See also: IRC log
<smedero> oedipus, I'm not convinced the names are right...
<smedero> but who knows
<smedero> Steve_Faulkner joined before I did... so he should be in the first slot, right?
<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)
minutes from last week: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/05-html-wg-minutes.html
<oedipus> ternary state: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0030.html
<oedipus> chrisW's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0044.html
any items to add to the agenda for today?
anne: is the chair thing on the agenda?
<oedipus> who is in a position to say something?
<anne> MS: W3C is discussing this internally, not going to get a resolution in the next hour; please hold your breath
<anne> ... a little longer
<anne> MS: hopefully fixed by tomorrow
<oedipus> my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was logged
<oedipus> in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue, it is
<oedipus> not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in their
<oedipus> capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect that:
<oedipus> * RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in
<oedipus> at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed
<oedipus> * OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG
<oedipus> * CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that
<oedipus> issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so
<oedipus> that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and
<oedipus> objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that
<oedipus> the issue should not be closed
<oedipus> or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as "PROPOSED"?
<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
<oedipus> why not?
<oedipus> doesn't a plus one from a chair cary weight?
<anne> it doesn't affect the argument
MikeSmith: as far as Chris
Wilson's +1 message, I don't find that particularly
... in general, "+1" messages to the list are rarely, if ever, useful in discussions on the list
<oedipus> shepazu: ignoring plus one messages discourages participation - sometimes there's nothing left to add to a well articulated post
shepazu: can I slightly disagree with that?
<Lachy> if there's nothing left to add, then there's little point in posting anything at all.
<oedipus> is following up on issues the responsibility of the issue tracking team?
<Laura> A +1 adds an additional voice of support to a concept or proposal.
<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
<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
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that we need a statement on behalf of the chairs as to what the three states mean
<shepazu> Lachy, agreement by a large number of people *is* something to add
<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
<Lachy> shepazu, no, it's not, because it's the quality of the argument, not the quantity of support
<Lachy> that matters
<shepazu> ... unless you are keen on suppressing other opinions from finding a voice
<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
<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
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.
<Steve_f> 'quality of argument' is a qualitative statement, showing support for an argument reinforces the argument
<oedipus> concerned by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html
<oedipus> especially "same level of response that I give any e-mail sent to the WHATWG
<oedipus> list; that is, given full consideration and given an explicit response.
<oedipus> why not the same consideration to issues raised in the HTML WG?
<oedipus> and on public-html?
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.
<shepazu> also, it doesn't take long to process a message that says only "+1"
<oedipus> SF: issue - summary attribute been raised twice - how do i get it on issue tracker?
<oedipus> MikeS: appropriate for bugzilla
<oedipus> LC: already in tracker
<oedipus> MikeS: really? what is issue number?
<oedipus> LC: issue 32 - was closed by hixie
<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
<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
<oedipus> MikeS: editor could mark an issue as resolved to his satisfaction in bugzilla
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- CLOSED
<oedipus> LC: how to get from bugzilla to issue tracker
<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
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- CLOSED
<oedipus> DS: "pending state" needed?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- OPEN
<oedipus> GJR notes to shepazu that that was his original request until he realized that RAISED served the same function
<smedero> Ian closed it because he needed wanted more information....
<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
<oedipus> SF: in situation where have issue considered resolved by editor and chairs, but not by members of WG, how are those issues tracked?
Steve_f: in a situation that is considered resolved by the editor and by the chairs, what is the recourse?
<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
<oedipus> SF: are some substantial issues that editor considers resolved, but WG members do not - what is resolution path?
<oedipus> shepazu, i was trying to work within the framework of the available tools...
<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
<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
<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
<oedipus> MikeS: alt issue closed is same problem with summary
<oedipus> SF: substantive issue not resolved should stay as open issue on tracker
<oedipus> MikeS: will happen going forward - issues will not be closed without my (mikeS) say so
<oedipus> MikeS: should review all closed issues - if any anyone feels closed prematurely, bring up and reopen, as did with summary attribute
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to have chairs address hixie's comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html
<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
<oedipus> MikeS: hixie already said that that is his stance -- if that is "correct" interpretation of his role is a seperate issue
<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
<oedipus> MikeS: gives me more leverage to get hixie to reprioritize issues
<oedipus> MikeS: will make easier - fact that issues 42-50 raised without review process makes it difficult
<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
<oedipus> GJR how can you say it is not an issue by fiat when those attending calls keep raising them
<oedipus> GJR: what is "review process"? how can we raise issues if no "review process" defined
<oedipus> MikeS: equally confused by fact that GJR and RobB don't understand difference between an important issue and parochial issues
<oedipus> GJR notes that a blind man's poison is another man's food
<oedipus> MikeS: alt required a show stopper for Last Call; issues 42-50 don't rise to that level
<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
<oedipus> MikeS: need to formulate a way to define issues that rise to issue tracker level
<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
<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
<oedipus> GJR: looking for clarification from chairs
<oedipus> GJR: original comments on MS in role as staff contact, not as chair or whatever
<oedipus> MikeS: not documented by me so far -- added statement to WG homepage
<oedipus> MikeS: probably needs more detail -- will provide and send out to list to ensure everybody aware of policy
<oedipus> DS: that would be very helpful - detail you went into today about LC is very important
<Steve_f> +1 to that
<Laura> +1 from me too
<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
<oedipus> DS: know you're doing double-duty - perhaps co-chair could help out more with day-to-day WG decisions
<oedipus> MikeS: will discuss with him when returns from vacation
<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?
<oedipus> MikeS: will say unequivocally that any issue from another WG will get into tracker and be addressed; that is W3C process;
<oedipus> SF: thanks for clarification
<Lachy> HTML5 Authoring Guide
<oedipus> MikeS: any other topics to be added?
<oedipus> scribeNick: oedipus
MikeS: Lachy been working on HTML Authoring Guidelines
<Lachy> I've made some updates to the authoring guide, focussing mainly on the syntax section
MikeS: checked in changes - current version in CVS reflects latest changes, right?
<Lachy> I'm going to try and get something worth publishing as an FPWD within the next couple of weeks
<Lachy> yes, I checked in the most recent changes about 30 minutes ago
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
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
... 10 September 2008
... another useful thing would be to give a heads up on public-html list and give a summary of what you've changed
MikeS: thanks for your work - great to see the document moving along
MikeS: for action 54 remind me where we are at?
<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
<anne> Is it ok if Lachy and I leave now for some food?
<MikeSmith> oedipus: still awaiting response from PF ... aiming to have that by next week's call
MikeS: current due date 19 june 2008 so if can get feedback would be fine
GJR: will discuss with AlG and if need more time will get a chair-to-chair request
MikeS: overdue action items
<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
ALERT: meeting continues for another 30 minutes (or until issue review done)
MikeS: changed due date to 26 june to give lachy a couple of weeks - will keep updated every 2 weeks
<MikeSmith> "Lachlan working on this, with goal to have something WD-ready by mid-August"
MikeS: same overdue action items from last week -- assigned either to ChrisW or DanC - will keep open until have chance to talk with them
<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Chris Wilson to get more information on MS patent review with <canvas> -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN
MikeS: due date today - chrisW
moved due date to today's date
... 150 days from 22 january - so 22 june 2008 is due date for patent review
... any patent disclosures with regards the draft published on 22 january are due 22 june - this applies to anyone and everyone
... don't know current situation with all patent stakeholders; apple been doing review - as well as MS
DS: issue will be obsolete after 22 june 2008
... need chrisW to update
... downside of tracker - doesn't give audit trail
... test cases don't apply to open source discussion; from w3c team side, have not received/seen any change in w3c license policy
... 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
... my own opinion - don't know what info DanC has that might affect this
<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."
MikeS: forms working group (action 56)
GJR: needs more time to propose to task force - hopefully by end of day/tomorrow
<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
MikeS: ChrisW hasn't had communication with forms task force
GJR: no, hasn't
MikeS: inclined to close out - will keep open until ahve chance to talk with ChrisW about it
<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
MikeS: table headers - did have change - headers attribute readded to draft; GJR what is position of WAI on status of this?
GJR: will email the WAI Coordination Group to get status report from WAI chairs
DS: thanks mike for keeping track of a ridiculous amount of info
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
GJR strong +1 to MikeTMSmith's weekly post
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
... will also be working on a better way to recycle to group regular updates on changes
... biggest set of issues left -- next week, instead of approaching in serial manner, start with "big issues"
... couple of raised issues related to HTTP which we haven't taken up and do need to take up - julian has expertise
MikeS: look at closed issues -
didn't know that summary issue in a closed state, so good to
... anything that should be reopened?
<smedero> MikeSmith: TAG is still dicussing: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41
MikeS: a lot of duplicates
<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- OPEN
MikeS: reopen issue 41 - an issue
for discussion with TAG - example of what should be kept open
... don't know what can do about "decentralized accessiblity" -- issue for TAG and a lot of others (WAI, Ubiquitous Web, etc.)
... any others people want opened?
MikeS: in remaining time, want to look at open issues briefly
<trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- WAI-ARIA dependency on Role Attribute Module, which takes Curie values. problem for implementations? -- OPEN
MikeS: not sure what issue
precisely is - ARIA has dependency on XHTML - extension of Role
Attribute Module - Role module references CURIEs
... CURIEs put forward by XHTML2 WG - not sure if TAG has made a finding
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
<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
<MikeSmith> oedipus: this has been a problem with PF as far as ARIA ...
GJR: PF taking CURIE agnostic view -
DS: don't think HTML WG should be considering
<MikeSmith> ... our PF policy has been to use @role as outlined, and we worry about CURIEs when a decision comes down about CURIEs
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
... RDFa integration also a question - use case for CURIEs from RDFa task force - if have RDFa integrated into HTML5 will have CURIE issue
tag on CURIE: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/curie.html
CURIE Issue in TAG Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/56
DS: SVG will be making formal proposal, and will be working in public over the next weeks
MikeS: would like to go through issues in raised state
<shepazu> after taking feedback into account
MikeS: agenda for next week - will post a list of specific issues for discussion to discern which have consensus upon
MikeS: move we adjourn
scribe's note: seconded by all