16:09:41 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
16:09:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-irc
16:09:53 scribenick: annevk
16:10:33 http://www.nabble.com/IETF---Uri-review-f13113.html
16:10:34 Title: Nabble - IETF - Uri-review forum & mailing list archive (at www.nabble.com)
16:11:11 zakim, unmute me
16:11:11 Julian_Reschke was not muted, Julian
16:11:19 zakim, mute me
16:11:19 Julian_Reschke should now be muted
16:12:40 Topic: Processing requirements for ARIA
16:12:40 Cynthia: The goal is to have a WD by June 8
16:12:40 Cynthia: By the end of May to have a document that describes the existing mappings from HTML
16:12:40 Cynthia: From there we want to figure out what is missing.
16:12:40 Cynthia: Two things: implementation guidelines + mappings
16:12:41 Cynthia: CR by the end of the year if we decide to go normative
16:12:43 Cynthia: aggressive schedule but we think it is possible
16:12:45 SR: report progress again in a couple of weeks?
16:12:47 Cynthia: June 11 is ok
16:12:49 Topic:
16:12:51 JR: draft for about: has been submitted
16:12:53 JR: no discussion about the draft
16:12:55 JR: now we have to start the discussion on the URI mailing list
16:12:57 SR: good progress
16:12:59 JR: I'll report in two weeks
16:13:01 Topic: profile attribute
16:13:03 JR: I would like to help speccing, but had no time yet so I thought it would be good to summarize my thoughts
16:13:05 JR: I have no time in the next few weeks but can take ownership of the action
16:13:07 JR: it has not been posted to the URI list yet
16:13:09 JR: it's not clear whether the authors wanted to do that or whether one of us has to do that
16:13:29 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:14:19 I will start discussion of about: scheme
16:14:22 LM: I will make a post to the URI list
16:14:31 ISSUE-59?
16:14:31 ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what are the requirements -- OPEN
16:14:31 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
16:14:32 to the appropriate list for review of new URI schemes
16:14:32 Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
16:14:39 ("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)
16:14:50 Topic: normative language reference
16:15:19 SR: no meaningful process on the HTML5 XHTML namespace
16:15:30 LM: any progress on the discussion with mr Pemberton?
16:15:48 SR: not in the last couple of weeks and haven't come to any conclusion that would be of interest to PLH just yet
16:16:09 DS: I think it would be fruitful to have a discussion between PLH and SR to get things going
16:16:26 SR: I did have such a discussion on RDFa and have not yet anything meaningful to report
16:16:57 SR: [...] the ball is in my court to get various people to participate in RDFa
16:17:21 zakim, unmute me
16:17:21 Julian_Reschke should no longer be muted
16:17:28 billmason has joined #html-wg
16:17:42 SR: Will follow up on the action on Ian on the mailing list
16:17:46 zakim, mute me
16:17:47 Julian_Reschke should now be muted
16:17:57 Topic: any other issues?
16:18:02 [silence]
16:18:15 aroben has joined #html-wg
16:18:26 Topic: Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus
16:18:35 SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
16:18:42 SR: does this need to be discussed?
16:18:45 [silence]
16:19:20 LM: I have some comments...
16:20:21 LM: The question is not so much whether the DP document is self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used appropriately in the document
16:20:36 LM: The DP document is ambigious
16:21:26 LM: What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing something totally new
16:21:40 contra-positive
16:21:45 LM: It has been used in the contra-positive
16:22:03 if A then B turns into if not A than not B
16:22:53 LM: e.g.
16:23:17 [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not minuted]
16:23:35 LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't; it seems like this has been applied inconsistently
16:23:37 i.e. if something has been previously specified, but failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered
16:23:42 AvK: what makes you say that?
16:23:51 the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be used as such
16:24:05 LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some discussions that I would have to do some research on
16:24:34 LM: to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
16:25:49 Laura has joined #html-wg
16:25:52 LM: that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the DP itself
16:26:09 The principles are open to various interpretations. In practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.
16:26:18 LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing practice
16:26:20 Group members have fundamental differences with them.
16:26:47 LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but the practice in which the document has been used may not which is the nature of my concern
16:27:23 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:27:24 q+
16:27:31 AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might have reflected that for which I apoligize
16:27:33 q-
16:28:00 There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the design principles.
16:28:14 LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would actually describe the practices we use today
16:28:16 q+
16:28:19 why does the document need to be published or gain any more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't it, and hence internal?
16:28:55 AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some point so it's not internal
16:28:59 q-
16:29:27 SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an issue and LC had concerns
16:29:38 SR: I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is
16:29:42 If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I propose that the entire document be obsoleted.
16:29:49 LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote
16:30:08 DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we think
16:30:14 DS: I don't think it's useful as rulebook
16:30:26 AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is
16:30:44 DS: I'll ping Maciej
16:30:47 SR: great
16:31:21 If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:
16:31:29 DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as describing how people arrived somewhere.
16:31:29 "Publication of this document does not constitute endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time.”
16:32:11 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:32:11 On the phone I see [Apple], Julian_Reschke (muted), Sam, Masinter, Laura (muted), Shepazu, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.503.712.aaaa, DanC, smedero
16:32:11 [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I started using DougS. Sorry!]
16:32:11 i would question whether they reflect actually how decisions were made
16:32:13 [Apple] has dsinger
16:32:35 Topic: process proposals
16:32:40 SR: I may have created some confusion
16:32:43 s/somewhere./somewhere. they are mostly used as a rhetorical tool, in practice/
16:32:57 SR: What I tried to say is that for things that are not in the spec that should be in the spec we need text
16:33:07 SR: Things that are not specced will obviously not be included
16:33:39 DougS: is there some indication that spec text will be taken into account as IH has gone out of his way to reject proposed text in the past
16:34:02 SR: If that happens I will ask someone else to do the merging
16:34:28 AvK: can you point to examples?
16:34:43 DougS: the most specific example is spec text the SVG WG put forward
16:35:24 SR: I don't think there's consensus on what DougS has proposed
16:36:26 DougS: it might be of interest to this group when I was at a recent meeting of authoring vendors. When I mentioned that SVG would be put into HTML there was deep concern among SVG authoring vendors that there would be changes they were not informed about
16:36:37 DougS: I suggested that they post to public-html and www-svg
16:36:44 DougS: I will follow up with them as well
16:36:57 SR: thanks for that
16:37:51 [adjourned]
16:37:51 -DanC
16:37:52 - +1.503.712.aaaa
16:37:53 -Sam
16:37:54 -Julian_Reschke
16:37:54 -Masinter
16:37:54 -annevk
16:37:56 -[IPcaller]
16:37:56 -[Apple]
16:37:58 -smedero
16:37:59 bye
16:37:59 RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:37:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-minutes.html annevk
16:38:06 -Laura
16:38:09 -Shepazu
16:38:10 HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
16:38:11 Attendees were Cynthia_Shelly, Julian_Reschke, dsinger, Sam, Masinter, Shepazu, Laura, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.503.712.aaaa, DanC, smedero
16:39:13 DanC, should I email the minutes?
16:39:19 DanC, and to where?
16:39:32 yes, to public-html and the announce list
16:41:19 LeifHS has left #html-wg
16:45:32 okidoki
16:45:33 done
16:53:23 contra-positive is apparently written as contrapositive
16:56:34 aroben_ has joined #html-wg
17:02:28 DanC, did you mean uri@w3.org vs public-iri@w3.org btw or some IETF URI list?
17:03:27 in which case?
17:03:29 I agreed to post to "the appropriate list" which I believe is uri-review
17:04:11 DanC, you said '("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)'
17:04:15 as per http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
17:04:16 Title: RFC 4395 - Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes (at tools.ietf.org)
17:04:39 Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
17:04:39 document (with specific reference to the section with the
17:04:39 template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
17:04:39 review. In addition, request review on other mailing lists as
17:04:42 appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI syntactical
17:04:46 issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for a network
17:04:49 protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that protocol.
17:04:52 Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments. Four weeks
17:04:55 is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
17:05:08 I think html-wg is sufficient for the "about:" scheme since it is a browser-specific scheme and most browser vendors are here
17:06:25 yes, the ambiguity I had in mind was uri@w3.org vs public-iri@w3.org
17:06:39 er... no... vs uri-review@ietf.org I think
17:07:59 ah, I didn't know about uri-review
17:08:01 subscribed
17:09:13 I think at least "about:blank" has leaked into Web content so it's not that browser specific anymore
17:12:33 Julian, how do you determine the query part?
17:13:11 naive answer: using the parsing rules in RFC3986?
17:13:53 those rules don't care about unexpectec bytes and such there?
17:13:58 unexpected*
17:15:04 also, the layer approach doesn't work with respect to Unicode normalization iirc
17:15:15 I think Roy pointed out recently that RFC3986 specifies how to decompose the URI even if it contains non-URI characters.
17:15:16 pretty sure I pointed that out before
17:15:25 interesting
17:15:29 I'll take a look
17:15:58 Are the normalization requirements any different from those in IRIs?
17:16:21 Oh, you're referring to that special case we discussed something like 6 weeka go, right?
17:16:45 In which case I think the IRI spec needs fixing.
17:16:59 maddiin has joined #html-wg
17:17:33 The alternative is to layer on top of URI instead of IRI, and have custom rules for how to transform non-URI characters
17:17:41 better to fix IRI first then...
17:18:03 I can't find where the URI spec allows things outside the unreserved range
17:18:27 other than sub-delims and pct-encoded of course
17:19:28 which seems logical given that the IRI spec had to define a new grammar too
17:19:34 Back to your question.
17:20:19 As far as I can tell, the first "?" starts the query parrt, the first "#" ends it.
17:21:02 Roy may have been referring to the regex in http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B
17:21:04 Title: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax (at greenbytes.de)
17:22:41 yeah, that's not normative :)
17:23:22 So do we need more than a rule which tells us where the query part sits?
17:25:33 I suppose with a lot of trickery you can make it work, but it seems better to bite the bullet and define something that reflects reality
17:25:56 It seems that there is some support in that direction as well from various IRI editors
17:36:34 anyway, replied so those issues are archived yet again
17:36:49 guess they might not have hit www-tag yet
17:36:56 if the end product is an IRI spec that can be used in HTML5, that's good
17:37:14 we need it for CSS, XMLHttpRequest, SVG, too
17:37:18 I just don't want to see URI + IRI + LEIRI + yetanotherspec
17:37:52 I agree that'd be silly
17:37:59 I'm not convinced it's needed for all of these.
17:38:13 I am :)
17:38:15 I do believe you that it may be needed outside HTML5
18:29:01 rubys: i just learnt that the tpac meeting is going to have a registration fee
18:29:51 rubys: is there anything we can do to remove that for the people in the group who are invited experts?
18:34:01 Zakim has left #html-wg
18:35:02 woah, i misread the price
18:35:11 i'm looking at would it would take to merge the various specs
18:35:21 there's no way i can justify $250 to attend
18:35:25 ffor IRI + LEIRI + HTML5 web address
18:38:13 your employer, when they nominated you as a member of the working group, agreed to fund your travel
18:38:31 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups section 6.2.1.1 ....
18:38:32 Title: 6 Working Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups (at www.w3.org)
18:38:43 "3.A statement that the Member will provide the necessary financial support for participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences).
18:39:35 similarly for Invited Experts, 6.2.1.3 Invited Expert in a Working Group
18:40:06 To be able to participate in a Working Group as an Invited Expert, an individual MUST do all of the following: ... provide a statement of who will provide the necessary financial support for the individual's participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences)...
18:40:18 travel, yes
18:40:27 this isn't travel.
18:40:38 it's a conference
18:40:39 masinter: do you seriously expect all ~500-odd public invited experts to attend F2Fs?
18:40:42 this is a blatent surcharge on top of an already ridiculous membership fee.
18:41:07 it's a purple surcharge on top of a green membership fee
18:41:19 the whatwg has managed to develop html5 fine without ever charging anyone anything
18:41:22 why can't the w3c?
18:42:03 no, I think having 500-odd public invited experts is not in keeping with the spirit of the W3C process. I understand why it was done, but it's inconsistent
18:42:32 the w3c process is broken in this respect, indeed.
18:43:00 there are different kinds of organizations. IETF, W3C etc have staff who get paid and offer oversight, as well as volunteers
18:43:22 ISO and ITU and other organizations have yet different funding and meeting rules
18:43:53 I don't like it that there's a meeting charge
18:44:25 Hixie, there was some lawyer cost involved in the WHATWG as well as yearly hosting charges that have to come from somewhere
18:45:09 Hixie, furthermore some people are paid to contribute their time to the WHATWG (though some might do that regardless of whether they are paid)
18:47:22 sitting on the Financial Task Force for W3C, getting costs to cover expenses is a big issue
18:47:37 especially if you want to be independent of national government influence at least to some degree
19:01:01 why can't people just have a spec which defines all URL-like things?
19:02:13 'cause people involves politics
19:03:29 Bordering on religion? :)
19:05:15 that they're separated is only said to make you feel good
19:21:37 the separation of IRI and URI was made to allow for systems relying on 7-bit URI to upgrade or not
19:21:55 i don't think politics or religion have much to do with that split
19:22:24 the LEIRI vs. IRI vs. WebAddress split seems to have been based, though, on non-technical reasons, more like "difficulty of collaboration"
19:22:38 which isn't religion, really, but is a kind of politics
19:25:22 (I was joking about the separation between politics and religion)
20:14:13 aroben has joined #html-wg
20:52:24 anne: i've personally paid out of pocket all the hosting fees for whatwg, the lawyer fees were not required (they were desired by those paying the fees), and nobody has to pay anyone to take part in the whatwg
20:52:30 anne: though they are allowed to do so if they want
20:53:56 masinter: you can still have a spec which deals with both URIs and IRIs, surely?
20:54:01 maybe it's more complex than it's worth
20:54:13 but it does seem to be worth defining all important URI-related stuff in the same place
21:26:06 Julian has joined #html-wg
21:29:24 Hixie, 250 USD sounds totally cheap considering that many of us do standards works with nobody paying for it at all. So do not complain to the W3C, but to big corporations such as Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and yes, Google, for not fiunding standards work sufficiently.
21:31:55 it's not $250, it's $68,750
21:32:12 which google pays every year
21:32:25 (well we pay $68,500, this is adding an additional $250)
21:32:28 (per person)
21:33:02 and given that google also sponsors ietf, i think your statement is ridiculous
21:33:12