See also: IRC log
<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)
<scribe> scribe: anne
<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2009
AvK: I was wondering about the status publication.
RS: Now html5-diff is done I think we should ask MS.
<ChrisWilson> created an action-119 on mike to publish diffs and spec
MS: I think we can do it Tuesday
<trackbot> ACTION-111 -- Sam Ruby to work on process issues re: summary -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN
<ChrisWilson> reviewing tracker:
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-111 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
SR: for ACTION-111 and ACTION-99 there was little interest on the topics so I plan on closing them if there's no interest within three weeks
JR: I'm interested in the profile attribute. What kind of input are you looking for?
SR: Robert Sayre was supposed to writing text for this and that is approaching three months ago now.
<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Sam Ruby to review @profile -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN
SR: Losing hope that this works out.
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-99 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
JR: Can I write spec text?
SR: Not sure if that's
... Though if there's hope we can get consensus on that, sure
LM: The action items are very informative
SR: There's extensive discussion on the mailing list
LM: I guess those aren't linked
SR: We're missing sufficient interest
LM: I'm not sure it's clear to everyone that that's the critical path
SR: I'll make it clear
LM: That's great then
CW: I'm fine with that; move on?
<trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Lachlan Hunt to register about: URI scheme -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-103 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<masinter> there's lots of interest in the features, need to be clear to the people that are interested in the feature that this is the criticla path
<masinter> julian: there has not been a new draft submitted yet
JR: no new draft has been submitted
CW: I believe LH was travelling
and just got back
... I'll ping him
<trackbot> ACTION-105 -- Sam Ruby to should arrange a meeting between chairs of HTML WG and XHTML2 WG to ensure there is a plan for coordination of vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-105 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Julian, they coordinate
SR: I think the ball is in the
court of Steven Pemberton and co
... So I'm pushing this back a couple of weeks
<masinter> again, emails discussing this action are not linked from action, is this a tracker problem?
<trackbot> ACTION-108 -- Larry Masinter to report back on the TAG's work on versioning wrt HTML -- due 2009-04-16 -- OPEN
masinter, are there emails?
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-108 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
LM: topic scheduled for the next meeting
<ChrisWilson> action-105 +1week
LM: any thoughts on what the TAG
could do that would be useful?
... the current draft from the TAG regarding a general framework might not always apply cleanly to HTML
CW: I would like to understand
what the TAG thinks, what they'd recommend
... for versioning in HTML
CW: Right now I feel like there's
a lot of discussion regarding versioning and patterns around
... there's probably a feeling that the patterns don't necessarily apply to HTML
<masinter> This is the topic for the next TAG call today
CW: wanting to have one HTML;
those two things are in conflict
... I believe that versioning is a really good thing in any language
... that's not a general consensus here, certainly
LM: what qualities of versioning
do you think is missing?
... what is that you don't have that you want?
... need more elaboration of the problem
CW: I want it to be clear that
when I answer that question the "you" is Chris Wilson and not
the HTML WG
... the general problem with how we define HTML today; if HTML5 becomes a Rec and we realize we did something poorly we will cause rampant compatibility problems if we change implementations
... there are a whole bunch of versioning mechanism that will address that but also cause their own problems
... e.g. create a whole new element or feature
<masinter> I think the general idea of 'versioning' is that you include some indicator of version in the current language that will allow current processors to deal appropriately with future languages and recognize that they don't understand or can process appropriately this future content. The main thing is to categorize or predict the kinds of future content that current implementations should avoid or react to in some appropriate way. What are
<masinter> those categories?
CW: or specify very specific
versions e.g. 5.0.3
... somewhere in that spectrum will be our solution
<ChrisWilson> ^ "somewhere in that spectrum will be our solution"
LM: The difficult thing is
figuring out what changes we want to allow for.
... E.g. we indicate the current version in the document and current and future implementations will react differently to that somehow
<masinter> giving you a flavor of the general approach, and hoping to use HTML versioning as a good example
CW: Having the TAG consider the whole spectrum of strategies and providing feedback on what would be best would be good
LM: What's versioning anyway?
Provide a indicator of the version in the document and future
implementations will react to that in a certain way.
... Some extensions might require plug-ins, some might not require browser implementations at all.
CW: I'm happy to listen to other people
<masinter> Using Raman's deconstruction of features as "platform features" vs "language features"
CW: I think the idea of not having a version is the idea that HTML is lasting platform
CW: The idea of writing HTML in
2035 and having it still be usable in implementations of
... I don't think that will work
<masinter> are there more kind of 'version indicators' or things that current processors can recognize?
CW: I meant that the other way around
<masinter> content written at time X should be usable in browsers built at X+Y, and also the converse
CW: I.e. writing content in 2020
still being usable in 2035 without having to implement lots of
versions of HTML
... I think that's the goal of some people however I'm sceptical that it's going to work
... However large and smart the group is I don't think they can foresee all implications
<jgraham> Content written in 1995 still works in 2009
LM: [...] that older readers can
still read from newer writers in some way
... i.e. current readers deal with future content; that's hard
... the other way, future readers can read current content
AvK: why is that needed? content from 95 still works in 2009?
LM: that's because you have doctype switching
AvK: ok, that's from 99, since
then we haven't done anything like that
... I would find it interesting if the TAG looked at this from a historical perspective rather than a framework perspective. E.g. look at CSS and HTML in more detail
CW: in 2005 we were still able to play with doctype switching
<masinter> standards mode vs. quirks mode history is really useful
CW: in 2006 we switched things and got more issues
<masinter> is this written up somewhere? this is really useful
CW: we get the same ability to switch things based on HTML5 nodes
masinter, http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ has info on DOCTYPE switching
<pimpbot> Title: Activating Browser Modes with Doctype (at hsivonen.iki.fi)
AvK: fyi: IE is quite different from all other browsers here. In other browsers quirks mode is just a fixed amount of differences
<ChrisWilson> agreed: IE has a higher bar for compatibility version-over-version than other browsers.
<masinter> thanks, this is very helpful
CW: do you feel you have enough to go on?
LM: we have an agenda but I
wanted to explicitly ask this group
... it's important that the TAG does things that are useful for the W3C WGs; not sure that's always been the history
SR: do we have a new date?
CW: I assume next week
LM: I can report next week
LM: I see this as an ongoing conversation
<trackbot> ACTION-114 -- Cynthia Shelly to report progress on ARIA TF -- due 2009-04-16 -- OPEN
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-114 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
CS: Meeting two weeks; next one
tomorrow; making slow progress. People are making progress on
the various action items.
... Waiting for someone from Opera and Apple. Pretty sure about Opera, less confident about Apple.
... Maybe push this report of three weeks so I can report after the meeting?
<trackbot> ACTION-115 -- Michael(tm) Smith to set up WBS for HTML WG participants to @@ reTPAC 2009 -- due 2009-04-16 -- OPEN
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-115 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
MS: still not done
AvK: wasn't there a deadline?
<MikeSmith> action-115 due tomorrow
<trackbot> ACTION-115 Set up WBS for HTML WG participants to @@ reTPAC 2009 due date now tomorrow
MS: internal use
CW: I replied weeks ago that we
did want to have a meeting
... was enough interest on the telcon back then
... so we met that deadline
<ChrisWilson> any other items?
<MikeSmith> ACTION: Michael(tm) to talk with Michael Cooper and PFWG about possibility of better facilitating comments on ARIA spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Talk with Michael Cooper and PFWG about possibility of better facilitating comments on ARIA spec [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2009-04-23].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/closing them/closing them if there's no interest within three weeks/ Succeeded: s/is three/is approaching three/ Succeeded: s/no draft/no new draft/ Succeeded: s/somewhere in between would work/somewhere in that spectrum will be our solution/ Found Scribe: anne Inferring ScribeNick: anne Default Present: Julian, Sam, ChrisWilson, anne, Cynthia_Shelly, Mike, Masinter Present: Julian Sam ChrisWilson anne Cynthia_Shelly Mike Masinter Found Date: 16 Apr 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-html-wg-minutes.html People with action items: michael tm WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]