IRC log of html-wg on 2008-06-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:59:24 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #html-wg

07:59:24 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-html-wg-irc

08:04:37 [Lachy]

Lachy has joined #html-wg

08:17:14 [Lachy]

Lachy has joined #html-wg

08:20:29 [tlr]

tlr has joined #html-wg

08:23:10 [beowulf]

beowulf has joined #html-wg

08:27:39 [ROBOd]

ROBOd has joined #html-wg

08:51:49 [mjs]

I don't even understand what the issue is

08:51:53 [mjs]

I am now very confused

08:52:41 [Hixie]

i'm very confused too

08:52:52 [Hixie]

i don't know who the chairs are, and i don't know what the issue tracking mechanism is

08:53:06 [Hixie]

i really have no idea how to interact with the htmlwg any more

08:54:10 [anne]

maybe they have some internal meeting on it first

08:58:21 [Lachy]

Lachy has joined #html-wg

09:09:05 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #html-wg

09:17:47 [mjs]

mjs has joined #html-wg

09:22:19 [mjs]

mjs has joined #html-wg

09:51:33 [Hixie]

MikeSmith: what's the link to this famed bugzilla?

09:55:34 [Lachy]

Lachy has joined #html-wg

09:57:08 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/

09:57:18 [MikeSmith]

Hixie: ↑

09:57:28 [Hixie]

wow, an upwards arrow

09:57:40 [Hixie]

i really shouldn't be this amazed to see unicode work

09:58:21 [MikeSmith]

we been having fun with special chars in Japan for years, even without Unicode

09:58:24 [MikeSmith]

└|∵|┐♪┌|∵|┘

09:58:30 [MikeSmith]

(^з^)-☆Chu!!

09:58:49 [MikeSmith]

etc.

09:59:17 [anne]

hmm, MS feedback has various legal notices

09:59:19 [anne]

:/

09:59:38 [MikeSmith]

Hixie: i don't know how to easily get a list of just the issues for the "HTML WG" "product"

10:00:16 [Hixie]

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=HTML+WG&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfiel

10:00:37 [hsivonen]

MikeSmith: who gets to mark a bug RESOLVED?

10:00:56 [Hixie]

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

10:01:48 [MikeSmith]

hsivonen: that we still need to decide yet

10:02:31 [hsivonen]

MikeSmith: I suggest letting Hixie and hyatt make the transitions from NEW to ASSIGNED and from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED

10:03:01 [MikeSmith]

that sounds workable

10:03:04 [hsivonen]

perhaps going from RESOLVED to CLOSED could include more oversight

10:03:13 [MikeSmith]

yeah, agreed

10:03:40 [anne]

that paper is so confusing

10:05:04 [Philip]

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL+product:HTML

10:05:55 [MikeSmith]

this is the one issue I have in there so far:

10:05:57 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5729

10:06:17 [MikeSmith]

anne: you went ahead and signed the agreement for the whitepaper?

10:06:56 [MikeSmith]

Philip: thanks, that's indeed plenty easy

10:07:23 [anne]

I just hit some buttons

10:07:27 [MikeSmith]

anyway, if we can get this going, I can set up redirects/rewrites with shorter URLs

10:07:49 [ROBOd2]

ROBOd2 has joined #html-wg

10:10:37 [anne]

I can't really find much new information in that document apart from a lot of quotes from all over the place confusing the issue

10:11:10 [Hixie]

shocking

10:11:49 [Hixie]

you have to admire the skill with which they waste our time

10:11:59 [anne]

keeps talking about DNS Rebinding and TOC/TOU

10:12:01 [Hixie]

i really wouldn't have even thought of posting feedback in this quite innovative manner

10:12:19 [anne]

true

10:13:48 [MikeSmith]

I suggest each person respond by putting a PDF on his/her website that requires agreeing to a license

10:14:15 [mjs]

anne: I assumed the legal notices were BS and ignored them

10:14:24 [anne]

I was thinking of using my own proprietary format

10:14:32 [mjs]

the whitepaper is lengthy but did not give me much new info

10:14:38 [mjs]

I guess I will have to respond though

10:14:52 [anne]

well, you owe me a review first :p

10:15:05 [mjs]

a review of what?

10:15:09 [anne]

access control :)

10:15:30 [mjs]

I suppose I will have to do that to respond to Microsoft's stuff in a fully informed way

10:15:41 [anne]

your standards todo list has at least two things: access control/xhr2 and forms tf

10:16:00 [anne]

:)

10:16:26 [mjs]

the DNS Rebinding thing is nonsense because if your server is vulnerable to a rebinding attack, then there is no need to use cross-site XHR to attack it

10:16:27 [anne]

yeah, we can't really ignore them

10:17:13 [anne]

TOC/TOU is somewhat BS as the preflight request is an indication of the server that it can deal with cross-site requests

10:17:29 [anne]

the server says with that that it does check the Origin header and such

10:17:33 [mjs]

and if it is safe against DNS rebinding (checks Host header before doing any POST side effects for instance) then bypassing the method check won't help you

10:17:51 [Hixie]

there's a wide gap between ignoring someone and giving them a detailed response

10:17:58 [Hixie]

for example, my own response was not to ignore them

10:18:07 [Hixie]

but didn't involve even looking at the document

10:19:29 [mjs]

it just seems like a good time to smack the FUD down thoroughly, since this is presumably their best shot

10:20:12 [mjs]

I'm wondering if any of their feedback might be worth acting on

10:20:53 [mjs]

sending cookies under a different header name sounds like it will reduce risk, but if you affirmatively added an access-control header and misunderstand cookies, you'll probably also choose to process the other cookie header even when you shouldn't

10:22:27 [anne]

another proposal I heard for that was adding a crossorigin flag to cookies similar to httponly

10:23:05 [mjs]

so only cookies flagged as such would be sent?

10:23:10 [anne]

yes

10:23:53 [anne]

though you'd also need something for HTTP auth and another problem is that nobody has cookies defined...

10:24:06 [mjs]

I'm wondering what kind of server-side mistake this is expected to mitigate

10:26:19 [anne]

I think the idea is that if you optin to access control you don't have to optin to cookies

10:26:30 [mjs]

someone who intentionally sends the access-control header, but doesn't realize they may get cookies, so they don't (look for the other header / set the flag)?

10:26:30 [mjs]

because I thought the expected mistake was someone who mistakes the authentication properties of a cookie for authorization

10:26:30 [mjs]

which is a conceptual-level error and won't be addressed by a change to how cookies are sent

10:26:33 [anne]

so the person requesting the data doesn't get the personalized form of the page

10:26:53 [MikeSmith]

would really help if Sunava were to copy and paste the full text into an e-mail message and post that to the list

10:27:24 [anne]

you might get interesting results with that

10:27:35 [anne]

especially with the e-mail clients they use...

10:30:06 [mjs]

well, you can opt in to access control and ignore cookies if you choose to

10:30:15 [mjs]

though maybe renaming the header makes ignoring cookies easier

10:30:20 [mjs]

but it also makes using cookies harder

10:33:56 [anne]

another option is to require the server to optin to cookies as in the proposal from Hixie

10:33:56 [anne]

another option is to leave the complexity on the server for that scenario as it is now

10:37:53 [mjs]

it seems hard to choose between these options

10:38:10 [mjs]

they all seem better than social networks prompting me for my gmail account info though

10:38:33 [mjs]

anne: congrats on the Opera 9.5 release by the way

10:46:56 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has left #html-wg

10:54:36 [Dashiiva]

Dashiiva has left #html-wg

10:55:16 [Dashiiva]

Dashiiva has joined #html-wg

10:55:25 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #html-wg

11:06:22 [anne]

thanks

11:14:06 [tH_]

tH_ has joined #html-wg

11:21:02 [Julian]

Julian has joined #html-wg

11:21:39 [Julian]

it appears XSLT in Opera 9.5 is broken in that the CSS for the transformation result does not get applied:

11:21:46 [Julian]

Example: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.xml

11:21:48 [Julian]

Sigh.

11:22:36 [anne]

in Opera 9.27 it just says fail

11:25:29 [anne]

anyways, bugs.opera.com/wizard

11:25:53 [Dashiiva]

Tjat

11:26:02 [Dashiiva]

*That's a lot of copies of the same xmlns :)

11:26:56 [Julian]

anne: yes, 9.27 was even more broken, an earlier version did work at some point of time.

11:27:23 [Julian]

anne: what's frustrating is that I have to keep submitting bug reports every time, instead that Opera starts doing regression tests

11:27:43 [anne]

we have tons of XSLT regression tests

11:28:41 [anne]

last I checked anyway

11:28:44 [Julian]

anne: good. then adding another one shouldn't be a problem ;-)

11:29:25 [anne]

yeah, I'm sure that fixing this in response to your bug report will involve adding a regression test

11:30:42 [Julian]

anne: well, the same kind of resource was broken before, so I would have hoped that that particular test already exists.

11:31:08 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has left #html-wg

11:31:55 [anne]

interesting, well, as I said, I'm not doing QA on this

11:39:54 [Julian]

bug-337388@bugs.opera.com

11:41:54 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #html-wg

12:18:15 [aaronlev]

aaronlev has joined #html-wg

12:20:41 [ROBOd]

ROBOd has joined #html-wg

12:24:03 [myakura]

myakura has joined #html-wg

13:14:54 [anne]

Julian, "how would care?"

13:14:56 [anne]

?

13:15:19 [Julian]

s/how/who/

13:15:29 [anne]

oh, well, gsnedders did apparently

13:15:49 [Julian]

I mean, who's running pre HTTP/1.0 servers in practice?

13:15:57 [Julian]

I don't think XHR needs to talk about these.

13:17:04 [anne]

i don't think so either

13:17:10 [anne]

i deferred it to him

13:17:35 [anne]

that is, it seems wrong for XHR to deal with these HTTP details

13:26:28 [Julian]

Yes. If the response doesn't parse as defined by the HTTP spec, the request failed. If UAs do something else, it may be useful to talk to them.

13:27:10 [anne]

or write a HTTP spec that does take UAs into account

13:28:06 [anne]

and has UA interop as exit criteria and such

13:45:04 [sierk]

sierk has joined #html-wg

13:55:21 [ROBOd]

ROBOd has joined #html-wg

14:06:14 [Dashiva]

Dashiva has joined #html-wg

14:12:15 [billmason]

billmason has joined #html-wg

14:19:40 [hyatt]

hyatt has joined #html-wg

14:52:15 [Lachy]

Lachy has joined #html-wg

14:57:11 [smedero]

smedero has joined #html-wg

15:34:02 [dbaron]

dbaron has joined #html-wg

15:42:37 [hober]

hober has joined #html-wg

15:46:59 [adele]

adele has joined #html-wg

15:52:00 [Steve_f]

Steve_f has joined #html-wg

15:58:07 [oedipus]

oedipus has joined #html-wg

15:58:32 [Laura]

Laura has joined #html-wg

16:01:54 [Laura]

Hi Steve

16:03:26 [MikeSmith]

trackbot, start meeting

16:03:28 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

16:03:28 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #html-wg

16:03:30 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be HTML

16:03:30 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started

16:03:31 [trackbot]

Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference

16:03:31 [trackbot]

Date: 12 June 2008

16:03:40 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, code?

16:03:40 [Zakim]

the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MikeSmith

16:03:55 [oedipus]

zakim, phone?

16:03:55 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, oedipus.

16:04:01 [oedipus]

zakim, who is here?

16:04:01 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P6, +1.425.467.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson

16:04:03 [Zakim]

On IRC I see Laura, oedipus, Steve_f, hober, dbaron, smedero, Lachy, hyatt, Dashiva, ROBOd, zcorpan, tH, Dashiiva, mjs, beowulf, tlr, RRSAgent, jmb, Yudai, marcos, krijn, Navarr,

16:04:07 [Zakim]

... MikeSmith, shepazu, jgraham, gavin, drry, heycam, deane, gsnedders, takkaria, anne, Philip, gavin_, Shunsuke, hsivonen, Hixie, matt, trackbot, xover, jeremy, deltab, t

16:04:20 [smedero]

Zakim, ??P6 is me

16:04:20 [Zakim]

+smedero; got it

16:04:23 [matt]

Present- Matt

16:04:38 [smedero]

ooh... actually... it is not.

16:04:41 [smedero]

doh

16:04:49 [smedero]

sorry!

16:04:54 [oedipus]

want me to fix?

16:04:58 [smedero]

Zakim, ??P6 is Steve_F

16:04:58 [Zakim]

I already had ??P6 as smedero, smedero

16:05:06 [smedero]

sigh.

16:05:10 [oedipus]

zakim, aaaa is smedero

16:05:10 [Zakim]

+smedero; got it

16:05:15 [smedero]

Thanks, oedipus.

16:05:20 [oedipus]

zakim, ??P6 is Steve_Faulkner

16:05:20 [Zakim]

I already had ??P6 as smedero, oedipus

16:05:28 [smedero]

itchy trigger finger there.

16:05:34 [Zakim]

+ruilopes

16:05:49 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

16:05:49 [Zakim]

On the phone I see smedero, smedero.a, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, ruilopes

16:06:03 [oedipus]

zakim, smedro.a is Steve_Faulkner

16:06:03 [Zakim]

sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named 'smedro.a'

16:06:09 [oedipus]

zakim, smedero.a is Steve_Faulkner

16:06:09 [Zakim]

+Steve_Faulkner; got it

16:06:32 [oedipus]

zakim, who is here?

16:06:32 [Zakim]

On the phone I see smedero, Steve_Faulkner, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, ruilopes

16:06:34 [Zakim]

On IRC I see Laura, oedipus, Steve_f, hober, dbaron, smedero, Lachy, hyatt, Dashiva, ROBOd, zcorpan, tH, Dashiiva, mjs, beowulf, tlr, RRSAgent, jmb, Yudai, marcos, krijn, Navarr,

16:06:38 [Zakim]

... MikeSmith, shepazu, jgraham, gavin, drry, heycam, deane, gsnedders, takkaria, anne, Philip, gavin_, Shunsuke, hsivonen, Hixie, matt, trackbot, xover, jeremy, deltab, t

16:06:40 [Dashiva]

Let's hope you got the right smedero :)

16:06:48 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, ruilopes is me

16:06:48 [Zakim]

+MikeSmith; got it

16:06:51 [MikeSmith]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

16:06:51 [Zakim]

On the phone I see smedero, Steve_Faulkner, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, MikeSmith

16:07:13 [MikeSmith]

Topic: convene weekly HTML WG issue-tracking telcon

16:07:24 [MikeSmith]

Chair: MikeSmith

16:07:29 [MikeSmith]

Scribe: MikeSmith

16:07:36 [MikeSmith]

ScribeNick: MikeSmith

16:07:46 [smedero]

oedipus, I'm not convinced the names are right...

16:07:48 [smedero]

but who knows

16:08:11 [smedero]

Steve_Faulkner joined before I did... so he should be in the first slot, right?

16:08:13 [oedipus]

GJR has 2 agenda requests: 1) ternary state of tracker (formal request of chairs made) and 2) a week's extension for my proposal to the forms task force list as i have had severe infrastructural problems (including an entire day without electricity)

16:08:20 [MikeSmith]

minutes from last week: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-html-wg-minutes.html

16:08:37 [anne]

Zakim, passcode?

16:08:37 [Zakim]

the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), anne

16:08:42 [smedero]

k-o

16:08:55 [adele]

adele has joined #html-wg

16:09:06 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

16:09:13 [anne]

Zakim, [ is me

16:09:13 [Zakim]

+anne; got it

16:09:33 [oedipus]

ternary state: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0030.html

16:09:45 [oedipus]

chrisW's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0044.html

16:10:06 [MikeSmith]

any items to add to the agenda for today?

16:10:20 [MikeSmith]

anne: is the chair thing on the agenda?

16:10:43 [oedipus]

who is in a position to say something?

16:11:22 [anne]

MS: W3C is discussing this internally, not going to get a resolution in the next hour; please hold your breath

16:11:28 [anne]

... a little longer

16:11:51 [anne]

MS: hopefully fixed by tomorrow

16:12:44 [adele]

adele has joined #html-wg

16:12:58 [MikeSmith]

Topic: ternary state of the tracker

16:13:05 [oedipus]

my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was logged

16:13:05 [oedipus]

in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue, it is

16:13:05 [oedipus]

not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in their

16:13:05 [oedipus]

capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect that:

16:13:05 [oedipus]

* RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in

16:13:06 [oedipus]

at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed

16:13:08 [oedipus]

* OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG

16:13:08 [MikeSmith]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0030.html

16:13:10 [oedipus]

* CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that

16:13:12 [oedipus]

issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so

16:13:14 [oedipus]

that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and

16:13:17 [oedipus]

objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that

16:13:18 [oedipus]

the issue should not be closed

16:13:20 [Zakim]

+Doug_Schepers

16:13:20 [oedipus]

or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as "PROPOSED"?

16:13:46 [smedero]

Along these lines, I tried to sort out how we came to the three issue states we currently have: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/0006.html

16:14:06 [oedipus]

why not?

16:14:38 [oedipus]

doesn't a plus one from a chair cary weight?

16:15:07 [anne]

it doesn't affect the argument

16:15:11 [MikeSmith]

MikeSmith: as far as Chris Wilson's +1 message, I don't find that particularly useful

16:15:57 [MikeSmith]

... in general, "+1" messages to the list are rarely, if ever, useful in discussions on the list

16:16:07 [oedipus]

shepazu: ignoring plus one messages discourages participation - sometimes there's nothing left to add to a well articulated post

16:16:09 [MikeSmith]

shepazu: can I slightly disagree with that?

16:18:07 [Lachy]

if there's nothing left to add, then there's little point in posting anything at all.

16:18:11 [oedipus]

is following up on issues the responsibility of the issue tracking team?

16:18:20 [Laura]

A +1 adds an additional voice of support to a concept or proposal.

16:19:14 [Lachy]

the problem with +1's, which we had trouble with back when the group started, is that it floods people's inboxes with mostly useless messages and takes up valuable time from reading potentially more important messages

16:19:15 [shepazu]

discouraging "+1" can suppress minority opinion by alienating list members who might have nothing more to say but who do agree with the poster... it's a good way to make sure that only the most vocal are represented in the considerations

16:19:20 [oedipus]

q+ to say that we need a statement on behalf of the chairs as to what the three states mean

16:19:21 [MikeSmith]

q+

16:19:23 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:19:27 [MikeSmith]

q-

16:19:29 [oedipus]

ack me

16:19:29 [Zakim]

oedipus, you wanted to say that we need a statement on behalf of the chairs as to what the three states mean

16:20:17 [shepazu]

Lachy, agreement by a large number of people *is* something to add

16:20:21 [Lachy]

and it seems to imply that the opinion of the person who sent the +1 actually carries weight, when it may well not carry any at all, except in rare cases

16:20:41 [Lachy]

shepazu, no, it's not, because it's the quality of the argument, not the quantity of support

16:20:44 [Lachy]

that matters

16:20:48 [shepazu]

... unless you are keen on suppressing other opinions from finding a voice

16:21:09 [oedipus]

GJR thinks issue raising and tracking needs to be addressed by the chairs so that we can progress towards something resembling stability and consensus

16:21:38 [shepazu]

Lachy, sometimes, but not always... many decisions are simply a matter of what the most people want, and have no deep technical merits to either side

16:21:54 [MikeSmith]

MikeSmith: I am not inclined to require that we obligate ourselves to take action on every RAISED issue in any way different than what we have already been doing.

16:22:05 [Steve_f]

'quality of argument' is a qualitative statement, showing support for an argument reinforces the argument

16:22:49 [oedipus]

concerned by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html

16:23:12 [oedipus]

especially "same level of response that I give any e-mail sent to the WHATWG

16:23:12 [oedipus]

list; that is, given full consideration and given an explicit response.

16:23:26 [Steve_f]

q+

16:23:33 [oedipus]

why not the same consideration to issues raised in the HTML WG?

16:23:44 [oedipus]

and on public-html?

16:24:04 [MikeSmith]

MikeSmith: We will be using bugzilla as a means for allowing anybody to raise issues against that spec and to be able to track them.

16:24:09 [MikeSmith]

ack Steve_f

16:24:20 [shepazu]

also, it doesn't take long to process a message that says only "+1"

16:24:47 [oedipus]

SF: issue - summary attribute been raised twice - how do i get it on issue tracker?

16:25:05 [oedipus]

MikeS: appropriate for bugzilla

16:25:09 [oedipus]

LC: already in tracker

16:25:20 [oedipus]

MikeS: really? what is issue number?

16:25:28 [oedipus]

LC: issue 32 - was closed by hixie

16:25:37 [Lachy]

+1's should be reserved only for issues where a vote matters, and in which case it should be done with a survey, not a bunch of +1 mails

16:26:36 [oedipus]

MikeS: other issue is that hixie was told to do what he is doing - when issue in issue tracker and editor done responding to it as editor, he was told to close it out and that's what he's been doing; don't have state in tracker that marks "resolved by editort" -- bugzilla provides far more granularity

16:26:57 [oedipus]

MikeS: editor could mark an issue as resolved to his satisfaction in bugzilla

16:26:58 [MikeSmith]

issue-32?

16:26:59 [trackbot]

ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- CLOSED

16:26:59 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

16:27:06 [oedipus]

LC: how to get from bugzilla to issue tracker

16:27:55 [oedipus]

MikeS: discuss on telecons; number of issues in my estimation don't merit enough attention to be discussed on weekly calls - especially 42 through 50; summary does need resolution, but night and day to GJR's issues

16:28:13 [MikeSmith]

issue-32?

16:28:13 [trackbot]

ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- CLOSED

16:28:13 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

16:28:13 [Steve_f]

q+

16:28:31 [oedipus]

q+ to have chairs address hixie's comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html

16:28:53 [oedipus]

DS: "pending state" needed?

16:29:09 [MikeSmith]

issue-32?

16:29:09 [trackbot]

ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- OPEN

16:29:09 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

16:29:23 [oedipus]

GJR notes to shepazu that that was his original request until he realized that RAISED served the same function

16:29:25 [smedero]

Ian closed it because he needed wanted more information....

16:30:30 [oedipus]

MikeS: limitation of tracker - resolution needs chairs intervention - reopened issue 32 and will remain open until have a resolution that allows it to be closed; not resolved now -- needs more discussion

16:30:35 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:30:43 [MikeSmith]

ack smedero

16:30:47 [MikeSmith]

ack Steve_f

16:31:06 [oedipus]

SF: in situation where have issue considered resolved by editor and chairs, but not by members of WG, how are those issues tracked?

16:31:19 [MikeSmith]

Steve_f: in a situation that is considered resolved by the editor and by the chairs, what is the recourse?

16:31:25 [shepazu]

oedipus, not quite... raising an issue means that it is in the system to make sure it's considered, while "pending review" can mean that work has been done on it

16:31:46 [oedipus]

SF: are some substantial issues that editor considers resolved, but WG members do not - what is resolution path?

16:32:02 [oedipus]

shepazu, i was trying to work within the framework of the available tools...

16:32:03 [Lachy]

I don't see the value in reopening the summary attribute issue until there are more substantial arguments, that aren't simply rehashing the same arguments from before

16:33:11 [Lachy]

I don't think people saying they object to the issue being closed, which is basically all there has been, qualifies as such a reason

16:33:13 [oedipus]

SF: marked as closed, reopened, then closed again, then reopened again - not going to be resolved in near future -- WG working on it from different angles, but if doesn't get resolved through conversation/discussion has to be resolved via a vote

16:33:28 [oedipus]

MikeS: alt issue closed is same problem with summary

16:34:05 [oedipus]

SF: substantive issue not resolved should stay as open issue on tracker

16:34:37 [oedipus]

MikeS: will happen going forward - issues will not be closed without my (mikeS) say so

16:34:59 [oedipus]

MikeS: should review all closed issues - if any anyone feels closed prematurely, bring up and reopen, as did with summary attribute

16:35:11 [oedipus]

ack me

16:35:11 [Zakim]

oedipus, you wanted to have chairs address hixie's comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html

16:35:57 [oedipus]

GJR worried by hixie ignoring issue tracker and WG wiki, but offering to give bugzilla entries the same precedence he gives to WHAT WG feedback -- this is very problematic and unsettling

16:36:18 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:36:25 [oedipus]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html

16:38:33 [oedipus]

MikeS: hixie already said that that is his stance -- if that is "correct" interpretation of his role is a seperate issue

16:40:31 [oedipus]

MikeS: Laura, received question about priority of response (WHAT WG over HTML WG) - need to make clearer what are the priority issues and bring them to hixie; complicated by discussion about the issues 42-50 which i don't think merit any special attention than any other issues no matter their origin; those issues were not agreed to as priority

16:40:34 [oedipus]

q+

16:40:54 [oedipus]

MikeS: gives me more leverage to get hixie to reprioritize issues

16:41:16 [oedipus]

MikeS: will make easier - fact that issues 42-50 raised without review process makes it difficult

16:41:58 [oedipus]

MikeS: agree we need to have more of a coordinated consensus about which issues we want to make priorities; cannot insist that every issue raised on public-html more important than those raised anywhere else

16:42:10 [MikeSmith]

?

16:42:13 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:42:17 [MikeSmith]

ack oedipus

16:42:52 [oedipus]

GJR how can you say it is not an issue by fiat when those attending calls keep raising them

16:44:43 [oedipus]

GJR: what is "review process"? how can we raise issues if no "review process" defined

16:44:49 [adele_]

adele_ has joined #html-wg

16:45:12 [oedipus]

MikeS: equally confused by fact that GJR and RobB don't understand difference between an important issue and parochial issues

16:45:24 [oedipus]

GJR notes that a blind man's poison is another man's food

16:46:12 [oedipus]

MikeS: alt required a show stopper for Last Call; issues 42-50 don't rise to that level

16:46:48 [adele_]

adele_ has joined #html-wg

16:47:19 [oedipus]

MikeS: same level as other issues floated on list - if everyone in community who wanted to make their own issue a special priority, there would be no way for us to track issues with real priority; tracker needs to be a place where we are looking only at high priority issues

16:47:38 [oedipus]

MikeS: need to formulate a way to define issues that rise to issue tracker level

16:47:52 [shepazu]

q+

16:48:51 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:48:56 [oedipus]

MikeS: another class of issues: issues raised by other working groups; example: issue added on behalf of Al Gilman (chair of PF); issues that affect relationships with other WGs or other specifications, need to be resolved at highest priority; need to resolve issue now or during last call -- that's the kind of issue that should go on tracker

16:48:57 [MikeSmith]

ack shepazu

16:49:10 [Steve_f]

q+

16:49:57 [oedipus]

DS: only flaw is that criteria hasn't been made clear to group; need to declare how things are given issue status - as important as "principles of operation" - group decides on system to manage issues and actions - should be codified someplace

16:50:11 [oedipus]

GJR: looking for clarification from chairs

16:50:52 [oedipus]

GJR: original comments on MS in role as staff contact, not as chair or whatever

16:51:22 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#issues

16:51:23 [oedipus]

MikeS: not documented by me so far -- added statement to WG homepage

16:51:52 [oedipus]

MikeS: probably needs more detail -- will provide and send out to list to ensure everybody aware of policy

16:52:11 [oedipus]

DS: that would be very helpful - detail you went into today about LC is very important

16:52:20 [Steve_f]

+1 to that

16:53:01 [Laura]

+1 from me too

16:53:02 [oedipus]

MikeS: recognize that this is a problem, but trying to prioritize issues -- getting working draft published taken time, now that it has been published, have more time to pay to details

16:53:27 [oedipus]

DS: know you're doing double-duty - perhaps co-chair could help out more with day-to-day WG decisions

16:53:38 [oedipus]

MikeS: will discuss with him when returns from vacation

16:53:52 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:53:57 [MikeSmith]

ack Steve_f

16:54:31 [oedipus]

SF: an issue brought to PF's attention and they consider it to be substantive, and that is communicated to HTML WG, would that get on Issue Tracker as open issue?

16:55:20 [oedipus]

MikeS: will say unequivocally that any issue from another WG will get into tracker and be addressed; that is W3C process;

16:55:28 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:55:30 [oedipus]

SF: thanks for clarification

16:55:38 [Lachy]

HTML5 Authoring Guide

16:55:41 [oedipus]

MikeS: any other topics to be added?

16:55:51 [oedipus]

scribeNick: oedipus

16:56:06 [oedipus]

MikeS: Lachy been working on HTML Authoring Guidelines

16:56:08 [shepazu]

Lachy++

16:56:09 [Lachy]

I've made some updates to the authoring guide, focussing mainly on the syntax section

16:56:14 [MikeSmith]

Topic: HTML Authoring Guide

16:56:17 [Lachy]

http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/#elements

16:56:38 [oedipus]

MikeS: checked in changes - current version in CVS reflects latest changes, right?

16:56:41 [Lachy]

I'm going to try and get something worth publishing as an FPWD within the next couple of weeks

16:57:00 [Lachy]

yes, I checked in the most recent changes about 30 minutes ago

16:58:01 [oedipus]

LH: brief summary of changes - added syntax change descriptions, differences between HTML and XHTML - will add major elements to section after that and hope to have draft ready for publication in a week or 2

16:58:44 [oedipus]

MikeS: want to stick to 3 month heartbeat req; next version of spec in September 2008; would like something publishable at least a month before next heartbeat release

16:58:52 [oedipus]

MikeS: 10 September 2008

16:59:21 [oedipus]

MikeS: another useful thing would be to give a heads up on public-html list and give a summary of what you've changed

16:59:24 [oedipus]

LH: ok

16:59:33 [MikeSmith]

q?

16:59:37 [oedipus]

MikeS: thanks for your work - great to see the document moving along

17:00:07 [oedipus]

TOPIC: Open Issues and Actions

17:00:20 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

17:00:41 [oedipus]

MikeS: for action 54 remind me where we are at?

17:00:55 [MikeSmith]

action-54?

17:00:55 [trackbot]

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 2008-06-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW

17:00:55 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54

17:00:58 [anne]

Is it ok if Lachy and I leave now for some food?

17:01:22 [MikeSmith]

oedipus: still awaiting response from PF ... aiming to have that by next week's call

17:01:45 [Zakim]

-anne

17:01:56 [oedipus]

MikeS: current due date 19 june 2008 so if can get feedback would be fine

17:02:09 [oedipus]

GJR: will discuss with AlG and if need more time will get a chair-to-chair request

17:02:30 [oedipus]

MikeS: overdue action items

17:03:40 [Zakim]

-Laura_Carlson

17:04:08 [MikeSmith]

action-34?

17:04:08 [trackbot]

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 2008-06-26 -- OPEN

17:04:08 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34

17:04:09 [oedipus]

ALERT: meeting continues for another 30 minutes (or until issue review done)

17:04:43 [oedipus]

MikeS: changed due date to 26 june to give lachy a couple of weeks - will keep updated every 2 weeks

17:04:49 [MikeSmith]

"Lachlan working on this, with goal to have something WD-ready by mid-August"

17:05:26 [oedipus]

MikeS: same overdue action items from last week -- assigned either to ChrisW or DanC - will keep open until have chance to talk with them

17:05:49 [MikeSmith]

action-14?

17:05:49 [trackbot]

ACTION-14 -- Chris Wilson to get more information on MS patent review with <canvas> -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN

17:05:49 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/14

17:06:24 [oedipus]

MikeS: due date today - chrisW moved due date to today's date

17:07:07 [oedipus]

MikeS: 150 days from 22 january - so 22 june 2008 is due date for patent review

17:07:47 [oedipus]

MikeS: any patent disclosures with regards the draft published on 22 january are due 22 june - this applies to anyone and everyone

17:08:36 [oedipus]

MikeS: don't know current situation with all patent stakeholders; apple been doing review - as well as MS

17:08:49 [oedipus]

DS: issue will be obsolete after 22 june 2008

17:08:52 [oedipus]

MikeS: right

17:09:07 [oedipus]

MikeS: need chrisW to update

17:09:32 [oedipus]

MikeS: downside of tracker - doesn't give audit trail

17:10:33 [oedipus]

MikeS: test cases don't apply to open source discussion; from w3c team side, have not received/seen any change in w3c license policy

17:11:36 [oedipus]

MikeS: w3c documents cannot be modified and published in modified form; applies to rec-track documents, but don't distinguish between normative rec-track documents and notes (which are non-normative); more important to ensure don't have conflicting versions of standards being published

17:11:54 [oedipus]

MikeS: my own opinion - don't know what info DanC has that might affect this

17:12:02 [smedero]

MikeSmith: From Dom@W3 about Action changelog - "Note that actions created from IRC do not carry that information, since it isn't possible (or at least practical) to define who asked to create the action based on the IRC commands."

17:12:10 [oedipus]

MikeS: forms working group (action 66)

17:12:46 [oedipus]

GJR: needs more time to propose to task force - hopefully by end of day/tomorrow

17:12:51 [MikeSmith]

action-56?

17:12:51 [trackbot]

ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to wilson to follow up with Forms WG to make sure they understand this plan of action by 5/1/2008 -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN

17:12:51 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56

17:13:00 [oedipus]

s/(action 66)/(action 56)

17:13:16 [oedipus]

MikeS: ChrisW hasn't had communication with forms task force

17:13:20 [oedipus]

GJR: no, hasn't

17:13:37 [oedipus]

MikeS: inclined to close out - will keep open until ahve chance to talk with ChrisW about it

17:13:40 [MikeSmith]

action-63?

17:13:40 [trackbot]

ACTION-63 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG response to 6 Jun 2007 PF WG msg re table headers http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN

17:13:40 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/63

17:14:35 [oedipus]

MikeS: table headers - did have change - headers attribute readded to draft; GJR what is position of WAI on status of this?

17:14:48 [oedipus]

GJR: will email the WAI Coordination Group to get status report from WAI chairs

17:15:02 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#headers

17:15:30 [oedipus]

DS: thanks mike for keeping track of a ridiculous amount of info

17:16:48 [oedipus]

MikeS: volume of change makes hard for most people to keep up to date; trying to keep a running record and recycling info to the WG; need to publish a message weekly that says "these are the changes that have been made this week" so that have more eyes on changes and don't sneak up on people

17:17:16 [oedipus]

GJR strong +1 to MikeTMSmith's weekly post

17:18:08 [MikeSmith]

http://dev.w3.org/html5/pubnotes/

17:18:22 [oedipus]

MikeS: going to make accessibility related changes a highlight; all WG members should review changes to spec to keep up to date on current status, so that those with special interests and expertise (especially accessiblity) are in the loop

17:18:51 [oedipus]

MikeS: will also be working on a better way to recycle to group regular updates on changes

17:19:35 [MikeSmith]

Regrets+ Julian

17:19:38 [oedipus]

MikeS: biggest set of issues left -- next week, instead of approaching in serial manner, start with "big issues"

17:20:16 [oedipus]

MikeS: couple of raised issues related to HTTP which we haven't taken up and do need to take up - julian has expertise

17:20:32 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/closed

17:20:42 [oedipus]

MikeS: look at closed issues - didn't know that summary issue in a closed state, so good to review

17:21:05 [oedipus]

MikeS: anything that should be reopened?

17:21:14 [smedero]

MikeSmith: TAG is still dicussing: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

17:21:22 [smedero]

s/discussing/discussing/

17:21:35 [smedero]

sigh

17:21:36 [smedero]

whatever

17:21:36 [smedero]

heh

17:21:38 [oedipus]

MikeS: a lot of duplicates

17:22:17 [MikeSmith]

issue-41?

17:22:17 [trackbot]

ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- OPEN

17:22:17 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

17:22:24 [oedipus]

MikeS: reopen issue 41 - an issue for discussion with TAG - example of what should be kept open on tracker

17:23:00 [oedipus]

MikeS: don't know what can do about "decentralized accessiblity" -- issue for TAG and a lot of others (WAI, Ubiquitous Web, etc.)

17:23:09 [oedipus]

MikeS: any others people want opened?

17:23:11 [oedipus]

(no)

17:23:33 [oedipus]

MikeS: in remaining time, want to look at open issues briefly

17:23:34 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open

17:23:41 [MikeSmith]

issue-51?

17:23:41 [trackbot]

ISSUE-51 -- WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module, which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? -- OPEN

17:23:41 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51

17:24:30 [oedipus]

MikeS: not sure what issue precisely is - ARIA has dependency on XHTML - extension of Role Attribute Module - Role module references CURIEs normatively

17:25:23 [oedipus]

MikeS: CURIEs put forward by XHTML2 WG - not sure if TAG has made a finding

17:25:56 [oedipus]

GJR: TAG concerned about CURIES - multiplicity of ways of defining short URIs a worry, but no declarative finding; XHTML2 WG continues to work on CURIEs draft

17:26:01 [MikeSmith]

oedipus: TAG has issued a finding that they have some reasons to be uneasy with the current CURIE spec ... XHTML2 WG is working on addressing the concerns

17:27:09 [MikeSmith]

oedipus: this has been a problem with PF as far as ARIA ...

17:27:31 [oedipus]

GJR: PF taking CURIE agnostic view -

17:27:39 [oedipus]

DS: don't think HTML WG should be considering

17:27:44 [MikeSmith]

... our PF policy has been to use @role as outlined, and we worry about CURIEs when a decision comes down about CURIEs

17:28:51 [MikeSmith]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#common1

17:29:16 [oedipus]

MikeS: long-term concern, but nothing about ARIA in HTML5 spec, so no attempt to address CURIEs; haven't incorporated ARIA attributes into spec, so not of immediate concern, but will be an issue if CURIEs end up being endorsed by TAG; as far as way that spec is currently defined, CURIE syntax might be in conflict with conformance criteria already in HTML5 spec - specifically microformats

17:30:03 [oedipus]

MikeS: RDFa integration also a question - use case for CURIEs from RDFa task force - if have RDFa integrated into HTML5 will have CURIE issue

17:30:37 [oedipus]

tag on CURIE: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html

17:31:01 [oedipus]

CURIE Issue in TAG Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56

17:31:18 [oedipus]

DS: SVG will be making formal proposal hopefully in a week

17:31:32 [oedipus]

MikeS: would like to go through issues in raised state

17:31:57 [shepazu]

s/formal proposal hopefully in a week/formal proposal, and will be working in public over the next weeks/

17:32:15 [shepazu]

after taking feedback into account

17:32:16 [oedipus]

MikeS: agenda for next week - will post a list of specific issues for discussion to discern which have consensus upon

17:32:35 [shepazu]

np

17:32:35 [oedipus]

MikeS: move we adjourn

17:32:45 [oedipus]

scribe's note: seconded by all

17:32:49 [Zakim]

-Steve_Faulkner

17:32:51 [MikeSmith]

[adjourned]

17:32:52 [Zakim]

-smedero

17:33:56 [Zakim]

-MikeSmith

17:33:58 [Zakim]

-Gregory_Rosmaita

17:33:58 [Zakim]

-Doug_Schepers

17:33:59 [Zakim]

HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended

17:34:00 [Zakim]

Attendees were +1.425.467.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, smedero, Steve_Faulkner, MikeSmith, [IPcaller], anne, Doug_Schepers

17:34:47 [MikeSmith]

wondering who +1.425.467.aaaa and [IPcaller] were..

17:35:58 [shepazu]

oedipus, eeewwwww

17:36:12 [oedipus]

mike, the ipcaller was anne and lachy

17:36:15 [MikeSmith]

ah

17:36:17 [MikeSmith]

OK

17:36:56 [MikeSmith]

425 area code is Seattle

17:37:05 [shepazu]

lol

17:37:18 [oedipus]

i don't know who called in from seattle

17:37:25 [MikeSmith]

OK

17:37:39 [MikeSmith]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

17:37:39 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith

17:37:57 [oedipus]

just leave the number - if it is important to the caller, he/she should reply to the minutes announcement to identify him/herself

17:38:00 [MikeSmith]

RRSAgent, make log public

17:38:07 [MikeSmith]

oedipus: OK

17:38:24 [smedero]

that as me

17:38:27 [MikeSmith]

aha

17:38:30 [smedero]

<-- seattle

17:38:31 [oedipus]

ah-hah!

17:38:31 [MikeSmith]

thanks smedero

17:38:31 [smedero]

sorry

17:38:57 [oedipus]

so, that leaves ruilopes as the unidentified caller

17:39:03 [smedero]

oedipus tried to help correct that earlier. :)

17:40:07 [oedipus]

i think, smedero, you ended up identifying yourself as ruilopes

17:40:14 [smedero]

weee!

17:40:36 [smedero]

rolls off the tongue better than "shawn"

17:40:40 [smedero]

I might keep it

17:40:48 [oedipus]

laughing out loud - aloha and mahalo everyone

18:01:10 [aaronlev]

aaronlev has joined #html-wg

18:12:53 [mjs_]

mjs_ has joined #html-wg

18:53:10 [dbaron]

dbaron has joined #html-wg

19:00:27 [aaronlev]

aaronlev has joined #html-wg

19:00:40 [hober]

hober has joined #html-wg

19:05:02 [oedipus]

oedipus has joined #html-wg

19:08:10 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #html-wg

19:33:21 [billmason]

billmason has joined #html-wg

19:40:18 [Lachy]

Lachy has joined #html-wg

20:17:02 [mjs]

mjs has joined #html-wg

20:52:13 [mjs]

mjs has joined #html-wg

21:02:07 [mjs]

mjs has joined #html-wg

21:03:57 [drry]

drry has joined #HTML-WG

21:09:03 [mjs_]

mjs_ has joined #html-wg

21:16:14 [Steve_f]

Steve_f has joined #html-wg

22:20:58 [dbaron]

dbaron has joined #html-wg