21 May 2009

See also: IRC log






<scribe> scribenick: annevk

<masinter> http://www.nabble.com/IETF---Uri-review-f13113.html

<pimpbot> Title: Nabble - IETF - Uri-review forum & mailing list archive (at www.nabble.com)

Processing requirements for ARIA

Cynthia: The goal is to have a WD by June 8
... By the end of May to have a document that describes the existing mappings from HTML
... From there we want to figure out what is missing.
... Two things: implementation guidelines + mappings
... CR by the end of the year if we decide to go normative
... aggressive schedule but we think it is possible

SR: report progress again in a couple of weeks?

Cynthia: June 11 is ok

<!DOCTYPE html>

JR: draft for about: has been submitted
... no discussion about the draft
... now we have to start the discussion on the URI mailing list

SR: good progress

JR: I'll report in two weeks

profile attribute

JR: I would like to help speccing, but had no time yet so I thought it would be good to summarize my thoughts
... I have no time in the next few weeks but can take ownership of the action
... it has not been posted to the URI list yet
... it's not clear whether the authors wanted to do that or whether one of us has to do that

<masinter> I will start discussion of about: scheme

LM: I will make a post to the URI list


<trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what are the requirements -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59

<masinter> to the appropriate list for review of new URI schemes

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<DanC> ("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)

normative language reference

SR: no meaningful process on the HTML5 XHTML namespace

LM: any progress on the discussion with mr Pemberton?

SR: not in the last couple of weeks and haven't come to any conclusion that would be of interest to PLH just yet

DS: I think it would be fruitful to have a discussion between PLH and SR to get things going

SR: I did have such a discussion on RDFa and have not yet anything meaningful to report
... [...] the ball is in my court to get various people to participate in RDFa
... Will follow up on the action on Ian on the mailing list

any other issues?


Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus

SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
... does this need to be discussed?


LM: I have some comments...
... 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
... The DP document is ambigious
... What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing something totally new

<DanC> contra-positive

LM: It has been used in the contra-positive

<masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B

LM: e.g. <head profile>

[a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not minuted]

LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't; it seems like this has been applied inconsistently

<dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered

AvK: what makes you say that?

<dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be used as such

LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some discussions that I would have to do some research on
... to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
... that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the DP itself

<Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.

LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing practice

<Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them.

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

AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might have reflected that for which I apoligize

<Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the design principles.

LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would actually describe the practices we use today

<dsinger> 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?

AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some point so it's not internal

SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an issue and LC had concerns
... I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is

<Laura> 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.

LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote

DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we think
... I don't think it's useful as rulebook

AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is

DS: I'll ping Maciej

SR: great

<Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:

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. they are mostly used as a rhetorical tool, in practice

<Laura> "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.”

[For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I started using DougS. Sorry!]

<masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how decisions were made

process proposals

SR: I may have created some confusion
... What I tried to say is that for things that are not in the spec that should be in the spec we need text
... Things that are not specced will obviously not be included

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

SR: If that happens I will ask someone else to do the merging

AvK: can you point to examples?

DougS: the most specific example is spec text the SVG WG put forward

SR: I don't think there's consensus on what DougS has proposed

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
... I suggested that they post to public-html and www-svg
... I will follow up with them as well

SR: thanks for that


<Laura> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/05/21 16:38:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/somewhere./somewhere. they are mostly used as a rhetorical tool, in practice/
Found ScribeNick: annevk
Inferring Scribes: annevk

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Apple AvK Cynthia DS DanC DougS IPcaller JR Julian Julian_Reschke LM Laura SR Sam Title aaaa annevk aroben billmason dsinger masinter pimpbot scribenick shepazu smedero trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 21 May 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]