See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: DanC
DanC adds a few things based on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda and input from those present
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-40 -- Michael(tm) Smith to add links on HTML WG home page to mechanism for watching changes to the HTML5 spec -- due 2008-04-03 -- OPEN
GJR: diffs have benefited from reform of script used to generate DIFFs at w3c (and available publically) by using INS and DEL rather than universally using SPAN and indicating status of text SOLELY through the use of style
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-40 Add links on HTML WG home page to mechanism for watching changes to the HTML5 spec closed
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-53 -- Dan Connolly to check for offline api stuff in WebAPI proposed charter -- due 2008-02-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
DC: offline stuff is *not* in currently proposed charters; contact your AC rep to let W3C know whether this is a good thing or not.
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-53 Check for offline api stuff in WebAPI proposed charter closed
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-16 -- offline applications and data synchronization -- OPEN
DC: have talked with peer WGs; don't see a viable alternative to having this in the HTML 5 spec. Shall I put the question to accept this requirement?
DS: I think offline web apps should be done at W3C; no strong opinion on whether it should be in HTML... would accepting this requirement require chaning the charter?
DC: hard to say... I'm not sure it requires changing the charter, though it does suggests a change
DS: can we do it in this wg as an independent spec?
<oedipus> doug, check the 17 november 2007 draft at http://dev.w3.org/html5/offline-webapps/
DC: haven't found editors interested to do it as a separate spec yet
<oedipus> it's an editor's draft
Anne: I hadn't addressed any feedback on offline-webapps because it was unclear what would happen with the draft.
<oedipus> +1 to publication of offline-webapps as Note
MS: yes, a note to draw attention from experts in the area is a good thing...
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that I don't think the question needs to be put to the group; it's in the charter and to note that "Data storage APIs" is specifically mentioned in the
MS: re changing the charter, I don't think that's necessary or advisable.
DS: it's also suitable for non-HTML uses. hmm.
<Julian> I had reported some issues in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0234.html; maybe some of them should be addressed before publication...
<oedipus> HenriS replied: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0236.html
<oedipus> there is a thread
<scribe> ACTION: Anne update public-html on Offline Web Applications extended-abstract, addressing a few bits of outstanding feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-58 - Update public-html on Offline Web Applications extended-abstract, addressing a few bits of outstanding feedback [on Anne van Kesteren - due 2008-04-24].
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-38 -- Syntax of the style attribute -- RAISED
"No related actions"
<oedipus> daniel glazman (on behalf of CSS WG): "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 va
MS: I gather Ian H. plans to cut a whole section around there and do pretty much what Glazman is asking.
<oedipus> mikeTMsmith: are you referring to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#style0
<Julian> i love indirections...
<scribe> ACTION: MikeSmith to track progress on edits related to issue-38 style-attr-syntax in section html5/#style0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - MikeSmith
<scribe> ACTION: Mike to track progress on edits related to issue-38 style-attr-syntax in section html5/#style0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-59 - Track progress on edits related to issue-38 style-attr-syntax in section html5/#style0 [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-04-24].
"Keith Wells (email@example.com) from the Forms WG has agreed to join the
task force, replacing Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer."
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to comment that Keith Wells has joined the forms TF
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say GJR, anne and maciej should discuss this with DanC, ChrisW and mikeTMsmith
<oedipus> yes, the chairs were the ones who choose
"Participants must be nominated by the HTML and Forms working group chairs" -- http://www.w3.org/2007/10/forms-tf/charter-proposal
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest a chair seens as neutral would probably be helpful
<oedipus> big plus 1 to chaals
<chaals> Yes, nominations are an important part fo making this discussion something more than a waste of breath.
discussion suggests a neutral chair might make the difference between an ineffective forms TF and an effective TF; chair welcomes nominations
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-34 -- Lachlan Hunt to prepare "Web Developer's Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on 2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2008-04-17 -- OPEN
DC: any better idea than waiting for Lachlan?
DC: last pub was 22 Jan, so we're due 22 Apr; publish the offline note? or the html5 spec?
CMN: let's publish html5 current draft; esp the multi-page
<oedipus> we REALLY need a multipage draft - the single page draft crashes a lot under every circumstance i've tried
<smedero> Thanks for mentioning the multi-page version, Chaals. I guess it was too much work to deal with the first time around but it would be really nice to have. I keep going back to & referencing the whatwg version because the all-in-one is such a burden.
<oedipus> good point, smedero
<chaals> [?? A plain document should not be very complicated, let alone be a crasher]
<smedero> In my testing the all-in-one doesn't crash Safari 3 & Firefox 3 to be fair... but it regularly crashed Firefox 2 & Safari 2.
<oedipus> [it's crashed IE, FF3, FF2, lynx32, and a UA whose name i can't mention in an old beta version]
<chaals> [?!?!? How hard is it to publish a *spec* that crashes browsers? What the %$&^&^ is there in the document?]
<scribe> ACTION: Mike start WG discussion of next publication; consider WBS poll [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-60 - Start WG discussion of next publication; consider WBS poll [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-04-24].
<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
SteveF: in working on the draft text, new design considerations have come up
<oedipus> reality check from SteveF: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Apr/0269.html
<oedipus> jim jewett latest proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Apr/0286.html
<oedipus> hixie's latest summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Apr/0277.html
<anne> same here Zakim :)
(who's offering to do the data collection? did I miss that?)
<chaals> [nobody offered to collect it]
<Philip> (About multipage spec: The current WHATWG multipage one is a bit yucky - I have an updated script that splits things nicer, but haven't got around to asking Hixie to use it, and it's probably bit-rotted a little by now...)
<chaals> (Philip, the current document draft is horrible. If you would be kind enough to make something that works nicely that would be lovely, but even what WHAT-WG has is better than the garbage that was put up on TR)
<oedipus> jamesGraham on data collection
From: James Graham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:26:48 +0100
<anne> chaals, Philip made the WHATWG multipage spec
<Cathead> Note: "ISSUE-31 missing-alt" document also contains a lot of information that would be useful for the current draft of the spec but is not entirely related to the @alt and magic value issue..
<Cathead> I will also help with any research into this @alt issue (when I find out more about it)
<oedipus> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute is still actively being maintained
<Laura> Collecting of data about alt usage: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0404.html
<oedipus> education, education, education
<oedipus> a lot of suggestions on Image Equivalent Content: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that James message makes it seem like a good deal of work
CMN: There are several issues there. We can seperate out some issues which are to do with specific examples, and then we should be able to boil ISSUE-31 to the essential question
("good deal" meaning months? weeks? anybody care to estimate person-days?)
<chaals> [I estimate 100 person-days and some careful selection to be moderately convincing]
<oedipus> we need a design principle, not data collection
<chaals> [(in part on the basis that if you claim 100 person-days, people will think that somehow they were well-spent :( )]
<smedero> MikeSmith: Yes, human annotation _is_ a lot of work. The distributed annotation tool James Graham described would fall into the "holy grail" category of annotation software for researchers.
CMN: The essential question is
speculation about people's behaviour - will we get a better result
by making content invalid, or will we get it by making content
valid and relying on educating the people with that content?
... it isn't easy to answer such a question. But for the rest of it I believe we can get consensus, if we can convince people to seperate the issues.
<oedipus> DanC, jamesG plans to "write up a better summary" somewhere (in IRC above)
<Cathead> The @alt problem/solution is not entirely binary...
<Cathead> At least many of the perspectives etc have now been well trashed out on the list..
<oedipus> plus one to cathead - it is not a binary problem or solution
Steve_f: I lean toward "alt is mandatory"; James leans toward "alt is optional"; working together seems like a fruitful approach
<oedipus> i do NOT think more research is going to change anything or anyone's opinions - testing criterion itself a bone of contention, so plus one to CMN separation of issues
<oedipus> second third and fourth the motion