15:59:48 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg 15:59:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-irc 15:59:50 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:59:50 Zakim has joined #html-wg 15:59:52 Zakim, this will be HTML 15:59:52 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 15:59:53 Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference 15:59:53 Date: 14 August 2008 16:00:05 Zakim, call Mike 16:00:05 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 16:00:06 HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started 16:00:07 +Mike 16:00:36 +DanC 16:00:52 Laura has joined #html-wg 16:01:54 Regrets: Joshue 16:01:59 + +1.218.349.aaaa 16:02:03 oedipus: you calling in today? 16:02:13 +Cynthia_Shelly 16:02:14 yes right now 16:02:26 +Gregory_Rosmaita 16:02:32 + +49.251.280.aabb 16:02:45 zakim, who is here? 16:02:45 On the phone I see Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, +49.251.280.aabb 16:02:47 Zakin, +49.251.280is me 16:02:48 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 ... 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 ... Yudai, trackbot, t 16:02:57 Zakim, +49.251.280 is me 16:02:57 +Julian; got it 16:03:00 Zakim, aabb is Julian 16:03:00 sorry, DanC, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb' 16:03:12 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:03:12 On the phone I see Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Julian 16:03:29 Zakim, aaaa is Laura 16:03:29 +Laura; got it 16:03:37 zakim, who is here 16:03:37 oedipus, you need to end that query with '?' 16:03:40 zakim, who is here? 16:03:40 On the phone I see Mike, DanC, Laura, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Julian 16:03:42 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 ... 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 ... Yudai, trackbot, t 16:04:12 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda 16:04:40 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 Zakim, call shepazu 16:04:49 ok, shepazu; the call is being made 16:04:50 +Shepazu 16:05:05 Zakim, mute shepazu 16:05:05 Shepazu should now be muted 16:06:04 profile: I guess it was the week before 16:06:08 + +1.425.646.aacc 16:06:18 Zakim, +1.425.646.aacc is me 16:06:18 +smedero; got it 16:06:28 Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita 16:06:33 ScribeNick: oedipus 16:06:54 TOPIC: Agenda Review 16:07:21 MS: trackbot page - if something not yet entered into tracker but want addressed today, speak up now, please 16:07:31 zakim, mute me 16:07:31 sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 16:07:38 zakim, mute Gregory_Rosmaita 16:07:38 Gregory_Rosmaita should now be muted 16:07:56 MS: no agenda additions - preferences on where to start? 16:08:06 DC: curious about the raised issues 16:08:11 MS: start with raised issue 16:08:16 s/issue/issues 16:08:26 MS: go through in reverse chronological order? 16:08:28 issue-58? 16:08:28 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/58 16:08:33 TOPIC: ISSUE 58 16:08:41 DC: clearly a dupe of missing alt to me 16:08:48 MS: agree, but a bit more precise 16:08:49 q+ 16:09:27 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 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 Curly braces is but one of many potential solutions have been discussed and are listed at: 16:10:24 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute#head-27468e7ee9afd1f9e07186c8d74f0b0168b3975a 16:10:28 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 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0408.html 16:10:32 MS: hixie sent message many months ago to PF, but no response 16:10:36 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html 16:10:37 The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority. 16:10:46 MS: recently, hixie made change to spec, and that sparked response 16:10:57 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html 16:10:57 The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority. 16:11:03 zakim, unmute me 16:11:03 sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 16:11:04 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 zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita 16:11:10 Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted 16:11:19 MS: change in discussion since added to spec 16:11:25 q? 16:11:52 q+ 16:12:06 q- 16:12:20 GJR: alt for human parseable info, need @role for machine parseable info/hooks 16:12:25 ack me 16:12:48 CS: PF talked about this on call yesterday, working on proposal/response 16:14:00 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 GJR: if @alt is to be used as machine parseable, info - how is @alt equivalent to be expressed? 16:14:30 MS: yet to be determined 16:14:32 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 - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 16:14:32 - Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 16:14:32 - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 16:14:55 MS: can't cut conversation short by citing older recs 16:15:19 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 The curly braces proposal should not be published outside of an editor's draft without consultation and collaboration with PF. 16:16:07 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 GJR: what will happen when author wants to add alt text as equiv and machine parseable info for app processing? 16:16:39 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 (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 MS: case where author not able to put useable text equiv into value of @alt 16:17:12 MS: no agreement on @alt - even disagreement over use cases 16:17:47 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 GJR: ability to auto-add machine-parseable info should NOT compromise the author's ability to provide a textual equivalent 16:18:44 GJR: reason @role was suggested was to satisfy the original use case that led to the curly braces verbiage 16:18:52 robburns has joined #html-wg 16:19:00 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 ack Cyn 16:19:30 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 ack danc 16:19:46 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 DanC: curly alt discussion is same as missing alt - wouldn't make seperate decisions 16:20:55 q+ 16:21:06 MS: DanC's wants to close new issue - same design space 16:21:13 GJR: moves issue forward by proposing @role 16:21:33 (hmm... I didn't see anything about @role in the curly alt issue) 16:21:37 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 q- 16:21:51 MS: can append or change description but same issue 16:22:02 Either close 58 *and* update 31, or close 31 and update 58. 16:23:13 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 MS: not going to fall through cracks - bigger issue is sole place to track discussion about this part of the problem 16:23:54 what's a better title, indeed? 16:24:04 CS: re-write title of other issue - categorization of objects and not just "missing alt" 16:24:09 "Should img without alt ever be conforming" 16:24:12 issue-31? 16:24:12 ISSUE-31 -- Should img without alt ever be conforming -- OPEN 16:24:12 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 16:24:37 CS: handling cases where alt is unknown? 16:24:40 "handling cases where alt is unknown" works for me 16:24:56 GJR: machine-parseable versus human-parseable values for @alt 16:25:01 MS: replacement? 16:25:05 CS: yes, but first draft 16:25:24 I'd also suggest changing the short title from `missing-alt` to just `@alt` or something equally general... 16:25:38 I think that's too far, smedero 16:25:41 ahh, ok. 16:26:08 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 has joined #html-wg 16:26:20 aroben_ has joined #html-wg 16:26:21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; machine-parseable versus human-parseable values for @alt 16:26:28 GJR: thinks conflating issues 16:26:33 blech. 16:26:35 GJR: minus 1 16:26:47 I like "handling cases where alt is unknown" much better. 16:26:59 GJR: retract minus 1 to plus 1 16:27:11 CS: current issue name is inflammatory 16:27:28 CS: more about how to figure out what to do when good alt not available 16:27:44 CS: one an implementation detail one a spec detail 16:28:06 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when good alt not available 16:28:13 DanC: handling cases where alt is unknown doesn't work for GJR? 16:28:31 I like the proposal 16:28:33 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 CS: handling cases where a useful or reasonable @alt is not available 16:29:11 GJR: that to me is an authoring tool implementation problem, not a declarative language problem 16:29:13 (tweaking based on what I hear... "handling cases where reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable") 16:29:43 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 The original issue was Omitting alt Attribute for "Critical Content" 16:30:16 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2007Oct/0044.html 16:30:26 "what to do when reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable" works for me 16:30:29 GJR: decide first on @alt and @role - @role would be easily machine-extractable and insertable 16:30:48 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: What to do when a reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable? 16:31:00 CS: what to do when a text a textual equivalent is not available 16:31:15 MS: like term "text" better 16:31:16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable? 16:31:27 GJR: can live with that 16:32:03 (this doesn't seem like a technical decision, so we can make this "decision" in a telcon) 16:32:13 I've got ISSUE-31 in front of me, so I can make that title change.... 16:32:17 (i.e. this is just issue tracking admin) 16:32:29 I have ISSUE-31 open in edit mode too, fyi 16:32:33 smedero: hang on just for a minute 16:32:34 ahh, nevermind 16:32:35 :) 16:32:45 CS: spend time in PF looking at use case from author and user POV; 16:32:48 MS: good idea 16:33:02 RESOLUTION: change issue 31 title to: "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?" 16:33:39 smedero, please change title and also add a note, specically about @role 16:33:49 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 MS: can we expect to hear back from PF on use of @role? 16:34:12 CS: soon is a relative term 16:34:18 GJR: is on PF's radar and on PF's radar 16:34:20 DanC: did you have some changes to 31 that you wanted to make or were in the middle of? 16:34:48 no 16:34:58 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 -Cynthia_Shelly 16:35:35 smedero, please also close out issue 58 with a note 16:35:44 s/on PF's radar/on PF's agenda 16:36:01 GJR: trying to provide requirements and comprehensive use cases 16:36:11 MS: coming to a mutual understanding of what reqs are 16:36:17 +[Microsoft] 16:36:27 31's title is updated, going back to add the bits about @rol 16:36:30 erm @role. 16:36:41 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 q+ to ask about a few more raised issues 16:37:13 MS: those who call in to telecons, are more likely to shape issue tracking (nudge, nudge) 16:37:25 TOPIC: Raised Issues of Recent Vintage 16:37:43 Zakim, unmute me 16:37:43 Shepazu should no longer be muted 16:37:50 MS: last one quotation marks for Q element - not useful to discuss 16:37:57 q+ 16:38:03 DanC: clarification from MS 16:38:39 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 DanC: stright up close or keep 16:38:57 MS: proposals for closure? 16:39:12 MS: can go through 1 by 1 in 20 minutes left to decide to close 16:39:21 MS: not good to keep too much open at one time 16:39:33 MS: walk through rest of issues? 16:40:04 MS: based on past experience, closing issues, raises an email firestorm, but that should affect efficiency of tracker 16:40:07 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 DanC: raised until someone takes an action item to do something 16:40:27 MS: 20-odd issues we haven't touched 16:40:46 MS: try to pick the low-hanging fruit today's discussion 16:40:57 robburns, what is issue number? 16:41:03 q? 16:41:08 ack DanC 16:41:08 DanC, you wanted to ask about a few more raised issues 16:41:12 ack shepazu 16:41:36 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 DanC: hixie doesn't welcome suggested text, but helps me 16:42:03 aria-curie is issue 51 16:42:11 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51 16:42:37 GJR: PF is working on specific verbiage and requirements 16:42:48 DS: is it reasonable to put forth proposed wording or not? 16:43:09 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 MS: more helpful to propose text - no harm 16:43:44 DS: good tactic to state reqs, use cases, take proposed text and correlate which part of text goes with which req 16:43:57 DS: how HTML WG accepts input is my query 16:44:46 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 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 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ 16:45:29 MS: when new info available, should be brought to group 16:45:31 present+ robburns 16:45:46 TOPIC: Tracker Agenda Review, continued 16:45:56 MS: raised issues - lot are stale 16:46:17 MS: can continue to review issues - nothing super-recent (end-of july or pending review for end-of july august) 16:46:21 action-73? 16:46:21 ACTION-73 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on WAI-ARIA markup thread, emphasizing the conformance point -- due 2008-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:46:21 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/73 16:46:22 MS: top of agenda, action 73 16:46:30 TOPIC: Action 73 16:46:34 DanC: think is done 16:46:39 MS: objections, otherwise close out 16:46:57 close action-73 16:46:57 MS: hearing no objections, will close - action, not issue 16:46:57 ACTION-73 Follow up on WAI-ARIA markup thread, emphasizing the conformance point closed 16:47:13 TOPIC: Issues In Red 16:47:28 MS: Lachy and authoring guide - past due, but not on call - know working on it 16:47:31 action-72? 16:47:31 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/72 16:47:51 MS: action 72 - on Josh; 16:47:52 Deliverable for Action 72: 16:47:52 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action72Headers 16:48:05 Luara: working on it - please consult the above URI 16:48:16 MS: not finished yet, so reset due date until next week 16:48:21 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 MS: changed date to 2008-08-20 16:48:39 The headers/id markup is functional and works today. Results of some recent testing: 16:48:39 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/TableHeadersTestingBug5822 16:48:40 It needs to be grandfathered into the spec. 16:48:46 This issue's history from May 2007 to present: 16:48:46 (trackbot wish: "continue action-72" would push the date to 1 week from now) 16:48:46 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders 16:48:57 MS: anything else on tracker anyone burning to discuss? 16:48:58 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 MS: if not, can end early 16:49:50 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 MS: anything else anyone wants to talk about or adjourn early? 16:50:13 move to adjourn 16:50:26 q+ 16:50:33 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html 16:50:44 q? 16:50:49 MS: surprised - lot of discussion on list -- thought there would be more to discuss; huge threads developing 16:51:20 (the discussion of distributed extensibility and GRDDL was kinda interesting, but I'm not sure what to talk about) 16:51:31 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 MS: simple issue - current XSLT engines not being able to produce conformant HTML5 output a candidate 16:52:05 JR: yes 16:52:14 MS: agree should close out 16:52:37 DanC: thought were going to close discussion 16:53:27 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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54 16:53:42 DanC: issues where discussion done, or ... 16:54:04 MS: not an issue with decision - cannot currently use XSLT engines to produce HTML5 16:54:09 q+ 16:54:28 GJR: what does it mean to produce valid HTML5? 16:55:58 q? 16:56:07 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 ack Julian 16:56:22 GJR: public working draft or current editors' draft in terms of conformance 16:56:22 ack oedipus 16:56:25 JR: public one 16:56:40 GJR: wanted to ensure is PWD not editor's draft that is being "conformed-to" 16:56:53 q+ 16:57:26 (w.r.t. ISSUE-54 html5-from-xslt , I'm content with XSLT engines adding a new output mode) 16:58:02 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 MS: DougS referred to discussions on list -- anything actionable on those? 16:58:38 MS: could take up a lot of time (and already has) 16:58:58 wrt xslt: the underlying question is: should HTML 5 stay compatible with existing HTML generators *if* it's easy to achieve? 16:59:08 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 what's the alternative? Re-open XSLT 1.0? 16:59:59 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 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 q+ 17:00:30 MS: don't want to prematurely end decentralized extensibility issue, but don't want it constantly hanging over our heads 17:00:34 ack Julian 17:01:56 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 DanC: expect anything of more discussion? 17:02:09 JR: cannot hurt 17:02:37 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 MS: others think quite differently, and a lot in between 17:02:51 s/cannot hurt/sometimes new things come up, but no, I don't expect so in this case/ 17:03:14 s/oversimplified in discussion/I'm oversimplifying the email thread quite a bit/ 17:04:00 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 has joined #html-wg 17:04:26 q? 17:04:36 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 q+ 17:04:45 ack Julian 17:05:31 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 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 DS: hixie working at cross-purposes to that even if separate? 17:06:17 (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 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 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 q+ 17:06:56 MS: without a clear undestanding of proposition and its value, won't be considered 17:07:32 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 q+ 17:07:39 DS: over-simplification 17:07:41 q? 17:07:44 q- 17:07:46 ack DanC 17:07:48 MS: stating most emphatic opposition 17:08:01 DS: generic mechanism for known or formal vocabs 17:08:24 MS: that is your perspective, but not sam's perspective; don't think that's what Dave Orchard wants either 17:08:48 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 MS: good point -- note to say "if you define custom vocab, here is what we strongly suggest you do" 17:09:37 DS: agree generally, but personally don't think other ML has to be changed to use processing model of HTML5 17:09:45 q? 17:09:54 ack Julian 17:09:57 DanC: over-time by 10 minutes 17:10:01 MS: hear from JR then close 17:11:24 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 MS: good point, JR 17:11:51 MS: very unclear if good reason to remove @profile -- mass of opinion against removal 17:11:58 MS: move to adjourn 17:12:09 ADJOURNED 17:12:10 cu 17:12:10 -[Microsoft] 17:12:12 -smedero 17:12:13 -Julian 17:12:16 mass of opinion also for distributed extensibility 17:12:24 MS: thanks to all for calling in -- talk to you all next week 17:12:30 -Shepazu 17:12:35 -Gregory_Rosmaita 17:12:38 Zakim, drop Mike 17:12:38 Mike is being disconnected 17:12:39 -Mike 17:12:39 rrsagent, make minutes 17:12:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:12:45 zakim, who is here? 17:12:45 On the phone I see DanC, Laura 17:12:46 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 ... 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 ... Hixie, hsivonen, drry, Yudai, trackbot, t 17:12:52 -Laura 17:12:57 Present- Matt 17:13:05 zakim, please part 17:13:05 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 has left #html-wg 17:13:11 rrsagent, make minutes 17:13:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:14:17 present- +1.218.349.aaaa 17:14:31 present- +49.251.280.aabb 17:14:35 rrsagent, make minutes 17:14:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:14:54 chair: Mike_Smith 17:14:56 rrsagent, make minutes 17:14:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:17:37 oedipus: we did reach resolution on that 17:17:41 with no objections 17:17:52 thanks 17:17:55 RESOLUTION: change issue 31 title to: "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?" 17:18:03 rrsagent, make minutes 17:18:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-minutes.html oedipus 17:19:23 rrsagent, please part 17:19:23 I see no action items