SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 14 May 2009

<pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<pimpbot> Title: Concerns about new section "predefined vocabularies" from Julian Reschke on 2009-05-13 (public-html@w3.org from May 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

<Julian> shelleyp, welcome!

<shelleyp> Hi Julian

<ChrisWilson> scribenick:masinter

<ChrisWilson> scribe:masinter

review tracker:http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

chris: additions to agenda? Julian's request noted.

<ChrisWilson> action-98?

<trackbot> ACTION-98 -- Matthew May to discuss missing-alt with the WAI CG and report back -- due 2009-05-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/98

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-98 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

sam: action updated by 3 weeks

<ChrisWilson> action-99?

<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Sam Ruby to review @profile -- due 2009-05-14 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/99

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-99 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<ChrisWilson> action-121?

sam: plan to move it to 'raised' if no new owner found by end of May

<trackbot> ACTION-121 -- Dan Connolly to submit id for URLs in HTML 5 -- due 2009-05-14 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/121

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-121 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<DanC> action-121 due next week

<trackbot> ACTION-121 Submit id for URLs in HTML 5 due date now next week

<DanC> (sorry)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009May/0000.html

<pimpbot> Title: Re: A new RFC for Web Addresses/Hypertext References: Background wrt LEIRIs from Martin J. D�rst on 2009-05-01 (www-tag@w3.org from May 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

<ChrisWilson> action-105?

<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 2009-05-14 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/105

larry: there is a discussion on www-tag about converging these documents to avoid normative overlap

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-105 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

sam: dependent on RDFa and HTML?
... until that happens, Sam believes the working groups will continue
... it's not that they're tightly linked, people like XHTML because it is extensible, and the overall concern is that if the groups are merged, there would not be that productive discussoin

<shelleyp> I seem to be muted, would like to talk

sam: given that the HTML working group is interested in microdata, the results to date are that Ian is only interested in use cases and not the spec, but the RDFa groups are not interested in editing a spec
... I've yet to seen Ian budge, or to see new editors emerge
... either Ian shows he's interested, or an editor needs to emerge

shelley: have any editors of XHTML2 emerged?

sam: any number of people can be editors, but all I've gotten is silence. I've talked to PLH and Steven and others, but no individual has stepped forward to edit a document, but so far no one has stpped forward
... without editors there can be no progress on merging the groups
... Given that there is active interest, I will move this to next week

chris: was a question of whether any of the editors of XHTHML2 would be interested in being editors of HTML5. If we can get the working groups to align on goals, we could pick up additional resources, XHTML2 has 8 editors on the spec.

julian: those people who might be interested in working here might think that it would be futile. The RDFa group thinks this is work in progress, and they are working on a spec about prefixes. Would that document how it should be done, or how it is being done now, and they are concerned about that.
... the sooner we make progress on that, the better.

<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 2009-02-27 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-34 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

action-78?

<trackbot> ACTION-78 -- Lachlan Hunt to work on text and heading for 1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages -- due 2009-03-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-78 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<Julian> RDFa in HTML: two thoughts... (a) People who may be interested may think it would be futile because Ian isn't going to include it anyway, (b) the RDFa people seem still to be working on the best way fore prefix declarations...

sam: issue is closed without prejudice

<Julian> ...so there is already a difference between what would "the right way", and what's already done in the wild.

action-78?

<trackbot> ACTION-78 -- Lachlan Hunt to work on text and heading for 1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages -- due 2009-03-01 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-78 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

sam: Dan sent a note out that he was trying to attract interest

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 2009-02-27 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-34 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

action-34

sam: suggest assigning this issue to DanC

<ChrisWilson> action-38?

<trackbot> ACTION-38 -- Sam Ruby to chairs to review need for amending charter with Director -- due 2009-04-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38

action-34?

<trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Dan Connolly to prepare "Web Developer's Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on 2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2009-02-27 -- OPEN

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-38 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-34 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<DanC> hmm... ok

<rubys1> action-38 is moved to june 18

<ChrisWilson> DanC that'll teach you not to show up to the call. :)

<ChrisWilson> issue-20?

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- Improvements to the table-headers algorithm in the HTML 5 spec -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/20

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-20 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

chris: progress has been that things have been moving out of the spec, not in, so move this forward a bit

(discussion of status, Dan changed this to Pending Review, not sure what that meant)

<pimpbot> Title: About http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda (at www.w3.org)

<pimpbot> Title: Concerns about new section "predefined vocabularies" from Julian Reschke on 2009-05-13 (public-html@w3.org from May 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

hold until DanC is available

Julian: the spec now contains two big sections that replicate IETF sections, has no idea why Ian is doing that
... in this best case this contains the same information. What's in there is now out of sync with IETF, why would it ever be replicated

chris: what ian is tyring to do to make the HTML5 spec stand on its own
... ... not really what i want to do, but it still has to point to a specific rev of IETF spec?

<DanC> need? why do we need this section at all?

julian: he's doing what he always does, rewriting everything in his own writing style, in the best case it specifies the same thing, in the worst case specifies minor differences. I have no idea why this is going on.

<DanC> does anybody know why the vcard stuff was added?

julian: vCard section is the first one, in the meanwhile he has added iCalendar. If this was April 1 I would get the joke.
... and also (something)

<Julian> masinter: BibTeX

DanC: what does this have to do with anything. This is like putting a spec for black and white television

chris: vCard in HTML is in use today

julian: the validator can actually check vCard conformance
... but why does it have to be embedded in the spec

<Philip> The point of the microdata thing is to express data, in some cases using a shared vocabulary, so he's just defining some of those shared vocabularies

chris: I understand how to we want to declare how to use vcard in HTML, and wouldn't want to take some IETF reference and changing it along the way

<jgraham> I understand the reason for the vocabulary features is that people have put forward those use cases

<Philip> (I'd hope they would be moved out of the HTML5 document at some point in the future, so they're standalone documents referenced from some centralised registry)

chris: do you think the adoption of vCard is helped or hindered?

<rubys1> Philip: +1

<Philip> (but they need to go somewhere for now)

<jgraham> (I have no particular opinion about whether they should be defined in HTML 5 but they do, at least, need a clear spec)

chris: best reason I could come up with is that if vCard is something that could be tested by an HTML conformance checker....

<DanC> they didn't need to be defined in the HTML spec as long as there was a head/@profile attribute. But I guess since he took that extension point out, extensions have to be bolted on directly. Still... embedding this in a 300 page spec is not a good way to get review.

<jgraham> DanC: I don't think either of those things is true

julian: one reason is that the microformats specs are hard to read and lack preciseness, so there is lot of metadata that is vcard but doesn't parse correctly

<jgraham> They could easilly be specified in an external document, and putting them in something high profile like HTML 5 seems like the perfect way to get review

sam: suggest we ask his intent

<Philip> They could be specified externally in a wiki, like rel values

<jgraham> (like I could publish bibtex for HTML based on the microdata section tommorrow and no one would notice or care)

<Philip> (not that I think that's a good idea necessarily)

larry: this is another instance of the general issue of normative overlap between HTML and documents of other organization

it's still an issue with the origin header

<hsivonen> It seems less useful to tell everyone go figure out how to cast vcard into microdata on their own

<hober> Indeed.

<Philip> hsivonen, there are alternatives other than not defining it all, e.g. some document could define how to translate microdata into vCard and then state that a document is only conforming if the extracted vCard follows vCard's conformance requirements

julian: the vCard and iCalendar spec include an extensibility mechanism that is used in practice, but this extension mechanism is not in the HTML vcard specification

<ChrisWilson> +1 to philip

<Philip> hsivonen, rather than reproducing the conformance requirements at the HTML layer

julian: so there's an extensibility issue

((note masinter rant not scribed, will write up later))

<jgraham> Philip: Sure. What we have now might not be the best approach. But it might be better than nothing

chris: it seems like the most moderate comment is Philip's

<jgraham> In general it seems like a fallacy to assume that the best result is achieved if we partition the world into nice llittle non-overalpping pieces and then expect them to all move together

<hsivonen> Philip, that's approximately how microformats dealt with the issue (at least last I looked), and it made it hard to figure out how to produce and consume hcard/hcalendar

julian: a spec that says how to use vCard in HTML and extract vCard in HTML would be useful. Not sure if it needs to be part of HTML, where would this end? Not productive to spend much time on this until we have feedback from Ian.

<jgraham> It is worth noting that the BiBTeX case is rather different as there is no meaningful spec that one could point to, even in principle

<Philip> jgraham, Indeed - I think there are valid concerns, and they can be discussed on the mailing list, and removing the section from the spec before examining that feedback would be premature, so I don't see anything to worry about yet

larry: is this an effective process?

chris: I expected it would be put in the spec at some point sooner or later

<Philip> (and having the proposals be in the HTML5 spec means they should get lots of feedback)

<jgraham> Philip: Agreed

<ChrisWilson> ACTION: Hixie to discuss choice of embedding vcard microdata instead of referencing IETF spec and defining conformance reqs for HTML5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/14-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Discuss choice of embedding vcard microdata instead of referencing IETF spec and defining conformance reqs for HTML5 [on Ian Hickson - due 2009-05-21].

sam: this was a successful tactic in the past, maybe it will work now

larry misreported sam's intent

sam: i haven't looked at it, so want to withhold judgement

<pimpbot> Title: Concerns about new section "predefined vocabularies" from Julian Reschke on 2009-05-13 (public-html@w3.org from May 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

((rant about origin header not recorded))

adjourn

<ChrisWilson> adjourned

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

14 May 2009

Attendees

Contents

review tracker:http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

action-34

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output