IRC log of html-wg on 2008-08-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:59:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-irc
15:59:50 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-wg
15:59:52 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be HTML
15:59:52 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
15:59:53 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference
15:59:53 [trackbot]
Date: 14 August 2008
16:00:05 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike
16:00:05 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
16:00:06 [Zakim]
HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started
16:00:07 [Zakim]
+Mike
16:00:36 [Zakim]
+DanC
16:00:52 [Laura]
Laura has joined #html-wg
16:01:54 [MikeSmith]
Regrets: Joshue
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.218.349.aaaa
16:02:03 [MikeSmith]
oedipus: you calling in today?
16:02:13 [Zakim]
+Cynthia_Shelly
16:02:14 [oedipus]
yes right now
16:02:26 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
16:02:32 [Zakim]
+ +49.251.280.aabb
16:02:45 [oedipus]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, +49.251.280.aabb
16:02:47 [Julian]
Zakin, +49.251.280is me
16:02:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Laura, Zakim, RRSAgent, oedipus, Lachy, smedero, billmason, xover, tlr, MikeSmith, shepazu, Julian, ROBOd, Shunsuke, tH, sryo, Thezilch, timelyx, scotfl, DanC,
16:02:53 [Zakim]
... beowulf, heycam, matt, Dashiva, Philip, jgraham_, jmb, gavin, gavin_, hober, ed_work, krijnh, gDashiva, timeless, inimino, deltab, jgraham, takkaria, Hixie, hsivonen, drry,
16:02:56 [Zakim]
... Yudai, trackbot, t
16:02:57 [Julian]
Zakim, +49.251.280 is me
16:02:57 [Zakim]
+Julian; got it
16:03:00 [DanC]
Zakim, aabb is Julian
16:03:00 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:03:12 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Julian
16:03:29 [DanC]
Zakim, aaaa is Laura
16:03:29 [Zakim]
+Laura; got it
16:03:37 [oedipus]
zakim, who is here
16:03:37 [Zakim]
oedipus, you need to end that query with '?'
16:03:40 [oedipus]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, DanC, Laura, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Julian
16:03:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Laura, Zakim, RRSAgent, oedipus, Lachy, smedero, billmason, xover, tlr, MikeSmith, shepazu, Julian, ROBOd, Shunsuke, tH, sryo, Thezilch, timelyx, scotfl, DanC,
16:03:46 [Zakim]
... beowulf, heycam, matt, Dashiva, Philip, jgraham_, jmb, gavin, gavin_, hober, ed_work, krijnh, gDashiva, timeless, inimino, deltab, jgraham, takkaria, Hixie, hsivonen, drry,
16:03:50 [Zakim]
... Yudai, trackbot, t
16:04:12 [MikeSmith]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
16:04:40 [DanC]
hmm... profile doesn't show up in "Issues discussed over the last week" ... I guess we didn't give any tracker clues in the discussion. or was that last week?
16:04:49 [shepazu]
Zakim, call shepazu
16:04:49 [Zakim]
ok, shepazu; the call is being made
16:04:50 [Zakim]
+Shepazu
16:05:05 [shepazu]
Zakim, mute shepazu
16:05:05 [Zakim]
Shepazu should now be muted
16:06:04 [Julian]
profile: I guess it was the week before
16:06:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.646.aacc
16:06:18 [smedero]
Zakim, +1.425.646.aacc is me
16:06:18 [Zakim]
+smedero; got it
16:06:28 [oedipus]
Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
16:06:33 [oedipus]
ScribeNick: oedipus
16:06:54 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Agenda Review
16:07:21 [oedipus]
MS: trackbot page - if something not yet entered into tracker but want addressed today, speak up now, please
16:07:31 [oedipus]
zakim, mute me
16:07:31 [Zakim]
sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:07:38 [oedipus]
zakim, mute Gregory_Rosmaita
16:07:38 [Zakim]
Gregory_Rosmaita should now be muted
16:07:56 [oedipus]
MS: no agenda additions - preferences on where to start?
16:08:06 [oedipus]
DC: curious about the raised issues
16:08:11 [oedipus]
MS: start with raised issue
16:08:16 [oedipus]
s/issue/issues
16:08:26 [oedipus]
MS: go through in reverse chronological order?
16:08:28 [MikeSmith]
issue-58?
16:08:28 [trackbot]
ISSUE-58 -- Use of "curly brackets" to identify a graphical image by its use or type by inserting a generic identifier / descriptor in curly braces as the @alt value for an IMG, -- RAISED
16:08:28 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/58
16:08:33 [oedipus]
TOPIC: ISSUE 58
16:08:41 [oedipus]
DC: clearly a dupe of missing alt to me
16:08:48 [oedipus]
MS: agree, but a bit more precise
16:08:49 [oedipus]
q+
16:09:27 [oedipus]
MS: discussions gone on for months about alt -- after reviewing several proposals for handling disputed cases where author can't determine useful alternative text, what should the author do?
16:10:11 [oedipus]
MS: 1 solution offered was curly brace delimited generic type text placeholder to provide information for software to use in intelligent matter -- user choice of what to expose and not
16:10:24 [Laura]
Curly braces is but one of many potential solutions have been discussed and are listed at:
16:10:24 [Laura]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute#head-27468e7ee9afd1f9e07186c8d74f0b0168b3975a
16:10:28 [DanC]
yes, {photo} is the recent proposal for the missing-alt issue; making a new issue doesn't seem like a useful way to organize the discussion.
16:10:30 [Laura]
Advice has been sought, is needed, and is pending from PFWG regarding what an authoring or publishing tool should insert, in a case where no alt has been provided by the author, but the image is known to be "critical content".
16:10:30 [Laura]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0408.html
16:10:32 [oedipus]
MS: hixie sent message many months ago to PF, but no response
16:10:36 [Laura]
usurping the role of WAI. PF has previously pointed out, "WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not".
16:10:37 [Laura]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
16:10:37 [Laura]
The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority.
16:10:46 [oedipus]
MS: recently, hixie made change to spec, and that sparked response
16:10:57 [Laura]
Imposing a particular solution and adding it to the draft could be seen as usurping the role of WAI. PF has previously pointed out, "WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not".
16:10:57 [Laura]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
16:10:57 [Laura]
The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority.
16:11:03 [oedipus]
zakim, unmute me
16:11:03 [Zakim]
sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:11:04 [Laura]
The curly braces proposal in the editor's draft doesn't appear to be a text equivalent per WCAG. The HTML WG needs to be sure deliverables satisfy accessibility requirements. PF are the go-to-guys for guidance in accessibility matters. PF's counsel is needed BEFORE any particular solution is chosen to be added to the next published draft. The curly braces proposal should not be published outside of an editor's draft without consultation and collaboration
16:11:10 [oedipus]
zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita
16:11:10 [Zakim]
Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted
16:11:19 [oedipus]
MS: change in discussion since added to spec
16:11:25 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:11:52 [shepazu]
q+
16:12:06 [shepazu]
q-
16:12:20 [oedipus]
GJR: alt for human parseable info, need @role for machine parseable info/hooks
16:12:25 [oedipus]
ack me
16:12:48 [oedipus]
CS: PF talked about this on call yesterday, working on proposal/response
16:14:00 [oedipus]
MS: commenting on GJR's comments - HTML WG has as its mandate what @alt is - can change purpose of alt attribute to make provisions to bring up to date with use cases and reqs that are out there; def of @alt is not static and locked-down for ever; not categorically an abuse if redefine @alt to accept something other than textual equivalent
16:14:27 [oedipus]
GJR: if @alt is to be used as machine parseable, info - how is @alt equivalent to be expressed?
16:14:30 [oedipus]
MS: yet to be determined
16:14:32 [Laura]
The Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) has not yet provided guidance with regarding curly braces proposal in the the img section of the editor's draft with respect to conformance with:
16:14:32 [Laura]
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
16:14:32 [Laura]
- Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)
16:14:32 [Laura]
- User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG)
16:14:55 [oedipus]
MS: can't cut conversation short by citing older recs
16:15:19 [oedipus]
GJR: that's the proposal @role that would fulfil this use case without compromising alt for those who care of can add it
16:15:36 [Laura]
The curly braces proposal should not be published outside of an editor's draft without consultation and collaboration with PF.
16:16:07 [Laura]
It seems as if the curly braces proposal is meant for meta data and would fit better in a separate img attribute. In any event it isn't a text equivalent per WCAG. Not only do reserved characters pollute the possible values available for an attribute whose data type is string, but also it is meta data about the image - not an equivalent. They are two different things.
16:16:31 [oedipus]
GJR: what will happen when author wants to add alt text as equiv and machine parseable info for app processing?
16:16:39 [Laura]
What if someone actually has an image of {} or {captcha} etc - text shouldn't be in graphics, but what if this is needed where say someone is showing how text appears in a new font they are designing?
16:16:45 [DanC]
(this discussion is hard to follow; some are arguing positions in the design space, some are pointing out the scope of the HTML WG, and some are arguing that one issue is a dup of another.)
16:16:48 [oedipus]
MS: case where author not able to put useable text equiv into value of @alt
16:17:12 [oedipus]
MS: no agreement on @alt - even disagreement over use cases
16:17:47 [oedipus]
MS: if don't address requirement, then result is that authors just going to dump use of content into @alt - spirit of change was to address use case/req for those who cannot add @alt
16:18:18 [oedipus]
GJR: ability to auto-add machine-parseable info should NOT compromise the author's ability to provide a textual equivalent
16:18:44 [oedipus]
GJR: reason @role was suggested was to satisfy the original use case that led to the curly braces verbiage
16:18:52 [robburns]
robburns has joined #html-wg
16:19:00 [DanC]
q+ to get back to the raised issue and suggest again that ISSUE-58 curly alt be closed as a dup of ISSUE-31 missing-alt
16:19:24 [DanC]
ack Cyn
16:19:30 [oedipus]
CS: agree that use case exists, but don't think curly braces best -- like GJR's solution, but some reservations, need to think through; would be useful to have both categorization and equivalent info
16:19:45 [DanC]
ack danc
16:19:46 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to get back to the raised issue and suggest again that ISSUE-58 curly alt be closed as a dup of ISSUE-31 missing-alt
16:20:01 [oedipus]
DanC: curly alt discussion is same as missing alt - wouldn't make seperate decisions
16:20:55 [Julian]
q+
16:21:06 [oedipus]
MS: DanC's wants to close new issue - same design space
16:21:13 [oedipus]
GJR: moves issue forward by proposing @role
16:21:33 [DanC]
(hmm... I didn't see anything about @role in the curly alt issue)
16:21:37 [oedipus]
MS: want to avoid proliferation of core issues - personally agree with dan, good to discuss on call, but not sure a seperate issue
16:21:40 [Julian]
q-
16:21:51 [oedipus]
MS: can append or change description but same issue
16:22:02 [Julian]
Either close 58 *and* update 31, or close 31 and update 58.
16:23:13 [oedipus]
GJR: ability to perceive visual image a use case that is not changed since web began - this is an attempt to rectify
16:23:32 [oedipus]
MS: not going to fall through cracks - bigger issue is sole place to track discussion about this part of the problem
16:23:54 [DanC]
what's a better title, indeed?
16:24:04 [oedipus]
CS: re-write title of other issue - categorization of objects and not just "missing alt"
16:24:09 [DanC]
"Should img without alt ever be conforming"
16:24:12 [MikeSmith]
issue-31?
16:24:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-31 -- Should img without alt ever be conforming -- OPEN
16:24:12 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
16:24:37 [oedipus]
CS: handling cases where alt is unknown?
16:24:40 [DanC]
"handling cases where alt is unknown" works for me
16:24:56 [oedipus]
GJR: machine-parseable versus human-parseable values for @alt
16:25:01 [oedipus]
MS: replacement?
16:25:05 [oedipus]
CS: yes, but first draft
16:25:24 [smedero]
I'd also suggest changing the short title from `missing-alt` to just `@alt` or something equally general...
16:25:38 [DanC]
I think that's too far, smedero
16:25:41 [smedero]
ahh, ok.
16:26:08 [DanC]
I can see "machine-parseable versus human-parseable values" as a separate issue. I didn't get it from the initial text of issue 58
16:26:18 [aroben]
aroben has joined #html-wg
16:26:20 [aroben_]
aroben_ has joined #html-wg
16:26:21 [MikeSmith]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; machine-parseable versus human-parseable values for @alt
16:26:28 [oedipus]
GJR: thinks conflating issues
16:26:33 [DanC]
blech.
16:26:35 [oedipus]
GJR: minus 1
16:26:47 [DanC]
I like "handling cases where alt is unknown" much better.
16:26:59 [oedipus]
GJR: retract minus 1 to plus 1
16:27:11 [oedipus]
CS: current issue name is inflammatory
16:27:28 [oedipus]
CS: more about how to figure out what to do when good alt not available
16:27:44 [oedipus]
CS: one an implementation detail one a spec detail
16:28:06 [MikeSmith]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when good alt not available
16:28:13 [oedipus]
DanC: handling cases where alt is unknown doesn't work for GJR?
16:28:31 [Julian]
I like the proposal
16:28:33 [MikeSmith]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when a reasonable alt cannot be determined
16:28:54 [oedipus]
CS: handling cases where a useful or reasonable @alt is not available
16:29:11 [oedipus]
GJR: that to me is an authoring tool implementation problem, not a declarative language problem
16:29:13 [DanC]
(tweaking based on what I hear... "handling cases where reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable")
16:29:43 [oedipus]
CS: is and isn't - can be author tool issue - when doing mash-ups, can't know what object is - having way of saying what kind of image or where came from is needed - role might satisfy that
16:30:15 [Laura]
The original issue was Omitting alt Attribute for "Critical Content"
16:30:16 [MikeSmith]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when a reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable
16:30:16 [Laura]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2007Oct/0044.html
16:30:26 [DanC]
"what to do when reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable" works for me
16:30:29 [oedipus]
GJR: decide first on @alt and @role - @role would be easily machine-extractable and insertable
16:30:48 [MikeSmith]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: What to do when a reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable?
16:31:00 [oedipus]
CS: what to do when a text a textual equivalent is not available
16:31:15 [oedipus]
MS: like term "text" better
16:31:16 [MikeSmith]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?
16:31:27 [oedipus]
GJR: can live with that
16:32:03 [DanC]
(this doesn't seem like a technical decision, so we can make this "decision" in a telcon)
16:32:13 [smedero]
I've got ISSUE-31 in front of me, so I can make that title change....
16:32:17 [DanC]
(i.e. this is just issue tracking admin)
16:32:29 [DanC]
I have ISSUE-31 open in edit mode too, fyi
16:32:33 [MikeSmith]
smedero: hang on just for a minute
16:32:34 [smedero]
ahh, nevermind
16:32:35 [smedero]
:)
16:32:45 [oedipus]
CS: spend time in PF looking at use case from author and user POV;
16:32:48 [oedipus]
MS: good idea
16:33:02 [MikeSmith]
RESOLUTION: change issue 31 title to: "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?"
16:33:39 [MikeSmith]
smedero, please change title and also add a note, specically about @role
16:33:49 [oedipus]
GJR: concerned about those who want to do the right thing and provide meaningful textual equiv through @alt and machine-parseable info through @role - valid use case - want to provide meaningful equivalent and a machine-parseable hook
16:34:00 [oedipus]
MS: can we expect to hear back from PF on use of @role?
16:34:12 [oedipus]
CS: soon is a relative term
16:34:18 [oedipus]
GJR: is on PF's radar and on PF's radar
16:34:20 [smedero]
DanC: did you have some changes to 31 that you wanted to make or were in the middle of?
16:34:48 [DanC]
no
16:34:58 [oedipus]
MS: good - laura's earlier point on PF's position - editor's draft is one thing, going past is another is well taken - not going to get to LC without agreement on this - try to do now or later, better to do now
16:35:23 [Zakim]
-Cynthia_Shelly
16:35:35 [MikeSmith]
smedero, please also close out issue 58 with a note
16:35:44 [oedipus]
s/on PF's radar/on PF's agenda
16:36:01 [oedipus]
GJR: trying to provide requirements and comprehensive use cases
16:36:11 [oedipus]
MS: coming to a mutual understanding of what reqs are
16:36:17 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:36:27 [smedero]
31's title is updated, going back to add the bits about @rol
16:36:30 [smedero]
erm @role.
16:36:41 [oedipus]
MS: by charter, not chartered to make binding decisions in telecon time, but can make decisions about issue tracking; main topic covered in this call
16:37:08 [DanC]
q+ to ask about a few more raised issues
16:37:13 [oedipus]
MS: those who call in to telecons, are more likely to shape issue tracking (nudge, nudge)
16:37:25 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Raised Issues of Recent Vintage
16:37:43 [shepazu]
Zakim, unmute me
16:37:43 [Zakim]
Shepazu should no longer be muted
16:37:50 [oedipus]
MS: last one quotation marks for Q element - not useful to discuss
16:37:57 [shepazu]
q+
16:38:03 [oedipus]
DanC: clarification from MS
16:38:39 [oedipus]
MS: problem - everytime close issue, there will be an objection; reluctant to close anything out because don't want to generate an email storm; should start closing issues out
16:38:46 [oedipus]
DanC: stright up close or keep
16:38:57 [oedipus]
MS: proposals for closure?
16:39:12 [oedipus]
MS: can go through 1 by 1 in 20 minutes left to decide to close
16:39:21 [oedipus]
MS: not good to keep too much open at one time
16:39:33 [oedipus]
MS: walk through rest of issues?
16:40:04 [oedipus]
MS: based on past experience, closing issues, raises an email firestorm, but that should affect efficiency of tracker
16:40:07 [robburns]
the issue on curie's could be closed since it was added only for one person and completely misunderstands curie's HTML5 or both
16:40:18 [oedipus]
DanC: raised until someone takes an action item to do something
16:40:27 [oedipus]
MS: 20-odd issues we haven't touched
16:40:46 [oedipus]
MS: try to pick the low-hanging fruit today's discussion
16:40:57 [oedipus]
robburns, what is issue number?
16:41:03 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:41:08 [MikeSmith]
ack DanC
16:41:08 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask about a few more raised issues
16:41:12 [MikeSmith]
ack shepazu
16:41:36 [oedipus]
DS: quick question: with PF one needs to have them come to HTML WG with use cases and reqs, is it also useful if come with proposed wording?
16:41:46 [oedipus]
DanC: hixie doesn't welcome suggested text, but helps me
16:42:03 [robburns]
aria-curie is issue 51
16:42:11 [robburns]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51
16:42:37 [oedipus]
GJR: PF is working on specific verbiage and requirements
16:42:48 [oedipus]
DS: is it reasonable to put forth proposed wording or not?
16:43:09 [oedipus]
MS: yes, don't listen to what hixie says -- proposed text CAN state req more clearly than stating req in abstract terms
16:43:20 [oedipus]
MS: more helpful to propose text - no harm
16:43:44 [oedipus]
DS: good tactic to state reqs, use cases, take proposed text and correlate which part of text goes with which req
16:43:57 [oedipus]
DS: how HTML WG accepts input is my query
16:44:46 [oedipus]
MS: for group as whole -- editor does have control over final wording - to propose to working group as a whole as discussion, is in my opinion FAR more helpful than dealing with abstracts
16:45:24 [Laura]
Tracker definitions seem to have been followed for the curly brace issue. "RAISED = Issue tracker staff suggests this is worth a WG discussion and potentially a decision."
16:45:24 [Laura]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/
16:45:29 [oedipus]
MS: when new info available, should be brought to group
16:45:31 [robburns]
present+ robburns
16:45:46 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Tracker Agenda Review, continued
16:45:56 [oedipus]
MS: raised issues - lot are stale
16:46:17 [oedipus]
MS: can continue to review issues - nothing super-recent (end-of july or pending review for end-of july august)
16:46:21 [MikeSmith]
action-73?
16:46:21 [trackbot]
ACTION-73 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on WAI-ARIA markup thread, emphasizing the conformance point -- due 2008-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:46:21 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/73
16:46:22 [oedipus]
MS: top of agenda, action 73
16:46:30 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Action 73
16:46:34 [oedipus]
DanC: think is done
16:46:39 [oedipus]
MS: objections, otherwise close out
16:46:57 [MikeSmith]
close action-73
16:46:57 [oedipus]
MS: hearing no objections, will close - action, not issue
16:46:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-73 Follow up on WAI-ARIA markup thread, emphasizing the conformance point closed
16:47:13 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Issues In Red
16:47:28 [oedipus]
MS: Lachy and authoring guide - past due, but not on call - know working on it
16:47:31 [MikeSmith]
action-72?
16:47:31 [trackbot]
ACTION-72 -- Joshue O Connor to rewrite spec to reinstate id/headers AND their functionality by specifically stating that headers are allowed to reference a td. Reword the current definition of the headers attribute so that each of the space separated tokens must have the value of the ID value of a th or td element. -- due 2008-08-14 -- OPEN
16:47:31 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/72
16:47:51 [oedipus]
MS: action 72 - on Josh;
16:47:52 [Laura]
Deliverable for Action 72:
16:47:52 [Laura]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action72Headers
16:48:05 [oedipus]
Luara: working on it - please consult the above URI
16:48:16 [oedipus]
MS: not finished yet, so reset due date until next week
16:48:21 [Laura]
Request that the definition of the headers attribute in the spec be extended to allow it to reference a td. This would make it possible for complex data tables to be marked up accessibly.
16:48:27 [oedipus]
MS: changed date to 2008-08-20
16:48:39 [Laura]
The headers/id markup is functional and works today. Results of some recent testing:
16:48:39 [Laura]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/TableHeadersTestingBug5822
16:48:40 [Laura]
It needs to be grandfathered into the spec.
16:48:46 [Laura]
This issue's history from May 2007 to present:
16:48:46 [DanC]
(trackbot wish: "continue action-72" would push the date to 1 week from now)
16:48:46 [Laura]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders
16:48:57 [oedipus]
MS: anything else on tracker anyone burning to discuss?
16:48:58 [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.
16:49:04 [oedipus]
MS: if not, can end early
16:49:50 [oedipus]
MS: clear we do need to do something about headers if going to keep in spec; isn't well specified in HTML4.01 - not fixing problem intended to solve
16:50:07 [oedipus]
MS: anything else anyone wants to talk about or adjourn early?
16:50:13 [oedipus]
move to adjourn
16:50:26 [Julian]
q+
16:50:33 [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..."
16:50:33 [Laura]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html
16:50:44 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:50:49 [oedipus]
MS: surprised - lot of discussion on list -- thought there would be more to discuss; huge threads developing
16:51:20 [DanC]
(the discussion of distributed extensibility and GRDDL was kinda interesting, but I'm not sure what to talk about)
16:51:31 [oedipus]
JR: set of issues that have been open for a long time, seems that all arguments about issues have been exchanged on mailing list - what to do with them? suggest pick very simple one, and test process - put to vote if can't achieve consensus
16:52:04 [oedipus]
MS: simple issue - current XSLT engines not being able to produce conformant HTML5 output a candidate
16:52:05 [oedipus]
JR: yes
16:52:14 [oedipus]
MS: agree should close out
16:52:37 [oedipus]
DanC: thought were going to close discussion
16:53:27 [oedipus]
MS: on XSLT, pick issues that are hanging where hixie has explicitly said won't make further changes to text but still bone of contention -- how to dispose of them? perhaps contacting the person who raised the issue to explain
16:53:30 [Julian]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54
16:53:42 [oedipus]
DanC: issues where discussion done, or ...
16:54:04 [oedipus]
MS: not an issue with decision - cannot currently use XSLT engines to produce HTML5
16:54:09 [oedipus]
q+
16:54:28 [oedipus]
GJR: what does it mean to produce valid HTML5?
16:55:58 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:56:07 [oedipus]
MS: conformant with current state of spec - specifically in regards XSLT the issue is the fact that HTML5 says should have a doctype html without system or public identifier, so have to use ugly hack to get an XSLT to generate that; HenriS has pointed out that is least amongst issues with HTML5 and XSLT, for HTML intended to be used by authors and valid
16:56:08 [MikeSmith]
ack Julian
16:56:22 [oedipus]
GJR: public working draft or current editors' draft in terms of conformance
16:56:22 [MikeSmith]
ack oedipus
16:56:25 [oedipus]
JR: public one
16:56:40 [oedipus]
GJR: wanted to ensure is PWD not editor's draft that is being "conformed-to"
16:56:53 [Julian]
q+
16:57:26 [DanC]
(w.r.t. ISSUE-54 html5-from-xslt , I'm content with XSLT engines adding a new output mode)
16:58:02 [oedipus]
MS: will raise this as issue on list - have a disagreement about resolution - editor decided not to make change in spec, but still have problem; agree with hixie in regards this isn't an HTML5 spec problem but limitations of XSLT - cannot limit to legacy output of XSLT - trying to move lang forward; either constrain language to conform to XSLT HTML output, or expect that XSLT will be updated to something that is conformant with current HTML5 spec
16:58:26 [oedipus]
MS: DougS referred to discussions on list -- anything actionable on those?
16:58:38 [oedipus]
MS: could take up a lot of time (and already has)
16:58:58 [Julian]
wrt xslt: the underlying question is: should HTML 5 stay compatible with existing HTML generators *if* it's easy to achieve?
16:59:08 [oedipus]
DanC: suggest not a critical mass in favor - like to know mozilla's position on some of these issues - what are their positions, what are their reqs?
16:59:12 [Julian]
what's the alternative? Re-open XSLT 1.0?
16:59:59 [oedipus]
MS: decentralized extensibility - browser vendors shown little interest in that -- oversimplified in discussion, but not a critical mass for us to address this, especially since have a long schedule of meeting implementation reqs and testing
17:00:06 [robburns]
Julian: could you point to a specific place in the XSLT rec that prohibits a doctype with no system and public identifiers? I'm having trouble finding it.
17:00:20 [Julian]
q+
17:00:30 [oedipus]
MS: don't want to prematurely end decentralized extensibility issue, but don't want it constantly hanging over our heads
17:00:34 [MikeSmith]
ack Julian
17:01:56 [oedipus]
JR: decentralized extensibility crossed by thread on profile attribute - would be ok with statement that "we are not chartered to enhance abilities of HTML with regards to decentralized extensibility" -- concern about hixie removing what he doesn't like -- precludes any existing method of using extensibility, and if that is the case,then i'm not comfortable with that -- should keep existing hooks, rather than remove and drop discussion
17:02:04 [oedipus]
DanC: expect anything of more discussion?
17:02:09 [oedipus]
JR: cannot hurt
17:02:37 [oedipus]
MS: everything been said; hixie been quite candid on his position that mechanism for adding arbitrary extensions to core vocab not a good thing
17:02:48 [oedipus]
MS: others think quite differently, and a lot in between
17:02:51 [DanC]
s/cannot hurt/sometimes new things come up, but no, I don't expect so in this case/
17:03:14 [DanC]
s/oversimplified in discussion/I'm oversimplifying the email thread quite a bit/
17:04:00 [oedipus]
MS: any individual who wants to write something as separate spec and take to group for decision and to rec; distributed extendibility mechanism is orthogonal to core description vocab; no reason technically why could not be produced as separate spec - affects handling of HTML4/legacy content in text/html
17:04:01 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
17:04:26 [MikeSmith]
q?
17:04:36 [oedipus]
MS: not exclusive to dealing with new HTML5 content; for a lot of reasons, probably should be developed as separate spec - could be created outside of HTML WG
17:04:40 [Julian]
q+
17:04:45 [MikeSmith]
ack Julian
17:05:31 [oedipus]
DS: interesting proposal that it be separate spec; right that not a lot of new info, but not going to get that info if don't explain details of how to do it; since hixie said "not in my spec" is it feasible to expect another W3C WG to pick it up and develop?
17:06:01 [oedipus]
MS: pragmattically speaking has to be in separate spec - sam and david might develop spec on how to do and how to integrate into HTML5 and HTML4
17:06:15 [oedipus]
DS: hixie working at cross-purposes to that even if separate?
17:06:17 [DanC]
(things like profile don't require anything from browsers; authoring tools are perhaps the more relevant party; but I haven't heard from any authoring tool makers about profile either. sigh.)
17:06:33 [robburns]
just answering my own question on Issue-54, http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#section-HTML-Output-Method indicates that the word PUBLIC would be included in HTML output method even if the author indicated a null value for the public identifier.
17:06:38 [oedipus]
MS: hixie been very clear that don't want addition of arbitrary custom vocab into HTML5 and expecting UAs to do something with it
17:06:47 [DanC]
q+
17:06:56 [oedipus]
MS: without a clear undestanding of proposition and its value, won't be considered
17:07:32 [oedipus]
MS: use case for which there are not users -- hard thing to tell browser vendors: "add app to add any type of tag they want and expect UA to do somthing useful with arbitrary vocabs"
17:07:35 [Julian]
q+
17:07:39 [oedipus]
DS: over-simplification
17:07:41 [MikeSmith]
q?
17:07:44 [DanC]
q-
17:07:46 [MikeSmith]
ack DanC
17:07:48 [oedipus]
MS: stating most emphatic opposition
17:08:01 [oedipus]
DS: generic mechanism for known or formal vocabs
17:08:24 [oedipus]
MS: that is your perspective, but not sam's perspective; don't think that's what Dave Orchard wants either
17:08:48 [oedipus]
DS: for ANY language in the future - keep in mind if you want your language integrated into HTML you need to do x,y, and z
17:09:17 [oedipus]
MS: good point -- note to say "if you define custom vocab, here is what we strongly suggest you do"
17:09:37 [oedipus]
DS: agree generally, but personally don't think other ML has to be changed to use processing model of HTML5
17:09:45 [oedipus]
q?
17:09:54 [MikeSmith]
ack Julian
17:09:57 [oedipus]
DanC: over-time by 10 minutes
17:10:01 [oedipus]
MS: hear from JR then close
17:11:24 [oedipus]
JR: 1) have some hooks for distributed extensibility in HTML4 that were removed from HTML5 (profile, scheme); 2) additional attributes, such as RDFa - introducing way to add new elements to language hard to do, but have other points of extensibility -- RDFa -- in charter to work on that - need to start discussion on how to achieve that goal - doesn't require new attributes, but restoring those that worked and are needed
17:11:29 [oedipus]
MS: good point, JR
17:11:51 [oedipus]
MS: very unclear if good reason to remove @profile -- mass of opinion against removal
17:11:58 [oedipus]
MS: move to adjourn
17:12:09 [oedipus]
ADJOURNED
17:12:10 [Julian]
cu
17:12:10 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
17:12:12 [Zakim]
-smedero
17:12:13 [Zakim]
-Julian
17:12:16 [robburns]
mass of opinion also for distributed extensibility
17:12:24 [oedipus]
MS: thanks to all for calling in -- talk to you all next week
17:12:30 [Zakim]
-Shepazu
17:12:35 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
17:12:38 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, drop Mike
17:12:38 [Zakim]
Mike is being disconnected
17:12:39 [Zakim]
-Mike
17:12:39 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:12:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:12:45 [oedipus]
zakim, who is here?
17:12:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DanC, Laura
17:12:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see adele, aroben_, robburns, Laura, Zakim, RRSAgent, oedipus, Lachy, smedero, billmason, xover, tlr, MikeSmith, shepazu, Julian, ROBOd, Shunsuke, tH, sryo, Thezilch,
17:12:50 [Zakim]
... timelyx, scotfl, DanC, beowulf, heycam, matt, Dashiva, Philip, jgraham_, jmb, gavin, gavin_, hober, ed_work, krijnh, gDashiva, timeless, inimino, deltab, jgraham, takkaria,
17:12:52 [Zakim]
... Hixie, hsivonen, drry, Yudai, trackbot, t
17:12:52 [Zakim]
-Laura
17:12:57 [matt]
Present- Matt
17:13:05 [oedipus]
zakim, please part
17:13:05 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, +49.251.280.aabb, Julian, Laura, Shepazu, smedero, [Microsoft]
17:13:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-wg
17:13:11 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:13:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:14:17 [oedipus]
present- +1.218.349.aaaa
17:14:31 [oedipus]
present- +49.251.280.aabb
17:14:35 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:14:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:14:54 [oedipus]
chair: Mike_Smith
17:14:56 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:14:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:17:37 [MikeSmith]
oedipus: we did reach resolution on that
17:17:41 [MikeSmith]
with no objections
17:17:52 [MikeSmith]
thanks
17:17:55 [oedipus]
RESOLUTION: change issue 31 title to: "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?"
17:18:03 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:18:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus
17:19:23 [oedipus]
rrsagent, please part
17:19:23 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items