IRC log of html-wg on 2007-11-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:55:43 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
16:55:43 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-html-wg-irc
16:55:45 [trackbot-ng]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:55:46 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #html-wg
16:55:48 [trackbot-ng]: Zakim, this will be HTML
16:55:48 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot-ng, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started
16:55:50 [trackbot-ng]: Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference
16:55:52 [trackbot-ng]: Date: 29 November 2007
16:56:04 [DanC]: Meeting: HTML WG Weekly
16:58:35 [DanC]: that interface is pretty intimdating. it should list at least a handful of tools on the cover page
16:58:44 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:58:47 [Zakim]: -??P2
16:58:48 [Zakim]: +??P2
16:58:59 [ChrisWilson]: Zakim, Microsoft is me
16:58:59 [Zakim]: +ChrisWilson; got it
16:59:09 [oedipus]: it used to be a lot more user-friendly -- methinks i detect an unmaintained, unowned resource...
16:59:22 [Lachy]: Zakim, pointer?
16:59:22 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, Lachy.
16:59:29 [Lachy]: Zakim, passcode?
16:59:29 [Zakim]: the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Lachy
16:59:51 [Zakim]: + +49.251.280.aaaa
17:00:02 [DanC]: darn; didn't get around to hacking on magic namespaces. :-/
17:00:07 [ChrisWilson]: Zakim, agenda?
17:00:07 [Zakim]: I see nothing on the agenda
17:00:24 [DanC]: let alone prep for TAG discussion of namespaceDocument-8 that immediately follows this telcon
17:00:29 [Zakim]: +Gregory_Rosmiata
17:00:39 [ChrisWilson]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:00:39 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P2, ChrisWilson, +49.251.280.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmiata
17:00:47 [DanC]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0405.html
17:01:04 [Zakim]: +[LC]
17:01:18 [DanC]: (that's the archival agenda; http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda is probably more useful during the meeting; see /topic)
17:01:19 [ChrisWilson]: Zakim, 49.251.280.aaaa is Julian
17:01:19 [Zakim]: sorry, ChrisWilson, I do not recognize a party named '49.251.280.aaaa'
17:01:26 [Zakim]: + +047236aabb
17:01:32 [DanC]: Zakim, aaaa is Julian
17:01:32 [Zakim]: +Julian; got it
17:01:38 [Zakim]: +DanC
17:01:38 [Lachy]: Zakim, I am aabb
17:01:39 [Zakim]: +Lachy; got it
17:01:56 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, ??P2 is MikeSmith
17:01:56 [Zakim]: +MikeSmith; got it
17:01:58 [Zakim]: -Lachy
17:02:01 [ChrisWilson]: Still looking for a volunteer to scribe?
17:02:09 [DanC]: Zakim, pick a scribe
17:02:09 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Julian
17:02:25 [ChrisWilson]: I'm chairing
17:02:29 [DanC]: Zakim, pick a scribe
17:02:29 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose MikeSmith
17:02:37 [MikeSmith]: heh
17:02:39 [DanC]: Chair: ChrisWilson
17:02:41 [MikeSmith]: figures
17:02:45 [MikeSmith]: Zakim hates me
17:02:55 [MikeSmith]: Scribenick: MikeSmith
17:02:59 [MikeSmith]: Scribe: MikeSmith
17:03:01 [Zakim]: +Lachy
17:03:16 [oedipus]: zakim, Gregory_Rosmiata is Gregory_Rosmaita
17:03:16 [Zakim]: +Gregory_Rosmaita; got it
17:03:16 [MikeSmith]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:16 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith
17:03:23 [ChrisWilson]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:23 [Zakim]: On the phone I see MikeSmith, ChrisWilson, Julian, Gregory_Rosmaita, [LC], DanC, +047236aacc
17:03:26 [oedipus]: zakim, mute me
17:03:26 [Zakim]: sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:03:31 [oedipus]: zakim, mute oedipus
17:03:32 [Zakim]: sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to oedipus
17:03:41 [oedipus]: zakim, mute Gregory_Rosmaita
17:03:41 [Zakim]: Gregory_Rosmaita should now be muted
17:04:23 [MikeSmith]: Topic: Open Action Items
17:05:10 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
17:05:54 [oedipus]: GJR: notes that PF has invited simon pieters to join to expedite the process
17:05:58 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/8
17:06:07 [Lachy_]: Lachy_ has joined #html-wg
17:06:20 [MikeSmith]: "Discuss with PFWG role attribute vs aria attribute", on Michael Cooper
17:06:24 [DanC]: I updated actions/8
17:06:55 [MikeSmith]: keeping Action 8 open pending more talk with Michael Cooper
17:07:06 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/13
17:07:27 [MikeSmith]: "Talk to WebAPI and WAF WGs about their role in offline API stuff and how they work with and contribute to the discussion", on chaals
17:07:46 [oedipus]: last PF WG meeting (MC's action discussed) - member confidential archive: http://www.w3.org/2007/11/26-pf-minutes.html
17:08:08 [MikeSmith]: ChrisW will bring up with HCG
17:08:19 [DanC]: updated actions/13 reassigned to ChrisW, due 13 Dec
17:08:30 [MikeSmith]: s/bring up/bring up Action 13/
17:08:39 [MikeSmith]: ChrisWilson : what prompted this action?
17:08:58 [MikeSmith]: DanC: yeah, Saturday f2f discussion about offline Web apps
17:09:05 [oedipus]: zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita
17:09:05 [Zakim]: Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted
17:09:07 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/23
17:09:18 [MikeSmith]: "coordinate comparative tests using competing ARIA proposals"
17:09:31 [MikeSmith]: oedipus - ran into problem with chair of PF group ...
17:09:43 [MikeSmith]: ... they think it's an "undue burden"
17:09:56 [MikeSmith]: ... there's a push to get it resolved ...
17:10:33 [MikeSmith]: ... tomorrow morning there is a meeting with zcorpan (Simon Pieters) to discuss adoption of his ARIA proposal ...
17:10:38 [DanC]: (meeting tomorrow? a pointer to mail from whoever is running that meeting would be handy)
17:10:55 [DanC]: (er... are we talking about aria-role in substance here or just updating the action status?)
17:11:22 [MikeSmith]: oedipus : OK to [declare] a role without declaring a namespace (they agreed to this compromise)
17:11:28 [DanC]: agenda + ISSUE-14 aria-role
17:11:41 [MikeSmith]: oedipus : have been working with XHTML2 people ...
17:11:46 [zcorpan]: DanC, http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110409c3749ffc266b@%5B192.168.1.102%5D
17:11:50 [MikeSmith]: ... now need to broker with developers ...
17:12:19 [MikeSmith]: oedipus : I can report back about this [after the meeting tomorrow]
17:12:30 [DanC]: (which we agreed?)
17:12:33 [MikeSmith]: ChrisWilson : DanC you noted that you wanted examples
17:12:37 [MikeSmith]: DanC : yep
17:12:38 [DanC]: (I got the pointers I needed.)
17:13:26 [DanC]: (3 meetings GR just mentioned... pointers please)
17:13:30 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, aacc is Lachy
17:13:30 [Zakim]: +Lachy; got it
17:13:54 [oedipus]: friday 30 november 2007 - meeting with simon pieters http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2007OctDec/0257.html
17:14:38 [MikeSmith]: Zakim, aacc is not Lachy
17:14:38 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'aacc is not Lachy', MikeSmith
17:14:42 [DanC]: I marked ACTION-23 witdrawn
17:15:14 [MikeSmith]: ACTION: Gregory to report back after 11-30 meeting on ARIA syntax
17:15:14 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-30 - Report back after 11-30 meeting on ARIA syntax [on Gregory Rosmaita - due 2007-12-06].
17:15:40 [MikeSmith]: DanC : W3C process requires 7-day notice for meetings
17:16:06 [MikeSmith]: oedipus : this is an attempt to work with the vendors who are supportive of ARIA
17:16:22 [zcorpan]: zcorpan has joined #html-wg
17:17:11 [DanC]: q+ to note regrets for next week 6 Dec
17:17:23 [Lachy]: Zakim, mute me
17:17:23 [Zakim]: Lachy should now be muted
17:17:30 [MikeSmith]: [discussion of getting "PF ducks in a row" and "mutual reality check"
17:17:32 [oedipus]: zakim, mute Gregory_Rosmaita
17:17:32 [Zakim]: Gregory_Rosmaita should now be muted
17:17:34 [DanC]: ack danc
17:17:34 [Zakim]: DanC, you wanted to note regrets for next week 6 Dec
17:17:50 [MikeSmith]: DanC notes he won't be here next week; ChrisWilson will chair again
17:17:55 [DanC]: next meeting: 6 Dec, Chris W to chair
17:18:21 [MikeSmith]: [moving on to discussion of Pending Review AIs]
17:18:41 [MikeSmith]: Topic: Issue 7, Video Codecs
17:19:06 [MikeSmith]: s/Issue 7/Issue 4/
17:19:08 [DanC]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0153.html [homework] summary of the video (and audio) codec discussion
17:19:11 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
17:19:21 [MikeSmith]: ChrisWilson : this seems complete[d]
17:19:32 [MikeSmith]: DanC will be at the Video Workshop
17:19:47 [MikeSmith]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0153.html
17:20:05 [MikeSmith]: above is posting from Dave Singer
17:20:38 [DanC]: ACTION: Dan see that Singer's summary makes it to the SJC/Dec W3C video workshop, possibly by confirming Singer's attendance
17:20:38 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-31 - See that Singer's summary makes it to the SJC/Dec W3C video workshop, possibly by confirming Singer's attendance [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-12-06].
17:21:32 [MikeSmith]: Topic: ACTION 5, task force for developer community outreach (on Karl)
17:21:43 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/5
17:21:54 [MikeSmith]: q+ to comment on Karl's proposal
17:22:26 [Lachy]: Zakim, unmute me
17:22:26 [Zakim]: Lachy should no longer be muted
17:22:43 [smedero]: fyi: Dave Singer's email was tacked on to the issue for video-codecs: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7
17:23:03 [DanC]: ack MikeSmith
17:23:03 [Zakim]: MikeSmith, you wanted to comment on Karl's proposal
17:23:41 [DanC]: ok by me, action done... now what next... a note and a wiki topic look OK to me
17:24:06 [DanC]: q+ to note another idea: an edited series of blog articles
17:24:31 [MikeSmith]: Lachy - I'm trying to incorporate Karl's proposal into my draft ...
17:24:46 [MikeSmith]: ... as well as stuff from Roger
17:25:19 [DanC]: ok: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/5 Product HTML 5 authoring guidelines
17:26:37 [DanC]: yeah, not a good name. Mike to fix
17:26:57 [DanC]: (did lachy take an action)
17:26:58 [MikeSmith]: ACTION: MikeSmith to change the product name of "HTML 5 authoring guidelines" in the tracker to sometthing else, eventually
17:26:58 [trackbot-ng]: Sorry, couldn't find user - MikeSmith
17:27:11 [MikeSmith]: ACTION: Michael(tm) to change the product name of "HTML 5 authoring guidelines" in the tracker to sometthing else, eventually
17:27:11 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-32 - Change the product name of \"HTML 5 authoring guidelines\" in the tracker to sometthing else, eventually [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2007-12-06].
17:27:36 [Lachy]: DanC, what action would you like me to take?
17:27:48 [MikeSmith]: Topic: canvas survey questions
17:27:49 [DanC]: good question. maybe none, for now
17:27:56 [Lachy]: ok
17:28:07 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/
17:28:47 [DanC]: trackbot-ng, status
17:29:28 [DanC]: . ACTION: Lachy prepare web developer guide for publication as a Note
17:29:51 [DanC]: yup, regular web pages or blogs are fine by me
17:30:35 [MikeSmith]: Justin: [suggestion about considering blog items]
17:33:26 [MikeSmith]: DanC - I consider the series-of-blog items to be a fairly definitive way of publishing this kind of information.
17:33:54 [DanC]: s/definitive/comfortable/
17:34:35 [jgraham_]: jgraham_ has joined #html-wg
17:34:57 [DanC]: ACTION: Lachy prepare web developer guide for publication as a Note
17:34:57 [trackbot-ng]: Sorry, couldn't find user - Lachy
17:35:12 [DanC]: ACTION: Lachy prepare web developer guide, maybe as a Note, maybe other
17:35:12 [trackbot-ng]: Sorry, couldn't find user - Lachy
17:35:18 [DanC]: (
17:35:37 [DanC]: (Lachy, can I add you to the issue tracking task force? i.e. will you be in touch with the chairs regularly?)
17:36:17 [MikeSmith]: Lachy : we want to be able to update the info after we publish it
17:36:44 [anne]: That's possible with a Note
17:36:46 [ChrisWilson]: (i.e. the content will change as the HTML5 spec changes)
17:36:47 [DanC]: (I presume so...)
17:36:50 [anne]: You just publish another one Note
17:36:55 [ChrisWilson]: sure
17:36:57 [anne]: s/one //
17:37:01 [MikeSmith]: ... blogs are good for describing current state of things but not for things that need to be updated
17:37:01 [DanC]: trackbot-ng, status
17:38:09 [DanC]: ACTION: ChrisWilson to investigate an HTML WG blog, a la the way the I18N WG does it
17:38:09 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-33 - Investigate an HTML WG blog, a la the way the I18N WG does it [on Chris Wilson - due 2007-12-06].
17:38:15 [DanC]: due jan
17:40:00 [DanC]: Zakim, who's making noise?
17:40:11 [Zakim]: DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MikeSmith (9%), ChrisWilson (9%), Lachy (13%), DanC (13%)
17:40:13 [MikeSmith]: trackbot-ng, status
17:40:22 [MikeSmith]: trackbot-ng, reboot
17:40:26 [Lachy]: Zakim, mute me
17:40:26 [Zakim]: Lachy should now be muted
17:40:29 [MikeSmith]: trackbot-ng, reload
17:40:29 [trackbot-ng]: Reloading Tracker config
17:40:29 [trackbot-ng]: Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
17:40:32 [MikeSmith]: trackbot-ng, status
17:40:37 [ChrisWilson]: Any interest in discussing any of the other open issues that have seen recent discussion?
17:40:45 [ChrisWilson]: (or haven't seen recent discussion?)
17:40:48 [MikeSmith]: DanC - yu can assign that issue to Lachlan now
17:40:55 [oedipus]: GJR: would like a continuation on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/24 - i've noted in the tracker the steps taken so far, and am in the process of finalizing a tweaked stylesheet for review
17:41:33 [MikeSmith]: s/Any interest/Topic: Other current issues being discussion on public-html/
17:42:15 [MikeSmith]: [discussion of nonconformance of the style attribute in HTML]
17:42:30 [MikeSmith]: s/HTML]/HTML5]/
17:42:54 [MikeSmith]: ChrisWilson : how are we tracking follow-up and resolution on these issues?
17:43:04 [MikeSmith]: DanC : there is a new testing task force?
17:43:05 [ChrisWilson]: s /tracking/ensuring
17:43:17 [MikeSmith]: q+ to talk about testsuite stuff
17:43:24 [Lachy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/
17:44:26 [Lachy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2007Nov/0001.html
17:44:36 [ChrisWilson]: q?
17:44:42 [MikeSmith]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/26
17:44:45 [DanC]: ack danc
17:44:45 [Zakim]: DanC, you wanted to note another idea: an edited series of blog articles
17:44:52 [MikeSmith]: above is about testsuite stuff
17:44:55 [DanC]: ack MikeSmith
17:44:55 [Zakim]: MikeSmith, you wanted to talk about testsuite stuff
17:44:59 [MikeSmith]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2007Nov/0006.html
17:45:39 [DanC]: ah... test suite product is already there... http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/4
17:47:40 [ChrisWilson]: Tracker watching public-html; the public-issue-tracking is for discussing how we do issue tracking.
17:47:47 [ChrisWilson]: Above was DanC
17:48:05 [smedero]: Lachy: it was primarily for discussion of issues with the Tracker software... and yes... what ChrisWilson said.
17:48:24 [Lachy]: ok, so it's not something I need to subscribe to (I'm on too many lists already :-))
17:48:33 [ChrisWilson]: I believe that is true, yes.
17:48:43 [ChrisWilson]: I don't think I'm subscribed.
17:48:46 [smedero]: We just didn't want to clutter public-html with noise on backoffice issues
17:48:55 [Julian]: No, I didn't.
17:50:03 [MikeSmith]: [discussion about mailing lists and interaction with tracker:
17:50:09 [ChrisWilson]: Any other issues?
17:50:15 [ChrisWilson]: Motion to adjourn?
17:50:25 [Lachy]: bye
17:50:26 [Julian]: c u
17:50:29 [Zakim]: -Julian
17:50:29 [ChrisWilson]: bye
17:50:31 [Zakim]: -Lachy
17:50:34 [Zakim]: -[LC]
17:50:35 [Zakim]: -Gregory_Rosmaita
17:50:41 [MikeSmith]: [no objections to adjourning heard]
17:50:52 [ChrisWilson]: ADJOURN
17:50:58 [MikeSmith]: cheers for meetings that don't go a full hour
17:51:01 [MikeSmith]: Thanks ChrisWilson
17:51:02 [ChrisWilson]: (DanC seconded)
17:51:14 [ChrisWilson]: heh. Apparently I should chair more often. Don't tell Dan.
17:51:18 [Zakim]: -MikeSmith
17:51:42 [DanC]: tracker's agenda-building support is really working well
17:51:49 [MikeSmith]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:51:49 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith
17:51:56 [Zakim]: -ChrisWilson
17:52:11 [MikeSmith]: DanC - yeah, thanks to systeam and to Dom in particular probably for the new features
17:53:37 [DanC]: you are charing more often, ChrisWilson . for which, thanks.
17:55:13 [DanC]: RRSAgent, pointer?
17:55:13 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2007/11/29-html-wg-irc#T17-55-13
18:35:01 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, DanC, in HTML_WG()12:00PM
18:35:02 [Zakim]: HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
18:35:06 [Zakim]: Attendees were ChrisWilson, +49.251.280.aaaa, [LC], +047236aabb, Julian, DanC, Lachy, MikeSmith, Gregory_Rosmaita
18:36:03 [aroben]: aroben has joined #html-wg
18:45:34 [Lachy]: Lachy has joined #html-wg
19:11:26 [Lachy]: Lachy has joined #html-wg
19:24:59 [Lachy]: Lachy has joined #html-wg
19:34:28 [Julian]: Julian has joined #html-wg
19:56:14 [Hixie]: DanC: ping (can i help with ACTION-28?)
19:59:48 [DanC]: DanC has changed the topic to: HTML WG meets Thu 29 Nov at 17:00UTC http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda (logs: hihttp://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ )
19:59:54 [DanC]: hi
20:00:02 [DanC]: (my irc client just did something surprising. oh well.)
20:01:06 [DanC]: I started the internal discussion; one question that came back was: can we do a feature freeze while we're at it? I said: quite possibly, based on http://blog.whatwg.org/html5-snapshot
20:01:48 [DanC]: do you want to hear about some of the possible dates after December 2007? speaking them into existence makes them more likely to happen
20:02:08 [Hixie]: yeah, other than the rendering section, ruby, and the forms stuff, i'm not aware of anything that isn't in the pending feedback that really needs to be in 5.0
20:02:35 [Hixie]: (maybe the namespace / math / svg stuff that has been proposed by sam and others)
20:02:46 [Hixie]: (but i don't know that we have enough experience with that yet to put it in 5.0)
20:03:36 [Hixie]: rendering section = the default rendering of the existing features, it's just that they're defined in a separate section since it's all non-normative stuff
20:03:54 [Hixie]: ruby = i18n semantics, just need to reverse engineer IE's implementation to add it
20:03:55 [DanC]: right; the current draft says "rendering: TBD", IIRC
20:04:19 [Hixie]: and the forms stuff is currently wf2, it's just waiting for the forms task force to come back to us with a conclusion
20:04:47 [DanC]: I like to have all the stuff we're waiting for in the tracker somewhere
20:05:35 [Hixie]: re other dates, i don't mind discussing dates, but what i really want is (as noted in mail 0423) a clear list of requirements and a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD
20:05:36 [DanC]: re namespace/math/svg, I'm fairly optimistic, though I have been saying "maybe not html 5; maybe in the next version" but I also say "i.e. in 2 or 3 years"
20:06:32 [Hixie]: i don't mind things getting added to the tracker :-)
20:06:41 [Hixie]: ruby is hte only one of the three that doesn't have a placeholder in the spec, fwiw
20:08:01 [DanC]: I don't know if I can come up with a clear list of requirements on behalf of the whole WG, but the biggest issue seems to be the charter and canvas. IBM and Microsoft argue that the charter should be changed before canvas is published in an HTML WG WD.
20:08:26 [Hixie]: and a much larger number of people argue otherwise... so...
20:08:27 [DanC]: I'm encouraged by your support for the idea of splitting out the 2d graphics API.
20:08:51 [DanC]: larger than the collection of IBM and Microsoft employees and customers? I haven't seen that.
20:08:52 [Lachy]: DanC, I updated the status of the HTML guide per your previous request
20:08:57 [DanC]: thanks, Lachy
20:09:11 [Hixie]: DanC: wait, we're basing this on customer and employee counts?
20:09:22 [Hixie]: (i think google probably has at least the same number of customers as microsoft)
20:09:28 [DanC]: yes, I'm basing it on the position of IBM and Microsoft in the overall marketplace.
20:09:43 [Lachy]: DanC, where can I find a template for the status section of a Last Call spec? I need it for selectors api
20:09:43 [DanC]: and yes, Google is a force to be reckoned with
20:10:28 [DanC]: Lachy, something like that should be near http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/ .
20:10:29 [Hixie]: well, this is a new technique for consensus forming, i wasn't aware of it before
20:10:36 [Hixie]: but ok
20:10:46 [Lachy]: thanks
20:11:09 [DanC]: yes, first came ISO with 1-country-one-vote, then came IETF with one-mailbox-one-vote; W3C is something in between.
20:11:28 [Hixie]: DanC: i think i would have to insist that we have a clear list of requirements and a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD, especially if we're going to be using new and undocumented ways of determining that 2 > 43
20:11:45 [DanC]: W3C process tries to acknowledge the role of our members in the overall deployment landscape
20:11:59 [Hixie]: DanC: otherwise it really does feel like, to use mjs' phrase, we are going into an "unbounded slip"
20:12:19 [Hixie]: i certainly haven't seen that be done in the past, or be mentioned in the charter
20:12:21 [DanC]: new and undocumented? this is all laid out in the W3C process document. there's nothing new about it.
20:12:43 [Hixie]: (i feel my company's management would find such a policy anticompetitive, even given our position in the market)
20:12:53 [Hixie]: where?
20:13:03 [Hixie]: s/charter/process document/
20:13:39 [Hixie]: i've read the process document many times and definitely don't remember anything about market positioning
20:13:42 [Hixie]: is this new?
20:13:44 [DanC]: things like "In the case (described in paragraph 5g of the Membership Agreement), where a Member organization is itself a consortium, user society, or otherwise has members or sponsors, the organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee representative exercise all the rights and privileges of W3C membership." -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#Organization
20:14:21 [Hixie]: right, that's actually saying that only the direct employees of member companies are w3c members
20:14:23 [DanC]: and http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#MemberRelated 2.1.2 Related Members
20:14:59 [Hixie]: again, that's actually limiting the effect of large companies or groups to avoid exactly what you are proposing
20:15:02 [DanC]: (more clearly: only direct employees of w3c member organizations are granted access to member-confidential materials.)
20:15:11 [Hixie]: right
20:15:58 [Hixie]: i nfact section 3.4 is explicit:
20:15:58 [gsnedders]: "The Team must ensure that Member participation agreements remain Team-only and that no Member receives preferential treatment within W3C."
20:16:00 [Hixie]: "each organization represented in the group MUST have at most one vote"
20:16:23 [Hixie]: and "For the purposes of voting:
20:16:24 [Hixie]: * A Member or group of related Members is considered a single organization."
20:16:25 [gsnedders]: surely that implies that preferring a member like MS over a member with a smaller marketshare like Apple breaks the process?
20:16:34 [Hixie]: certainly seems that way to me
20:16:35 [DanC]: yes, but the number of votes is not terribly relevant
20:16:36 [kingryan]: kingryan has joined #html-wg
20:17:01 [DanC]: one vote from a market leader constitutes a strong argument
20:17:12 [gsnedders]: DanC: but that's preferring that member
20:17:17 [gsnedders]: DanC: which goes against what I quoted
20:17:31 [DanC]: it's not preferring; it's acknowledging the role of that member in the deployment of web technology
20:17:38 [Hixie]: DanC: ok, but in that case i think i would have to insist that we have a clear list of requirements and a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD, since otherwise i have no way of determining whether progress is being made, which makes it hard for me to defend my continued participation in the w3c with my management
20:17:59 [DanC]: insisting on it won't magically create it.
20:18:11 [Hixie]: indeed, i was hoping you might create it
20:18:17 [Hixie]: since only you are able to do so
20:18:40 [gsnedders]: DanC: under en-gb-oed "acknowledging the role of that member in the deployment of web technology" is most certainly preferring
20:18:44 [Hixie]: i am willing to help as much as humanly possible
20:18:56 [DanC]: the only listsI can think of set an unrealisitically high bar; e.g. yes votes from 80% of the participating W3C member orgs and no formal objections.
20:19:21 [DanC]: it's not unfairly preferring
20:19:31 [Hixie]: if the requirements are unrealistically high, that would be something i would like to know, rather than just have us fail to meet the goals without knowing what the goals are
20:19:40 [DanC]: the goal is consensus
20:19:51 [gsnedders]: DanC: the quote didn't say whether the preference was fair or unfair, just that there was a preference.
20:20:04 [Hixie]: danc: as in, everyone in the working group agreeing or abstaining or not voting? or something else?
20:20:35 [DanC]: yes, the W3C definition of consensus is "everyone in the working group agreeing or abstaining or not voting", plus lots of actual yes votes
20:21:10 [DanC]: the goal is alwas consensus; sometimes we settle for less
20:21:13 [DanC]: always
20:21:13 [Hixie]: so all it would take to perpetually block the working group's work is for me to juts always vote no? that's certainly an interesting situation given the size of this working group. is that really what you are saying?
20:21:25 [DanC]: no; noone has veto power
20:21:42 [Hixie]: so when do we settle for less? is there some defined way you determine when we should proceed without consensus?
20:21:54 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #html-wg
20:22:03 [Hixie]: truly, i just want to know what we need to do to publish the current spec as a FPWD, and when we can do so
20:22:03 [DanC]: we settle for less at the chair's discretion, per our charter and W3C process.
20:22:58 [Hixie]: ok, but the chair's discretion so far has seemed arbitrary and biased by a minority. as noted above, if this is to continue, i really think we need a clear list of requirements and a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD.
20:23:01 [DanC]: I think Dec 2007 is a good goal, though I give it less than even odds. 6 months is too long. 3 months is what I think we can aim for and hit or beat. Q1 2008.
20:23:15 [Hixie]: can we have that as a binding timetable in writing?
20:23:24 [DanC]: maybe
20:23:34 [DanC]: I haven't finished my internal discussion
20:24:49 [Hixie]: any idea when that might happen? i don't mean to push, but it's been 8 months so far, so if 6 months is too long as you say, we've already delayed too long.
20:24:49 [mjs]: did someone invoke my name in vain?
20:25:01 [DanC]: my internal discussion should finish in 1 to 3 weeks
20:25:28 [DanC]: I think you do mean to push, and I appreciate it. :)
20:25:42 [gsnedders]: mjs: Hixie used your phrase, "unbounded slip"
20:26:08 [Hixie]: DanC: ok, i don't mean to seem to be pushing unreasonably :-)
20:26:09 [gsnedders]: mjs: (and references it as being yours)
20:26:15 [gsnedders]: s/s/d/
20:26:46 [Hixie]: DanC: so in 1 to 3 weeks we can get a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD?
20:27:02 [DanC]: yes, I expect so.
20:27:18 [Hixie]: ok
20:27:38 [Hixie]: what should i do if you won't give a a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD in 3 weeks?
20:27:39 [mjs]: DanC: if you're weighting members by financial considerations, could we use market capitalization?
20:27:53 [mjs]: DanC: then I think google + apple + nokia outweighs microsoft + ibm
20:28:57 [DanC]: recall the goup from the charter about x% of web pages as measured by N auditing orgs? I'm inclined to capture it along those lines in a requirements issue, mjs. something about # of web pages produced/consumed/affected/etc.
20:29:49 [Hixie]: well by that measure google probably easily wins, since we publish every page in the google cache...
20:29:51 [DanC]: i.e. something like "if the people who deploy 97% of the web agree, with regret that we couldn't make the rest of you happy, we're moving on"
20:30:18 [Hixie]: (heck, google has its own line on the netcraft survey, it has so many sites)
20:30:20 [DanC]: we'd factor in popularity somehow; i.e. page views
20:30:23 [mjs]: I doubt we could ever get the people who deploy 90% of the web in the working group
20:30:29 [mjs]: long tail and all
20:30:36 [DanC]: ok, salt the numbers to taste
20:31:08 [Hixie]: DanC: if i can possibly be so impolite as to ask again... what should i do if you won't give a a detailed and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD in 3 weeks?
20:32:13 [DanC]: if I don't deliver on ACTION-28 in 1 to 3 weeks, Hixie , you should expect a darned good explanation. And If I don't have one, you should feel justified in taking extreme measures.
20:32:48 [Hixie]: ACTION-28 doesn't require you to come up with a binding timetable
20:33:11 [DanC]: if I don't deliver on ACTION-28 in 1 to 3 weeks by coming up with a binding timetable, Hixie , you should expect a darned good explanation. And If I don't have one, you should feel justified in taking extreme measures.
20:33:20 [Hixie]: ok
20:33:21 [Hixie]: thank you
20:33:26 [DanC]: likewise.
20:33:46 [mjs]: I would also like to see a timetable or a specific checklist or both
20:34:18 [mjs]: my experience in software is that slipping by a predefined amount is tolerable, but day for day slip is doom for the project and torture for everyone working on it
20:34:34 [DanC]: indeed; the someday pile is no place to be
20:34:45 [DanC]: did you see discussion of Dec/6 months/3 months/Q1 2008?
20:35:24 [DanC]: replay: I think Dec 2007 is a good goal, though I give it less than even odds. 6 months is too long. 3 months is what I think we can aim for and hit or beat. Q1 2008.
20:36:45 [mjs]: if we pick any of those dates and stick with it I would probably be satisfied
20:37:14 [Hixie]: i could live with one of those dates as a date to publish the current spec as FPWD, if it is indeed binding
20:37:16 [Lachy]: can someone record this decision in the tracker or on the mailing list or something
20:39:02 [DanC]: you can, if you mail public-html with "ACTION-28" in the subject or body
20:39:19 [DanC]: i.e. anyone can, yes
20:39:35 [Lachy]: ok, will do.
20:39:51 [Lachy]: I'll just copy the relevant parts of the IRC log
20:42:08 [Julian]: for the record: I didn't see any "decision" here. Dan has promised he'll try to come up with a timetable, that's it. Or did I miss something?
20:42:30 [Lachy]: Julian, that's what I was referring to
20:42:34 [DanC]: dan has taken ACTION-28 and expects to complete it by coming up with a binding timetable
20:42:47 [Julian]: ack
20:43:47 [DanC]: by the way, mjs, I was royally pissed off when I read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0414.html the 1st time. I'm sure glad I deleted my first few draft responses :)
20:44:34 [DanC]: and I'm sure glad I had a dentist appointment so I couldn't sit and stew, and then I went to the gym and stuff.
20:45:11 [Hixie]: you probably felt much like we did after reading the e-mail to which that was a reply :-)
20:45:26 [DanC]: yes, I did provoke it to some extent...
20:45:37 [DanC]: ... though really, I feel like I'm caught in the middle
20:45:52 [mjs]: DanC: I was royally pissed while writing it, perhaps I didn't do a good enough job of toning it down
20:46:27 [DanC]: I'm trying to make both/all sides happy, and I'm getting zinged from all sides. But today I'm back to feeling pretty happy that we're all doing our level best.
20:47:58 [DanC]: which reminds me of some suggestions in mail from mjs that I'd like to think about more carefully...
20:51:42 [DanC]: mjs, re other organizations, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0427.html has a/the list
20:56:41 [Dashiva]: Just because it might be enough doesn't mean it's going to be enough in practice, though...
20:57:58 [Dashiva]: Strange coincidence :)
20:58:08 [DanC]: I have a lot of control over how long it takes. the formal process is a 4 week review by the W3C membership, preceeded by an unbounded amount of staff discussion (that I'm confident I can keep to 3 weeks) followed by time for The Director to consider the membership reviews (which is traditionally 2 weeks and which I think I can keep to 3)
21:35:36 [gavin_]: gavin_ has joined #html-wg
21:37:00 [aaronlev]: aaronlev has joined #html-wg
21:54:12 [heycam]: heycam has joined #html-wg
22:16:50 [mjs]: mjs has joined #html-wg
22:30:34 [mjs]: mjs has joined #html-wg
22:51:41 [anne]: told the forms tf that the charter review period is over
22:53:51 [Dashiva]: Does that mean you'll start work now?
22:54:10 [anne]: we're accepting input now
22:54:20 [anne]: I don't personally have a proposal
23:16:56 [inimino]: inimino has joined #html-wg
23:34:56 [DougJ]: DougJ has joined #html-wg
23:44:44 [gavin_]: gavin_ has joined #html-wg
23:51:38 [anne]: could people from the html5lib team please read the first "I" in the e-mail I just sent as "We"
23:51:45 [anne]: (plus other appropriate fixup :) )
23:54:21 [anne]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Nov/0048.html seems relevant to us
23:55:39 [anne]: anne has joined #html-wg
23:57:40 [hober]: hober has joined #html-wg