HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 12 Aug 2010

<pimpbot> changes: hixie: Set 'unicode-bidi: embed' on non-inline elements to preserve bidi behaviour when setting them to inline. (whatwg r5284) <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2010Aug/0103.html>

<pimpbot> changes: hixie: Remove document.async and restrict document.load to createDocument() documents. (whatwg r5285) <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2010Aug/0104.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 10350] New: Do not reward Microsoft's willful violation of standards by "codifying" them in this document <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2010Aug/0168.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 10350] Do not reward Microsoft's willful violation of standards by "codifying" them in this document <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2010Aug/0169.html>

<Lachy> Julian, what's the process for taking the about: URI draft to the next stage?

<Lachy> I believe the current draft is ready for publication. All the feedback we ever got from uri-review has been addressed.

<Julian> ah

<Julian> wait

<Julian> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-5.2

<pimpbot> Title: RFC 4395 - Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes (at tools.ietf.org)

<Julian> so

<Julian> we discussed on uri-review, but you probably should send a format review request pointing to the latest internet draft

<Julian> for the publication as RFC we need to decide which publication path to use

<Julian> I'm not sure it needs to be on standards track, so "Informational" should suffice

<Julian> to get that published you send a publication request either to the RFC Editor (if you want to use the "individual" publication stream), or to the IESG.

<Julian> the latter variant will probably work better, as I'm pretty sure the RFC Editor will ask the IESG for advice anyway.

<Julian> does this help?

<Julian> some of the information in here: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/lifecycle78.pdf might help

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 10352] The range of unsigned long should be [0, 2147483647], since no browser allows setting to values outside that range <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2010Aug/0173.html> 4** [Bug 10352] The range of unsigned long should be defined to be [0, 2147483647], since no browser allows setting to values outside that range. See <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=586118>. In the following test case, Mozilla, C

<pimpbot> planet: Your Questions Answered #12 <11http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/html5doctor/~3/WO6WKGHsDAI/>

<gsnedders> hmm, limiting it to the max of a signed long

<pimpbot> bugmail: "[Bug 10352] The range of unsigned long should be [0, 2147483647], since no browser allows setting to values outside that range" (2 messages in thread) <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2010Aug/0174.html>

<pimpbot> planet: A Map of the Mozilla Community <11http://davidwboswell.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/a-map-of-the-mozilla-community/>

<rubys> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 12 August 2010

<scribe> scribeNick: plh

<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-08-12: action 29; issues 116, 30, 109, 27; bugs 9894, 10066 from Sam Ruby on 2010-08-11 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from July to September 2010) (at lists.w3.org)

Previous minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010JulSep/0013.html

<pimpbot> Title: RE: {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2010-08-04 [task force week] from Adrian Bateman on 2010-08-05 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from July to September 2010) (at lists.w3.org)

<eliot> I just muted. Sorry

action items

action-29?

<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to follow up on the idea of a free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring -- due 2010-08-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29

<rubys> action-29?

<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to follow up on the idea of a free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring -- due 2010-08-15 -- OPEN

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-29 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29

plh: the FSF responded that the proposal wasn't compatible with GPL. The PSIG needs to look at the feedback and decides next step
... timeline is unknown at the moment

<paulc> When does PSIG meet next?

plh: I believe it's Wednesday next week

<rubys> action-29 due sept 9

<trackbot> ACTION-29 Follow up on the idea of a free-software-compatible license for a note on HTML authoring due date now sept 9

New issues this week

Sam: ISSUE 116
... we said it was premature originally. we now need to ask for change proposals

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-30 (longdesc) (at lists.w3.org)

Workg Group decision

Sam: ISSUE-30 decision came out this week.

Janina: we discussed about this in WAI and WAI CG. Concern is growing that the Group will receive a formal complaint.

<JF> that someone will include John Foliot

Janina: it looks to us that we don't have a mechanism for doing a long alternative write-ups of a complex image
... there has been significant corporate deployment, such as within Oracle. There appears to be a hole now, in case people were using longdesc
... the TF recommended to keep longdesc in the past.

Sam: Oracle deployment. Is that new information?

Janina: might be new indeed. we didn't elaborate on this in the past.
... there seems to be significant deployment in intranet sites.

Sam: if there is new information, you might request to reopen the issue

Paul: this topic could be added to the chairs coordination meeting on Monday

Sam: agreed

Paul: if there is new information or formal objection, it puts the ball back in our court temporarily

Sam: (list of pending issues for decisions)

Items closing this week

ISSUE-41?

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

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

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-41 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

Sam: still looking for advocates
... this closes tomorrow

Paul: I took the liberty to send this to the TAG and sent them a reminder today as well

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Aug/0006.html

<pimpbot> Title: RE: FW: ISSUE-41: extensibility change proposal advocates from Paul Cotton on 2010-08-12 (www-tag@w3.org from August 2010) (at lists.w3.org)

ISSUE-100?

<trackbot> ISSUE-100 -- Remove the srcdoc attribute from the HTML5 specification -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/100

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-100 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

Sam: the poll is now closed

Upcoming Dates

ISSUE-110?

<trackbot> ISSUE-110 -- Change Control for text/html-sandboxed media type -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/110

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-110 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

Sam: open until September 4

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-100-objection-poll/

Current WG surveys

Sam: got a new one on ISSUE-109
... open until August 19

Misc items

<rubys> http://w3.org/brief/MTk0

Sam: decision policy update

<pimpbot> Title: Bug List (at w3.org)

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9894#c4

<pimpbot> 119894: ian@hixie.ch, P2, RESOLVED WONTFIX, 13The chairs should be required to ensure that decisions result in consistent specifications

Sam: if people have objections duer to consistency, I encourage them to voice them at the appropriate times
... ie in change proposals, or polls

HTML WG Status

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0809-html-plh/Overview.html

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

Sam: one point of concerns is the current of rate of closures on bugs

Paul: that's true as my inbox as well. it overlaps with summer and editor has been partially on leave

Other business

10066?

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10066

<pimpbot> 1110066: faulkner.steve@gmail.com, P1, NEW, 13replace section 3.2.6 with the alternative spec text provided

Sam: progress on trying to get new information

Cynthia: Maciej, Rich, and I met regarding the new information needed. we're working at including the new information. expected a new draft in couple of days, will be discussed next week in HTML a11y, then forward bck to the group after that
... so should happen pretty soon

ISSUE-27?

<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- @rel value ownership, registry consideration -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-27 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

Julian: we have 3 registration requests. two registries: one for link relation, one on metadata on link relation.

<rubys> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00023.html

<pimpbot> Title: Re: [link-relations] NEW APP DATA (at www.ietf.org)

Julian: Ian tried to update one link relation, a relation that came from HTML4.
... the attempt to re-register the relation lead to the discussion about which spec to link to
... Ian tried to register pingback
... a spec on his personal homepage doesn't satisfy the IETF requirement for stable specification
... and attempt to register new metadata in the registry, about conformance requirements for HTML5 (on which elements it is allowed)
... we, as designed experts, are not convinced that adding this info in the IANA registry makes sense. there is also disagreement about the requirement itself
... need to raise the concern in the HTML Working Group

scribe for next meeting?

Paul: I'll volunteer to chair next week

Sam: I'll scribe next week

<Julian> Rephrasing: the designated experts do not believe that there is HTML WG consensus on these flags and would like the HTML WG to discuss this before proceeding

Sam: I'll defer to Adrian

<Julian> I will raise this as discussion topic on the mailing list.

[adjourned]

- DRAFT -

HTML Weekly Teleconference

12 Aug 2010

Attendees

Contents