IRC log of html-wg on 2008-07-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:37:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:37:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:40:43 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
15:46:19 [Lachy]
what's on the agenda today?
15:47:35 [oedipus]
lachy, if things hold to form,
15:48:39 [oedipus]
mikeTMsmith's announcement:
15:48:39 [Lachy]
if you're talking about web forms stuff, that might be interesting and I can call in.
15:48:44 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
15:49:30 [oedipus]
MikeSmith, are you around - can you answer lachy's query about web forms stuff
15:50:35 [oedipus]
Web Forms Features Survey (still open for a few hours) -
15:53:25 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
15:55:13 [oedipus]
15:55:19 [oedipus]
35 votes so far
15:56:17 [Joshue]
Joshue has joined #html-wg
15:58:43 [MikeSmith]
trackbot, start meeting
15:58:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be HTML
15:58:47 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference
15:58:48 [trackbot]
Date: 10 July 2008
15:59:14 [Zakim]
HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started
15:59:21 [Zakim]
15:59:25 [Zakim]
15:59:29 [Zakim]
15:59:29 [oedipus]
mike, do you need a scribe?
15:59:30 [Zakim]
15:59:32 [ChrisWilson]
zakim, Microsoft is me
15:59:32 [Zakim]
+ChrisWilson; got it
15:59:57 [Zakim]
16:00:06 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
16:00:06 [Zakim]
+MikeSmith; got it
16:00:12 [Joshue]
Can't make call will be on IRC for a short while, apologies
16:00:16 [Joshue]
Hi all BTW
16:00:16 [Zakim]
16:00:27 [Zakim]
16:00:33 [MikeSmith]
Regrets+ Joshue
16:00:46 [MikeSmith]
Regrets+ DaveSinger
16:00:59 [MikeSmith]
Joshue: you going to be available on IRC at least?
16:01:03 [Joshue]
16:01:07 [MikeSmith]
16:01:14 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:01:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
16:01:21 [Zakim]
16:02:10 [MikeSmith]
Joshue, is there somebody else who can talk about action 54 on the call?
16:02:18 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Gregory_Rosmaita, ChrisWilson, MikeSmith, Cynthia_Shelly, Julian, DanC
16:02:25 [Joshue]
give me a second I will try again..
16:04:09 [Joshue]
I am in Austria at the moment
16:04:17 [MikeSmith]
Scribenick: oedipus
16:04:24 [MikeSmith]
Scribe: Gregory
16:04:33 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
16:04:35 [oedipus]
chair? MikeSmith?
16:04:42 [oedipus]
chair: MikeSmith
16:04:45 [Zakim]
16:04:55 [MikeSmith]
16:05:02 [oedipus]
zakim ??P2 is Josh_O_Connor
16:05:10 [oedipus]
zakim +??P2 is Josh_O_Connor
16:05:15 [oedipus]
zakim, +??P2 is Josh_O_Connor
16:05:15 [Zakim]
sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named '+??P2'
16:05:18 [MikeSmith]
Topic: convene meeting, review agenda
16:05:19 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
16:05:23 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Action Item 54 Update
16:05:34 [Julian]
zakim, ??P2 is Josh_O_Connor
16:05:34 [Zakim]
+Josh_O_Connor; got it
16:05:43 [Lachy]
Zakim, passcode?
16:05:43 [Zakim]
the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), Lachy
16:05:45 [DanC]
let's not use opaque numbers for topics, please
16:05:59 [oedipus]
JC: status is still in review; Steven Faulkner withdrew from group
16:06:01 [Joshue]
We are awaiting response from PF
16:06:09 [Zakim]
16:06:10 [Zakim]
16:06:18 [DanC]
s/Action Item 54 Update/missing-alt ISSUE-31 action-54/
16:06:35 [oedipus]
MC: josh can replace SF on Issue Tracker; will assume responsibility for StevenF's issues
16:07:13 [DanC]
(new headers issue? different from ISSUE-20 table-headers ? hmm.)
16:07:27 [oedipus]
JC: thanks for tracker privileges - @headers issue (issue 66?) done work on wiki - also made formal request of PF on @headers issue
16:07:43 [Zakim]
16:07:45 [oedipus]
JC: @summary also under investigation and being documented on wiki
16:07:53 [oedipus]
MS: sounds fine
16:08:01 [Lachy]
Zakim, I am P5
16:08:01 [Zakim]
sorry, Lachy, I do not see a party named 'P5'
16:08:05 [Zakim]
16:08:05 [Lachy]
Zakim, I am +??P5
16:08:06 [Zakim]
sorry, Lachy, I do not see a party named '+??P5'
16:08:12 [DanC]
Zakim, ??P5 is Lachy
16:08:12 [Zakim]
+Lachy; got it
16:08:18 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Lachy
16:08:18 [Zakim]
Lachy should now be muted
16:08:18 [DanC]
Zakim, mute Lachy temporarily
16:08:19 [Zakim]
Lachy was already muted, DanC
16:08:34 [oedipus]
i/(new headers/TOPIC: TABLE issues & actions update
16:08:35 [Joshue]
@summary wiki is updated (Action Item 66)
16:08:51 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, unmute Lachy
16:08:51 [Zakim]
Lachy should no longer be muted
16:08:53 [oedipus]
MS: wait for responses until next week on SteveF and Josh's stuff
16:08:55 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Lachy
16:08:55 [Zakim]
Lachy should now be muted
16:09:07 [Joshue]
I will add @headers issue to tracker shortly (Buzilla 5822)
16:09:17 [Joshue]
Bye y'all
16:09:18 [Joshue]
Joshue has left #html-wg
16:09:20 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:09:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Gregory_Rosmaita, ChrisWilson, MikeSmith, Julian, DanC, [Microsoft], Lachy (muted)
16:09:21 [Lachy]
ok, that's weird
16:09:22 [DanC]
Joshue, pls review -- darn
16:09:36 [oedipus]
16:09:46 [oedipus]
josh - other URIs from ESW?
16:10:03 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Agenda Shaping
16:10:21 [MikeSmith]
16:10:41 [oedipus]
MS: any additional agenda items other than what is on tracker?
16:10:42 [Julian]
16:10:48 [oedipus]
ack julian
16:10:55 [smedero]
DanC - there's no new @headers issue. ISSUE-20 remains the only collection point on @headers I can see?
16:11:05 [oedipus]
JR: TAG going to discuss content type missing - maybe need to discuss here
16:11:10 [oedipus]
MS: DanC - comments?
16:11:33 [oedipus]
MS: URI for TAG announcement
16:11:40 [Zakim]
16:11:45 [oedipus]
JR: on TAG meeting agenda for today
16:11:51 [Julian]
16:11:59 [Laura]
Laura has joined #html-wg
16:12:02 [smedero]
ISSUE-20 seems sufficiently broad to cover the discussion going in bug 5822.
16:12:03 [Julian]
16:12:22 [oedipus]
MS: specifically about MS?
16:12:28 [oedipus]
DC: what prompted it
16:12:32 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:12:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
16:12:33 [Cynthia]
Cynthia has joined #html-wg
16:12:33 [oedipus]
DC: TAG discussions wide-ranging
16:12:51 [oedipus]
MS: pre-discussion for DC to take to TAG?
16:12:56 [oedipus]
DC: most discussion in email
16:13:12 [oedipus]
MS: email record reflects HTML5 side
16:13:28 [oedipus]
DC: reflects where bunch of individuals - summary for WG position would be best
16:13:51 [oedipus]
GJR: collect issues on wiki page to summarize issues
16:14:04 [oedipus]
MS: only problem is getting someone with cycles
16:14:16 [oedipus]
DC: problems with patches interesting aspect
16:14:44 [oedipus]
MS: Adam Barr (?) compiled version of FF with content-type sniffing off - tried and
16:14:47 [DanC]
s/problems with patches interesting aspect/the most interesting thing i got out of the thread was options and patches to browse without content sniffing/
16:14:57 [DanC]
I solicited data in a blog item
16:15:11 [oedipus]
MS: good to have more data like that - content-sniffing/identification off experiences
16:15:11 [MikeSmith]
s/Adam Barr/Adam Barth/
16:15:15 [Lachy]
16:15:16 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
16:15:18 [robburns]
16:15:35 [oedipus]
JR: ChrisW needs to give more info about MS plans
16:15:50 [DanC]
s/specifically about MS?/specifically about Microsoft's authoritative=true proposal?/
16:15:52 [smedero]
Did anyone recommend a method to disable content-sniffing in WebKit?
16:15:57 [oedipus]
CW: read blog post - not sure what more to say
16:16:26 [oedipus]
JR: content-type sniffing end altogether, or just specific sniffing case - if serve image as GIF would content="foo"
16:16:42 [oedipus]
MS: believe would turn off all content sniffing - including for images
16:16:49 [DanC]
s/TAG discussions wide-ranging/I requested TAG discussion based on the authoritative=true discussion, but it's hard to predict what the TAG will discuss once we get started/
16:17:01 [oedipus]
MS: Laura, agenda addenda?
16:17:05 [Lachy]
image/gif;authoritive=true for a JPEG is unlikely to break because most browsers just pass off the image to the image processor, which then determines its type from the magic numbers
16:17:10 [oedipus]
MS: Laura, summary of contact with PF
16:17:25 [oedipus]
LC: waiting on PF for review of ALT (action 54) - still in progress
16:17:34 [oedipus]
LC: @headers PF will be discussing
16:17:56 [Lachy]
but the real question is whether a <script src="..."> served as text/plain;authoritive=true obeys the content type
16:18:06 [oedipus]
MS: looking back at email - has been discussion in PF about 5822 whihch is about headers
16:18:09 [robburns]
present+ robburns
16:18:10 [Laura]
headers bug 5822
16:18:24 [Laura]
16:18:43 [Laura]
PF will be involved
16:18:55 [oedipus]
MS: issue of how to access content of "title" popups - waiting for feedback from PFWG on accessibile title exposure (multi-modal, not just expressed as tooltip)
16:19:37 [oedipus]
MS: change due date to next week for action 54
16:19:45 [oedipus]
MS: continue to wait for PFWG on this
16:20:03 [oedipus]
GJR: suggests that someone talk with AlG - may be WAI CG issues holding things up
16:20:07 [Laura]
We are still waiting for a reply from the PFWG for Action Item 54 regarding several issues:
16:20:07 [Laura]
16:20:14 [Laura]
16:20:21 [Laura]
Action 54 is dependent on PF's response. PF is beginning a process to provide guidance.
16:20:21 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 54
16:20:23 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Action Item Review
16:20:30 [Laura]
16:20:52 [Laura]
No timeline was given in Al's email. Request for an Action Item 54 time extension until there is a response from the PFWG.
16:20:56 [MikeSmith]
16:20:56 [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 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:20:56 [trackbot]
16:20:58 [oedipus]
MS: not sure to keep ACTION 56 open
16:21:11 [Zakim]
16:21:12 [DanC]
(GJR didn't actually voice his "suggests that...")
16:21:15 [oedipus]
GJR: survey on forms ends today
16:21:21 [ChrisWilson]
s/not sure to/should not
16:21:30 [oedipus]
s/GJR:/GJR notes
16:22:02 [oedipus]
DC: throw out overdue today, and tell others they hjave a week
16:22:13 [DanC]
(56? hmm...)
16:22:21 [oedipus]
MS: Action 56 and related survey will be closed today; should be on agenda for next week
16:22:22 [DanC]
16:22:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-69 -- Dan Connolly to produce poll on integrating sections of Webforms 2.0 -- due 2008-07-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:22:22 [trackbot]
16:22:27 [DanC]
close action-69
16:22:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-69 Produce poll on integrating sections of Webforms 2.0 closed
16:22:38 [oedipus]
16:22:51 [oedipus]
DC: at a loss - chris was supposed to address at PF face2face
16:22:54 [oedipus]
MS: followup?
16:23:00 [oedipus]
CW: headers/id?
16:23:05 [oedipus]
CW: didn't talk about it
16:23:11 [oedipus]
LC: ties in with bug 5822
16:23:14 [Laura]
headers bug 5822
16:23:15 [DanC]
(full URI for 5822?)
16:23:21 [Laura]
The specification states that each token in the headers attribute should have the value of an id of a th element. It says:
16:23:29 [Laura]
"The headers attribute, if specified, must contain a string consisting
16:23:29 [Laura]
of an unordered set of unique space-separated tokens, each of which
16:23:29 [Laura]
must have the value of an ID of a th element..."
16:23:34 [Laura]
16:23:38 [Julian]
16:23:41 [oedipus]
CS: some discussion of table headers, but dont' remember details
16:23:43 [Laura]
This is currently implemented in such a way that complex tables cannot be created using the headers attribute. It essentially makes the headers attribute that has been included on tds pointless. The headers attribute needs to be able to reference the id of a td.
16:23:55 [Laura]
As hierarchical headers are not allowed in HTML5, this means that
16:23:55 [Laura]
conceptual headers (cells that contain data and have their own header,
16:23:56 [Laura]
but act as a header for other cells in the table) must be marked up as
16:23:56 [Laura]
a td. As these cells are conceptually headings, the headers attribute
16:23:56 [Laura]
should be able to reference the id attribute of these cells.
16:24:06 [Laura]
In June 2007 in response to my inquiry, PF said, "There is a disability constituency that currently uses and depends on this feature: anyone offering to remove it should be expected to demonstrate that the replacement works better and is in service..."
16:24:12 [oedipus]
MS: eliminate multiple actions for same thing - josh following up on this; without objection will close this action
16:24:16 [Laura]
16:24:32 [Laura]
Examples like the following one needs to be conforming in HTML 5:
16:24:41 [Laura]
16:24:48 [DanC]
(yeah... would like to see: ACTION: Josh to follow up on bug 5822 re table headers )
16:24:52 [Laura]
A case-in-point is detailed in Bug 5822.
16:24:58 [Laura]
16:25:08 [Laura]
The way headers are specied only allows the simplest of data tables to be defined accessibly, which defeats the purpose of getting the headers attribute into the specification at all, because it can't do anything that most ATs don't already do by default.
16:25:09 [oedipus]
GJR: PF discussion more of process and liaisoning and collaboration than details
16:25:14 [Laura]
Currently, the implementation is such that complex tables cannot be created using the headers attribute. The language in the current spec is attempting to pacify PFWG.
16:25:20 [oedipus]
MS: more to do on this? think should reassign to josh
16:25:32 [oedipus]
MS: add note "consider reassigning to josh"
16:25:36 [Laura]
The spec complies with PFs advice by paying lip service to headers while dissenting in functional requirements. It is an attempt to circumvent the issue not solve it.
16:25:38 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has left #html-wg
16:25:48 [Laura]
he headers attribute in the current specification is of little use, as it can only reference a th, and the th cannot be a hierarchical th. Without being able to associate header cells to data cells, screen reader users will either have great difficulty, or find it impossible, to orientate themselves in complex data tables.
16:26:04 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Action Item 68
16:26:23 [DanC]
Topic: urls-webarch
16:26:51 [MikeSmith]
16:27:00 [DanC]
16:27:26 [oedipus]
DC: haven't finished expected results for all cases, but most useful thing was philip taylor's suggestion that for test cases, best thing to do is walk through the text and id test cases
16:27:38 [oedipus]
DC: philip and i walked the text multiple times
16:28:15 [oedipus]
DC: layering on top of UI standard - was going to write python code to match HTML5 and compare results with previous spec, but is pretty difficult
16:28:17 [Julian]
16:28:30 [oedipus]
DC: my investigation concurs with IanH - don't know what else can / should be done
16:28:40 [oedipus]
s/IanH/IanH's findings
16:28:45 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:28:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:28:45 [MikeSmith]
q+ later to say that Roy was really objecting to redefining the term "URL"
16:28:54 [DanC]
From: Ian Hickson <>
16:28:54 [DanC]
To: Roy T. Fielding <>
16:28:54 [DanC]
16:28:54 [DanC]
Subject: Re: heads-up about "new" URLs section in HTML5 editor's draft
16:28:54 [DanC]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:25:42 +0000 (UTC) (00:25 CDT
16:29:01 [DanC]
"How is that different from what the spec does now?"
16:29:13 [oedipus]
DC: technical substance of it: 2 questions
16:29:39 [robburns]
The spec actually says it uses a different definition of URL than the related RFCs. If that's not he case, then that note should be removed.
16:29:53 [oedipus]
DC: what about non-ASCII chars? 2 cases: query part of URL from form - may be insurmmountable legacy that necessitates code in document
16:30:36 [oedipus]
DC: another case: what to do with ASCII chars in accomodating non-ASCII chars? FF has runtime switch to serve all as UTF-8
16:30:45 [oedipus]
DC: still digging through details
16:31:00 [oedipus]
MS: status of action? PendingReview or later date?
16:31:09 [oedipus]
DC: just reviewed so just keep open for now
16:31:20 [oedipus]
MS: nothing to add - DC can change as appropriate
16:31:21 [DanC]
16:31:21 [trackbot]
ACTION-68 -- Dan Connolly to work with Hixie to confirm what expected results are for tests -- due 2008-07-17 -- OPEN
16:31:21 [trackbot]
16:31:27 [oedipus]
16:31:31 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
16:31:55 [oedipus]
MS: comment from hixie htat test cases not written to obtain results, but only to study browser behavior
16:31:59 [oedipus]
MS: need to evaluate results
16:32:10 [oedipus]
MS: need to state what expected results will be
16:32:14 [MikeSmith]
ack Julian
16:32:23 [oedipus]
DC: hixie responded positively to my suggestion
16:33:07 [oedipus]
JR: UTF-8 is everywhere - not change between FF2 and FF3 - in hixie's tests find interoperability for that everywhere; coding for non-ASCII characters otherwise varied - not part of URI where UTF-8 is currently used;
16:33:16 [robburns]
"The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this specification if they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really called something else altogether."
16:33:18 [robburns]
16:33:35 [oedipus]
JR: current text in HTML5 and email about it, given URI and IRI defs need to be fixed; IETF wants to know what is broken and what needs to be fixed?
16:33:40 [DanC]
(hmm... maybe I'll use a wiki to aggregate these test results for a while...)
16:33:40 [oedipus]
JR: need to define error
16:34:07 [Lachy]
All specs need to define error handling. Without error handling, specs are unimplementable and result in interop issues
16:34:26 [MikeSmith]
q+ later to say that error handling needs to be documented somewhere and wonders if people are objecting to it being documented at all
16:34:29 [Lachy]
the whole debate about whether or not to define error handling is silly, cause implementations need to implement error handling anyway
16:34:32 [oedipus]
JR: other point of disagreement - HTML5 modified grammar of IRI or URI spec to accomodate special cases; would be much simpler to define mechanism in HTML5 to cite IRI and let IRI spec do defining
16:34:41 [oedipus]
DC: unless have test case, that's an editorial matter
16:34:46 [oedipus]
JR: agree it is editorial
16:34:47 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
16:34:47 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say that Roy was really objecting to redefining the term "URL"
16:35:02 [oedipus]
MS: Roy objected to redefining term URL
16:35:21 [oedipus]
MS: Roy in last post said spec would not get thgrough LC review
16:35:41 [oedipus]
MS: seems accurate - a number of things in HTML5 need resoluition otherwise won't get through last call
16:35:57 [oedipus]
MS: if don't deal with now, will have to deal with in last call
16:36:16 [MikeSmith]
16:36:19 [oedipus]
DC: anyone complaining about HTML5 spec, the URL specs are the ones people deem a nightmare
16:36:22 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
16:36:22 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say that error handling needs to be documented somewhere and wonders if people are objecting to it being documented at all
16:36:34 [oedipus]
DC: redefining URL in HTML5 spec, there are worse things to do, but what is clearly better?
16:36:47 [oedipus]
MS: Roy suggested qualifying it - HTMLURL was one suggestion
16:36:52 [Lachy]
the HTML5 spec redefines "URL" to more realistically match how the term is used in practice
16:36:59 [oedipus]
MS: don't think that is practical
16:37:17 [hober]
clearly better would be for the URI/IRI specs to be updated to match what browsers do
16:37:20 [robburns]
q+ to say that the problem is that the draft says it redefines it and yet Ian and DanC's test indicate it has not been redefined (so why create confusion for the reader of the draft)
16:37:22 [oedipus]
MS: spec is attempting to specify error handling because needs to be documented so UA implementations interoperable
16:37:55 [oedipus]
MS: URI spec - no active work on revising; only have URI mailing list - good for discussion but not path to resolution
16:38:13 [oedipus]
MS: not going to address error handling HTML5 must because we need for interoperability
16:38:22 [DanC]
(handling errors is one of our documented design principles. )
16:38:23 [oedipus]
MS: JR serious objections to documenting error handling?
16:38:56 [jmb]
hober: browsers aren't the only things that use URI/IRIs
16:39:13 [oedipus]
JR: no, what is being said is if HTML docs contain HREF attributes containing whitespace, good idea to define how to handle; fine to do that, but problem is to say this is why URL spec is broken; discussion about how the specific text in HTML5 spec is phrased
16:39:32 [hober]
jmb: agreed. As an author of non-browser tools that work with URLs, what I want is for my language's URL library to do what browsers do.
16:39:34 [oedipus]
MS: HREF and HTMLURL seem like dead-ends
16:39:45 [Lachy]
The URI spec is not broken because it doesn't allow whitespace, it's broken because it doesn't define how to handle it when the URL processor encounters it
16:40:26 [Zakim]
16:40:34 [oedipus]
MS: understand urge to redefine terms, but thay aren't calling them HREFs but simply URLs - documenting what we mean by URL is essential - think that's what hixie's extant text reflects; browser behavior around HTML and HTML APIs and related specs used by UAs to handle HTML content
16:41:08 [oedipus]
JR: any doc that contains a non-embeded IRI ??? - mapping HREF to something else is error handling for malformed documents
16:41:25 [oedipus]
MS: not trying to define new performance criteria, but assist authoring
16:41:47 [oedipus]
MS: what everyone should be doing from authoring POV; need to define what happens when author dosn't follow rules
16:42:06 [robburns_]
robburns_ has joined #html-wg
16:42:17 [oedipus]
JR: alogrithm phrasing for translation to URI - perhaps need to draft proposal for hixie's consideration
16:42:22 [takkaria]
people seem to be getting annoyed at the phrasing of the text, not what it actually accomplishes
16:42:24 [DanC]
(yeah... I thought about an alternate proposal, but in doing so, I satisfied myself with what's there.)
16:42:32 [oedipus]
MS: concrete proposals always better then vague suggestions
16:42:58 [oedipus]
MS: agree with takkaria's comment - just a problem with wording, not concept
16:43:21 [oedipus]
MS: further resolution to take?
16:43:22 [Zakim]
16:43:30 [oedipus]
MS: try to get better phrasing in spec
16:44:09 [oedipus]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Clarify phrasing of text in section x.x.x ??
16:44:11 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, drop IPcaller
16:44:11 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] is being disconnected
16:44:12 [Zakim]
16:44:17 [robburns_]
it is robburns, but I have a bad onnection so I wil just listen
16:44:21 [oedipus]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Clarify phrasing of text in section x.x.x ??
16:44:43 [Zakim]
16:44:59 [Lachy]
Zakim, ??P3 is robburns_
16:44:59 [Zakim]
+robburns_; got it
16:45:23 [oedipus]
MS: no resolution - just informal decision
16:45:31 [oedipus]
MS: Section 2.3 for the record
16:45:43 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Action Items Due Next Week
16:46:04 [MikeSmith]
16:46:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-23 -- Gregory Rosmaita to coordinate tests using ARIA -- due 2008-07-10 -- OPEN
16:46:04 [trackbot]
16:46:51 [oedipus]
MS: GJR coordinate tests using aria
16:46:56 [MikeSmith]
oedipus: discussed at PFWG 2 weeks ago, different people working on other implementations, waiting for follow-up from PFWG
16:47:00 [oedipus]
GJR: PF would prefer to wait until last call
16:47:02 [gsnedders]
gsnedders has joined #html-wg
16:47:09 [DanC]
"pending review" means "I want to talk about this with the WG". I suggest marking it open and setting the date to ... say... a month from now
16:47:49 [oedipus]
DanC, due date is dependent on code-freeze
16:47:53 [DanC]
16:47:53 [trackbot]
ACTION-66 -- Joshue O Connor to joshue 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 2008-07-10 -- OPEN
16:47:53 [trackbot]
16:47:58 [oedipus]
for ARIA last call
16:48:12 [oedipus]
MS: run through issues
16:48:31 [oedipus]
MS: headers algorithms - not sure whether been much discussion lately
16:48:42 [oedipus]
MS: table summary attribute related issue
16:49:18 [Laura]
headers issue's history is detailed at:
16:49:18 [Laura]
16:49:52 [oedipus]
MS: issue of being able to generate conformant HTML5 content using XSLT; can't have conformant HTML5 with document prologue that lacks proper system id - can't generate from XSLT; HenriS cited as problem with XHTML serialization/modularization
16:50:02 [oedipus]
MS: don't see what progress can make today
16:50:40 [oedipus]
MS: suggest that we stop looking through raised issues; reviewed - pending review issues at bottom of agenda
16:50:48 [oedipus]
MS: discussed for all except HEAD profile issue
16:50:58 [oedipus]
MS: Julian, status? keep open?
16:51:17 [oedipus]
JR: opened because discussed 2 or 3 weeks ago, but didn't get into tracker; affects other specs; no new info about it
16:51:21 [oedipus]
MS: reminder issue
16:51:39 [oedipus]
MS: wonder what we need to do with these - a state where don't need to be revisted every week
16:51:48 [oedipus]
DC: put issue to WG to get consensus
16:51:58 [oedipus]
JR: pending review
16:52:18 [oedipus]
DC: means editor written whatever he deems answers issue
16:52:25 [oedipus]
MS: class of issues like this
16:52:35 [oedipus]
DC: owe people chance to object -
16:53:10 [oedipus]
q+ to ask wouldn't julian's issue be "RAISED" - shouldn't that suffice for now?
16:53:23 [oedipus]
MS: get objections on record and close items
16:53:25 [oedipus]
16:53:37 [oedipus]
ack robburns
16:53:37 [Zakim]
robburns, you wanted to say that the problem is that the draft says it redefines it and yet Ian and DanC's test indicate it has not been redefined (so why create confusion for the
16:53:41 [Zakim]
... reader of the draft)
16:53:55 [robburns_]
16:54:12 [DanC]
(Mike said we've been over all the "RAISED" issues... I'm a little confused... why are they still in RAISED state, then? I guess I'll find out in due course.)
16:54:18 [robburns_]
I can hear you, but I don't have a good connection to talk
16:54:27 [robburns_]
background noise it is too loud here
16:54:35 [DanC]
ok, I suppose we've moved on from the URI stuff anyway, Rob
16:54:50 [MikeSmith]
16:54:51 [robburns_]
yeah, I entered that point anyway
16:54:57 [robburns_]
no, that's all
16:55:03 [MikeSmith]
robburns_: OK
16:55:06 [oedipus]
DanC, the raised state means "we are conscious of it and will adress when time appropriate
16:55:08 [oedipus]
ack me
16:55:08 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to ask wouldn't julian's issue be "RAISED" - shouldn't that suffice for now?
16:55:49 [oedipus]
DC: been addressed
16:56:14 [DanC]
(it's sort of a clerical error that the @profile issue wasn't in the tracker when it was discussed, but I don't recommend trying to discuss it more)
16:56:15 [oedipus]
MS: need to do what DanC suggested and get questions out to group to get decisions on record
16:56:24 [Laura]
Are these definitions of tracker issues accurate?
16:56:25 [Laura]
16:56:37 [MikeSmith]
Topic: Any other business?
16:57:20 [oedipus]
MS: Laura wrote up some very good accurate descriptions
16:57:24 [MikeSmith]
DanC says we should encouage people to register for the TPAC
16:57:36 [oedipus]
GJR notes that she also did a bang-up job on the email info page, too
16:58:15 [DanC]
re "If after due consideration of different opinions, consensus is not achieved," the only way to tell if consensus has been reached is to put a question
16:58:33 [oedipus]
MS: discuss on next week's call to ensure WG agreement on
16:58:39 [Laura]
16:58:40 [DanC]
the chair can *estimate* the level of consensus, but the only way to be sure is to put a question
16:58:59 [oedipus]
MS: need to put up straw poll for attendence at TPAC
16:59:08 [DanC]
s/straw poll/reminder/
16:59:11 [MikeSmith]
DanC: move to adjourn
16:59:14 [oedipus]
16:59:25 [MikeSmith]
16:59:30 [Zakim]
16:59:30 [oedipus]
MS: adjourn for week - ChrisW can you chair next week
16:59:31 [Zakim]
16:59:33 [Zakim]
16:59:34 [MikeSmith]
ChrisWilson will chair next week
16:59:35 [Laura]
16:59:37 [oedipus]
ChrisW: yes will chair next week
16:59:39 [robburns_]
16:59:41 [Zakim]
16:59:42 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:59:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:59:42 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:59:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
17:00:03 [robburns_]
Zakim robburns_ is robburns
17:00:11 [Zakim]
17:00:30 [Zakim]
17:00:35 [oedipus]
zakim, please part
17:00:35 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Gregory_Rosmaita, ChrisWilson, MikeSmith, Cynthia_Shelly, Julian, DanC, Josh_O_Connor, [Microsoft], Lachy, laura, [IPcaller],
17:00:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-wg
17:00:38 [Zakim]
... robburns_
17:00:40 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:01:16 [oedipus]
present- [Microsoft]
17:01:27 [oedipus]
present+ Rob_Burns
17:01:38 [oedipus]
present- [IPcaller]
17:01:41 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:10:07 [oedipus]
rrsagent, please part
17:10:07 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items