IRC log of html-wg on 2009-08-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:34 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:56:34 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-irc
15:57:35 [Stevef]: Stevef has joined #html-wg
15:59:07 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #html-wg
15:59:26 [jgraham]: *irc
16:00:22 [rubys1]: zakim, start call
16:00:22 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'start call', rubys1
16:00:47 [rubys1]: trackbot, start call
16:00:47 [trackbot]: Sorry, rubys1, I don't understand 'trackbot, start call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:00:48 [pimpbot]: Title: IRC Trackbot (at www.w3.org)
16:00:51 [laplink]: laplink has joined #html-wg
16:01:15 [rubys1]: trackbot, start telcon
16:01:17 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:01:19 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be HTML
16:01:19 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started
16:01:20 [trackbot]: Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference
16:01:20 [trackbot]: Date: 06 August 2009
16:01:21 [Zakim]: +Julian
16:01:22 [Zakim]: +Radhika_Roy
16:01:26 [dsinger]: dsinger has joined #html-wg
16:01:32 [Zakim]: +[Apple]
16:01:44 [dsinger]: zakim [apple] has dsinger
16:01:52 [dsinger]: zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:52 [Zakim]: +dsinger; got it
16:01:53 [Zakim]: +Masinter
16:01:53 [Zakim]: + +1.415.595.aabb
16:02:07 [rubys1]: zakim, who is on the call
16:02:07 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the call', rubys1
16:02:14 [Zakim]: + +47.40.28.aacc
16:02:19 [mjs]: I'm on - I think
16:02:21 [masinter]: masinter has joined #html-wg
16:02:31 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:02:52 [Stevef]: zakim, IPcaller is Stevef
16:02:52 [Zakim]: +Stevef; got it
16:02:56 [Lachy]: I guess I must be [IPcaller]
16:03:01 [Lachy]: oh, maybe not
16:03:14 [dsinger]: zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:14 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Sam, ??P2, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, [Apple], Masinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef
16:03:17 [Zakim]: [Apple] has dsinger
16:03:17 [Zakim]: - +47.40.28.aacc
16:03:30 [Zakim]: +Matt_May
16:03:43 [mjs]: it's awful quiet on the call
16:03:50 [dsinger]: ?
16:03:54 [kliehm]: I'm on the phone, too, should be +49 (or VOIP)
16:04:00 [Lachy]: no, I dropped off. calling back
16:04:22 [Zakim]: + +47.40.28.aadd
16:04:25 [Lachy]: Zakim, I am aadd
16:04:25 [Zakim]: +Lachy; got it
16:04:44 [Zakim]: + +1.519.378.aaee
16:04:53 [Zakim]: -??P2
16:05:11 [Zakim]: +Laura
16:05:21 [Zakim]: +??P34
16:05:25 [rubys]: zakim, aabb is mjs
16:05:25 [Zakim]: +mjs; got it
16:05:32 [dsinger]: zakim, aabb is mjs
16:05:32 [Zakim]: sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:05:36 [kliehm]: zakim, ??P34 is kliehm
16:05:36 [Zakim]: +kliehm; got it
16:05:50 [dsinger]: zakim, +1.415.595.aabb is mjs
16:05:50 [Zakim]: sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named '+1.415.595.aabb'
16:05:59 [dsinger]: zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:59 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, [Apple], Masinter, mjs, Stevef, Matt_May, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, kliehm
16:06:01 [Zakim]: [Apple] has dsinger
16:06:04 [rubys]: zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:04 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Laura
16:06:19 [rubys]: zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:19 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Juian
16:06:22 [kliehm]: zakim aabb is mjs
16:06:27 [Zakim]: +Cynthia_Shelly
16:06:34 [kliehm]: zakim, aabb is mjs
16:06:34 [Zakim]: sorry, kliehm, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:06:40 [Julian]: scribe: Julian
16:07:00 [Julian]: chair: rubys
16:07:05 [LHSilli]: LHSilli has joined #html-wg
16:07:22 [rubys]: issue-35
16:07:32 [rubys]: issue-35?
16:07:32 [trackbot]: ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN
16:07:32 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
16:07:33 [pimpbot]: Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
16:07:33 [Julian]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
16:07:57 [Julian]: cynthia: making progress, FPWD this month planned
16:08:10 [Julian]: cynthia: working on HTML mappings
16:08:33 [rubys]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html
16:08:34 [pimpbot]: Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-05 from Ian Hickson on 2009-08-05 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:08:36 [Julian]: cynthia: report again in 3..4 weeks
16:08:55 [Julian]: rubys: hixie asked for specific feedback
16:09:11 [Julian]: cynthia: differences in WG process
16:09:31 [Julian]: cynthia: do not respond before all comments are processed
16:09:38 [Julian]: cynthia: ETA 3..4 months
16:09:39 [mjs]: q?
16:09:42 [mjs]: q+
16:10:02 [Stevef]: q+
16:10:23 [Julian]: cynthia: explains the HTML vs ARIA mapping issue
16:11:14 [DanC]: DanC has joined #html-wg
16:11:27 [Julian]: q+
16:11:52 [Zakim]: +DanC
16:12:47 [rubys]: ack stevef
16:12:58 [Julian]: SteveF: (misssed this)
16:13:10 [J_Voracek]: J_Voracek has joined #html-wg
16:13:27 [DanC]: q+ murray
16:13:40 [DanC]: ack next
16:14:06 [Julian]: mjs: explains hixie's comments
16:14:12 [DanC]: I'm interested to see ARIA integrated by reference too, though it's not clear to me how that would work
16:14:35 [annevk]: Zakim, passcode?
16:14:35 [Zakim]: the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), annevk
16:15:06 [Julian]: mjs: ...inconsistent state between HTML and ARIA semantics... make non-conforming?
16:15:10 [jgraham]: To integrate it by reference it would need to define all the areas of overlap between aria semantics and native semantics
16:15:33 [Julian]: mjs: ARIA currently says host language can't override
16:16:54 [masinter]: q+
16:16:59 [Julian]: mjs: q
16:17:00 [Julian]: q-
16:17:07 [mjs]: to type my remarks into the record:
16:17:13 [rubys]: ack murray
16:17:18 [Julian]: SteveF: promises feedback next week
16:17:21 [Zakim]: -DanC
16:17:43 [mjs]: 1) What Ian specifically wants is to make inconsistent states between native markup and ARIA roles/properties noncomforming - right now ARIA doesn't let a host language do that
16:17:46 [Julian]: Murray: asks for mechanism to describe conformance
16:18:18 [Stevef]: q+
16:19:01 [Zakim]: +DanC
16:19:11 [rubys]: ack masinter
16:19:13 [J_Voracek]: J_Voracek has joined #html-wg
16:19:16 [mjs]: 2) (from my earlier remarks) we should ask PFWG to expedite processing of this specific comment
16:19:33 [Julian]: masinter: inclusion vs reference of ARIA
16:19:44 [Zakim]: -Cynthia_Shelly
16:19:52 [Zakim]: +??P12
16:19:54 [Julian]: masinter: motivation for the current plan
16:20:00 [annevk]: Zakim, ??P12 is me
16:20:00 [Zakim]: +annevk; got it
16:20:37 [rubys]: ack stevef
16:20:55 [Stevef]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
16:20:56 [pimpbot]: Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at www.w3.org)
16:20:57 [kliehm]: Murray, the ARIA DTD extends the HTML DTD, but doesn't prohibit any inconsistencies.
16:21:09 [masinter]: So I heard Sam say that no one advocated inclusion of ARIA rather than reference to the ARIA spec
16:21:54 [rubys]: s/no one advocated/he had not heard of anybody advocating/
16:22:06 [jgraham]: I assume the issue is not includion vs reference so much as how much HTML needs to say about the mapping between native semantics and aria semantics
16:22:23 [jgraham]: i.e. I assume no one is proposing duplicating aria in HTML
16:22:38 [annevk]: Why does ARIA override?
16:23:03 [masinter]: i'm doing a text search on ARIA in http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
16:23:04 [pimpbot]: Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)
16:23:18 [Julian]: stevef: not sure whether there's a problem with the current draft
16:23:20 [DanC]: I think mjs said something about a problem with WAI ARIA not allowing host languages to set conformance requirements; steve can't find any such problem in a current draft
16:23:44 [mjs]: can someone provide a link to the current editor's draft?
16:23:55 [DanC]: again, http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
16:23:56 [pimpbot]: Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at www.w3.org)
16:24:00 [rubys]: stevef would like ian to reconfirm that he still has an issue with the current draft
16:24:51 [annevk]: also, things like " assistive technology SHOULD assign preference to the WAI-ARIA feature" seem incorrect, given that the browser tells something to the assistive technology, not the other way around
16:24:53 [DanC]: "The appearance of the name literal of any concrete WAI-ARIA role (see section 7.3.2) as one of these substrings MUST NOT in and of itself make the attribute value illegal in the host-language syntax" -- 6.1.1. Role Attribute
16:24:54 [jgraham]: (as a concrete example I believe the issue is things like <input type=radio role=checkbox>
16:24:57 [jgraham]: )
16:26:16 [annevk]: Anne: wouldn't it be better to wait until ARIA is out of LC?
16:26:27 [DanC]: mjs, you seem to be reading a comment from hixie; pointer, please?
16:26:30 [annevk]: Maciej: that would delay it too much
16:26:57 [kliehm]: I can imagine designers who want a radio button to *look* like a checkbox, so that's no contradiction then.
16:27:08 [Julian]: rubys, pushing back one week
16:27:09 [mjs]: DanC, I followed the link from what rubys linked earlier: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/details?comment_id=267
16:27:10 [pimpbot]: Title: Comment details - PFWG Public Comments (at www.w3.org)
16:27:30 [rubys]: issue-32?
16:27:30 [trackbot]: ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for unsighted navigation? -- OPEN
16:27:30 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
16:27:31 [pimpbot]: Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
16:27:32 [Julian]: topic: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
16:27:37 [DanC]: (I concur with a point dbaron made: having groups talk to each other with low latency isn't as good as having individuals get together and talk. There's a time for formal group-to-group stuff, but it should be the exception, not the rule)
16:28:35 [Julian]: murray: great compromise
16:29:09 [Julian]: murray: thanks the people involved
16:29:11 [Julian]: q+
16:29:20 [annevk]: s/the/to the/
16:29:26 [rubys]: ack julian
16:29:46 [annevk]: Julian: from my point of view the spec is far away from expressing consensus
16:29:46 [adrianba]: adrianba has joined #html-wg
16:29:52 [annevk]: Julian: I would vote for John's draft
16:29:54 [mjs]: q+
16:30:13 [masinter]: q+
16:30:21 [rubys]: ack mjs
16:30:26 [gsnedders_]: gsnedders_ has joined #html-wg
16:30:29 [Julian]: julian: not satisfied with the compromise
16:30:36 [masinter]: I agree with Julian, FWIW
16:30:37 [DanC]: (I continue to see shelly object, but I gather she's already made her argument and doesn't feel a need to repeat it. Does anybody have a pointer to something that captures her concerns?)
16:30:51 [rubys]: s/shelly/shelley/
16:31:15 [kliehm]: zakim, mute me
16:31:15 [Zakim]: kliehm should now be muted
16:31:30 [Julian]: mjs: asks people to look at the text,. avoiding a vote
16:31:50 [Laura]: Laura has joined #html-wg
16:31:50 [masinter]: I think it is astounding how much debate it took to get this far, and it makes me querstion whether the group is ready to reach last call on schedule
16:32:05 [Laura]: John's recap saying table summary is an open question:
16:32:11 [Laura]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html
16:32:12 [pimpbot]: Title: Movement on summary from John Foliot on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:32:14 [Julian]: mjs: explains the "should"
16:32:18 [Laura]: Steve saying the @summary text is adequate for now but doesn't see it making last call.
16:32:19 [Julian]: q+
16:32:25 [Laura]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0302.html
16:32:26 [pimpbot]: Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Steven Faulkner on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:32:38 [Laura]: Me asking to have summary in the draft marked as open. Sam previously said it is the proper way to handle it.
16:32:44 [Laura]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0315.html
16:32:45 [pimpbot]: Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Laura Carlson on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:32:52 [Laura]: Sam saying @summary is "well on its way" to being closed.
16:32:53 [jgraham]: FWIW I don't see any substantial change from the current text taking us closer to a maxima of acceptability
16:33:00 [Laura]: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware
16:33:01 [pimpbot]: Title: Sam Ruby: Disappearing Silverware (at intertwingly.net)
16:33:07 [Laura]: Shelley calling it "painting people into a corner".
16:33:13 [Laura]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0317.html
16:33:14 [pimpbot]: Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Shelley Powers on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:33:20 [Laura]: Leif suggesting that we should have Sam's support for *keeping* it marked as an open.
16:33:20 [masinter]: example of difficulties of coming to consensus on authoring conformance requirements
16:33:21 [Julian]: mjs: says it's not obsolete (?)
16:33:25 [Laura]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0319.html
16:33:26 [pimpbot]: Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Leif Halvard Silli on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:33:32 [rubys]: ack masinter
16:33:41 [Julian]: masinter: issue not addressed
16:34:35 [Julian]: masinter: general underlying problem with conformance requirements
16:34:47 [pimpbot]: Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Shelley Powers on 2009-08-04 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:34:51 [dsinger]: q+
16:35:04 [mjs]: q+
16:35:10 [Julian]: masinter: discouraged by compromise and time spent on it
16:35:40 [Julian]: Matt_May: some of the uncontroversial
16:36:07 [Julian]: Matt_May: there are also design considerations
16:36:36 [Julian]: Matt_May: "obsolete, but conforming" will cause more discussions
16:36:40 [Zakim]: -Laura
16:37:06 [Julian]: Matt_May: keep the advice, but no warning needed
16:37:26 [Zakim]: +Cynthia_Shelly
16:37:46 [Julian]: q-
16:37:49 [DanC]: q+ murray
16:37:57 [rubys]: ack matt_may
16:37:57 [DanC]: ack next
16:38:07 [Julian]: I agree with Matt was saying
16:38:51 [cshelly]: cshelly has joined #html-wg
16:39:03 [cshelly]: q+
16:39:23 [cshelly]: +1
16:39:29 [annevk]: +1
16:39:34 [Julian]: dsinger: explains that there's a meta-problem behind @summary
16:39:35 [annevk]: (to dsinger)
16:39:42 [rubys]: ack mjs
16:40:17 [Julian]: mjs: asks masinter to clarify his concern
16:40:27 [Julian]: masinter: see Julian's mail
16:40:37 [rubys]: ack murray
16:40:39 [DanC]: (+1 to what, cshelly and annevk?)
16:41:02 [annevk]: (I mentioned that in my next line, DanC)
16:41:03 [cshelly]: +1 to dsinger
16:41:14 [rubys]: I belivee that they were +1'ing the notion of the chairs getting together and working out the progress (dsinger's comment)
16:41:18 [DanC]: tx
16:41:22 [rubys]: s/belivee/believe/
16:41:34 [rubys]: s/progress/process/
16:42:18 [Julian]: murray: repeats that helping access. for tables is important
16:42:51 [Julian]: murray: don't prematurely obsolete
16:43:09 [Julian]: murray: lots of work to do left
16:43:22 [rubys]: ack Cynthia_Shelly
16:43:26 [rubys]: ack cshelly
16:43:40 [mjs]: I'd like to note again for the record that the text does *not* make the summary attribute obsolete
16:43:49 [Julian]: cshelly: new text ok for next draft
16:44:09 [Lachy]: q+ on the issue of publishing Working Drafts in the future
16:44:13 [Julian]: mjs, it appears in "12.1 Conforming but obsolete features". Why?
16:44:43 [mjs]: Julian, that's the section that defines all the warnings in the spec
16:44:47 [Zakim]: -Stevef
16:44:54 [Julian_]: Julian_ has joined #html-wg
16:45:12 [Julian_]: cshelly: PFWG happy with process
16:45:13 [Julian_]: q+
16:45:26 [Julian_]: cshelly: @summary not the most important issue
16:45:41 [mjs]: Julian, all the other warnings are for conforming but obsolete features, but the warning for summary is clearly stated in a distinct way, referring to its definition in the <table> section
16:46:15 [Julian_]: mjs, not helpful, IHMO. The effect is the same.
16:46:16 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:46:44 [Stevef]: zakim, IPcaller is Stevef
16:46:44 [Zakim]: +Stevef; got it
16:46:51 [jgraham]: AFAICT the spec is very clear that @summary just triggers a warning section 12.1
16:47:03 [Zakim]: -annevk
16:47:08 [Julian_]: cshelly: proposes a TF
16:47:08 [jgraham]: s/warning/warning in/
16:47:09 [rubys]: zakim, who is on the queue
16:47:09 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the queue', rubys
16:47:16 [rubys]: zakim, who is on the queue?
16:47:16 [Zakim]: I see Lachy, Julian_ on the speaker queue
16:47:23 [kliehm]: Which brings me to the point wether there will a F2F meeting at TPAC 2009?
16:47:49 [rubys]: ack next
16:47:50 [Zakim]: Lachy, you wanted to comment on the issue of publishing Working Drafts in the future
16:48:21 [Julian]: Lachy: do not let procedural and technical issues mix
16:48:27 [mjs]: q+
16:48:30 [cshelly]: q+
16:48:53 [Julian]: Lachy: let (PF)WDs be published without any discussion
16:48:58 [DanC]: q+ murray
16:49:03 [rubys]: ack next
16:49:05 [Stevef]: +1 to lachlans suggestion
16:49:08 [Lachy]: s/(PF)/(FP)/
16:49:15 [rubys]: +1 to lachlan's suggestion
16:49:23 [dsinger]: I don't think I can agree that any document can be published from a WG without any discussion or agreement. That's an individual draft.
16:49:48 [cshelly]: +1 to dsinger
16:50:03 [Lachy]: dsinger, since WD explcitly don't require concensus of the group, what harm does it do?
16:50:17 [jgraham]: Maybe any document that has been FPWD may be published again without discussion
16:50:18 [DanC]: -1 to lachlan's suggestion. it's healthy that publication decisions re-awaken sleeping dissent and such.
16:50:18 [rubys]: ack next
16:50:32 [Julian]: Julian: not "obsolete but conforming" + "produce warning" -> does not compte
16:50:50 [Julian]: mjs: reminder about petent review clock for new PFWD
16:50:55 [Lachy]: ok, that's fair enough about FPWD due to the patent review issues
16:50:57 [rubys]: ack cshelly
16:50:59 [masinter]: q+
16:51:11 [dsinger]: First Public Working Draft: "Entrance criteria: The Chair must record the group's decision to request advancement. Since this is the first time that a document with this short name appears in the Technical Reports index, Director approval is required for the transition."
16:51:35 [Julian]: cshelly: points out that what was going on is good; we need to get things out of the way before LC
16:51:59 [rubys]: ack next
16:52:06 [mjs]: q+
16:52:10 [Julian]: murray: found the discussion helpful, not harmful
16:52:25 [DanC]: (FYI, last call comments shouldn't come from WG members; last call is a decision that the WG is done handling its own issues/comments.)
16:52:49 [rubys]: if people who have already had a turn simply wish to repeat comments, I ask that they remove themselves from the queue
16:53:06 [Julian]: murray: points out that there could be multiple levels of warnings
16:53:12 [masinter]: q-
16:53:21 [rubys]: ack mjs
16:54:21 [cshelly]: danc, that's exactly why we need to agree on things before LC. If we don't, then there will be lots of comments from WG members.
16:54:24 [Julian]: mjs: connecting technical discussions to procedural ones is dangerous
16:54:58 [masinter]: q+ on process vs. technical issues
16:55:07 [Julian]: rubys: allowing other peple to produce WDs helps
16:55:19 [dsinger]: well, I think if Ian feels that there is a strong consensus which he doesn't agree with, he'll concede
16:55:21 [Julian]: s/peple/people/
16:55:27 [cshelly]: +1 rubys
16:55:35 [DanC]: LC comments from WG members are out of order/non-sensical. LC is a decision that the WG is done. For a WG member to then send a comment doesn't make sense.
16:56:06 [Julian]: masinter: wants question to publish clarified
16:56:28 [cshelly]: danc, I agree. that's why I think it's important to have these discussions about a public working draft, to force us to discuss and reach consensus
16:56:55 [cshelly]: q+
16:57:02 [Julian]: rubys: explains WD doesn't need to be better of perfect
16:57:27 [Julian]: masinter: has concerns with the current editor's draft
16:57:37 [jgraham]: Having a public working group must change the rules here, surely?
16:57:48 [DanC]: the level of consensus should go in the status section. I wonder if we've been doing that.
16:57:48 [jgraham]: s/rules/expectations/
16:57:51 [Julian]: masinter: proposes sections to be marked as controversial
16:57:54 [dsinger]: I surely believe we all have concerns. if there weren't many, we'd be heading into last call :-)
16:58:35 [Julian]: rubys: issue marker for @summary is currently missing
16:58:56 [Julian]: rubys: will recommend to publish soon
16:59:13 [mjs]: cshelley, I will agree that would should resolve issues in a timely way and well before LC, I just think there are healthier ways to do it than using a WD publication as a forcing function
16:59:26 [Julian]: cshelly: need to start addressing contentious issues now
16:59:29 [jgraham]: In particular because the distinction between "in the working group" and "not in the working group" is very different to other groups; almost anyone with feedback can be "in the working group"
16:59:51 [Zakim]: -Lachy
16:59:53 [Zakim]: -Radhika_Roy
16:59:54 [Zakim]: - +1.519.378.aaee
16:59:54 [Zakim]: -Cynthia_Shelly
16:59:55 [dsinger]: thank you for fine chairing...
16:59:56 [Zakim]: -Stevef
16:59:56 [Zakim]: -Matt_May
16:59:56 [Zakim]: -Julian
16:59:57 [Zakim]: -Sam
16:59:59 [Zakim]: -DanC
17:00:00 [Zakim]: -mjs
17:00:02 [Zakim]: -[Apple]
17:00:04 [Zakim]: -kliehm
17:00:06 [Zakim]: - +1.703.234.aaaa
17:00:14 [Julian]: rrsagent, generate minutes
17:00:14 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.html Julian
17:00:17 [Zakim]: -Masinter
17:00:18 [Zakim]: HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
17:00:19 [Zakim]: Attendees were Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, dsinger, Masinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef, Matt_May, +47.40.28.aadd, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, mjs,
17:00:21 [Zakim]: ... kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, annevk
17:01:03 [DanC]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:03 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.html DanC
17:01:04 [pimpbot]: Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at www.w3.org)
17:01:09 [DanC]: RRSAgent, make logs world access
17:02:16 [Julian]: s/rubys, pushing back one week/rubys: pushing back one week/
17:02:19 [Julian]: rrsagent, generate minutes
17:02:19 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-minutes.html Julian
17:02:21 [pimpbot]: Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at www.w3.org)
17:03:25 [J_Voracek]: Goodbye!
17:17:07 [LHSilli]: LHSilli has left #html-wg
17:33:25 [gsnedders_]: gsnedders_ has joined #html-wg
17:45:52 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #html-wg
17:46:14 [dbaron]: dbaron has left #html-wg
17:56:28 [kliehm]: kliehm has joined #html-wg
18:20:17 [mjs]: mjs has joined #html-wg
18:55:12 [MarcoAchury]: MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
19:01:05 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #html-wg
19:05:23 [ChrisWilson]: ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg
19:30:51 [adele]: adele has joined #html-wg
20:49:26 [maddiin]: maddiin has joined #html-wg
21:00:18 [kliehm]: kliehm has joined #html-wg
21:01:24 [kliehm]: kliehm has left #html-wg
21:02:08 [hober]: hober has joined #html-wg
21:23:46 [Lachy]: Lachy has joined #html-wg
21:48:30 [MarcoAchury]: MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
22:07:00 [mjs]: mjs has joined #html-wg
22:23:51 [heycam]: heycam has joined #html-wg
22:52:48 [hsivonen]: hsivonen has joined #html-wg
23:03:19 [adele]: adele has joined #html-wg
23:10:00 [pimpbot]: bugmail: [Bug 7237] New: Let current outlinee be null. (It holds the element whose outline is being created.) Spelling. Outline with one "e" <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Aug/0031.html>
23:11:12 [Philip]: Someone needs to make a bot that lets you close invalid bugs with a quick IRC message
23:35:14 [MarcoAchury]: MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
23:40:10 [pimpbot]: changes: hixie: Allow File, FileData, and FileList to be passed through postMessage(). (whatwg r3548) <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0055.html>