See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 August 2010
<paulc_> phone problems - in process of joining
<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-08-19: WG decisions, Decision Policy, TF reports from Paul Cotton on 2010-08-17 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from July to September 2010) (at lists.w3.org)
<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba
<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010JulSep/0015.html
<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-08-19: WG decisions, Decision Policy, TF reports from Paul Cotton on 2010-08-17 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from July to September 2010) (at lists.w3.org)
paulc: None
paulc: None
paulc: two parts, pending which hasn't changed and a separate item pending appeal
ISSUE-30?
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-30 - Web Performance Working Group Tracker (at www.w3.org)
paulc: think it would be appropriate to have the team give an update
<JF> http://www.malform.no/messages/appeal-issue-30.html
<pimpbot> Title: Appeal of ISSUE-30 to the Team Contact (at www.malform.no)
MikeSmith: as i understand it Leif has asked for this to be escalated for the attention of the director
<JF> "...in the end caused me to write this Appeal to the Director – via the Team Contact, Mike Smith."
MikeSmith: I'm not sure what
action we need to take
... escalating within the team means working harder to reach
consensus
... course of action is for Leif and others to continue to have
a discussion with the chairs about it
... if that's acceptable to the chairs
... if the chairs would like another approach we can do
that
... the language in the process document means we don't
escalate issues like this
... if someone in the WG feels their not getting due process
from chairs then the team contacts take action on that
... if chairs are acting in bad faith or does not have a
foundation in the working process of the group the team should
step in to fix that
... i don't feel that we are there with this issue or any other
that has come up so far
... i think the right way is to continue to deal with this in
the group
paul: are you putting this back in the chairs court?
plh: not yet - there is still more discussion that needs to happen
jf: for the record, the chairs mentioned an option to escalate to the director
janina: but not as a suggestion, more to complete the options
paulc: i was really trying to
make sure my view of the options was out there
... i take that if plh is telling us this isn't in the chairs
hands then the team and the chairs will continue to work on
this
plh: the team didn't reply so the
chairs can't give a timeline
... i can't give a timeline right now
... in theory this could run until last call
... but we don't want to wait that long if possible
Joshue: this seems to be a
deadlock between the TF and the WG
... i hope this doesn't diminish the steps we're taking to
improve a11y in html5
... we're looking for guidance from the chairs about how to
move forward
paulc: we're spending a lot of time on this
<JF> +1 to Josh
Joshue: we have to try to work out some kind of way to find a solution that both sides are happy with and that improves a11y in the spec
paulc: this is the first time the
wg has made a decision that has not gone the way the TF
wanted
... i'll leave that comment standing, if your question was a
follow-on to the question of timeline
... i will say that we're working on this and trying to find an
acceptable solution
... i'm going to try to move us on
... it's obvious that the chairs and the team need to give this
a high priority and we're doing that
JF: please can you communicate this back to public-html
plh: this is one of the highest priority items that the team and chairs are dealing with
paulc: I will take the request for mail to the next chairs meeting
paulc: in the agenda there are
links to the current, draft edited, and to the outstanding
bugs
... outstanding bugs most important: http://w3.org/brief/MTk0
<pimpbot> Title: Bug List (at w3.org)
mjs: most of the bugs have been
filed over time and dealt with
... the most important remaining one is the process for getting
into Last Call
<thugbot> [localhost] MikeSmith: bugzilla problem: HTTP error 500
mjs: we're working with the team
on identifying the best way to handle this
... fpwd bug will probably not update the policy - they don't
happen very often and we don't have problem handling them
paulc: i think it's fair to say
that if we weren't discussing the LC bug we'd have distributed
the v2 to the WG for consensus
... and we're going to try to figure out the LC plan as soon as
possible so that we can hand all this to the WG soon
<paulc_> 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)
paulc: we did a call for
advocates on the 5 proposals for issue-41
... as a result the chairs have dropped change proposals 1 and
2 from the list
... this leaves us with 3 proposals
<paulc_> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-041
<pimpbot> Title: Change Proposal Status (at dev.w3.org)
paulc: chairs are pleased that we
took this step - a survey with three proposals will be
easier
... more likely that we'll have a successful survey with less
items to respond to
... chairs are discussing schedule for taking this
forward
... started on tuesday, will be on our agenda again on
monday
... could be we'll do this fairly quickly
ISSUE-109?
<trackbot> ISSUE-109 -- change ARIA section title and add extra text about use of ARIA -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/109
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-109 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
paulc: just bringing this to your attention
paulc: None
krisk: we met last on the 10th,
meet again on 24th
... group is focussing on automating the getElementByClassName
tests that msft and opera have submitted
... and reviewing canvas tests
... hoping that these will be completed by next time we
report
<paulc_> paulc: Have you approved more tests?
<paulc_> Kris: No
krisk: ramification of the
automation - we probably will go back and change tests already
approved
... no more have been approved while we work on this
paulc: so you're focusing on this rather than increasing the approved test count
krisk: nothing else to report
paulc: two specific items
ISSUE-85?
<trackbot> ISSUE-85 -- ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5 -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/85
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-85 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ISSUE-9?
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- how accessibility works for <video> is unclear -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-9 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
janina: let me do them in reverse
order
... judy and i worked on remaining edits for the requirements
doc for media
... we commited to group that we will complete this by
friday
... expecting that the doc will continue to evolve
... but we think it's relatively complete for the kind of
things
... for the aria mappings, everyone in the tf agreed that this
should come back to the chairs
... we did this before and the chairs asked for more
edits
... we met to do this over the past couple of weeks and we have
completed this
... will be coming within a day
<paulc_> Issue-9: When the Requirements are provided we will update http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-009 and the WG will discuss the Requirements.
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 how accessibility works for <video> is unclear notes added
<pimpbot> Title: Change Proposal Status (at dev.w3.org)
janina: in terms of other areas,
we think we are still stuck on canvas
... we have our approach and ian wanted a different alternative
- nothing new here so far
... keyboard access and drag&drop are things we need to
focus on
<paulc_> Issue-85: When the TF has updated bug 10066 the Chairs will ensure it gets expedited processing.
<trackbot> ISSUE-85 ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5 notes added
<pimpbot> 11http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10066 faulkner.steve@gmail.com, P1, NEW, 13replace section 3.2.6 with the alternative spec text provided
janina: haven't taken up these yet
paulc: for issue 9 the change
proposal page says it is for the tf to provide req
document
... for issue-85 once the tf have updated bug 10066 the chairs
will expedite it
janina: on cavnas, we think we're
in a bit of a stalemate here
... between the editor and the tf recommendation
... sticking point between caret drawing and focus
... would require authors to take an extra step to get
a11y
... ian wanted to come up with a caret drawing api that would
deal with this automatically
<paulc_> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-074
<pimpbot> Title: Change Proposal Status (at dev.w3.org)
janina: but there is a good deal
of engineering to do this
... we're looking for an estimate of how much effort this would
be
paulc: it is fair to say that the chairs of PF and HTML WG are tracking this closely
janina: yes
paulc: one other item: i understand there is some progress looking at input queue of a11y bugs
janina: we recognise we haven't
kept up with new bugs
... we have created subteams for specific tasks
... at the beginning of august we created a sub-team to look at
these new bugs
... they have met twice and are making progress - expect to
have recommendation from them next thursday
... last week they said they were half way through which is
good progress
paulc: them progress is for taking up in tf?
janina
janina: in many cases it's resolutions
paulc: are you updating the bugs with recommendations from tf?
janina: i expect that is our next step
paulc: thanks for the positive news on issue 9 and 85
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)
paulc: fair amount of discussion on the list
<Julian> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00057.html
<pimpbot> Title: Re: [link-relations] NEW APP DATA (at www.ietf.org)
julian: i think there are two
points
... one, the designated experts in this case mark nottingham is
asking w3c about what to do - ian pointed to whatwg spec
<Julian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0139.html
<pimpbot> Title: link relation metadata considerations, was: Update on Issue-27, was: ACTION-182 and Issue-27 from Julian Reschke on 2010-08-13 (public-html@w3.org from August 2010) (at lists.w3.org)
two, the metadata question about adding new data
scribe: we didn't really agree in
the link relations group about whether this is a good
idea
... i made a proposal to the group (link above)
... but i haven't seen any discussion yet so not sure how to
proceed
paulc: first question, for the registration ian was attempting we need to get agreement on which link to use?
julian: we need to decide whether
to point to w3c or whatwg and if w3c is it wd or ed
... i think w3c needs to decide this
paulc: does either plh or mikesmith want to comment?
<plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5
<pimpbot> Title: HTML5 (at www.w3.org)
plh: i haven't reviewed this but my answer would be to link to the TR version
paulc: that coincides with what i suggested
<MikeSmith> 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)
paulc: is our problem here that we have issue-27, we're in the implementation phase, how should we proceed here?
julian: i think the question
related to issue-27 is we are now testing to see if the
registry works
... this includes a number of things including adding the
registry then adding more meta data
... for the things in html4 and html5, someone should send a
mail to the link relations to update these and point to the
latest html5 doc
... we haven't had that
... what we have had is an attempt to link to whatwg
... the designated experts weren't happy with that
paulc: sounds like someone should take an action to do that
julian: i think it would be strange for me to do this
rubys: a different suggestion
that doesn't directly address this
... maybe it is time for us to issue call for counter proposals
for issue-27
... may be there is consensus for a different approach - this
is being suggested on the mailing list
... i think it is time to call for concrete proposals
paulc: in some ways you're asking
my question over again - i asked about bugs but you're saying
that we need the questions in the original proposals marked
up?
... i think i was saying the same thing that you did
... we have a change proposal the wg endorsed - you're
suggesting we need to edit this
rubys: i'm not sure the wg endorsed this
paulc: then we should try to get
consensus about these including potentially alternate change
proposals
... julian, could we get into the change proposal the various
questions
<Julian> it was Mark
paulc: i also think we should get
someone to take the action to send the mail on html4/5 to the
link relations list
... do i have a volunteer?
julian: i can help draft the mail but someone else needs to send it
<paulc_> ACTION on paulc for the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
<Julian> mailing list info: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations
<pimpbot> Title: link-relations Info Page (at www.ietf.org)
MikeSmith: please put the action on me
<paulc_> ACTION on miketm for the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
<paulc_> ACTION miketm for the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - miketm
<paulc_> ACTION" michaeltm fo the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc
<paulc_> ACTION: michaeltm for the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - michaeltm
<MikeSmith> ACTION: Michael(tm) to ... for the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - ... for the things in html4 and html5, send a mail to the link relations email list to update these and point to the latest html5 doc [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2010-08-26].
julian: the other question was
the two flags of meta data ian wants to add
... about the effect on an A element and a LINK element
... had been in the html spec for a long time
... was in the change proposals for issue-27
... but it could mean that a link relation could be disallowed
on a link element
... but it would be odd for a link relation to not be allowed
on a link element
... so i would like us to discuss this
<Julian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0139.html
<pimpbot> Title: link relation metadata considerations, was: Update on Issue-27, was: ACTION-182 and Issue-27 from Julian Reschke on 2010-08-13 (public-html@w3.org from August 2010) (at lists.w3.org)
julian: without this the metadata
in the link registry would be simpler
... if the html wg decides that's what we want then the ietf
will register these flags
... but we'd like the html wg to make sure this really makes
sense
paulc: can you file this as a bug?
julian: i have filed bugs - i need to investigate the status
paulc: if they've been rejected and you disagree then escalate
<paulc_> ACTION: julian to investigate status of bugs on link relations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-186 - Investigate status of bugs on link relations [on Julian Reschke - due 2010-08-26].
julian: not sure if this is already done - will check and come back by tomorrow
paulc: these actions should move things along, we may need to consider sam's approach after
paulc: None
paulc: volunteers?
<paulc_> Paul will volunteer to scribe next week.
paulc: adjourned
<paulc_> Adjourned at 12:55 ET
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) Found ScribeNick: adrianba Found Scribe: Adrian Bateman Default Present: Plh, +1.732.859.aaaa, paulc, Sam, [Microsoft], eliot, Julian, Eric_Carlson, Mike, Cynthia_Shelly, adrianba, +1.425.941.aabb, John_Foliot, krisk, Rich, Janina.a, Janina, Joshue, Maciej Present: Plh +1.732.859.aaaa paulc Sam [Microsoft] eliot Julian Eric_Carlson Mike Cynthia_Shelly adrianba +1.425.941.aabb John_Foliot krisk Rich Janina.a Janina Joshue Maciej Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010JulSep/0015.html Found Date: 19 Aug 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-wg-minutes.html People with action items: julian michael michaeltm tm[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]