See also: IRC log
<darobin> joining in a split second!
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 4 March 2010
AB: the draft agenda was posted on March 3 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0741.html ). Will add View Modes Media Features to the agenda since Robin posted an update today ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0745.html ). Any other change requests?
AB: I have one: No call next week on March 11; next call will be March 18. Any other short announcements?
AB: earlier this week Marcos submitted a proposal on how to address the <span> element and dir attribute ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0715.html ).
MC: I'm waiting to see what the
I18N WG says
... I added <span> and dir attr to the spec
... but I have not spec'ed he behavior
... we want to defer the proc model to a sepearate spec
AB: is that proving to be problematic?
MC: it's a bit complicated
... the bidi stuff that is
... if dir attr is set globally, need to set limits
... some stuff such as IRI interaction isn't clear
... for example <name> has a short name
... could have name in English and short name in Hebrew
AB: are you having a diaglog with I18N group?
MC: they were supposed to discuss
... haven't seen their minutes yet
... Scott and Addison have been discussing it
... not clear how attrs are affected by direction
AB: what's the prior art?
... but I think it is underspecified
AB: other formats?
MC: SVG is likely
... so we could check it
AB: I would expect a lot of languages
RB: SMIL, XForms, etc.
<darobin> ... DocBook, TEI
AB: can we minimize the changes to P&C and defer all processing to the separate spec?
MC: yes, that's the intent but
not clear if we can get that
... when an impl gets back a dir string, it's got additional semantics in it
SP: can't we just use CSS for
... CSS has a rule that matches bidi algorithm
MC: there is no style associated
... that is also discouraged in some places e.g. HTML5
... the behavior we are looking for is indeed defined in CSS
SP: can't we just say the text included behaves the same rules as CSS
MC: yes, that is part of the
... but there are additional issues too
AB: let's pause to see if the I18N WG has posted their minutes from yesterday's discussion
MC: yes, sure
AB: I just checked their archive and see no postings on March 3 or 4
<Steven> is that it?
AB: OK, so what is the plan of action
MC: need to continue the
... in my last email to them I asked them questions
... we need to get their answers
<scribe> ACTION: barstow followup with Richard and Addison re the <span> and dir attribute discussions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/04-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-506 - Followup with Richard and Addison re the <span> and dir attribute discussions [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-03-11].
AB: the draft agenda includes a
discussion on the Widget BiDi spec
... I presume there is no need to discuss that now
MC: yes, that's correct; we need
to get feedback from I18N WG
... this is a new and complex area
AB: ok; understood; KUTGW
AB: the WARP PAG is still in progress and we may continue to work on the spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ ). Two questions here: what is the status of LC comment responses ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-access-20091208/ ) and what is the status of the test suite?
RB: I think there is only 1 LC
... and it was from Dom and is straight forward
... I'll follow-up today
AB: my recollection is there are two but I'll need to do some searching
RB: I'll check too
AB: Marcos, you will object to WARP going to CR without a test suite?
MC: yes that is correct
AB: a question is, who is willing to work on the test suite?
SP: what's the problem with entering CR without a test suite?
MC: we have had problems with
other specs because there was no TS
... it caused us to have to create multiple CRs
AB: so, is anyone willing to contribute to the WARP TS?
MC: we need another server to
... need that for cross-domain access
<darobin> [we can test with www and dev]
MC: think we can use dev.w3.org and then my server or RB's server
AB: so finding the servers doesn't seem like a big factor
MC: could potentially do everything on one server if diff ports are used
RB: could use www.w3.org and
... so think we'll be fine
MC: ok; let's do it that
... if RB could follow the pattern I used, that would be great
RB: I can help if you
MC: but I can help set up the
... but that's not the test cases
... if you set up the infra, I'll create the tests
AB: did I capture your agreements properly?
... are we talking about 20 tests or so?
... but could be more like 100
RB: seriously doubt it will reach that high
AB: thanks MC and RB
AB: Robin, did you respond to Julian Reschke's 25-Feb comment ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0713.html )?
RB: not yet
... I will respond to the three comments
AB: earlier today Robin announced a new ED of the VMMF spec ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0745.html ).
RB: it's really simple
... defines one media feature
... since it is a UI-related spec, we can't be overly constraining
... the spec says UA should make a "best-effort" attempt
AB: any comments?
... I like the simplicity
... as well as providing the freedom for the UA to do-the-right-thing
... what about a heads-up to CSS WG and if so, what list do we use?
RB: yes, we should; I suggest www-style
AB: what do people think about starting a 2-week pre-LCWD comment review period?
RB: think that's a good idea
AB: any objections?
<Steven> I'm OK with that
AB: OK, I'll start that
... and then I'll forward that announcement to www-style
RB: Yes, Mr Barstow
<scribe> ACTION: barstow start a 2-week pre-LCWD review period for the VMMF spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/04-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-507 - Start a 2-week pre-LCWD review period for the VMMF spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2010-03-11].
AB: who is willing to contribute
to the test suite?
... could be a pretty thin test suite
RB: there is only 1 normative assertion and it is a SHOULD
MC: could be about 10 test
... there are 5 states plus error conditions
... there is also the fallback behavior
AB: anything else on this for today?
[ No ]
AB: Next and last call in March
is March 18 (no calls on March 11 or 25)
... Heads-up: time for March 18 will be the same in US but 1 hour earlier in Europe (14:00 Paris)
... would that be problematic?
RB: should be ok
SP: US changes on Marc 13?
RB: I must send regrets for the 18th
AB: any other business for
... Meeting Adjourned
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/wit htat/with that/ Succeeded: s/RB: OK/RB: Yes, Mr Barstow/ Succeeded: s/shold/should/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Default Present: Art_Barstow, Marcos, Bryan_Sullivan, darobin, arve, Steven Present: Art Bryan Marcos Robin Arve StevenP Regrets: Marcin Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0741.html Found Date: 04 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/04-wam-minutes.html People with action items: barstow[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]