07:59:24 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg 07:59:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-html-wg-irc 08:04:37 Lachy has joined #html-wg 08:17:14 Lachy has joined #html-wg 08:20:29 tlr has joined #html-wg 08:23:10 beowulf has joined #html-wg 08:27:39 ROBOd has joined #html-wg 08:51:49 I don't even understand what the issue is 08:51:53 I am now very confused 08:52:41 i'm very confused too 08:52:52 i don't know who the chairs are, and i don't know what the issue tracking mechanism is 08:53:06 i really have no idea how to interact with the htmlwg any more 08:54:10 maybe they have some internal meeting on it first 08:58:21 Lachy has joined #html-wg 09:09:05 zcorpan has joined #html-wg 09:17:47 mjs has joined #html-wg 09:22:19 mjs has joined #html-wg 09:51:33 MikeSmith: what's the link to this famed bugzilla? 09:55:34 Lachy has joined #html-wg 09:57:08 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ 09:57:18 Hixie: ↑ 09:57:28 wow, an upwards arrow 09:57:40 i really shouldn't be this amazed to see unicode work 09:58:21 we been having fun with special chars in Japan for years, even without Unicode 09:58:24 └|∵|┐♪┌|∵|┘ 09:58:30 (^з^)-☆Chu!! 09:58:49 etc. 09:59:17 hmm, MS feedback has various legal notices 09:59:19 :/ 09:59:38 Hixie: i don't know how to easily get a list of just the issues for the "HTML WG" "product" 10:00:16 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 MikeSmith: who gets to mark a bug RESOLVED? 10:00:56 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED 10:01:48 hsivonen: that we still need to decide yet 10:02:31 MikeSmith: I suggest letting Hixie and hyatt make the transitions from NEW to ASSIGNED and from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED 10:03:01 that sounds workable 10:03:04 perhaps going from RESOLVED to CLOSED could include more oversight 10:03:13 yeah, agreed 10:03:40 that paper is so confusing 10:05:04 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL+product:HTML 10:05:55 this is the one issue I have in there so far: 10:05:57 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5729 10:06:17 anne: you went ahead and signed the agreement for the whitepaper? 10:06:56 Philip: thanks, that's indeed plenty easy 10:07:23 I just hit some buttons 10:07:27 anyway, if we can get this going, I can set up redirects/rewrites with shorter URLs 10:07:49 ROBOd2 has joined #html-wg 10:10:37 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 shocking 10:11:49 you have to admire the skill with which they waste our time 10:11:59 keeps talking about DNS Rebinding and TOC/TOU 10:12:01 i really wouldn't have even thought of posting feedback in this quite innovative manner 10:12:19 true 10:13:48 I suggest each person respond by putting a PDF on his/her website that requires agreeing to a license 10:14:15 anne: I assumed the legal notices were BS and ignored them 10:14:24 I was thinking of using my own proprietary format 10:14:32 the whitepaper is lengthy but did not give me much new info 10:14:38 I guess I will have to respond though 10:14:52 well, you owe me a review first :p 10:15:05 a review of what? 10:15:09 access control :) 10:15:30 I suppose I will have to do that to respond to Microsoft's stuff in a fully informed way 10:15:41 your standards todo list has at least two things: access control/xhr2 and forms tf 10:16:00 :) 10:16:26 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 yeah, we can't really ignore them 10:17:13 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 the server says with that that it does check the Origin header and such 10:17:33 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 there's a wide gap between ignoring someone and giving them a detailed response 10:17:58 for example, my own response was not to ignore them 10:18:07 but didn't involve even looking at the document 10:19:29 it just seems like a good time to smack the FUD down thoroughly, since this is presumably their best shot 10:20:12 I'm wondering if any of their feedback might be worth acting on 10:20:53 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 another proposal I heard for that was adding a crossorigin flag to cookies similar to httponly 10:23:05 so only cookies flagged as such would be sent? 10:23:10 yes 10:23:53 though you'd also need something for HTTP auth and another problem is that nobody has cookies defined... 10:24:06 I'm wondering what kind of server-side mistake this is expected to mitigate 10:26:19 I think the idea is that if you optin to access control you don't have to optin to cookies 10:26:30 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 because I thought the expected mistake was someone who mistakes the authentication properties of a cookie for authorization 10:26:30 which is a conceptual-level error and won't be addressed by a change to how cookies are sent 10:26:33 so the person requesting the data doesn't get the personalized form of the page 10:26:53 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 you might get interesting results with that 10:27:35 especially with the e-mail clients they use... 10:30:06 well, you can opt in to access control and ignore cookies if you choose to 10:30:15 though maybe renaming the header makes ignoring cookies easier 10:30:20 but it also makes using cookies harder 10:33:56 another option is to require the server to optin to cookies as in the proposal from Hixie 10:33:56 another option is to leave the complexity on the server for that scenario as it is now 10:37:53 it seems hard to choose between these options 10:38:10 they all seem better than social networks prompting me for my gmail account info though 10:38:33 anne: congrats on the Opera 9.5 release by the way 10:46:56 zcorpan has left #html-wg 10:54:36 Dashiiva has left #html-wg 10:55:16 Dashiiva has joined #html-wg 10:55:25 zcorpan has joined #html-wg 11:06:22 thanks 11:14:06 tH_ has joined #html-wg 11:21:02 Julian has joined #html-wg 11:21:39 it appears XSLT in Opera 9.5 is broken in that the CSS for the transformation result does not get applied: 11:21:46 Example: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.xml 11:21:48 Sigh. 11:22:36 in Opera 9.27 it just says fail 11:25:29 anyways, bugs.opera.com/wizard 11:25:53 Tjat 11:26:02 *That's a lot of copies of the same xmlns :) 11:26:56 anne: yes, 9.27 was even more broken, an earlier version did work at some point of time. 11:27:23 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 we have tons of XSLT regression tests 11:28:41 last I checked anyway 11:28:44 anne: good. then adding another one shouldn't be a problem ;-) 11:29:25 yeah, I'm sure that fixing this in response to your bug report will involve adding a regression test 11:30:42 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 has left #html-wg 11:31:55 interesting, well, as I said, I'm not doing QA on this 11:39:54 bug-337388@bugs.opera.com 11:41:54 zcorpan has joined #html-wg 12:18:15 aaronlev has joined #html-wg 12:20:41 ROBOd has joined #html-wg 12:24:03 myakura has joined #html-wg 13:14:54 Julian, "how would care?" 13:14:56 ? 13:15:19 s/how/who/ 13:15:29 oh, well, gsnedders did apparently 13:15:49 I mean, who's running pre HTTP/1.0 servers in practice? 13:15:57 I don't think XHR needs to talk about these. 13:17:04 i don't think so either 13:17:10 i deferred it to him 13:17:35 that is, it seems wrong for XHR to deal with these HTTP details 13:26:28 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 or write a HTTP spec that does take UAs into account 13:28:06 and has UA interop as exit criteria and such 13:45:04 sierk has joined #html-wg 13:55:21 ROBOd has joined #html-wg 14:06:14 Dashiva has joined #html-wg 14:12:15 billmason has joined #html-wg 14:19:40 hyatt has joined #html-wg 14:52:15 Lachy has joined #html-wg 14:57:11 smedero has joined #html-wg 15:34:02 dbaron has joined #html-wg 15:42:37 hober has joined #html-wg 15:46:59 adele has joined #html-wg 15:52:00 Steve_f has joined #html-wg 15:58:07 oedipus has joined #html-wg 15:58:32 Laura has joined #html-wg 16:01:54 Hi Steve 16:03:26 trackbot, start meeting 16:03:28 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:03:28 Zakim has joined #html-wg 16:03:30 Zakim, this will be HTML 16:03:30 ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started 16:03:31 Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference 16:03:31 Date: 12 June 2008 16:03:40 Zakim, code? 16:03:40 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 zakim, phone? 16:03:55 I don't understand your question, oedipus. 16:04:01 zakim, who is here? 16:04:01 On the phone I see ??P6, +1.425.467.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson 16:04:03 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 ... MikeSmith, shepazu, jgraham, gavin, drry, heycam, deane, gsnedders, takkaria, anne, Philip, gavin_, Shunsuke, hsivonen, Hixie, matt, trackbot, xover, jeremy, deltab, t 16:04:20 Zakim, ??P6 is me 16:04:20 +smedero; got it 16:04:23 Present- Matt 16:04:38 ooh... actually... it is not. 16:04:41 doh 16:04:49 sorry! 16:04:54 want me to fix? 16:04:58 Zakim, ??P6 is Steve_F 16:04:58 I already had ??P6 as smedero, smedero 16:05:06 sigh. 16:05:10 zakim, aaaa is smedero 16:05:10 +smedero; got it 16:05:15 Thanks, oedipus. 16:05:20 zakim, ??P6 is Steve_Faulkner 16:05:20 I already had ??P6 as smedero, oedipus 16:05:28 itchy trigger finger there. 16:05:34 +ruilopes 16:05:49 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:05:49 On the phone I see smedero, smedero.a, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, ruilopes 16:06:03 zakim, smedro.a is Steve_Faulkner 16:06:03 sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named 'smedro.a' 16:06:09 zakim, smedero.a is Steve_Faulkner 16:06:09 +Steve_Faulkner; got it 16:06:32 zakim, who is here? 16:06:32 On the phone I see smedero, Steve_Faulkner, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, ruilopes 16:06:34 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 ... MikeSmith, shepazu, jgraham, gavin, drry, heycam, deane, gsnedders, takkaria, anne, Philip, gavin_, Shunsuke, hsivonen, Hixie, matt, trackbot, xover, jeremy, deltab, t 16:06:40 Let's hope you got the right smedero :) 16:06:48 Zakim, ruilopes is me 16:06:48 +MikeSmith; got it 16:06:51 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:06:51 On the phone I see smedero, Steve_Faulkner, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, MikeSmith 16:07:13 Topic: convene weekly HTML WG issue-tracking telcon 16:07:24 Chair: MikeSmith 16:07:29 Scribe: MikeSmith 16:07:36 ScribeNick: MikeSmith 16:07:46 oedipus, I'm not convinced the names are right... 16:07:48 but who knows 16:08:11 Steve_Faulkner joined before I did... so he should be in the first slot, right? 16:08:13 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 minutes from last week: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-html-wg-minutes.html 16:08:37 Zakim, passcode? 16:08:37 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 k-o 16:08:55 adele has joined #html-wg 16:09:06 +[IPcaller] 16:09:13 Zakim, [ is me 16:09:13 +anne; got it 16:09:33 ternary state: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0030.html 16:09:45 chrisW's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0044.html 16:10:06 any items to add to the agenda for today? 16:10:20 anne: is the chair thing on the agenda? 16:10:43 who is in a position to say something? 16:11:22 MS: W3C is discussing this internally, not going to get a resolution in the next hour; please hold your breath 16:11:28 ... a little longer 16:11:51 MS: hopefully fixed by tomorrow 16:12:44 adele has joined #html-wg 16:12:58 Topic: ternary state of the tracker 16:13:05 my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was logged 16:13:05 in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue, it is 16:13:05 not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in their 16:13:05 capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect that: 16:13:05 * RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in 16:13:06 at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed 16:13:08 * OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG 16:13:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0030.html 16:13:10 * CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that 16:13:12 issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so 16:13:14 that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and 16:13:17 objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that 16:13:18 the issue should not be closed 16:13:20 +Doug_Schepers 16:13:20 or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as "PROPOSED"? 16:13:46 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 why not? 16:14:38 doesn't a plus one from a chair cary weight? 16:15:07 it doesn't affect the argument 16:15:11 MikeSmith: as far as Chris Wilson's +1 message, I don't find that particularly useful 16:15:57 ... in general, "+1" messages to the list are rarely, if ever, useful in discussions on the list 16:16:07 shepazu: ignoring plus one messages discourages participation - sometimes there's nothing left to add to a well articulated post 16:16:09 shepazu: can I slightly disagree with that? 16:18:07 if there's nothing left to add, then there's little point in posting anything at all. 16:18:11 is following up on issues the responsibility of the issue tracking team? 16:18:20 A +1 adds an additional voice of support to a concept or proposal. 16:19:14 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 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 q+ to say that we need a statement on behalf of the chairs as to what the three states mean 16:19:21 q+ 16:19:23 q? 16:19:27 q- 16:19:29 ack me 16:19:29 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 Lachy, agreement by a large number of people *is* something to add 16:20:21 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 shepazu, no, it's not, because it's the quality of the argument, not the quantity of support 16:20:44 that matters 16:20:48 ... unless you are keen on suppressing other opinions from finding a voice 16:21:09 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 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: 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 'quality of argument' is a qualitative statement, showing support for an argument reinforces the argument 16:22:49 concerned by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html 16:23:12 especially "same level of response that I give any e-mail sent to the WHATWG 16:23:12 list; that is, given full consideration and given an explicit response. 16:23:26 q+ 16:23:33 why not the same consideration to issues raised in the HTML WG? 16:23:44 and on public-html? 16:24:04 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 ack Steve_f 16:24:20 also, it doesn't take long to process a message that says only "+1" 16:24:47 SF: issue - summary attribute been raised twice - how do i get it on issue tracker? 16:25:05 MikeS: appropriate for bugzilla 16:25:09 LC: already in tracker 16:25:20 MikeS: really? what is issue number? 16:25:28 LC: issue 32 - was closed by hixie 16:25:37 +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 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 MikeS: editor could mark an issue as resolved to his satisfaction in bugzilla 16:26:58 issue-32? 16:26:59 ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- CLOSED 16:26:59 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 16:27:06 LC: how to get from bugzilla to issue tracker 16:27:55 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 issue-32? 16:28:13 ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- CLOSED 16:28:13 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 16:28:13 q+ 16:28:31 q+ to have chairs address hixie's comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html 16:28:53 DS: "pending state" needed? 16:29:09 issue-32? 16:29:09 ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- OPEN 16:29:09 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 16:29:23 GJR notes to shepazu that that was his original request until he realized that RAISED served the same function 16:29:25 Ian closed it because he needed wanted more information.... 16:30:30 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 q? 16:30:43 ack smedero 16:30:47 ack Steve_f 16:31:06 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 Steve_f: in a situation that is considered resolved by the editor and by the chairs, what is the recourse? 16:31:25 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 SF: are some substantial issues that editor considers resolved, but WG members do not - what is resolution path? 16:32:02 shepazu, i was trying to work within the framework of the available tools... 16:32:03 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 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 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 MikeS: alt issue closed is same problem with summary 16:34:05 SF: substantive issue not resolved should stay as open issue on tracker 16:34:37 MikeS: will happen going forward - issues will not be closed without my (mikeS) say so 16:34:59 MikeS: should review all closed issues - if any anyone feels closed prematurely, bring up and reopen, as did with summary attribute 16:35:11 ack me 16:35:11 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 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 q? 16:36:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html 16:38:33 MikeS: hixie already said that that is his stance -- if that is "correct" interpretation of his role is a seperate issue 16:40:31 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 q+ 16:40:54 MikeS: gives me more leverage to get hixie to reprioritize issues 16:41:16 MikeS: will make easier - fact that issues 42-50 raised without review process makes it difficult 16:41:58 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 ? 16:42:13 q? 16:42:17 ack oedipus 16:42:52 GJR how can you say it is not an issue by fiat when those attending calls keep raising them 16:44:43 GJR: what is "review process"? how can we raise issues if no "review process" defined 16:44:49 adele_ has joined #html-wg 16:45:12 MikeS: equally confused by fact that GJR and RobB don't understand difference between an important issue and parochial issues 16:45:24 GJR notes that a blind man's poison is another man's food 16:46:12 MikeS: alt required a show stopper for Last Call; issues 42-50 don't rise to that level 16:46:48 adele_ has joined #html-wg 16:47:19 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 MikeS: need to formulate a way to define issues that rise to issue tracker level 16:47:52 q+ 16:48:51 q? 16:48:56 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 ack shepazu 16:49:10 q+ 16:49:57 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 GJR: looking for clarification from chairs 16:50:52 GJR: original comments on MS in role as staff contact, not as chair or whatever 16:51:22 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#issues 16:51:23 MikeS: not documented by me so far -- added statement to WG homepage 16:51:52 MikeS: probably needs more detail -- will provide and send out to list to ensure everybody aware of policy 16:52:11 DS: that would be very helpful - detail you went into today about LC is very important 16:52:20 +1 to that 16:53:01 +1 from me too 16:53:02 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 DS: know you're doing double-duty - perhaps co-chair could help out more with day-to-day WG decisions 16:53:38 MikeS: will discuss with him when returns from vacation 16:53:52 q? 16:53:57 ack Steve_f 16:54:31 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 MikeS: will say unequivocally that any issue from another WG will get into tracker and be addressed; that is W3C process; 16:55:28 q? 16:55:30 SF: thanks for clarification 16:55:38 HTML5 Authoring Guide 16:55:41 MikeS: any other topics to be added? 16:55:51 scribeNick: oedipus 16:56:06 MikeS: Lachy been working on HTML Authoring Guidelines 16:56:08 Lachy++ 16:56:09 I've made some updates to the authoring guide, focussing mainly on the syntax section 16:56:14 Topic: HTML Authoring Guide 16:56:17 http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/#elements 16:56:38 MikeS: checked in changes - current version in CVS reflects latest changes, right? 16:56:41 I'm going to try and get something worth publishing as an FPWD within the next couple of weeks 16:57:00 yes, I checked in the most recent changes about 30 minutes ago 16:58:01 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 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 MikeS: 10 September 2008 16:59:21 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 LH: ok 16:59:33 q? 16:59:37 MikeS: thanks for your work - great to see the document moving along 17:00:07 TOPIC: Open Issues and Actions 17:00:20 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda 17:00:41 MikeS: for action 54 remind me where we are at? 17:00:55 action-54? 17:00:55 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54 17:00:58 Is it ok if Lachy and I leave now for some food? 17:01:22 oedipus: still awaiting response from PF ... aiming to have that by next week's call 17:01:45 -anne 17:01:56 MikeS: current due date 19 june 2008 so if can get feedback would be fine 17:02:09 GJR: will discuss with AlG and if need more time will get a chair-to-chair request 17:02:30 MikeS: overdue action items 17:03:40 -Laura_Carlson 17:04:08 action-34? 17:04:08 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34 17:04:09 ALERT: meeting continues for another 30 minutes (or until issue review done) 17:04:43 MikeS: changed due date to 26 june to give lachy a couple of weeks - will keep updated every 2 weeks 17:04:49 "Lachlan working on this, with goal to have something WD-ready by mid-August" 17:05:26 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 action-14? 17:05:49 ACTION-14 -- Chris Wilson to get more information on MS patent review with -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN 17:05:49 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/14 17:06:24 MikeS: due date today - chrisW moved due date to today's date 17:07:07 MikeS: 150 days from 22 january - so 22 june 2008 is due date for patent review 17:07:47 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 MikeS: don't know current situation with all patent stakeholders; apple been doing review - as well as MS 17:08:49 DS: issue will be obsolete after 22 june 2008 17:08:52 MikeS: right 17:09:07 MikeS: need chrisW to update 17:09:32 MikeS: downside of tracker - doesn't give audit trail 17:10:33 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 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 MikeS: my own opinion - don't know what info DanC has that might affect this 17:12:02 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 MikeS: forms working group (action 66) 17:12:46 GJR: needs more time to propose to task force - hopefully by end of day/tomorrow 17:12:51 action-56? 17:12:51 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56 17:13:00 s/(action 66)/(action 56) 17:13:16 MikeS: ChrisW hasn't had communication with forms task force 17:13:20 GJR: no, hasn't 17:13:37 MikeS: inclined to close out - will keep open until ahve chance to talk with ChrisW about it 17:13:40 action-63? 17:13:40 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/63 17:14:35 MikeS: table headers - did have change - headers attribute readded to draft; GJR what is position of WAI on status of this? 17:14:48 GJR: will email the WAI Coordination Group to get status report from WAI chairs 17:15:02 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#headers 17:15:30 DS: thanks mike for keeping track of a ridiculous amount of info 17:16:48 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 GJR strong +1 to MikeTMSmith's weekly post 17:18:08 http://dev.w3.org/html5/pubnotes/ 17:18:22 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 MikeS: will also be working on a better way to recycle to group regular updates on changes 17:19:35 Regrets+ Julian 17:19:38 MikeS: biggest set of issues left -- next week, instead of approaching in serial manner, start with "big issues" 17:20:16 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/closed 17:20:42 MikeS: look at closed issues - didn't know that summary issue in a closed state, so good to review 17:21:05 MikeS: anything that should be reopened? 17:21:14 MikeSmith: TAG is still dicussing: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41 17:21:22 s/discussing/discussing/ 17:21:35 sigh 17:21:36 whatever 17:21:36 heh 17:21:38 MikeS: a lot of duplicates 17:22:17 issue-41? 17:22:17 ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- OPEN 17:22:17 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41 17:22:24 MikeS: reopen issue 41 - an issue for discussion with TAG - example of what should be kept open on tracker 17:23:00 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 MikeS: any others people want opened? 17:23:11 (no) 17:23:33 MikeS: in remaining time, want to look at open issues briefly 17:23:34 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open 17:23:41 issue-51? 17:23:41 ISSUE-51 -- WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module, which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? -- OPEN 17:23:41 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51 17:24:30 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 MikeS: CURIEs put forward by XHTML2 WG - not sure if TAG has made a finding 17:25:56 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 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 oedipus: this has been a problem with PF as far as ARIA ... 17:27:31 GJR: PF taking CURIE agnostic view - 17:27:39 DS: don't think HTML WG should be considering 17:27:44 ... 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#common1 17:29:16 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 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 tag on CURIE: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html 17:31:01 CURIE Issue in TAG Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56 17:31:18 DS: SVG will be making formal proposal hopefully in a week 17:31:32 MikeS: would like to go through issues in raised state 17:31:57 s/formal proposal hopefully in a week/formal proposal, and will be working in public over the next weeks/ 17:32:15 after taking feedback into account 17:32:16 MikeS: agenda for next week - will post a list of specific issues for discussion to discern which have consensus upon 17:32:35 np 17:32:35 MikeS: move we adjourn 17:32:45 scribe's note: seconded by all 17:32:49 -Steve_Faulkner 17:32:51 [adjourned] 17:32:52 -smedero 17:33:56 -MikeSmith 17:33:58 -Gregory_Rosmaita 17:33:58 -Doug_Schepers 17:33:59 HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended 17:34:00 Attendees were +1.425.467.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura_Carlson, smedero, Steve_Faulkner, MikeSmith, [IPcaller], anne, Doug_Schepers 17:34:47 wondering who +1.425.467.aaaa and [IPcaller] were.. 17:35:58 oedipus, eeewwwww 17:36:12 mike, the ipcaller was anne and lachy 17:36:15 ah 17:36:17 OK 17:36:56 425 area code is Seattle 17:37:05 lol 17:37:18 i don't know who called in from seattle 17:37:25 OK 17:37:39 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:37:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith 17:37:57 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 RRSAgent, make log public 17:38:07 oedipus: OK 17:38:24 that as me 17:38:27 aha 17:38:30 <-- seattle 17:38:31 ah-hah! 17:38:31 thanks smedero 17:38:31 sorry 17:38:57 so, that leaves ruilopes as the unidentified caller 17:39:03 oedipus tried to help correct that earlier. :) 17:40:07 i think, smedero, you ended up identifying yourself as ruilopes 17:40:14 weee! 17:40:36 rolls off the tongue better than "shawn" 17:40:40 I might keep it 17:40:48 laughing out loud - aloha and mahalo everyone 18:01:10 aaronlev has joined #html-wg 18:12:53 mjs_ has joined #html-wg 18:53:10 dbaron has joined #html-wg 19:00:27 aaronlev has joined #html-wg 19:00:40 hober has joined #html-wg 19:05:02 oedipus has joined #html-wg 19:08:10 Zakim has left #html-wg 19:33:21 billmason has joined #html-wg 19:40:18 Lachy has joined #html-wg 20:17:02 mjs has joined #html-wg 20:52:13 mjs has joined #html-wg 21:02:07 mjs has joined #html-wg 21:03:57 drry has joined #HTML-WG 21:09:03 mjs_ has joined #html-wg 21:16:14 Steve_f has joined #html-wg 22:20:58 dbaron has joined #html-wg