See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<scribe> scribenick: 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
<DanC> 22 Nov telcon cancelled
CW: skip next week's meeting -- next meeting 29 November 2007 at 1700z
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/18 HTML Design Principles
DanC: migrated issues to issue
tracker -- issue 18
... completed action to email negative responders
... Mike(tm)Smith still needs to compile minutes from saturday's HTML f2f session
... mjs Action 20 completed
... explores for a "comments" mailing list
DanC: outside feedback on HDP should be sent to email@example.com
DanC: had conversation with
PTaylor about formal objection - action done
... completed action to email negative and non-responders - done
Chairs have said the question does not carry -- WG will keep working on spec
<DanC> DanC found out non-responders are not ok to publish
Anne: graphics API a problem?
DanC: publication starts the clock on W3C process
Anne?/Henri?: deadline? make something available?
DanC: like those who responded no to releasing draft to explain comments on questions; question may need to be refined
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/
Anne: how does modification of activity affect charter? results clear -- if say "yes" then might be changed
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
Anne: membership ok with it, can we carry on as usual?
DanC: presuming all goes well, continue on in parallell
JulianR: can answer in week
Henri: can answer in week; question posed isn't what i want answered -- 3 of top 4 already implementing
ChrisW: questions 3 out of 4
DanC: a lot of people have made up their mind, but the question still has to be fielded
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
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
<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.
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
<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.
Anne: rather keep it in HTML WG; willing to answer survey
<ChrisWilson> Charters cannot be open-ended.
<Lachy> isn't everything in the spec covered by the patent policy, regardless of whether it's explicitly in the charter?
JulianR: spec already too complex -- need to seriously discuss way to take things out and harmonize with existing specs
GJR: spec too complex, but can answer any survey
<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.
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?
SamR: can't answer within week; support informal survey; do have charter concerns
<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?
ChrisW: yes, can answer question
AaronL: not likely to have opinion now
<rubys> oedipus: I said I CAN answer within a week
<DanC> trackbot-ng, status
<ChrisWilson> Lachy, without having a charter that scopes the WG's specifications, I can't know the answer to that question.
<DanC> ACTION: Dan consider informal survey on canvas tactics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-21 - Consider informal survey on canvas tactics [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-11-23].
SCRIBE'S NOTE: Sam Ruby CAN answer within a week
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest a survey with some options in parallel
<ChrisWilson> With the charter we have now, our legal staff did not investigate our graphics patents.
DanC: action on URI extensibility -
<DanC> some progress: http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/11/a_story_about_namespaces_mime.html
AaronL: hard time figuring out what was being proposed
DanC: specific questions?
<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?
AaronL: page to other links, couldn't ascertain what was DanC's contribution
<ChrisWilson> Lachy, the WHATWG spec is not our charter.
<ChrisWilson> Nor has the WHATWG spec been stable in that time frame.
<rubys> concrete charters tend to trump draft specs
AaronL: summary, please?
<ChrisWilson> (i.e. not added features)
DanC: let WG members read at leisure; may do more work on page to make clearer
<Zakim> hsivonen, you wanted to talk about Norm Walsh's blog post
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
DanC: can if want to
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 -- could define a URI mapping for apps that need it for GRDDL to RDF mapping without affecting the DOM
DanC: couple of steps ahead of me -- good feedback
AaronL: will speak with Henri offline
DanC: cost to changing APIs -- still thinking through
scribe's note: DanC and MichaelC's actions continued
DanC: next telecon not until 2 weeks
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
GJR: PF yesterday discussed what next steps can take to further discussion
<DanC> good tests? http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/
<DanC> <div aria="checkbox">
AaronL: I do not want to change "role" to "aria"
<hsivonen> DanC, it is about <div role='checkbox'> or <div aria='checkbox'>
GJR: comparative tests needed?
GJR: will communicate back to PF
AaronL: like tests with role="checkbox"
UIUC ARIA Tests: http://test.cita.uiuc.edu/aria/
<DanC> s/SVG does not want/I do not want/
AaronL: clarifies -- not SVG WG, but my impression of what SVG is saying
<DanC> aaronlev: I don't recommend the UIUC tests
<hsivonen> DanC, did you mean test cases or proposed syntax examples?
GJR: need comparative tests of single concept using diff markup proposals
<DanC> I tend to call them tests; sorry if that's confusing
AaronL: don't think there is controversy save for attribute name "role" and "aria"
DanC: would like comparative tests
<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.
<scribe> ACTION: GJR to coordinate comparative tests using competing ARIA proposals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask for a test pointer
DanC: AlG promised that test materials used at HTML f2f would be given stable URIs
GJR: will follow up with PF test suite builders/maintainers
<DanC> http://dev.w3.org/html5/offline-webapps/ Editor's Draft 11 November 2007
Anne action completed with editor's draft of 11 november
ChrisW: not seen yet
DanC: good to have the document ready; like a few more keywords in abstract: caching, SQL
Anne: can add -- pretty clear, i think
DanC: suggests using ToC to populate abstract
SamR: plan to review
DanC: page and a half
SamR: will review this weekend
<scribe> ACTION: SamRuby review oflline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - SamRuby
<DanC> trackbot-ng, status
<scribe> ACTION: Julian review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-22 - Review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [on Julian Reschke - due 2007-11-23].
ChrisW: don't have an opinion; from another perspective, offline and SQL not in charter
DanC: publication a natural way to start conversation; Anne, thinking of note or working draft?
DanC: inclined to publish in a few weeks
DanC: record of session?
<mjs> our charter does in fact contain "Data storage APIs"
DanC: is it an accurate/reasonable catch of what transpired?
<ChrisWilson> ..."if the WebAPI WG fails to deliver."
DanC: 2 actions noted in minutes
<DanC> 1 is a dup
<DanC> ah... it's ACTION-5 by tracker
<Hixie> the webapi wg has failed to deliver their own deliverables, let alone ours
Henri: not sure if reached some kind of agreement; no consensus on best practices --
<ChrisWilson> Have they stated that to the W3C staff?
DanC: read not a call to create task force, but a proposal via email from KarlD
<Hixie> ChrisWilson: yes
<ChrisWilson> Can you send a pointer?
DanC: moves to adjourn
scribe's note: NO dissent
Henri: plan on not staying around to check records
ChrisW: seconds motion to adjourn
<hsivonen> not to stay around
SamR: please don't add to issue tracking just yet -- shortly
<Hixie> ChrisWilson, look at any status e-mail in hcg
<anne> Yeah, it's pretty clear that the Web API WG has not enough volunteers to edit
<ChrisWilson> oedipus, yes and yes.
thanks ChrisW -- anne, i am joining WebAPI
<ChrisWilson> It's pretty clear we suffer from the same problem.
<anne> it seems that Hixie is doing just fine
<anne> to me, anyway
<anne> ChrisWilson, could you perhaps e-mail the list with what you consider to be out of scope?
<ChrisWilson> ? Anything not captured in the charter?
<anne> ChrisWilson, basically, yeah