<smedero> There was a thread ongoing about ARIA this week from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0189.html
<smedero> but it was mostly procedure afaik
anne: I think that issue-14 was
mostly related to the document-level ARIA roles
... hsivonen has posted about this at his site
<smedero> yes, that's true. it was issue-14 was quite specific....
<smedero> ahh, thanks anne.
anne: I've not been involved in that discussion
Laura: me neither
[we record that lacking anybody more familiar with the issue, not much point in the 3 of us to try to have a discussion about it]
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-54 -- Gregory Rosmaita to work with SteveF draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements -- due 2008-04-10 -- OPEN
Laura: Steve Faulkner e-mailed PF/Al Gilman, we (HTML WG) are waiting to hear back from them.
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-54 -- Gregory Rosmaita to work with SteveF draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements -- due 2008-04-17 -- OPEN
MikeSmith sets the due date to one week from now
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-38 -- Syntax of the style attribute -- RAISED
<smedero> (Housekeeping: I updated ISSUE-14 with a note about Henri's latest ARIA/HTML5 article as his piece discusses roles in quite a bit of detail.)
anne: I think we will change
style to allow authors to use it on every element, not just on
... the other thing, the way that style is defined, the definition is probably already OK
... or maybe not entirely...
... the sentence quoted in that issues does not affect UA implementation behavior
... it only relates to authoring conformance
quoting Daniel Glazman's original request:
The CSS WG would like the definition of the style attribute in
HTML 5 to go back to the phrasing of HTML 4, entirely leaving the
definition of that attribute's value to the stylesheet's language
and error handling. We don't think HTML 5 should define the contents
of the style attribute in deeper details than what HTML 4 does,
and in particular should not specify how individual stylistic data
are separated inside the value of the style attribute.
<anne> "The style attribute, if specified, must contain only a list of zero or more semicolon-separated (;) CSS declarations."
above is what HTML5 currently says
<anne> author ^^
<anne> The declarations specified must be parsed and treated as the body of a declaration block whose selector matches just that font element. For the purposes of the CSS cascade, the attribute must be considered to be a 'style' attribute at the author level.
<smedero> anne's comments are related to ISSUE-3
<anne> UA ^^
<anne> no, ISSUE-38 actually
<smedero> well... just getting back to "anne: I think we will change style to allow authors to use it on every element, not just on font"
<anne> ah, sorry :)
<smedero> unless MikeSmith quoted you wrong... that gets to the heart of ISSUE-3
anne: the criteria of only
allowing zero or more semicolon-separated CSS declarations
relates only to authoring conformance
... issue 3 is that style is only allowed on font, and people want it to global
... I think that based on the feedback that has come in so far, that part of the HTML5 draft will be revised
... the spec actually already says something along those lines
... that the section will likely be dropped
getting back to issue-3 and issue-38, a couple of relevant quotes from the HTML5 draft:
This entire section will probably be dropped. The intent of this section was to allow a way for WYSIWYG editors, which don't have enough information to use the "real" "semantic" elements, to still make HTML pages without abusing those semantic elements (since abusing elements is even worse than not using them in the first place). We have still got to find a solution to this, while not letting it be ok for hand-coding authors to abuse the style="" attribute.
We probably need to move this attribute to more elements, maybe even all of them, though if we do that we really should find a way to strongly discourage its use (and the use of its DOM attribute) for non-WYSIWYG authors.
MikeSmith: Hixie, do you have anything to add at this point to discussion around issue-38?
<Hixie> which one is -38? the style="" issue w.r.t. to how its contents will be defined?
(which is Daniel Glazman's request about HTML5 spec for style)
<Hixie> yeah i've every intention of just doing what he suggested and moving on
<smedero> sounds like both ISSUE-3 and ISSUE-38 will be resolved shortly then. yay.
yep, yay in general for resolving any open issues
<Hixie> "shortly", i dunno
<Hixie> depends when i get to style=""
<smedero> heh, okay
<smedero> that's fair
<Hixie> might not be until 2009 :-)
well, resolved at least that we have on record what the plan is
<smedero> that's what I meant.
so sufficient for closing it out, I think
anne notes that above URL is Hixie's graph of number of HTML5 issues over time
<Hixie> number of outstanding e-mails over time, not issues
<Hixie> (though they're correlated)
MikeSmith: OK, thanks
currently more that 3000 outstanding e-mails, it seems
<Philip> 3122, says http://www.whatwg.org/issues/data.csv
thassa big number
<Philip> It's only a few per day since the start
<Hixie> i'm replying at roughly a rate of 10 a day
<Hixie> so we're on track to hit my predicted timetable
<Hixie> (though not to hit the w3c's crazy timetable)
MikeSmith: your timetable has us going to CR in 2009-10, right?
<Hixie> haha no
MikeSmith: yeah, sorry, I meant first LC in 2009-10
[end of minutes]