HTML Weekly Teleconference

06 Aug 2009

See also: IRC log


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, kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, annevk




<jgraham> *irc

<rubys1> trackbot, start call

<trackbot> Sorry, rubys1, I don't understand 'trackbot, start call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<pimpbot> Title: IRC Trackbot (at www.w3.org)

<rubys1> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Date: 06 August 2009

<dsinger> zakim [apple] has dsinger

<mjs> I'm on - I think

<Lachy> I guess I must be [IPcaller]

<Lachy> oh, maybe not

<mjs> it's awful quiet on the call

<dsinger> ?

<kliehm> I'm on the phone, too, should be +49 (or VOIP)

<Lachy> no, I dropped off. calling back

<kliehm> zakim aabb is mjs

<scribe> scribe: Julian

<rubys> issue-35

<rubys> issue-35?

<trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)


cynthia: making progress, FPWD this month planned
... working on HTML mappings

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html

<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)

cynthia: report again in 3..4 weeks

rubys: hixie asked for specific feedback

cynthia: differences in WG process
... do not respond before all comments are processed
... ETA 3..4 months
... explains the HTML vs ARIA mapping issue

SteveF: (misssed this)

mjs: explains hixie's comments

<DanC> I'm interested to see ARIA integrated by reference too, though it's not clear to me how that would work

mjs: ...inconsistent state between HTML and ARIA semantics... make non-conforming?

<jgraham> To integrate it by reference it would need to define all the areas of overlap between aria semantics and native semantics

mjs: ARIA currently says host language can't override
... q

<mjs> to type my remarks into the record:

SteveF: promises feedback next week

<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

Murray: asks for mechanism to describe conformance

<mjs> 2) (from my earlier remarks) we should ask PFWG to expedite processing of this specific comment

masinter: inclusion vs reference of ARIA
... motivation for the current plan

<Stevef> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl

<pimpbot> Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at www.w3.org)

<kliehm> Murray, the ARIA DTD extends the HTML DTD, but doesn't prohibit any inconsistencies.

<masinter> So I heard Sam say that he had not heard of anybody advocating inclusion of ARIA rather than reference to the ARIA spec

<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

<jgraham> i.e. I assume no one is proposing duplicating aria in HTML

<annevk> Why does ARIA override?

<masinter> i'm doing a text search on ARIA in http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)

stevef: not sure whether there's a problem with the current draft

<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

<mjs> can someone provide a link to the current editor's draft?

<DanC> again, http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl

<pimpbot> Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at www.w3.org)

<rubys> stevef would like ian to reconfirm that he still has an issue with the current draft

<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

<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

<jgraham> (as a concrete example I believe the issue is things like <input type=radio role=checkbox>

<jgraham> )

<annevk> Anne: wouldn't it be better to wait until ARIA is out of LC?

<DanC> mjs, you seem to be reading a comment from hixie; pointer, please?

<annevk> Maciej: that would delay it too much

<kliehm> I can imagine designers who want a radio button to *look* like a checkbox, so that's no contradiction then.

rubys: pushing back one week

<mjs> DanC, I followed the link from what rubys linked earlier: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/details?comment_id=267

<pimpbot> Title: Comment details - PFWG Public Comments (at www.w3.org)

<rubys> issue-32?

<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for unsighted navigation? -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)


<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)

murray: great compromise
... thanks to the people involved

<annevk> Julian: from my point of view the spec is far away from expressing consensus

<annevk> Julian: I would vote for John's draft

julian: not satisfied with the compromise

<masinter> I agree with Julian, FWIW

<DanC> (I continue to see shelley 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?)

mjs: asks people to look at the text,. avoiding a vote

<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

<Laura> John's recap saying table summary is an open question:

<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html

<pimpbot> Title: Movement on summary from John Foliot on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)

mjs: explains the "should"

<Laura> Steve saying the @summary text is adequate for now but doesn't see it making last call.

<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0302.html

<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)

<Laura> Me asking to have summary in the draft marked as open. Sam previously said it is the proper way to handle it.

<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0315.html

<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)

<Laura> Sam saying @summary is "well on its way" to being closed.

<jgraham> FWIW I don't see any substantial change from the current text taking us closer to a maxima of acceptability

<Laura> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware

<pimpbot> Title: Sam Ruby: Disappearing Silverware (at intertwingly.net)

<Laura> Shelley calling it "painting people into a corner".

<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0317.html

<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)

<Laura> Leif suggesting that we should have Sam's support for *keeping* it marked as an open.

<masinter> example of difficulties of coming to consensus on authoring conformance requirements

mjs: says it's not obsolete (?)

<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0319.html

<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)

masinter: issue not addressed
... general underlying problem with conformance requirements

<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)

masinter: discouraged by compromise and time spent on it

Matt_May: some of the uncontroversial
... there are also design considerations
... "obsolete, but conforming" will cause more discussions
... keep the advice, but no warning needed

I agree with Matt was saying

<cshelly> +1

<annevk> +1

dsinger: explains that there's a meta-problem behind @summary

<annevk> (to dsinger)

mjs: asks masinter to clarify his concern

masinter: see Julian's mail

<DanC> (+1 to what, cshelly and annevk?)

<annevk> (I mentioned that in my next line, DanC)

<cshelly> +1 to dsinger

<rubys> I believe that they were +1'ing the notion of the chairs getting together and working out the process (dsinger's comment)

<DanC> tx

murray: repeats that helping access. for tables is important
... don't prematurely obsolete
... lots of work to do left

<mjs> I'd like to note again for the record that the text does *not* make the summary attribute obsolete

cshelly: new text ok for next draft

mjs, it appears in "12.1 Conforming but obsolete features". Why?

<mjs> Julian, that's the section that defines all the warnings in the spec

<Julian_> cshelly: PFWG happy with process

<Julian_> cshelly: @summary not the most important issue

<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

<Julian_> mjs, not helpful, IHMO. The effect is the same.

<jgraham> AFAICT the spec is very clear that @summary just triggers a warning in section 12.1

<Julian_> cshelly: proposes a TF

<kliehm> Which brings me to the point wether there will a F2F meeting at TPAC 2009?

<Zakim> Lachy, you wanted to comment on the issue of publishing Working Drafts in the future

Lachy: do not let procedural and technical issues mix
... let (FP)WDs be published without any discussion

<Stevef> +1 to lachlans suggestion

<rubys> +1 to lachlan's suggestion

<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.

<cshelly> +1 to dsinger

<Lachy> dsinger, since WD explcitly don't require concensus of the group, what harm does it do?

<jgraham> Maybe any document that has been FPWD may be published again without discussion

<DanC> -1 to lachlan's suggestion. it's healthy that publication decisions re-awaken sleeping dissent and such.

Julian: not "obsolete but conforming" + "produce warning" -> does not compte

mjs: reminder about petent review clock for new PFWD

<Lachy> ok, that's fair enough about FPWD due to the patent review issues

<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."

cshelly: points out that what was going on is good; we need to get things out of the way before LC

murray: found the discussion helpful, not harmful

<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.)

<rubys> if people who have already had a turn simply wish to repeat comments, I ask that they remove themselves from the queue

murray: points out that there could be multiple levels of warnings

<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.

mjs: connecting technical discussions to procedural ones is dangerous

rubys: allowing other people to produce WDs helps

<dsinger> well, I think if Ian feels that there is a strong consensus which he doesn't agree with, he'll concede

<cshelly> +1 rubys

<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.

masinter: wants question to publish clarified

<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

rubys: explains WD doesn't need to be better of perfect

masinter: has concerns with the current editor's draft

<jgraham> Having a public working group must change the expectations here, surely?

<DanC> the level of consensus should go in the status section. I wonder if we've been doing that.

masinter: proposes sections to be marked as controversial

<dsinger> I surely believe we all have concerns. if there weren't many, we'd be heading into last call :-)

rubys: issue marker for @summary is currently missing
... will recommend to publish soon

<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

cshelly: need to start addressing contentious issues now

<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"

<dsinger> thank you for fine chairing...

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at www.w3.org)

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/06 17:02:25 $

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/no one advocated/he had not heard of anybody advocating/
Succeeded: s/the/to the/
Succeeded: s/shelly/shelley/
Succeeded: s/belivee/believe/
Succeeded: s/progress/process/
Succeeded: s/warning/warning in/
Succeeded: s/(PF)/(FP)/
Succeeded: s/peple/people/
Succeeded: s/rules/expectations/
Succeeded: s/rubys, pushing back one week/rubys: pushing back one week/
Found Scribe: Julian
Inferring ScribeNick: Julian
Default Present: 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, kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, annevk
Present: 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 kliehm Cynthia_Shelly DanC annevk
Found Date: 06 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-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]