W3C

HTML WG weekly

10 Sep 2009

Agenda

Attendees

Present
+1.703.234.aaaa, Matt, Cooper, Mike, Sam, +1.218.340.aacc, Julian, mjs, Shepazu, Paul_Cotton, +1.425.614.aaff, Eliot_Graff, adrian, laura, Rich, jerryEzrol, Radhika_Roy, kliehm, ChrisWilson
Regrets
DanC
Chair
paulc
Scribe
rubys

Contents


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0417.html

paul: we are going to review 6 due and overdue actions, one new issue, no issues proposed to be closed, then we will touch on the proposed tasks forces

ISSUE-73/ACTION-123: Discuss choice of embedding vcard microdata instead of referencing IETF spec and defining conformance reqs for HTML5

rubys: the plan is that this data will go out of the spec, once it is out of the spec, there is no coor issue?
... julain: I've contacted the IETF.. and they haven't responded
... paulc: you moved the date?
... rubys: that's the date that it should be moved out of the spec
... julian: if it is moved out of the spec, I'm happy with that

paulc: do we need something more specific in the action?
... new due date will be october 1

SSUE-31/ACTION-131: Draft ALT spec [Steve Faulkner]

paulc: is steve on the call?

<Laura> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/img.html

laura: I believe he has been working on it

<Laura> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/textalternatives.html

michaelc: I can't give you a precise timeline

paulc: I'll get in contact with Steve and get a new date...
... how about a two weeks extension?

<MikeSmith> action-131 due 2009-09-21

<trackbot> ACTION-131 Draft ALT spec due date now 2009-09-21

<paulc> Paul will follow up with Steve to check on revised date of ACTION-131

ISSUE-63/ACTION-96: to ensure editor removes Origin header: from spec [Henri Sivonen]

mike: I added a comment, and I do think it can be closed
... action can be closed (issue can remain open)

<MikeSmith> action-96?

<trackbot> ACTION-96 -- Henri Sivonen to to ensure editor removes Origin header: from spec -- due 2009-09-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/96

paulc: why do you say that his action is closed?
... if the actual work hasn't been done, we shouldn't close the action

mike: the origin header is still mentioned, but it is unclear what action we should take (if any), henri's action is now moot

<shepazu> ISSUE-63?

<trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Origin header: in scope? required for this release? -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/63

mike: [explains what the spec says re: origin]

paulc: proposal is to close action 96, noting that the issue is still open

<MikeSmith> action-96: there are still references to Origin in the spec, but as far as this particular, it has essentically been "overtaken by events" -- changes in the spec have rendered the particular action moot

<trackbot> ACTION-96 to ensure editor removes Origin header: from spec notes added

julian: is origin now known as sec-from?

rubys: my understanding is that sec-from addresses the origin use header use cases

mjs: indeed sec-from is a header that addresses the same use case, and is written in a way that won't need to be referenced from the HTML spec

close action-96

<trackbot> ACTION-96 to ensure editor removes Origin header: from spec closed

<MikeSmith> close action-96

<trackbot> ACTION-96 to ensure editor removes Origin header: from spec closed

ISSUE-35/ACTION-138: Produce a matrix based on Henri's work [Steve Faulkner]

paulc: can anyone give us an update?

mcooper: actively being developed and is being merged with other work

paulc: suggest moving this out two weeks...

action-138 due +2 weeks

<trackbot> ACTION-138 Produce a matrix based on Henri's work due date now +2 weeks

<MikeSmith> action-138 due 2009-09-24

<trackbot> ACTION-138 Produce a matrix based on Henri's work due date now 2009-09-24

ISSUE-32/ACTION-136: Send draft to the list, due in three weeks [Matthew May]

mattmay: I've pushed it out a week

<Laura> Draft on wai-xtech http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2009Sep/0054.html

ACTION-38: Chairs to review need for amending charter with Director [Paul Cotton]

<MikeSmith> action-136?

<trackbot> ACTION-136 -- Matthew May to send draft to the list, due in three weeks -- due 2009-09-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/136

paulc: I've double checked and Microsoft does not wish to pursue this issue, and I've checked and don't believe that the creation of task forces will require a charter update
... issue-64 notes a potential charter concern, and we dealt with that last week and there is a call for consensus open...
... I don't believe that there is any reason to keep this action open...

<Julian> action-38?

<trackbot> ACTION-38 -- Paul Cotton to chairs to review need for amending charter with Director -- due 2009-09-10 -- OPEN

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

jerryezrol: closing this action doesn't affect issue-64

paulc: no, I propose that we close action-38

<MikeSmith> close action-38

<trackbot> ACTION-38 Chairs to review need for amending charter with Director closed

paulc: any other actions?

ISSUE 78: Spec should use a term other than "URL" for Web Addresses

<MikeSmith> issue-78?

<trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- Spec should use a term other than "URL" for Web Addresses -- RAISED

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

<MikeSmith> issue-56?

<trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- Bring "URLs" section/definition and IRI specification in alignment. -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56

paulc: is this a dupe of issue-56 (per DanC's note to the list)?

mike: there are two different issues... issue-56 is about the spec text, issue-78 is about the term.

<DanC> you really want 2 separate issues? 2 separate discussions? I don't. But oh well.

paulc: so strongly related, but not a dupe?

mike: yes

paulc: these issues can be addressed separately....
... at the moment, neither have actions?

mike: not at the moment

Review of issues proposed to be closed: NONE.

paul: no issues were no nominated this week

<MikeSmith> issue-78: during 2009-09-10 telcon we resolved that this issue is not a duplication of issue 56 and so it should be kept open

<trackbot> ISSUE-78 Spec should use a term other than "URL" for Web Addresses notes added

Joint HTML and PF WG Accessibility Task Force

paulc: co-chairs had an (implicit) action item to discuss how to proceed, and I've sent an email to the list with an 8 point outline, and the PF working group agrees
... the only thing holding the co-chairs back is further comment (if any) and an action on plh to check into from a patent policy point of view

<scribe> ACTION: plh look into some questions we have about how the W3C Patent Policy obligations would apply to a joint TF. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-142 - Look into some questions we have about how the W3C Patent Policy obligations would apply to a joint TF. [on Philippe Le H├ęgaret - due 2009-09-17].

mcooper: plh suggested that this could be simply a task force of the html working group

<kliehm> Philippe's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0460.html

mcooper: that might work, but I think the PF working group would prefer a joint mandate

paulc: the suggestion was a way to make the patent policy issue go away... should we revisit this next week?

mcooper: we won't have a teleconference next week... I would hate to have this delayed for two weeks...

rubys: can we start out with an HTML task force and change it if (and only if) there is an objection?
... mike: I would suggest that we resolve this up front
... paulc: I agree with mike

paulc: mcooper, please reply to plh's note on the list

close action 142

HTML WG Testing Task Force

paulc: looking for volunteers, already have one (Jason)
... [notes discussion that has already occurred on the list]
... any comments on the call?
... volunteers should respond either to the co-chairs or the list
... I recommend that the co-chairs simply set up this task force
... I'm aware of some w3c work in the past week... any update?

doug: we are not quite production ready, we should ready to discuss it on the 15th

<takkaria> I volunteered a while ago to co-ordinate testing but haven't had the time

paulc: should we take an action to bring an action to the working group.

<takkaria> and we had a decent conversation on this channel before the telecon which should probably be posted to the list in summarised form

<scribe> ACTION: paulc to get co-chairs to bring forward a concrete proposal for a testing task force (including scope) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - paulc

<MikeSmith> trackbot, status?

<scribe> ACTION: paul to get co-chairs to bring forward a concrete proposal for a testing task force (including scope) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-143 - Get co-chairs to bring forward a concrete proposal for a testing task force (including scope) [on Paul Cotton - due 2009-09-17].

Scribe for next meeting

paulc: who is available for next week?
... I believe that we are ready to adjourn
... adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: paul to get co-chairs to bring forward a concrete proposal for a testing task force (including scope) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: paulc to get co-chairs to bring forward a concrete proposal for a testing task force (including scope) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: plh look into some questions we have about how the W3C Patent Policy obligations would apply to a joint TF. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]