<ChrisWilson> Tracker: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
<pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> scribe: SamRuby
<MikeSmith> scribenick: rubys
<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 08 January 2009
<ChrisWilson> action-88?
<trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Dan Connolly to look into anne's ticket 206755 from iana@iana.org somewhat related to http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov/access-control-allow-origin -- due 2008-12-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/88
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-88 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
DanC: that's done, happy outcome, no further discussion is necessary
ChrisWilson: I'll mark it closed
<DanC> close action-88
<trackbot> ACTION-88 Look into anne's ticket 206755 from iana@iana.org somewhat related to http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov/access-control-allow-origin closed
<ChrisWilson> action-78?
<trackbot> ACTION-78 -- Chris Wilson to suggestion text for 1.4.4 -- due 2008-10-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-78 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Ian has implemented something similar to the text Chris proposed, so Chris is inclined to close action-78.
<smedero> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#relationship-to-flash,-silverlight,-xul-and-similar-proprietary-languages
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at www.whatwg.org)
<smedero> Which is now section 1.5.4 btw
<Julian> 1.5.4.: "1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages
<Julian> This section is non-normative.
<Julian> This specification is independent of the various proprietary application languages that various vendors provide, but is intended to address many of the same problems.
<Julian> In contrast with proprietary languages, this specification is intended to define an openly-produced, vendor-neutral language, to be implemented in a broad range of competing products, across a wide range of platforms and devices. This enables developers to write applications that are not limited to one vendor's implementation or language. Furthermore, while writing applications that target...
<Julian> ...vendor-specific platforms necessarily introduces a cost that application developers and their customers or users will face if they are forced to switch (or desire to switch) to another vendor's platform, using an openly-produced and vendor neutral language means that application authors can switch vendors with little to no cost."
Larry believes the text in 1.5.4 is a bit too inflamatory.
Chris tends to agree
<dsinger> In general, I don't think specs should say what they are not, so I tend to agree also
<pimpbot> Title: Zakim IRC Teleconference Agent (at www.w3.org)
<smedero> (not all, just some...)
ChrisWilson: Ian is trying to address the idea that some of these alternative platforms could be marketed as a way address some of the same needs as HTML5
Masinter: with Moonlight, Silverlight is now an opely developed standard. Larry is willing to take on this action item.
ChrisWilson: due date?
Masinter: two weeks
<DanC> action-78?
<trackbot> ACTION-78 -- Chris Wilson to larry Masinter - Suggestion text for 1.5.4 -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78
<DanC> action-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- Dan Connolly to propose to postpone ISSUE-13 handling-http-401-status by explaining the problem, noting the lack of solutions, and asking if postponing is acceptable -- due 2008-12-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/86
<ChrisWilson> action-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- Dan Connolly to propose to postpone ISSUE-13 handling-http-401-status by explaining the problem, noting the lack of solutions, and asking if postponing is acceptable -- due 2008-12-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-86 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/86
DanC: I forgot to follow up
<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Dec/0153.html
<pimpbot> Title: OK to postpone ISSUE-13 handling-http-401-status (form authentication...)? from Dan Connolly on 2008-12-16 (public-html@w3.org from December 2008) (at lists.w3.org)
DanC: Thomas Broyer has ongoing work and submitted an internet draft
<smedero> Thomas's draft is here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth-00.txt
ChrisWilson: As this work is progressing elsewhere, this item can be closed?
DanC: I haven't verified that this internet draft addresses the discussion
<DanC> (I think my action can be closed; but I'm not sure whether the issue should be closed...)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 08 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> issue-13?
<trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Handling HTTP status 401 responses / User Agent Authentication Forms -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/13
Julian: It doesn't completely address the topic, it is a small piece in the big puzzle
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-13 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
DanC: I want somebody to ream Thomas's internet draft and make an informed recommendation
ChirsWilson: Who raised the issue originally?
<masinter> the document in question has normative language for what HTML forms 'should' do in some cases.
ChrisWilson: Julian: will you accept such an action item.
<DanC> (which I suppose means I suggest my proposal of 16 Dec doesn't carry)
Julian: yes, two weeks
<masinter> suggest HTML5 could make an informative reference to the document, telling HTML authors there might be some additional advice
ChrisWilson: the proposal of December 16 does not carry
<ChrisWilson> 1
<DanC> ACTION-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- Dan Connolly to propose to postpone ISSUE-13 handling-http-401-status by explaining the problem, noting the lack of solutions, and asking if postponing is acceptable -- due 2008-12-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/86
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-86 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> ACTION-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- Julian Reschke to review Thomas Broyer's IETF ID to see if we can postpone ISSUE-13 -- due 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/86
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-86 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ChrisWilson: onto overdue action items
<ChrisWilson> action-34?
<trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Lachlan Hunt to prepare "Web Developer's Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on 2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2008-12-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-34 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ChrisWilson: anybody know status on this?
DanC: I'm hoping to make traction in this space...
<smedero> last update to the author's guide was Nov 28th, 2008.
ChrisWilson: I'm assuming that the status is that Lachlan doesn't have enough time to dedicate to this.
<gsnedders> karl said he'd work on it in December, but did very little.
<gsnedders> That is my understanding too.
<DanC> I'm inclined to drop it until somebody does more work
ChrisWilson: should we move the date or seek for additional help
<smedero> gsnedders: hrm, karl actually did a fair bit of work with lachlan... imho.
<gsnedders> smedero: In Dec? Not that I saw.
DanC: I'm inclined to drop this action and only reopen if somebody is actively purusing it
<Lachy> I will have enough time. But dealing with selectors api in december and then holidays hasn't given me much
<gsnedders> I might have just not been watching closely
<ChrisWilson> Lachlan - should we just move the date out? To when?
multiple-voices: suggest moving the date
<masinter> i suggest re-reviewing this in a week or two
<Lachy> I don't know. Some time in the future.
<DanC> action-34 due 22 Jan 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-34 Prepare "Web Developer's Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on 2007-11-28 phone conference due date now 22 Jan 2009
<ChrisWilson> action-38?
<trackbot> ACTION-38 -- Michael(tm) Smith to chairs to review need for amending charter with Director -- due 2008-11-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-38 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ChrisWilson: Sam and I need to
discuss this... for now, I'll take over this action.
... the basic issue is that there are a lot of features in the
current spec that are not in our charter
<DanC> . http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/2
<pimpbot> Title: Details on Product HTML Principles/Requirements - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ChrisWilson: the charter should reflect what we are working on, and what we are working on should reflect reality. That doesn't presuppose what is to change.
Is there a list?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest the requirements issues list in response to doug's question
ChrisWilson: I sent a list.
DanC: I keep a list in the tracer under requirements issues
<smedero> That action really dates from the Boston 2007 TPAC.
<smedero> and it was originally brought up with respect to <canvas>
DanC: unfortunately, canvas doesn't show up on that page as we closed it
<DanC> (canvas requirement issue is http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/15 )
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-15 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ChrisWilson: the charter should mention to the documents we should produce, and nobody believes the schedule
<DanC> (I prefer that the choice of how editors chop the technical scope into documents *not* be in the charter, though the technical scope should.)
<jgraham> DanC, Do you have a pointer to your list?
<DanC> . http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/2
<pimpbot> Title: Details on Product HTML Principles/Requirements - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ChrisWilson: if there is to be a
web authors guide, it should be in our deliverables
... it need not go down to the level of how many documents we
split html5 into, but should cover things we feel are
necessary
<hsivonen> (Hixie has discussed those with Lisa Dusseault, too.)
Masinter: ... possibility of a better liason with IETF
<DanC> yup
<ChrisWilson> s/"it should be"/ and we consider it critical, perhaps it should be
<ChrisWilson> action-75?
<trackbot> ACTION-75 -- Michael(tm) Smith to raise question to group about Yes, leave @profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's summary of the discussion -- due 2008-12-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-75 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<anne> he's not
<anne> or he is, hmm
ChrisWilson: passing on Mike's overdue action items for the moment.
ChrisWilson: open issues vs raised issues?
DanC: issue 13 shows up as having one open action
ChrisWilson: all 2007 open issues have actions
<ChrisWilson> issue-31?
<trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-31 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Sam: I think we made enoough forward progress for now
DanC: who has the ball on
alt?
... demote alt back to raised pile?
Henri: the working group working on authoring tool accessibility guidelines is working on this, the ball is in their court.
<DanC> (the group Henri's talking about is http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ )
<pimpbot> Title: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) (at www.w3.org)
Larry: heard something similar
DanC: we need a liaison
Larry: I might be able to get
some help
... postpone for a week?
DanC: need an owner
Larry: I'll take the action
... I'm willing to report back next week
<smedero> Julian recently opened a bug on that: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336
open issues with no actions: svg/mathml and distributed extensibility
<pimpbot> Title: Bug 6336 XSLT-compat doctype only allowed for use by XSLT (at www.w3.org)
<ChrisWilson> issue-54?
<trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE html> -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-54 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> ACTION: Larry ask Matt May if he can help represent WAI WGs in the HTML WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Ask Matt May if he can help represent WAI WGs in the HTML WG [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-01-15].
Sam: can we demote 37, 41, and 54 to raised?
ChrisWilson: perhaps 54, but we don't want to do 37 and 41.
<DanC> trackbot, status
Doug: the svg working group is working on 37
ChrisWilson: we can create an action for Doug to report back on 37
<ChrisWilson> action shepazu to report back on SVG WG's integration proposal re: issue-37
<DanC> ACTION: Larry ask Matt May if he can help represent WAI WGs in the HTML WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
Sam: who has an action for 54?
<ChrisWilson> ACTION: shepazu to report back on SVG WG's integration proposal re: issue-37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - shepazu
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Ask Matt May if he can help represent WAI WGs in the HTML WG [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-01-15].
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - shepazu
Sam: demote 54 to raised?
<DanC> +1 move 54 to raised until somebody does work
<ChrisWilson> anyone disagree with moving issue-54 back to raised?
<hsivonen> we have the XSLT-compat string
Julian: HTML5 partly addresses issue 54 by the current draft
<DanC> how about one of the co-chairs take an action to pick the strnig/
<DanC> ?
Hsivonen: the technical issue is addressed, what is left is a total bikeshed
<DanC> what string is in the document?
<masinter> issue-54 isn't linked from the agenda
<hsivonen> DanC, the string is "XSLT-compat"
<DanC> which page are you using for "the agenda", masinter ?
<hsivonen> I agree with Julian that non-XSLT legacy generators should be allowed to use the same string
<masinter> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
<pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<Julian> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336
<pimpbot> Title: Bug 6336 XSLT-compat doctype only allowed for use by XSLT (at www.w3.org)
<Julian> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-doctype
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at www.whatwg.org)
<Julian> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336
<pimpbot> Title: Bug 6336 XSLT-compat doctype only allowed for use by XSLT (at www.w3.org)
<smedero> masinter is correct that ISSUE-54 wasn't on the "official" agenda. though the agenda sent out in email did suggest covering all open issues.
<Julian> sorry
<hsivonen> FWIW, the string is deliberately ugly to discourage people from using it
Henri, Julian and ChrisWilson are not happy with the current string
Henri: the motivation is to promote the simple doctype
ChrisWilson: I don't see why it matters
<Julian> it doesn't need to be shiny, but it also shouldn't be misleading
s/XSLT-compat/legacy-compat/ ?
<Julian> At some point, Mike proposed the empty string
<gsnedders> horrible-legacy-compat-string?
<hsivonen> I'd be OK with "legacy-compat"
<masinter> it's generally a bad idea to specify the language in terms of the identity of the agent that is producing it
Sam: suggest moving it to the mailing list
ChrisWilson: we need to continue to track it at this level
<DanC> issue-4?
<DanC> sigh. trackbot is hosed
<MikeSmith> (trackbot is gone)
<DanC> trackbot, status
<masinter> i'm confused by what DOCTYPE is used for, what are the requirements?
<anne> masinter, DOCTYPE is used to trigger standards mode
<hsivonen> masinter, the requirements are a string that 1) triggers the standards mode, 2) doesn't look like a public ID and 3) is deliberately ugly
<MikeSmith> issue-4?
<trackbot> ISSUE-4 -- HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-4 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<Julian> some disagree woth requirement 3
<gsnedders> (2 is to make it clear that HTML is _not_ SGML, and 3 is to discourage it because it serves no use)
anybody disagree with "legay-compat" ?
<DanC> (I hope to demonstrate what <!DOCTYPE html> does in (an obscure part of) an authoring guide by way of test result data)
<DanC> +1 legacy-compat
<anne> I proposed that some time ago rubys, not sure who disagreed other than Hixie, but memory fails me
<gsnedders> I have no objection to legacy-compat, and I think it's better than xslt-compat
<smedero> hrm, I thought using "legacy-compat" had broad support
<masinter> there are some general issues with version identification
<DanC> ACTION: Sam propose 'legacy-compat' and report on feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Propose 'legacy-compat' and report on feedback [on Sam Ruby - due 2009-01-15].
<DanC> ACTION: Doug to report back on SVG WG's integration proposal re: issue-37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Doug
<DanC> ACTION: Schepers to report back on SVG WG's integration proposal re: issue-37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Schepers
<DanC> trackbot, status
<smedero> Would be useful for issue-54 to have more test data like this: http://philip.html5.org/data/doctypes.html
<pimpbot> Title: Doctypes (at philip.html5.org)
<anne> actually, seems Hixie himself suggested legacy-compat in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-html-wg-minutes.html
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG face-to-face meeting -- 23 Oct 2008 (at www.w3.org)
Larry: this issue is also related to mandatory error handling and proper versioning
ChrisWilson: it is not quite that
simple
... adding attribute (even completely new ones) breaks existing
sites
<gsnedders> Handling error handling by throwing a fatal error is conforming, per HTML 5.
<smedero> Versioning is ISSUE-4
<DanC> issue-4?
<trackbot> ISSUE-4 -- HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-4 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<hsivonen> I think it isn't productive to revisit the versioning thread
<gsnedders> Nor do I.
Masinter: I'm willing to work on issue 4
<anne> best of luck :)
<DanC> well, I think it's productive to propose to close the versioning issue and see who squeaks.
<gsnedders> DanC, I think that's probably as good as anything
Masinter: I'll take an action and report back in three weeks
ChrisWilson: move that we adjourn
<dsinger> thx, bye
<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 08 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> ACTION: Larry make a proposal on doctypes and versioning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Make a proposal on doctypes and versioning [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-01-15].
<DanC> action-93 due in 3 weeks
<trackbot> ACTION-93 Make a proposal on doctypes and versioning due date now in 3 weeks
<DanC> action-93?
<trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Larry Masinter to make a proposal on doctypes and versioning -- due 1970-01-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/93
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-93 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> action-93 due 29 Jan 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-93 Make a proposal on doctypes and versioning due date now 29 Jan 2009
<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 08 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<DanC> Mike, please help rubys get the minutes to public-html-announce
<DanC> er... public-html-wg-announce