See also: IRC log
<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Decentralized extensibility -- RAISED
<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
<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> ACTION-130 -- David Singer to review status of video codec positions -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN
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
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
<masinter> link issue 76 with distributed extensibility issue?
mjs: chairs believe it's
important to document our process for dealing with LC
... 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
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> ACTION-148 -- Paul Cotton to recruit a Task Force facilitator for the HTML WG -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
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
<trackbot> ACTION-146 Ask for a volunteer to run the testing Task Force closed
<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> ACTION-103 -- Lachlan Hunt to register about: URI scheme -- due 2009-09-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
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
... 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
... 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
<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?
<trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Offline Web Applications section should use the term "representation" instead of "resource" -- RAISED
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
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
mjs: this is capturing the
objection that this reuse of dt and dd extends their
... any comments?
<trackbot> ISSUE-84 -- Should spec discourage use of "legacy" doctypes? -- RAISED
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.
<Julian> Mike, originally the former
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
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?
mjs: I think rubys will be
... 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
mjs: yeah, we should highlight that to the group
masinter, I will probably still be in the US that week
<Julian> IETF 76 - Hiroshima, Japan November 8-13 2009