<Joshue> I promise to help with scribing some day but not today as it is rather load where I am at the moment!
<Joshue> yes, @summary discussion is needed.
<smedero> aroben: document in IRC who said what on the telecon
MS reviews agenda...
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- RAISED
<Joshue> issue 32 is @summary
<oedipus_laptop> scribe's cheat sheet
<aroben> thanks oedipus_laptop
<Julian> issue 33 is referer header, which should be on the agenda as well
<Joshue> is pending review
<Joshue> @summary currently  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
<hober> Should our response to the XHTML2 WG be on the agenda (if it isn't already)?
<oedipus_laptop> hober, yes
<MikeSmith> I propose we discuss issue 32 and take until :22 minutes after on it at most
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Include a summary attribute for tables? -- RAISED
(wierd... it says pending review on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues )
<Joshue> would like to see a new action item related to issue 32
<smedero> (hrm... does, trackbot work from a cache?)
Josh: I'd like to see an action item where we review the reasons for removing table/@summary
MS: action on who?
<Joshue> I will take this action item on
<Joshue> aplogies for any noise from my channel
<oedipus> GJR will work with joshue if he wants
<hober> Is there any new information w.r.t. @summary?
MS: the target is an optional attribute, yes?
<oedipus> is there any new rationale on why it should be dropped?
<anne> (I think the rationale from the editor was, fwiw, that there was not enough rationale for it to be added.)
<Laura> Some applicable Issue 32 WAI docs
<oedipus> but it was REMOVED not ADDED
<Laura> Technique H73 for WCAG 2.0: Using the summary attribute of the table element to give an overview of data tables
<Laura> Principle 1: Perceivable - Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive
<Laura> Adaptable WCAG2 Guideline 1.3
msg from hixie where he dropped @summary http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
<Laura> Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure
<MikeSmith> ACTION: Joshue to collate information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary, research backgound on rationale for retaining table@summary as a valid attribute [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Joshue
<Joshue> Maybe keep it as issue 32 and rename
<MikeSmith> ACTION: MikeSmith to assign action to Josue to collate information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary, research background on rationale for retaining table@summary as a valid attribute [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Assign action to Josue to collate information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary, research background on rationale for retaining table@summary as a valid attribute [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-06-26].
<smedero> I can rename it... if anyone has a suggestion?
<Joshue> just for tidy housekeeping
<Joshue> @summary is very useful
<hober> That principle 1 is a good argument for <p> before/after <table>, not @summary. That way all users benefit from the summary text!
<Joshue> If you can find rational for dropping please forward to me
this seems to be a suggested renaming: mechanism to provide a summary of high density information easily discernible from a cursory visual glance
<oedipus> hober, what summary does is what your brain does automatically when you visually process a table
<oedipus> hober, there is no gestalt view for the non-visual user or those with very limited viewports
<Laura> Table summary discussion on public-html:
DanC: is a bunch of research overkill? it seemed to me that the editor skipped the issue because the title presumed a solution; a simple re-phrasing of the issue title seems like a good next step
<Joshue> I have yet to see solid rational for removing @summary from spec
<Joshue> I will mute
<smedero> My understanding is that Hixie & Hyatt haven't "removed" or "dropped" @summary... it just not in the spec at present. WHATWG's HTML 5 started with a clean slate and elements and attribtues were added as research and test cases came in.
MS: issues is tracked under my name due to technical limitations
DanC: estimated due date?
<oedipus> smedero, but isn't HTML5 supposed to be "evolved from HTML 4.01" by charter?
<robburns> lost my skype connection so I'm only on irc at the moment (trying to reestablish now)
Joshue: it may take time to get feedback from the WAI PF WG... how about 2 weeks
<Joshue> Say two weeks for me to return on Issue 32 @summary
<oedipus> smedero, the objection is that what was added to html4x for a very definite reason, should either be retained or enhanced/improved, not dropped
<Joshue> Thats it
<smedero> oedipus, understood... just reiterating past statements from Hixie and trying to help folks understand why it is not in the spec. It was not intentionally removed as far as I can remember.
<trackbot> ACTION-66 -- Michael(tm) Smith to assign action to Josue to collate information on what spec status is with respect to table@summary, research background on rationale for retaining table@summary as a valid attribute -- due 2008-07-03 -- OPEN
<MikeSmith> Action-66 is due August 4
<oedipus> smedero, thanks - not implying that it was removed due to ill-intent, just that there is a history behind each of those elements and attributes which i want the WHAT WG to appreciate
<smedero> oedipus, ok, clear!
smedero, "summary="" is not in." is clearly intentional. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html )
<hober> oedipus: It's quite possible to appreciate the history and still advocate dropping them. :)
<MikeSmith> any other comments on the @summary issue for now?
<oedipus> hober, yeah, but not without discussion
<smedero> DanC: Ahh, good find there.
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- spec requires non-compliant Referer header -- RAISED
<Joshue> @summary is very useful well supported. Am interested in looking forward at other solutions but it must be based on a solid rational
JR: the offending text is no
... so it seems reasonable to close this issue, but I wasn't sure about whether to do that myself
MS: closing issues in calls seems good so that more than one person considers it and so we have a record
<Joshue> The Google data which cites that shows the summary attribute on ~2.5% of tables. Note: The following information was collected by Google in December 2005. Does not of itself mean that the attribute is not useful. It means that it is underutilised and that is all. 
<MikeSmith> Any objections to closing this out?
<oedipus> no objection to ping-refer
DanC: we can't make WG decisions without async participation; seems easier to just withdraw the issue
MikeSmith: yeah; it hasn't really been discussed by the group
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- spec requires non-compliant Referer header -- RAISED
<MikeSmith> trackbot, close issue-33
<trackbot> Sorry, MikeSmith, I don't understand 'trackbot, close issue-33'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
<smedero> I'll do that... I'm on the web interface now.
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- [WITHDRAWN] spec requires non-compliant Referer header -- CLOSED
<smedero> ahh there we go.
MikeSmith goes back to agenda review... raised issues?
scribe: or XHTML 2 response?
<oedipus> danC, this one: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0251.html ?
scribe: or overdue issues?
<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Chris Wilson to get more information on MS patent review with <canvas> -- due 2008-06-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<oedipus> hard deadline of end of month, right?
<hober> I thought the deadline was tomorrow
<hober> (the 20th)
CW: we're reviewing this and all of HTML 5, noting the 20 Jun deadline...
<oedipus> hober, you are right
CW: if the scope of <canvas> grows, that would mean more work
<oedipus> do people know about the canvas-api list?
CW: this action dates from before 1st WD, and the 1st WD pretty much obviates this action
<trackbot> ACTION-14 get more information on MS patent review with <canvas> closed
<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on the idea of a free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN
<MikeSmith> DanC: I don't know whether this actually ever got to the management team for an actual yes/no
<anne> I note that <canvas> recently gained a text API that is part of the second WD
<oedipus> anne, yes
<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on the idea of a free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN
<anne> Besides ImageData for easier manipulation that's probably the most major addition.
<trackbot> ACTION-38 -- Dan Connolly to chairs to review need for amending charter with Director -- due 2008-05-22 -- OPEN
<oedipus> anne, agree
<hober> what sort of charter amendment?
<anne> hober, not clear yet
hober, the question is whether the scope of the HTML 5 draft is so different from the charter that either (a) the charter should change or (b) the spec should change
<anne> or (c) that all is fine ;)
<smedero> Particularly the charter issue came up at Boston TPAC with regards to <canvas>
right, anne, I wrote "whether"
<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
<anne> DanC, fair enough
<oedipus> task force runs out soon - need to plan for what comes after it turns into a pumpkin
CW: yes, it's time to consider what to do next since we don't have much in the way of results from the forms TF
<oedipus> forms has been thinking nuts and bolts, while the TF charter anne drafted had abstract requirements as deliverable
<oedipus> collision of expectations
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to chris Wilson to work with MikeSmith and DanC on (re)plan of action for forms coordination with Forms WG -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG responds to PF WG on Omitting alt Attribute http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN
<aroben> MikeSmith: we seem to have skipped action-57
<MikeSmith> aroben: thanks, checking now
<Joshue> Steve could not make the call today, so he sends apologies.
MS: this seems overtaken by other work on issue-31 missing-alt
<trackbot> ACTION-61 Ensure HTML WG responds to PF WG on Omitting alt Attribute http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html closed
<oedipus> AlG call for participation in ALT discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0205.html
DanC: added action-61 to make sure we responded as a WG to the PF WG's request
<trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Chris Wilson to respond to extensibility discussion -- due 2008-07-01 -- OPEN
<MikeSmith> ChrisW will follow up on action-57
(trying to connect action-57 to the distributed extensibility issue... failing)
<trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG response to XHTML 2 WG re name of XML serialization http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0385.html -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN
<oedipus> is action 57 in response to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0251.html
<hober> oedipus: s/57/62/
<oedipus> hober, thanks
Danc: again, this is a request from a peer WG and I felt obliged to track it until our WG had decided something and responded
MS: want to continue?
<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
DanC: this should be connected to the table-headers issue; can't seem to get tracker to do that
<Lachy> yes, headers="" is on TD elements
MS: I think some spec changes have been made related to table headers
<smedero> The email DanC linked to earlier notes that header is in the spec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
Anne: right; current draft of HTML 5 includes table headers
MS: so perhaps this is a non-issue?
<Lachy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html Hixie's response about headers=""
<anne> It's in http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular.html#headers for instance
<oedipus> quoth hixie: ""Given the problem of conveying the meaning of tables to users who are not able to directly see the tables, solutions (such as headers="") have to be evaluated on the basis of whether or not they address the problem better than not having the solution at all""
<oedipus> quoth hixie: "Conclusion: headers="" probably neither helps nor harms this page in existing user agents."
<Lachy> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular.html#the-td headers attribute defined in spec here
<MikeSmith> Joshue: you there?
DanC: one possibility for turning http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html into a WG decision is to mail the WG saying "any objections?" though I'd rather we had test cases when we close issues
<smedero> I believe Ben Millard's research on headers was instrumental in the March 2008 decision: http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to propose a test case regarding table headers/id [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Propose a test case regarding table headers/id [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-06-26].
<Joshue> Sorry Dan!
<Laura> header examples: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DroppedAttributeHeaders#head-66e4ada3f06ead1e14e5172f57405120a0b2e02c
well, it was worth a try
Laura, care to pick one of those?
<smedero> Bugzilla issues changed this week: http://tinyurl.com/6qrymq
<robburns> oedipus we're now discussing issue-tracker issues
<anne> DanC, another example: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_02.html
<smedero> DanC: How about a <table>+header example from the W3C itself: http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix
<smedero> (Well, at least that should use header=""... I'm not sure it does scanning the source)
<oedipus> matrix doesn't use headers/id
<smedero> : (
<trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method -- RAISED
JR: this has been discussed, resulting in divided opinions
<anne> prolly peanuts compared to alt=""
<oedipus> smedero, not even scope on matrix
<oedipus> smedero, headers/id are used in tables which are fundamental part of http://a11y.org/kafs (RFC track spec)
DanC: is there more data to get?
JR: I don't think so
<Joshue> gotta go. I will start work on action item 32 re @summary and fine tune the wording of the action item in order to ensure that it correctly represents the issue. Bye
MS: this is clearly a WG issue, since it's been discussed considerably and it involves another WG
DanC: so how about putting the question?
<Lachy> shouldn't we wait till Hixie actually looks at that section of the spec before we close the issue?
MS: let's give it some time in OPEN state first
<anne> Lachy, he has...
<Lachy> ok, then close it.
<Laura> Dan: Joe Clark's http://joeclark.org/access/cinema/reviews/
<anne> Lachy, that's not how it works
ah... good... that's one concrete page, Laura. the next step is to reduce it to a small example. any help doing that is appreciated
<MikeSmith> Scribnick: MikeSmith
<MikeSmith> Scribenick: MikeSmith
MikeSmith will take issue-1 to the group for review
<oedipus> danC: there are smaller tables with id/headers and such at http://a11y.org/a11y-dom-api
<anne> also see end of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0085.html fwiw
<anne> (revisit the feature if it fails to get implemented)
<trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Is there a need to expand the available <button> types to include 'radio' or 'toggle'? -- RAISED
<smedero> There hasn't been discussion of that feature outside of the f2f... meeting.
not taking this up at this point because there has not been significant discussion on this list, no other WG asking for this
<trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- Pros and cons of keeping video and audio in the scope of the HTML working group -- RAISED
the fact that we have already published a two WDs with video and audio in them has to some degree made this a moot point
this is a candidate for just being closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- codec support and the <video> element -- RAISED
issue 7 remains important but getting resolution remains outside the control of the HTML WG
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- how synchronization works for <video> is unclear -- RAISED
I think issue 9 does not need to be taken up by the group
<smedero> I've got to drop off now, regrets.
another issue that could go to bugzilla, maybe
<oedipus> i have to drop off too, but wanted to note 2 things:
<trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- how similar should SMIL and <video> attribute names be? -- RAISED
<oedipus> as far as issue 35 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35) i noted in the notes that the issue should be closed due to the erroneous nature of its underlying assumption and provided details and pointers
<oedipus> as far as issue 51 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51) i think that it can be closed by noting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0182.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0183.html)
<smedero> I can move certain Tracker issues to Bugzilla if that's what you'd like to see happen MikeSmith. Assign an action, email me directly, or ping me on IRC...
smedero: OK, I look into it
anne: I'm not sure I agree with
oedipus statement that this should be closed
... Henri Sivonen has discussed this too, and I think it's on Hixie's TODO list ...
... and perhaps we should wait until we have more implementation experience ...
<Lachy> Issue 35 should definitely remain open. Gregory's arguments against it don't make sense
so I note that oedipus has written, "values of the attribute are not CURIEs [CURIE], but simply strings."
<anne> AvK: I don't think the role attribute module actually reflects what implementations do
<anne> ... the implementations just treat them as string values not qnames or whatever
<anne> ... seems much simpler for everyone involved...
<anne> AvK: HTML and XML would be the same as far as I can tell, but no qnames
<anne> ... euh, curies?
we got up through issue-10 in our review of raised issues