HTML Weekly Teleconference

01 Oct 2009


See also: IRC log


MichaelCooper Cynthia_Shelly Eliot_Graff Julian MikeSmith Philippe AnneVK Carlos MartinKliehm Laura Larry Maciej Paulc


Review of due and overdue action items


<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

<paulc> I have having a hard time hearing the speaker.

<paulc> Carlos: Can you mute?

mjs: continue the e-mail discussion on issue 41, close the action item
... any comments?

action-97: adrian posted proposal

<trackbot> ACTION-97 Following SVG-in-HTML thread, propose decentralized extensibility strategy for HTML5 notes added

close action-97

<trackbot> ACTION-97 Following SVG-in-HTML thread, propose decentralized extensibility strategy for HTML5 closed


<trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- codec support and the <video> element -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7


<trackbot> ACTION-130 -- David Singer to review status of video codec positions -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/130

<mjs> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/acc-media-html-gathering.html

mjs: there will be an accessible media workshop prior to TPAC
... objections pot postponing the date on the action?

action 130 due 2009-10-15

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 130

action-130 due 2009-10-15

<trackbot> ACTION-130 Review status of video codec positions due date now 2009-10-15


<trackbot> ISSUE-76 -- Concerns about Microdata section and inclusion/exclusion of RDFa -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

mjs: Manu not here this week, we can have him give an update next week
... and figure out what the next steps are


<trackbot> ACTION-141 -- Maciej Stachowiak to document Last Call comment process -- due 2009-09-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/141

<masinter> link issue 76 with distributed extensibility issue?

mjs: chairs believe it's important to document our process for dealing with LC comments
... we are going to have a lot of LC comments, more than most other W3C specs in recent memory
... we want to be able to have a process to try to deal with most issues very quickly
... we believe we can start using the process now

<masinter> +1 for documenting process for handling WG members pre-LC comments

mjs: a need a few more days for chairs to complete the discussion
... questions or comments on this?

masinter: I think the process for WG comments and handling also be formal
... start the process now, whether or not we're in LC yet

action-141 due 2009-10-8

<trackbot> ACTION-141 Document Last Call comment process due date now 2009-10-8


<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

action-145 due 2009-10-15

<trackbot> ACTION-145 Update table summary draft due date now 2009-10-15


<trackbot> ACTION-146 -- Paul Cotton to ask for a volunteer to run the testing Task Force -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/146


<trackbot> ACTION-148 -- Paul Cotton to recruit a Task Force facilitator for the HTML WG -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/148

action-146: Paul sent email to the list

<trackbot> ACTION-146 Ask for a volunteer to run the testing Task Force notes added

action-148: paulc sent email to the list

<trackbot> ACTION-148 Recruit a Task Force facilitator for the HTML WG notes added

close action-146

<trackbot> ACTION-146 Ask for a volunteer to run the testing Task Force closed

close action-148

<trackbot> ACTION-148 Recruit a Task Force facilitator for the HTML WG closed

paulc: I have not completed yet the action that requires some discussion with Manu


<trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE html> -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54


<trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Lachlan Hunt to register about: URI scheme -- due 2009-09-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103

mjs: we should file an issue in the HTML5 CR component

<paulc> BTW Action-147 from Paul is still outstanding (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/147

masinter: there comments on this that the author hasn't responded to

mjs: any volunteers to report on it?
... otherwise, I am OK with closing the action

<paulc> I changed due date on ACTION-147 to next week.

mjs: the action came about because we added about:legacy-compat as a part of the "legacy" doctype for XSLT engines to generate

masinter: but the draft of the about: scheme registration didn't even mention about:legacy-compat
... is there a way to track this differently?

anne2: we have a bunch of similar cases of scheme registrations that we will need to deal with, this is not unique

mjs: yeah, we don't need to track this separately, so seems like we can close this action

masinter: point is to check the normative references and see if they have progressed
... even of the URI documents are not approved, still want to be able to track -- just asking

mjs: part of what we need to do before PR transition is check all the normative references ourselves

masinter: just trying to figure out how we plan to keep track of the technical dependencies

close action-103

<trackbot> ACTION-103 Register about: URI scheme closed

<paulc> I expect we will get LC comments on the exact references and their status.

mjs: any other comments?

New issues this week


<trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Offline Web Applications section should use the term "representation" instead of "resource" -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81

mjs: bunch of discussion on the list, mostly a matter of word choice

<anne2> paulc, yeah, we just need to check it every now and then, but it goes for a lot of the references

mjs: anybody have anything to say on this issue?

masinter: I think I'll comment on the list -- there's the URL terminology but this is separate... issue really is -- if you consider it an issue -- about whether it's a problem to have the same terms used differently in this document as compared to existing documents

<Zakim> Julian, you wanted to say that it's also about the spec being inconsistent in itself

masinter: and confused use of resource vs representation can lead to problems in discussion of, e.g., conneg

Julian: it's also a problem in that use of the term "resource" is internally inconsistent in the spec itself

mjs: other comments?


<trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- Suggested replacement for head/@profile does not provide for disambiguation -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82

mjs: this is about details of the UA processing requirements for head/@profile


<trackbot> ISSUE-83 -- Use of the dt and dd elements in figure and details content models -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/83

mjs: this is capturing the objection that this reuse of dt and dd extends their semantics
... any comments?


<trackbot> ISSUE-84 -- Should spec discourage use of "legacy" doctypes? -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/84

mjs: we discussed the about:legacy form of the doctype

Julian, is this about about:legacy doctype or about the XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 doctypes?

<mjs> End of section 9.1.1

<anne2> "The DOCTYPE legacy string should not be used unless the document is generated from a system that cannot output the shorter string.

<anne2> "

<Julian> Mike, originally the former

<anne2> -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#doctype-legacy-string

Julian: I raised it because of the about:legacy doctype, but in discussion about this on IRC, the point was made that it doesn't make sense to discourage any conforming doctypes that trigger standards mode

Status of Call For Consensus emails

mjs: I sent a CfC: Create Testing Task Force message
... so if you have objections or comments, follow up to that e-mail
... any questions or comments now?
... I also sent a CfC: Create HTML Accessibility Task Force message
... but I did not cite the actual work statement
... paulc followed up by posting a link to the actual work statement
... and I will follow up to make clear that everybody should review the actual work statement
... my mistake..
... questions or comments?

Scribe for next meeting

mjs: I think rubys will be chairing
... I you volunteer to scribe, you will receive many 11brownie points

plh, you volunteering?

<plh> yes, I volunteered

scribe will be plh

mjs: any final questions or comments before we adjourn?

masinter: there will be an IETF meeting the week after the TPAC

<paulc> special hotel rate for TPAC expires on Oct 12.

masinter: anybody else planning to be at the IETF meeting?

<masinter> i'll email it

<masinter> it's in Japan, MikeSmith

<Julian> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/76/

mjs: yeah, we should highlight that to the group

masinter, I will probably still be in the US that week

<masinter> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

<Julian> IETF 76 - Hiroshima, Japan November 8-13 2009