jgraham_ has joined #html-wg 20:49:17 yes, closed for editing... I'm getting back to that now... 20:49:46 jgraham_ has joined #html-wg 20:50:20 DanC: I'll be around this afternoon some 20:53:44 ok... do you have a sense of how many questions yet? 20:55:12 rubys has left #html-wg 21:04:46 how many questions for what? 21:11:06 edas has joined #html-wg 21:32:06 Lachy has joined #html-wg 21:36:40 oops; hi mjs. can you see http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/ ? prolly not 21:39:02 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 mjs? kingryan ? Hixie ? anybody around to take a look? 21:42:49 any opinions? 21:42:53 i.e. is it coherent? 21:43:07 rather: are the 2 surveys coherent? 21:43:26 It's not clear what question 2 in the tactics survey implies re: HTML 5 spec 21:43:40 hober: agreed 21:43:55 concur 21:44:18 DanC: is it implying that canvas be extracted into a separate document? 21:44:29 DanC: for question five can we just use Yes/No? 21:44:51 this one is unclear? "2. Canvas and immediate mode graphics API introductory/tutorial note" 21:44:56 DanC: yeah 21:45:05 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 For instance, I'd like to answer: "keep in the html5 spec, don't recharter. additional documents (tutorials, etc.) are fine if someone wants to work on them." 21:45:22 DanC: also, regarding "charter a new W3C working group for the 2d graphics API" — Opera has experimental 3D support now 21:45:31 spun off? no; the design would stay where it is 21:45:43 (Mozilla has more advanced experiemental 3D support too) 21:45:50 s/e// 21:46:11 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 reload; I changed it to: "How about a note to supplement the detailed specification, similar to ..." 21:46:53 sounds fine to me 21:47:42 what would yes and no mean for question 5? I want information on preferences as well as what people find acceptable 21:47:42 I'd like a "no opinion" option on 2, although I suppose simply not answering conveys that... 21:48:11 right; you can just not click any of the options... 21:48:18 ... though once you click one of them, you're kinda stuck 21:48:58 that sounds like reason enough to add "no opinion" as an option 21:49:39 Q2. on the second one is a bit brief 21:49:52 s/second/tactics/ 21:50:33 Maybe s/How about/Should the Working Group produce/ 21:50:42 3d canvas could probably be done in webapi 21:51:47 yes, "How about" is overly colloquial; fixed 21:55:13 I'm pretty happy with it now 21:56:56 s/XMLHTTPRequest/XMLHttpRequest/ 22:02:23 hasather has joined #html-wg 22:03:03 ok, I announced both of them, subject to change for a day 22:05:11 hmm... the requirement formal question doesn't have separate "no" and "formally object" options. 22:10:32 which is the 'requirement formal question'? 22:13:06 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/ 22:13:30 anybody know where Hixie and/or mjs went? 22:15:16 [11:10] bbiab, going to work 22:15:41 mjs has joined #html-wg 22:18:09 ah. thanks, hober. 22:20:45 mjs has joined #html-wg 22:21:58 mjs has joined #html-wg 22:22:30 DanC: Is it intentional that req-gapi-canvas/results shows 32 non-responders, while tactics- shows 489? 22:23:32 mjs has joined #html-wg 22:23:34 Ah, looks like the difference between a response-represents-organisation and response-is-just-personal survey 22:24:13 yes 22:24:51 though the 32 is low due to a bug; it should could public invited experts, I think 22:27:13 timbl has joined #html-wg 22:35:06 Lachy has joined #html-wg 22:40:19 jgraham_ has joined #html-wg 22:42:35 jgraham_: By "a highly-inoperable mechanism", did you mean "highly-interoperable"? 22:46:56 timbl has joined #html-wg 22:48:45 Philip: Yeah, that would b a typo ;) 22:49:13 gavin has joined #html-wg 23:04:13 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 has joined #html-wg 23:09:03 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 has joined #html-wg 23:12:21 mjs has joined #html-wg 23:36:44 ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg 23:37:18 marcos has joined #html-wg 23:38:33 jgraham__ has joined #html-wg 23:41:18 jgraham has joined #html-wg 23:51:08 shepazu has joined #html-wg